Autonomous driving planning requires selecting trajectories that remain safe, rule-compliant, and comfortable under complex multi-agent interactions, yet robust closed-loop decision making in planning-critical scenes remains challenging. Existing diffusion- and RL-based planners often rely on generic rewards and use relational structure mainly for representation, limiting how planning-critical rollouts shape policy improvement. We present GRID-Planner, a graph--reward integrated diffusion planning framework that aligns generative planning with structured relational signals. Specifically, GRID-Planner combines graph-aware importance weighting, a time-indexed relational reward surrogate, and an advantage-weighted diffusion objective with on-policy self-distillation, forming a rollout-return-advantage-update loop without explicit likelihoods. Experiments on nuPlan and interPlan show that, compared with the diffusion-only baseline, GRID-Planner reduces collision rate, lane deviation, and jerk by 35.8%, 60.8%, and 27.4%, respectively, and improves the planning score by 3.4%. Project website: https://github.com/yangzhaojason/GRID-Planner.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Overview of GRID-Planner. Traditional diffusion planning may miss planning-critical relational semantics, whereas GRID-Planner combines Graph-Aware Importance Weighting and RRS to prioritize high-risk trajectories and evaluate safety, lane/route consistency, and comfort.
Figure 2. Overall framework of GRID-Planner. We address the mismatch between semantically flat imitation signals and rare planning-critical scenarios through two components, graph-aware importance weighting (GA-IW) and relational reward surrogate (RRS), which are unified in the final graph-reward integrated diffusion objective.
Figure 3. Illustration of the graph-aware weighting mechanism. CentFeat is computed from a snapshot interaction graph at t=0 and map-element counts, while CollProb is estimated from future proximity and TTC. They are combined to form the importance weight w(τ) in Eq. ( 5 ).
Figure 4. Illustration of the relational reward surrogate (RRS). Along the candidate trajectory τ , a time-indexed scene graph Gt is queried at each step to evaluate safety, rule-compliance, and comfort terms. Selected steps are shown for illustration, and the per-step scores are aggregated over the horizon to form the dense trajectory-level reward RRRS(τ) .
Planner
Val14
Test14-hard
Test14
NR
R
NR
R
NR
R
PDM-Open* ( Dauner et al., 2023 )
53.53
54.24
33.51
35.83
52.81
57.23
UrbanDriver ( Scheel et al., 2022 )
68.57
64.11
50.40
49.95
51.83
67.15
GameFormer w/o refine. ( Huang et al., 2023b )
13.32
8.69
7.08
6.69
11.36
9.31
PlanTF ( Cheng et al., 2023 )
84.27
76.95
69.70
61.61
85.62
79.58
PLUTO w/o refine.* ( Cheng et al., 2024 )
88.89
78.11
70.03
59.74
89.90
78.62
Table 1. Closed-loop planning results of learning-based planners on the nuPlan benchmark under non-reactive (NR) and reactive (R) evaluation protocols. Flow Planner ( Tan et al., 2025 ) is reproduced locally using its official repository. The best learning-based result in each column is highlighted in bold. ∗ denotes methods that directly leverage the road centerline extracted from the map.
Planner
Overall Score
Nudge Around
High Traffic Density
Jaywalk
PlanTF ( Cheng et al., 2023 )
47.70
49.40
58.85
33.94
Diffusion Planner ( Zheng et al., 2025 )
52.90
60.48
49.71
26.20
Flow Planner ( Tan et al., 2025 )
54.83
58.02
56.41
41.64
GRID-Planner ( Ours )
57.25
58.77
65.37
43.20
Table 2. Closed-loop planning results on the interPlan benchmark ( Hallgarten et al., 2024 ) . We report the overall score together with representative scenario-specific scores. The best scores in each column are highlighted in bold.
Figure 5. Baseline collides while ours remains safe. We visualize closed-loop rollouts in several challenging intersection scenarios. The baseline (top) results in collisions, while our method (bottom) navigates the same scenes. The ego vehicle is highlighted in yellow and collisions are shown in red.
