End-to-end planning in complex scenes must model diverse driving intentions and select the most appropriate trajectory using scene context and future risks. However, multi-query regression may collapse to one mode, while anchor-based and generative planners share a scaling bottleneck: small candidate sets limit maneuver coverage or discovery of high-quality trajectories, whereas large sets increase generation and scoring costs. We propose ManeuverFlow to generate trajectories for distinct intentions in one step and evaluate and refine them using current and future evidence. The model selects relevant maneuver modes, draws corresponding noise from the Gaussian mixture prior, and maps it to intention-specific trajectories through a maneuver-routed mixture-of-experts MeanFlow field. Current features and future features predicted by the world model are aggregated along each candidate path into trajectory-specific evidence for PDM-factor prediction. Using the same evidence, the refiner predicts local Frenet residuals for selected candidates; refined and retained candidates are then jointly re-scored for selection. With a lightweight TransFuser-style ResNet-34 backbone, ManeuverFlow achieves 90.6 PDMS and 90.1 EPDMS on NAVSIM v1/v2 navtest, respectively. On WorldEngine's recent 3DGS closed-loop benchmark, it attains the highest listed PDMS∗ scores of 75.19 and 74.58 under logged and IDM-controlled traffic, respectively. Code: https://github.com/wyh-autonomy/maneuverflow.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Candidate-based planning paradigms. (a) Query candidates without explicit mode structure, scored from current features. (b) Fixed-anchor candidates evaluated with per-candidate future rollouts. (c) ManeuverFlow with maneuver-structured generation, shared-future evidence, and Frenet refinement before joint re-scoring.
Figure 2: Post-hoc candidate-quality analysis of the frozen Maneuver-Mixture MeanFlow Field (M 3 F) across 12,146 NAVSIM v1 navtest scenes, excluded from training and model selection. Curves report best and Top- κ mean PDMS over nested pools; HumanAgent 94.8 is a dashed reference.
Figure 3: Overview of ManeuverFlow. Scene-conditioned M-GMP and the shared planning context drive one-step M 3 F generation of base hypotheses, which Metric Prism pre-scores using trajectory-specific evidence from a shared future BEV field. ECFR refines the selected R hypotheses, which join the retained bases for evidence re-query and joint re-scoring.
Figure 4: Architecture of M 3 F. Interpolated trajectory-state tokens first query BEV and ego features, then agent memories. Time-conditioned AdaLN modulates each block, while maneuver-routed experts parameterize the interval-averaged field for one-step trajectory transport.
Method
Venue
Backbone
NC ↑
DAC ↑
TTC ↑
Comf. ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
UniAD ( Hu et al. 2023 )
CVPR 2023
ResNet-34
97.8
91.9
92.9
100.0
78.8
83.4
TransFuser TF ( Chitta et al. 2023 )
TPAMI 2023
ResNet-34
97.7
92.8
92.8
100.0
79.2
84.0
World4Drive ( Zheng et al. 2025b )
ICCV 2025
ResNet-34
97.4
94.3
92.8
100.0
79.9
85.1
GoalFlow TF ( Xing et al. 2025 )
CVPR 2025
ResNet-34
98.3
93.8
94.3
100.0
79.8
85.7
DiffusionDrive TF ( Liao et al. 2025 )
CVPR 2025
ResNet-34
98.2
96.2
94.7
100.0
82.2
88.1
WoTE TF ( Li et al. 2025b )
ICCV 2025
ResNet-34
98.5
96.8
94.9
99.9
81.9
88.3
Table 1: NAVSIM v1 navtest mean results under a single official benchmark version; baselines use official results. Standard deviations are reported in the supplementary material.
Method
NC ↑
DAC ↑
DDC ↑
TLC ↑
EP ↑
TTC ↑
LK ↑
HC ↑
EC ↑
EPDMS ↑
Ego Status MLP ( Dauner et al. 2024 )
93.1
77.9
92.7
99.6
86.0
91.5
89.4
98.3
85.4
64.0
TransFuser TF ( Chitta et al. 2023 )
96.9
89.9
97.8
99.7
87.1
95.4
92.7
98.3
87.2
76.7
DriveSuprim ( Yao et al. 2026 )
97.5
96.5
99.4
99.6
88.4
96.6
95.5
98.3
77.0
83.1
DiffusionDrive TF ( Liao et al. 2025 )
98.2
96.3
99.4
99.8
87.4
97.4
97.0
98.3
87.7
88.3
MeanFuser LTF ( Wang et al. 2026 )
98.3
97.2
99.6
99.8
87.6
97.4
97.3
98.3
88.2
89.5
Ours LTF
98.61
98.13
99.25
99.80
87.27
97.96
96.13
98.26
85.17
89.70
Table 2: NAVSIM v2 navtest mean results under a single official benchmark version; baselines use official results. Standard deviations are reported in the supplementary material.
