One Diffusion Model, Two Roles: Guided Trajectory Planning and Safety-Critical Scenario Generation in Closed-Loop Simulation
Organizations: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden · Zenseact AB, Sweden · Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Abstract
Diffusion probabilistic models can capture the multi-modal, interaction-rich distribution of joint future trajectories in driving scenes. We show that a single pretrained diffusion traffic model can serve two complementary roles in the autonomous driving development loop: as an ego motion planner, and as a controllable generator of safety-critical scenarios for stress-testing the planners. On the planning side, we introduce a Single-Stream Dual-Stream (SSDS) diffusion-transformer decoder that fuses scene context via joint attention rather than late cross-attention, improving closed-loop performance on nuPlan. We further propose Decoupled Annealing Posterior Sampling with Energy (DAPSE), a training-free guidance scheme that injects arbitrary energy functions at the clean-sample level, avoiding the first-order approximation errors while requiring no auxiliary networks. Beyond planning, we leverage the same diffusion model as a controllable scenario generator to create realistic long-tail driving interactions for closed-loop evaluation. Through inference-time guidance, selected agents are steered toward safety-critical behaviors, including aggressive cut-ins, lead-vehicle braking, and combined longitudinal-lateral interactions, while preserving realistic traffic behaviors. Evaluated in closed-loop nuPlan simulations with independent black-box planners, the generated scenarios expose failure modes that remain hidden under standard benchmarks. Although the SSDS-based planner achieves stronger nominal performance, it experiences larger degradation under these challenging scenarios, demonstrating that benchmark superiority does not necessarily translate to robustness. These results demonstrate that a single learned traffic prior can simultaneously improve motion planning and provide a realistic framework for systematic planner robustness evaluation.
Figures & tables
| Reactive | Non-Reactive | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data | Method | Val14 | T14-hard | Test14 | Val14 | T14-hard | Test14 |
| 250K | DP | 73.58 | 55.88 | 76.55 | 84.96 | 71.88 | 87.33 |
| SSDS-DP | 75.85 | 62.68 | 77.53 | 86.25 | 72.11 | 88.31 | |
| 650K | DP | 78.69 | 51.89 | 68.74 | 87.45 | 68.45 | 79.63 |
| SSDS-DP | 78.96 | 66.29 | 80.06 | 86.58 | 69.86 | 85.72 | |
| 1M | DP | 82.82 | 69.26 | 82.89 | 89.88 | 75.38 | 89.29 |
| Scenario | Planner | nuPlan Score | TTC Bound (%) | Ego-Fault Collision (%) | Ego Comfort (%) | Realism deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No-Adv | DP | 80.49 | 91 | 4 | 70 | — |
| SSDS-DP | 84.65 | 96 | 4 | 83 | — | |
| Adv | DP | 67.29 | 87 | 23 | 61 | 0.38 |
| SSDS-DP | 53.96 | 70 | 26 | 78 | 0.36 |