Do Open-Loop Metrics Predict Closed-Loop Driving? A Cross-Benchmark Correlation Study of NAVSIM and Bench2Drive
Authors: Yiru Wang, Anqing Jiang, Shuo Wang, Yuwen Heng, Hai Yang, Yang Chen, Hao Sun
Abstract
Open-loop evaluation offers fast, reproducible assessment of autonomous driving planners, but its ability to predict real closed-loop driving performance remains questionable. Prior work has shown that traditional open-loop metrics such as Average Displacement Error (ADE) and Final Displacement Error (FDE) exhibit no reliable correlation with closed-loop Driving Score. In this paper, we ask whether the more recent, safety-aware open-loop metrics introduced by NAVSIM~v2 can bridge this gap. By systematically cross-referencing published results from 15 state-of-the-art methods across NAVSIM (open-loop) and Bench2Drive (closed-loop), we compile a paired dataset of open-loop sub-metrics and closed-loop performance, yielding 8 methods with complete paired data. Our analysis reveals three key findings: (1) the aggregate NAVSIM PDM Score shows a strong positive but non-monotonic correlation with Bench2Drive Driving Score, with clear ranking inversions; (2) among individual NAVSIM sub-metrics, Ego Progress (EP) is the strongest single predictor of closed-loop success, substantially exceeding the safety-critical collision metric NC; (3) the safety-progress trade-off manifests differently in open-loop and closed-loop: methods that maximize safety at the expense of progress rank highly in NAVSIM but underperform in closed-loop due to timeout and slow-driving penalties. We further demonstrate that a much simpler 3-metric formula matches the predictive power of the full 5-metric PDMS at the same Spearman ρ=0.90 on our paired sample of n=8 methods, suggesting that within current state-of-the-art methods -- where TTC and Comfort approach saturation -- these two sub-metrics add little marginal information for closed-loop ranking. Additionally, we identify the snowball effect -- where small open-loop deviations compound into closed-loop failures -- as a candidate mechanism for the residual gap.
End-to-end autonomous driving models plan future trajectories from raw sensor input. While earlier driving benchmarks often measured deviation from the human trajectory, current benchmarks such as NAVSIM and Bench2Drive evaluate models with richer simulation-based metrics intended to capture safe and compliant driving. A high benchmark score should reflect that a model can understand the scene in front of it and act accordingly. But how much of that score specifically comes from reacting to the dynamic part of that scene? To probe this, we remove a model's camera input and replace it with memories from prior drives at the same location. The retrieved memories can provide persistent scene information, including road layout and location-conditioned regularities, but not the current traffic state. Surprisingly, memory is nearly sufficient on NAVSIM, reaching or even exceeding the performance of leading end-to-end methods without actually observing the evaluated scene. Our results suggest that a high NAVSIM score does not require a planner to react to the current traffic scene and should be treated with caution. This effect is benchmark-dependent: driving from memory causes substantially larger performance drops on Bench2Drive and RealEngine. We provide our code at https://github.com/boschresearch/MemoryDrivoR .
Christian Löwens, Thorben Funke, Alexandru Paul Condurache
End-to-end autonomous driving planners are commonly trained by imitating a single logged trajectory, yet evaluated by rule-based planning metrics that measure safety, feasibility, progress, and comfort. This creates a training--evaluation mismatch: trajectories close to the logged path may violate planning rules, while alternatives farther from the demonstration can remain valid and high-scoring. The mismatch is especially limiting for proposal-selection planners, whose performance depends on candidate-set coverage and scorer ranking quality. We propose CLOVER, a Closed-LOop Value Estimation and Ranking framework for end-to-end autonomous driving planning. CLOVER follows a lightweight generator--scorer formulation: a generator produces diverse candidate trajectories, and a scorer predicts planning-metric sub-scores to rank them at inference time. To expand proposal support beyond single-trajectory imitation, CLOVER constructs evaluator-filtered pseudo-expert trajectories and trains the generator with set-level coverage supervision. It then performs conservative closed-loop self-distillation: the scorer is fitted to true evaluator sub-scores on generated proposals, while the generator is refined toward teacher-selected top-k and vector-Pareto targets with stability regularization. We analyze when an imperfect scorer can improve the generator, showing that scorer-mediated refinement is reliable when scorer-selected targets are enriched under the true evaluator and updates remain conservative. On NAVSIM, CLOVER achieves 94.5 PDMS and 90.4 EPDMS, establishing a new state of the art. On the more challenging NavHard split, it obtains 48.3 EPDMS, matching the strongest reported result. On supplementary nuScenes open-loop evaluation, CLOVER achieves the lowest L2 error and collision rate among compared methods. Code data will be released at https://github.com/WilliamXuanYu/CLOVER.
End-to-end planners for autonomous driving typically generate a set of candidate trajectories, score each one, and return the highest-scoring candidate. However, the scorer is applied only after the proposals are generated and cannot influence the set of trajectories: a weak set of candidates limits planning performance regardless of the scorer's quality. We instead treat the scorer as a learned trajectory-level reward function and search for trajectories that maximize it. Our method, TOAD, runs the Cross-Entropy Method at test time, warm-started from the planner's proposals. It requires no retraining and is plug-and-play for existing planners. Across six base planners, TOAD improves results on NAVSIM-v1 (94.7 PDMS), NAVSIM-v2 (56.3 EPDMS), and the closed-loop HUGSIM benchmark. The code will be made publicly available via the project page: https://valeoai.github.io/TOAD/.