Method
Traffic
SR ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ∗↑
VADv2 ( Jiang et al. 2026 )
Log
77.08
48.00
63.81
VADv2 ( Jiang et al. 2026 )
IDM
73.66
46.71
60.98
DiffusionDrive ( Liao et al. 2025 )
Log
86.24
45.09
69.83
DiffusionDrive ( Liao et al. 2025 )
IDM
85.85
43.88
68.22
MeanFuser ( Wang et al. 2026 )
Log
87.25
55.90
73.81
MeanFuser ( Wang et al. 2026 )
IDM
87.15
55.60
73.28
Table 3: Closed-loop results on all WorldEngine scenarios.
Model
Components
Prior
Flow
Evidence
Refiner
NC ↑
EP ↑
PDMS ↑
Base
Direct planner
–
–
–
–
97.73
79.24
84.01
M0
Candidate-based MeanFlow
Single
Dense MF
Cur.
–
97.21
81.05
86.14
M1
+ M-GMP and Dense-XL
M-GMP-8
Dense-XL
Cur.
–
97.02
81.63
87.91
M2
+ maneuver-routed flow
M-GMP-8
M 3 F
Cur.
–
97.64
82.12
88.35
M3
+ future evidence
M-GMP-8
M 3 F
Cur.+Fut.
–
98.52
84.41
89.93
M4Cur
w/o future branch
M-GMP-8
M 3 F
Cur.
ECFR
98.27
84.50
90.03
Table 4: Cumulative ablations with matched full-pipeline controls on NAVSIM v1 navtest (standard TF). Dense-XL is parameter-count matched to M 3 F; M4Cur disables the predicted-future branch, while M4KM replaces M-GMP-8 with KMeans-8. Cur./Fut. = current/predicted-future BEV evidence.
Figure 5: Six urban scenes with the top-three maneuver components shown in paired BEV and front-view projections.
Component routing
PDMS ↑ at proposal budget N
k
M-GMP target recall@ k (%)
8
16
32
64
128
1
87.20
89.85
90.04
90.26
90.33
90.42
2
96.46
90.04
90.15
90.43
90.54
90.59
3
98.30
90.06
90.28
90.41
90.58 †
90.56
4
99.21
90.10
90.27
90.42
90.57
90.67
M 3 F activ. bound (MB) ↓
1.11
2.07
3.99
7.82
15.50
Table 5: M-GMP routing and proposal-budget sensitivity on NAVSIM v1 navtest; FPS: perception–M 3 F; † : default.
Figure 11
ID
Motion family
Condition
Count (%)
0
Stop/Crawl
Dn<5
12,044 (11.66)
1
Cruise
∣ψˉn∣≤4.5∘ , ∣Δsˉn∣≤ηs
8,695 (8.42)
2
Accelerating
∣ψˉn∣≤4.5∘ , Δsˉn>ηs
17,339 (16.79)
3
Decelerating
∣ψˉn∣≤4.5∘ , Δsˉn<−ηs
24,501 (23.72)
4
Left lane change
4.5∘<ψˉn≤13∘
9,330 (9.03)
5
Left turn
ψˉn>13∘
18,174 (17.60)
Table S1: Rule-defined, trajectory-derived M-GMP maneuver families and their occupancy in the NAVSIM navtrain data used for prior construction.
(a) Module architecture
Lifecycle
Module
Structure
Config. (d,h,dff)
Output
Shared
Perception encoder
ResNet-34; 4-stage TransFuser; 4 GPT/stage
h=8 ; dff=4d ; dropout 0.1
Fnhi,Fnlo
Scene/agent decoder
Two-layer Transformer decoder
(256,8,1024) ; dropout 0
–
Hypothesize
M 3 F
6 DiT–MoE; 8 FFN experts/block
(256,4,1024) ; attn./FFN 0/0.1
R8×4
Verify
World model
Recurrent predictor; causal refinement
–
4 abs. / 4 res.
Evidence reader
Trajectory-guided BEV sampling; SlotPool
Token 512; h=8 ; dropout 0.1
En,i
Table S2: Reproducibility overview. (a) Module architecture; outputs omit the batch dimension (interfaces: Sec. 4.2 ). (b) Two-stage optimization; loss weights follow auxiliary / generation / verification / refinement. The score and residual losses include their internal scales of 10 and 5, respectively. Stage 2 initializes from Stage 1 and jointly optimizes all inference-time modules; the current model generates candidates for evaluator labeling.
Metric
LTF
TF
NC
98.49±0.02
98.42±0.02
DAC
97.40±0.03
98.01±0.03
TTC
95.13±0.05
95.19±0.05
Comf.
99.99±0.00
99.99±0.01
EP
84.87±0.04
85.36±0.04
PDMS
89.98±0.06
90.58±0.05
Table S3: Main-result variation, reported as mean ± sample standard deviation across three independently trained checkpoints, each averaged over five evaluations. WorldEngine uses log replay (Log) or reactive IDM traffic.
