DriveMLP: When Training Strategy Outperforms Model Complexity in Autonomous Driving
Authors: Alessandro Canevaro, Julian Schmidt, Hang Yu, Ye Jin, Sajad Marvi, Georg Martius, Julian Jordan
Organizations: Mercedes-Benz AG, Research & Development, Sindelfingen, Germany · University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany · Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, ITIV, Karlsruhe, Germany · Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany · University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Learning motion planning policies that remain reliable under closed-loop execution is a central challenge in Autonomous Driving (AD). Imitation Learning (IL) scales well to large AD datasets but suffers from distribution shift, causal confusion, and compounding errors under closed-loop execution. In contrast, Reinforcement Learning (RL) typically requires handcrafted rule-based rewards and massive simulation. We study a simple closed-loop IL framework that uses RL purely as an optimization tool, guided by a trajectory-distance reward derived from logged expert data. We refer to this training strategy as Expert-Guided RL (EGRL). Through a controlled empirical study we find evidence that the training procedure, rather than model size and complexity, accounts for a substantial part of the performance gains. We then introduce DriveMLP, a lightweight MLP policy trained with EGRL, as a simple instantiation of these findings. It achieves a score of 86.51 on the nuPlan Val14 Reactive benchmark, a +3.2 point improvement over the previous best IL planner (Flow Planner), with >15x faster inference. Code is available at: https://github.com/alessandro-canevaro/DriveMLP .
Figures & tables
Figure 1: DriveMLP combines strong reactive performance with low inference cost. The plot shows nuPlan Val14-Reactive scores against inference frequency, with circle size indicating parameter count. DriveMLP, a lightweight MLP trained with EGRL, achieves higher scores and faster inference than the compared SOTA planners.
Figure 2: Working principle of the non-reactive simulator. The teal rectangles represent the logged expert ego trajectory. The gray rectangles represent other agents or obstacles moving according to recorded data, while the dark blue rectangle shows the ego rollout following the actions of the learned policy. Orange arrows show the position distance between the ground truth and the ego rollout which is then used in the reward computation.
Highway-env
Val14
Test14-Hard
Test14
Method
Reward ↑
Ep. Len ↑
Term. ↓
NR
R
NR
R
NR
R
BC
17.20 ± 3.26
23.56 ± 4.28
48.7% ± 21.48
53.64
32.36
17.06
19.50
30.36
33.01
AIRL
20.37 ± 0.40
28.48 ± 0.46
9.3% ± 2.87
51.74
58.74
43.00
52.09
48.88
61.15
BC-RL
20.28 ± 0.92
28.70 ± 1.15
20.0% ± 17.38
77.19
78.05
66.05
65.35
77.17
77.23
EGRL
21.02 ± 0.79
29.17 ± 1.01
7.3% ± 3.55
90.38
86.51
76.68
74.50
86.38
87.06
Table 1: Controlled training strategy comparison on Highway-Env (left) and nuPlan (right). Highway-Env results averaged over 3 seeds. NR = Non-Reactive, R = Reactive. All training methods use the same DriveMLP policy architecture.
Model
Original (Val14-R)
+EGRL
Δ%
Params
PlanTF
76.95
78.26
+1.70
2.0M
PLUTO w/o ref.
78.11
83.41
+6.78
2.4M
Diff. Planner*
82.80
86.05
+3.92
2.3M
Table 2: EGRL training strategy applied to other SOTA backbones. *Flow Planner uses a similar encoder structure as Diffusion Planner.
Val14
Test14-Hard
Test14
Method
NR
R
NR
R
NR
R
PlanTF
84.27
76.95
69.70
61.61
85.62
79.58
PLUTO w/o refine
88.89
78.11
70.03
59.74
89.90
78.62
Diffusion planner
89.87
82.80
75.99
69.22
89.19
82.93
Flow Planner
90.43
83.31
76.47
70.42
89.88
82.93
DriveMLP
90.38
86.51
76.68
74.50
86.38
87.06
Table 3: Overall scores on nuPlan benchmark. NR = Non-Reactive, R = Reactive simulation.
Figure 3: Training dynamics and validation performance over training steps. Left: Episode return mean. Right: Val14 R Score. Horizontal dashed lines indicate the BC, AIRL, and BC-RL baselines.
Figure 4: NuPlan score on Val14 Non-Reactive (solid bars) and Reactive (striped bars) benchmark for DriveMLP (light blue) and Diffusion Planner (dark blue) with Gaussian noise on acceleration ( σacc ) and on steering ( μsteer , σsteer ).
Figure 5: NuPlan score on Val14 Non-Reactive (solid bars) and Reactive (striped bars) benchmark for DriveMLP (light blue) and Diffusion Planner (dark blue) with reduced training dataset sizes.
