SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2608.15573

Not All History Helps: Velocity-Aware Selective Memory for Long-Horizon End-to-End Autonomous Driving

Abstract

Reliable long-horizon planning remains a key challenge in end-to-end autonomous driving. By accounting for future motion evolution and potential consequences, it provides forward-looking guidance for safe and consistent driving in evolving traffic environments. Existing methods use historical planning states as temporal context. Self-generated history may become stale or conflict with the current motion stage, introducing unreliable priors. We propose StableDrive to address cross-cycle historical reliability and within-horizon motion-stage evolution. Selective Momentum Memory (SMM), implemented with a Mamba selective state-space operator, controls the influence of the preceding self-predicted planning state on the current cycle. Motion-Stage Training Scaffold (MSTS) uses motion-stage, long-horizon trajectory, and longitudinal-motion supervision to guide stage-aware future motion learning and is removed before inference. A fixed parameter midpoint between two architecture-aligned endpoints yields a single deployable SMM planner without model ensembling or extra inference-time computation. On nuScenes under the MomAD evaluation protocol, StableDrive achieves SOTA performance across all reported planning metrics from 1 to 6 s, reducing average collision rate by 23.3%, TPC by 30.9%, and L2 by 11.8% over the best previously reported value for each metric. On the curated Longitudinal-Transition nuScenes (LT-nuScenes), StableDrive reduces 6-s collision rate by 23.81%, TPC by 10.90%, and L2 by 6.37%. On NAVSIM v1 and v2, StableDrive achieves the highest PDMS/EPDMS in all three reported settings, including a 5.7-point EPDMS gain on v2 navhard over the previous best.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Yuchen Liu, Ziying Song, Shengkai Zhang, Jiannan Chen, Peiliang Wu, Lei Yang, Bin Sun, Yan Gong, Li Wang. 2026-08-16. Not All History Helps: Velocity-Aware Selective Memory for Long-Horizon End-to-End Autonomous Driving. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15573

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO