When Shared Rollouts Fail in Defensive Driving Evaluation: A NAVSIM Score Basis Audit

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.

Long-tail scenarios remain a major bottleneck for autonomous driving evaluation, even as datasets grow by orders of magnitude. Existing evaluation pipelines are rarely human-aligned, safety-aware, verifiable, and explainable at the same time: closed-loop metrics often saturate among strong planners, while unstructured human ratings can be noisy without a carefully designed protocol. We formulate planning evaluation as additional-threat detection: given a planner trajectory and an expert reference, does the planner's displacement introduce new unsafe driving behavior? We propose FluidTest, an evaluation pipeline with three components: a pairwise WebUI protocol for reliable human annotation; a taxonomy of 32 semantic threats with evidence-grounded decision graphs; and a three-agent verification system with reflection for precision and auditability. Experiments on the WOD-E2E dataset show that FluidTest produces consistent labels among trained annotators and identifies additional threats in 65% of Poutine trajectories and 51% of RAP trajectories. These results show that state-of-the-art planners can still exhibit substantial safety-relevant failures despite high Rater Feedback Scores (RFS) and low Average Displacement Error (ADE). Additional details, guidance, and code are available at https://fluidtest.web.app.

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 .