Method
Time (ms) ↓
Params (M) ↓
Val14-R ↑
PlanTF
8.30
2.02
76.95
PLUTO w/o refine
17.33
4.06
78.11
Diffusion Planner
72.34
6.04
82.80
Flow Planner
42.31
14.27
83.31
DriveMLP
2.76
2.33
86.51
Table 5: Inference speed (NVIDIA P6000), model size, and nuPlan Val14-R performance.
Table 6: Comparison of key design components across related methods. CL Train = closed-loop training; Demo Sup. = Supervision primarily provided by expert demonstrations (no traffic rules); No Adv. = no adversarial/iterative reward learning; Lightweight = ≤ 5M params, no generative or autoregressive architecture; No Post-Proc. = no rule-based post-processing at train or test time; Single Stage = Single training stage; nuPlan = evaluated on nuPlan or similar large-scale ego-planning benchmarks. ✓ = yes, × = no.
Highway-Env
nuPlan
Name
BC
AIRL
BC-RL
DriveMLP
BC
AIRL
BC-RL
DriveMLP
Algorithm
BC
AIRL (SAC)
BC+SAC
SAC
BC
AIRL (PPO)
BC+PPO
PPO
Training steps
-
300K
100K
100K
-
100M
100M
100M
Learning rate
0.001
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0001
0.00005
0.00005
0.00005
Learning rate schedule
exponential decay
-
-
-
exponential decay
cosine decay
cosine decay
cosine decay
Rollout buffer size
-
1M
1M
1M
-
98K
98K
98K
Appendix
Table 7: Hyperparameters used in Nuplan and Highway env experiments
Split
PlanTF
PLUTO w/o ref. †
Diff. Planner
Flow Planner
DriveMLP
80 scenarios
30.53
49.27
24.71
36.59
37.07 ± 2.36
335 scenarios
47.70
58.47
52.90
61.82
58.43 ± 2.74
Appendix
Table 8: Interplan benchmark results. † PLUTO incorporates centerline reference paths as an additional input.
Size
112K
247K
590K
1.1M
2.3M
4.6M
8.7M
Val14-R
82.22
84.39
84.96
85.74
86.51
86.18
86.33
Δ vs. BC
+53.31
+54.54
+53.20
+53.70
+54.15
+53.85
+54.22
Infer. (ms)
1.86
1.95
2.27
2.39
2.76
2.99
3.47
Train (L4-h)
56
60
74
87
112
155
185
Appendix
Table 9: MLP capacity scaling under EGRL. Improvements over BC are reported in score points.
Method
NR
R
BC
61.25
32.44
EGRL
82.01
79.68
Appendix
Table 10: Reduced transformer policy (500K parameters) on nuPlan Val14. NR = Non-Reactive, R = Reactive simulation.
Component
NR
R
Base
90.38
86.51
w/o off-road
80.76
78.67
w/o collision
80.08
79.14
w/o deviation
86.92
84.11
Appendix
Table 11: Episode termination ablations for DriveMLP on nuPlan Val14.
Table 17
Frequency
NR
R
0.5 Hz
75.23
77.61
1 Hz
90.38
86.51
2 Hz
85.13
82.28
Appendix
Table 15: Action frequency ablation: nuPlan Val14.
Architecture
Training Method
w/o Ego State
w/ Ego State
DriveMLP
BC
54.90
53.64
Transformer
BC
61.25
54.76
DriveMLP
EGRL
78.79
90.38
Appendix
Table 16: Ego-state ablation: nuPlan Val14 NR.
Figure 6: Noise brings the Diffusion Planner close to a neighboring agent, with no corrective response to avoid the collision (a), whereas DriveMLP remains close to the expert trajectory (b). Similarly, noise can cause the Diffusion Planner to miss a turn (c), while our planner remains largely unaffected (d).
Env
Reset
Step
Naive stack (ms)
559.4
366.27
Ours (ms)
3.9
1.59
Speedup
143x
230x
Appendix
Table 17: Single env. reset/step functions performance
Figure 7: Representative failure cases of DriveMLP. Expert trajectory is shown in orange, while the trajectory executed by ego is in blue. Failure modes include (a) overshooting turns and invading the opposite lane, (b) failure to progress due to a limited time window in which the intersection is clear, (c) side collisions with other vehicles, and (d) late braking for obstacles in the lane. All scenarios are taken from the Val14-Reactive evaluation split.
DriveMLP
Diffusion Planner
Val14
Test-Hard
Val14
Test-Hard
Metrics
NR
R
NR
R
NR
R
NR
R
Overall Score
90.39
86.51
76.69
74.51
89.86
82.95
75.73
68.94
Drivable Area Compliance
99.82
99.82
97.43
97.79
97.94
97.85
95.59
94.85
Driving Direction Comp.