Variant
Score ↑
Coll. ↓
Lane dev. ↓
Jerk ↓
Latency ↓
Diffusion only ( Ldiff )
79.90
0.0783
0.0268
0.1606
353.98
+ GAIW ( w(τ) )
80.92
0.0699
0.0201
0.1302
347.56
+ Rtraj ( Rtraj(τ)=w(τ)RRRS(τ) )
81.31
0.0604
0.0154
0.1153
343.72
+ On-policy actor–critic
81.92
0.0503
0.0147
0.1266
345.28
+ On-policy self-distillation
82.10
0.0501
0.0123
0.1191
341.59
Full model
82.59
0.0503
0.0105
0.1166
340.53
Table 3. Main ablation on the full benchmark suite. Score ( ↑ ; nuPlan Val14 Benchmark), safety violations ( ↓ ), comfort (jerk, ↓ ), and planning latency ( ↓ ). All variants use the same training budget and evaluation protocol.
Variant
Score ↑
Coll. ↓
Lane ↓
Jerk ↓
Latency ↓
No weighting ( w=1 )
81.61
0.0568
0.0163
0.1440
332.14
Centrality only ( w=exp(α1CentFeat) )
81.74
0.0559
0.0161
0.1368
332.41
Risk only ( w=exp(α2CollProb) )
81.82
0.0546
0.0159
0.1384
332.53
Full w/o w -clipping
81.71
0.0551
0.0159
0.1349
332.22
Full w/o mean-norm
81.65
0.0547
0.0158
0.1315
332.07
Full + stabilization
82.07
0.0519
0.0154
0.1252
332.41
Table 4. GAIW ablation. Effects of centrality, collision-risk, and stabilization in w(τ) . We report Val14 score ( ↑ ), collision rate ( ↓ ), lane deviation ( ↓ ), jerk ( ↓ ), and latency ( ↓ ). All variants share the same backbone and training budget; only the weighting strategy differs.
Figure 6. Training dynamics of GAIW. The full GAIW design with clipping and mean-normalization achieves higher closed-loop score (left) and lower collision rate (right) than variants without clipping or mean-normalization, indicating improved training stability in planning-critical scenarios.
Variant
Score ↑
Coll. ↓
Lane dev. ↓
Jerk ↓
Latency ↓
Full RRS ( Rsafety+Rrule+Rcomfort )
82.59
0.0503
0.0105
0.1166
340.53
w/o rule term ( Rsafety+Rcomfort )
80.12
0.0568
0.0150
0.1325
344.87
w/o comfort term ( Rsafety+Rrule )
81.05
0.0527
0.0116
0.1538
345.92
w/o safety term ( Rrule+Rcomfort )
74.85
0.0708
0.0287
0.1786
348.21
Safety only ( Rsafety )
79.62
0.0555
0.0248
0.1451
342.96
Rule only ( Rrule )
78.91
0.0613
0.0158
0.1546
340.82
Table 5. RRS ablation. Removing individual components of RRRS(τ) reveals their targeted impact on safety, rule consistency, and comfort. Score ( ↑ ; nuPlan Val14 Benchmark), safety violations ( ↓ ), comfort (jerk, ↓ ), and planning latency ( ↓ ) are reported. All variants use the full training pipeline and differ only in the reward surrogate.
Variant
Score ↑
Coll. ↓
Lane dev. ↓
Jerk ↓
Latency ↓
Offline diffusion only ( Ldiff )
79.90
0.0783
0.0268
0.1606
353.98
Unified objective (Eq. 25 )
82.59
0.0503
0.0105
0.1166
340.53
w/o critic baseline ( Vϕ(G)=0 )
80.03
0.0754
0.0264
0.1558
345.26
w/o advantage reweighting
80.76
0.0564
0.0220
0.1315
344.41
w/o OPSD term
80.29
0.0699
0.0235
0.1321
344.46
w/o advantage gate ( ω(G)=1 )
80.89
0.0559
0.0176
0.1272
340.53
Table 6. Unified on-policy objective ablation. Each row removes one ingredient from Eq. 25 while keeping the graph-aware return R(τ,G) , rollout budget, and evaluation protocol fixed. We report Score ( ↑ ; nuPlan Val14 Benchmark), together with collision rate ( ↓ ), lane deviation ( ↓ ), comfort measured by jerk ( ↓ ), and latency ( ↓ ). The last two rows ablate OPSD-specific choices (advantage gating and teacher selection).