Table 15
Figure S3: Controlled expert sweep and final-plan provenance. (a,b) Paired BEV/front views of two NAVSIM scenes. Thin E0–E7 trajectories are controlled responses sharing a fixed M-GMP source state, scene context, and transport interval; the source is omitted, dashed green is the logged reference, and thick red is the final trajectory τn⋆ . The final plan comes from the full N=64 base/refined pool after ECFR, evidence re-query, and Metric Prism re-scoring rather than from the displayed sweep, with provenance E6 → ECFR in (a) and E7 → ECFR in (b). These examples expose route-conditioned response separation and final-plan provenance; dataset-level support is supplied by the quantitative component-support and matched-ablation results.
Figure S4: Descriptive, non-budget-matched gallery on six shared scenes with paired BEV/front views. (a) ManeuverFlow: a qualitative N=32 M 3 F draw, routed 16/8/8 and colored by component; reported quantitative and deployment results use N=64 . (b) WoTE: the top 64 of 256 predictions by final reward. (c) DiffusionDrive: all 20 candidates ordered by logits. (d) MeanFuser: eight native proposal heads plus the fused output. Counts and selection are method-specific; no quantitative comparison is implied.
End-to-end autonomous driving maps current observations directly to future trajectories, yet those trajectories must remain valid as the scene evolves. Future state modeling aims to address this temporal mismatch, but general representations often contain information unrelated to ego planning and affect trajectory generation only through auxiliary supervision, static conditioning, or proposal evaluation. We propose FeasibleFlow, a one-step end-to-end generative framework that jointly transports a configuration-space feasibility field and multimodal ego trajectories. Our Asymmetric Joint MeanFlow uses the pathwise Jacobian-vector product in the MeanFlow identity to incorporate field evolution into trajectory transport. Because safety feedback is sparser than progress feedback, we further introduce the Anchor-relative ranker (ARR) and Pareto-ReinFlow to balance safety and progress in candidate selection and generation, respectively. Experiments on the NAVSIM benchmark demonstrate the strong performance of FeasibleFlow and validate both the joint transport of feasibility and trajectories and the proposed safety-first mechanisms.
Generative models have shown great potential in trajectory planning. Recent studies demonstrate that anchor-guided generative models are effective in modeling the uncertainty of driving behaviors and improving overall performance. However, these methods rely on discrete anchor vocabularies that must sufficiently cover the trajectory distribution during testing to ensure robustness, inducing an inherent trade-off between vocabulary size and model performance. To overcome this limitation, we propose MeanFuser, an end-to-end autonomous driving method that enhances both efficiency and robustness through three key designs. (1) We introduce Gaussian Mixture Noise (GMN) to guide generative sampling, enabling a continuous representation of the trajectory space and eliminating the dependency on discrete anchor vocabularies. (2) We adapt ``MeanFlow Identity" to end-to-end planning, which models the mean velocity field between GMN and trajectory distribution instead of the instantaneous velocity field used in vanilla flow matching methods, effectively eliminating numerical errors from ODE solvers and significantly accelerating inference. (3) We design a lightweight Adaptive Reconstruction Module (ARM) that enables the model to implicitly select from all sampled proposals or reconstruct a new trajectory when none is satisfactory via attention weights.Experiments on the NAVSIM closed-loop benchmark demonstrate that MeanFuser achieves outstanding performance without the supervision of the PDM Score and exceptional inference efficiency, offering a robust and efficient solution for end-to-end autonomous driving. Our code and model are available at https://github.com/wjl2244/MeanFuser.
Junli Wang, Yinan Zheng, Xueyi Liu +9
SKL-MAIS, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Xiaomi EV +1
Current end-to-end autonomous driving systems are fundamentally limited by a mismatch between temporal causal reasoning and global trajectory consistency. Autoregressive (AR) models capture interaction-aware temporal dependencies via causal factorization, but their step-wise decoding leads to error accumulation and suboptimal global structure. In contrast, diffusion models optimize trajectories globally but lack explicit causal constraints, making them unreliable in interactive and safety-critical scenarios. This dichotomy reveals a deeper issue: existing methods treat causal modeling and global optimization as separate paradigms, without a principled way to unify them within a single trajectory distribution. To address this, we propose ChainFlow-VLA, which unifies causal generation and global refinement within a unified probabilistic framework. We formulate planning as a mixture over AR-induced modes and learn Vision-Language Model (VLM)-conditioned residual distributions over these modes. An autoregressive generator (Chain) produces a discrete set of causal trajectory modes, followed by a diffusion-based refiner (Flow) that leverages VLM hidden states as semantic priors to perform mode-conditioned correction in residual space while preserving causal structure. This straightforward conditioning seamlessly injects high-level scene understanding into fine-grained trajectory adjustments. Experiments demonstrate that ChainFlow-VLA achieves robust planning in ambiguous and long-tail scenarios, achieving a state-of-the-art score of 94.85 on the NAVSIM v1 leaderboard, matching human-level performance (94.8). Code will be available at https://github.com/AFARI-Research/ChainFlow-VLA.
Xiyang Wang, Xinlin Wang, Tingguang Zhou +7
1Afari Intelligent Drive · 2Tianjin University · University of Macau