99.37
99.42
97.79
97.98
99.51
99.82
98.90
98.90
Ego is Comfortable
87.39
88.10
86.03
87.13
92.49
89.36
91.91
86.40
Appendix
Table 18: Performance Comparison: DriveMLP vs. Diffusion Planner across nuPlan Splits
End-to-end autonomous driving policies based on Imitation Learning (IL) often struggle in closed-loop execution due to the misalignment between inadequate open-loop training objectives and real driving requirements. While Reinforcement Learning (RL) offers a solution by directly optimizing driving goals via reward signals, the rendering-based training environments introduce the rendering gap and are inefficient due to high computational costs. To overcome these challenges, we present a novel Pseudo-simulation-based RL method for closed-loop end-to-end autonomous driving, PerlAD. Based on offline datasets, PerlAD constructs a pseudo-simulation that operates in vector space, enabling efficient, rendering-free trial-and-error training. To bridge the gap between static datasets and dynamic closed-loop environments, PerlAD introduces a prediction world model that generates reactive agent trajectories conditioned on the ego vehicle's plan. Furthermore, to facilitate efficient planning, PerlAD utilizes a hierarchical decoupled planner that combines IL for lateral path generation and RL for longitudinal speed optimization. Comprehensive experimental results demonstrate that PerlAD achieves state-of-the-art performance on the Bench2Drive benchmark, surpassing the previous E2E RL method by 10.29% in Driving Score without requiring expensive online interactions. Additional evaluations on the DOS benchmark further confirm its reliability in handling safety-critical occlusion scenarios.
Yinfeng Gao, Qichao Zhang, Deqing Liu +8
School of Automation and Electrical Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China. · Xiaomi EV. · State Key Laboratory of Multimodal Artificial Intelligence Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China, and also with the School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China.
Imitation learning (IL) is widely used for motion planning in autonomous driving due to its data efficiency and access to real-world driving data. For safe and robust real-world driving, IL-based planning requires capturing the complex driving contexts inherent in real-world data and enabling context-adaptive decision-making, rather than relying solely on expert trajectory imitation. In this paper, we propose CarPLAN, a novel IL-based motion planning framework that explicitly enhances driving context understanding and enables adaptive planning across diverse traffic scenarios. Our contributions are twofold: We introduce Displacement-Aware Predictive Encoding (DPE) to improve the model's spatial awareness by predicting future displacement vectors between the Autonomous Vehicle (AV) and surrounding scene elements. This allows the planner to account for relational spacing when generating trajectories. In addition to the standard imitation loss, we incorporate an augmented loss term that captures displacement prediction errors, ensuring planning decisions consider relative distances from other agents. To improve the model's ability to handle diverse driving contexts, we propose Context-Adaptive Multi-Expert Decoder (CMD), which leverages the Mixture of Experts (MoE) framework. CMD dynamically selects the most suitable expert decoders based on scene structure at each Transformer layer, enabling adaptive and context-aware planning in dynamic environments. We evaluate CarPLAN on the nuPlan benchmark and demonstrate state-of-the-art performance across all closed-loop simulation metrics. In particular, CarPLAN exhibits robust performance on challenging scenarios such as Test14-Hard, validating its effectiveness in complex driving conditions. Additional experiments on the Waymax benchmark further demonstrate its generalization capability across different benchmark settings.
Junyong Yun, Jungho Kim, ByungHyun Lee +5
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Hanyang University, 04763, Republic of Korea. · Interdisciplinary Program in Artificial Intelligence, Seoul National University, 08826, Seoul, Republic of Korea · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Seoul National University, 08826, Seoul, Republic of Korea. +1
Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a prominent framework for developing driving experts in autonomous vehicles. However, most existing RL-based experts are designed to output direct control commands (e.g., throttle, steering), which suffer from a lack of interpretability, high spatial complexity in learning road geometries, and poor compatibility with modern end-to-end planning architectures. To address these limitations, we propose a novel trajectory planning architecture for RL driving experts that integrates an RL policy with a polynomial-based trajectory planner. By employing a Frenet-frame coordinate system, our method simplifies complex road geometries into a curvilinear framework, offering a structured coordinate prior that facilitates policy learning. Furthermore, we incorporate a kinematic feasibility check into the planning stage to ensure that generated trajectories remain within the vehicle's physical limits, effectively mitigating cumulative tracking errors typically found in planning-based systems. We evaluate our approach on key CARLA benchmarks, where it significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art control-based RL experts. On the CARLA Offline Leaderboard v1 and NoCrash benchmarks, our method improves the driving score by 5% and 11%, respectively, and increases the success rate by 8% and 19%.
Joonhee Lim, Yongjae Lee, Jangho Shin +1
Robotics Program, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon 34141, South Korea · Cho Chun Shik Graduate School of Mobility, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon 34141, South Korea · Hyundai Motor Company, Hwaseong 18280, South Korea