Figure 7. Training dynamics of the unified on-policy objective. The full graph-reward integrated objective shows faster convergence and lower collision rate than offline diffusion and partial ablations, demonstrating better sample efficiency and more stable closed-loop adaptation.
In autonomous driving, diffusion-based planners have emerged as a promising paradigm for robust motion planning in dense and interactive traffic, as they can effectively model diverse driving behaviors. However, their inherent stochasticity often requires explicit guidance during denoising to ensure safety and route adherence for robust closed-loop execution. Existing guidance typically relies on sparse, entity-centric geometric queries or post-hoc refinement, yielding limited situational awareness and fragile performance in interactive scenes. To address this issue, we propose G2DP (Grid-Guided Diffusion Planning), a diffusion-based planner that directly enforces dense environmental constraints through inference-time guidance. Specifically, G2DP constructs a differentiable spatio-temporal cost volume by fusing probabilistic future occupancy distributions with a route-progress map. By formulating this volume as a continuous safety energy functional, it injects dense gradients directly into the denoising loop, actively steering trajectory generation toward collision-free and progress-optimal regions. Extensive closed-loop evaluations show that G2DP achieves state-of-the-art performance on nuPlan, outperforming the strongest imitation-learning baseline by +7.2 points in reactive score. It further maintains top scores in zero-shot transfers to interPlan and DeepScenario benchmarks, with collision avoidance improving by +10.15 over the unguided approach on interPlan. These results demonstrate that spatio-temporal cost grids serve as an effective representation for robust guidance in diffusion-based planning.
Hang Yu, Ye Jin, Alessandro Canevaro +7
Mercedes-Benz AG, Germany · TU Munich, Germany · University of Tübingen, Germany +1
High-level autonomous driving requires motion planners capable of modeling multimodal future uncertainties while remaining robust in closed-loop interactions. Although diffusion-based planners are effective at modeling complex trajectory distributions, they often suffer from stochastic instabilities and the lack of corrective negative feedback when trained purely with imitation learning. To address these issues, we propose RAD-2, a unified generator-discriminator framework for closed-loop planning. Specifically, a diffusion-based generator is used to produce diverse trajectory candidates, while an RL-optimized discriminator reranks these candidates according to their long-term driving quality. This decoupled design avoids directly applying sparse scalar rewards to the full high-dimensional trajectory space, thereby improving optimization stability. To further enhance reinforcement learning, we introduce Temporally Consistent Group Relative Policy Optimization, which exploits temporal coherence to alleviate the credit assignment problem. In addition, we propose On-policy Generator Optimization, which converts closed-loop feedback into structured longitudinal optimization signals and progressively shifts the generator toward high-reward trajectory manifolds. To support efficient large-scale training, we introduce BEV-Warp, a high-throughput simulation environment that performs closed-loop evaluation directly in Bird's-Eye View feature space via spatial warping. RAD-2 reduces the collision rate by 56% compared with strong diffusion-based planners. Real-world deployment further demonstrates improved perceived safety and driving smoothness in complex urban traffic.
Hao Gao, Shaoyu Chen, Yifan Zhu +4
Huazhong University of Science & Technology · Horizon Robotics
Autonomous driving requires safe planning, but most learning-based planners lack explicit self-correction ability: once an unsafe action is proposed, there is no mechanism to correct it. Thus, we propose CorrectionPlanner, an autoregressive planner with self-correction that models planning as motion-token generation within a propose, evaluate, and correct loop. At each planning step, the policy proposes an action, namely a motion token, and a learned collision critic predicts whether it will induce a collision within a short horizon. If the critic predicts a collision, we retain the sequence of historical unsafe motion tokens as a self-correction trace, generate the next motion token conditioned on it, and repeat this process until a safe motion token is proposed or the safety criterion is met. This self-correction trace, consisting of all unsafe motion tokens, represents the planner's correction process in motion-token space, analogous to a reasoning trace in language models. We train the planner with imitation learning followed by model-based reinforcement learning using rollouts from a pretrained world model that realistically models agents' reactive behaviors. Closed-loop evaluations show that CorrectionPlanner reduces collision rate by over 20% on Waymax and achieves state-of-the-art planning scores on nuPlan.
Yihong Guo, Dongqiangzi Ye, Sijia Chen +2
Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA. · XPENG Motors.