Skip to content
Preprint

When Shared Rollouts Fail in Defensive Driving Evaluation: A NAVSIM Score Basis Audit

Aug 2026 · 1 citation · 37 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

An audit protocol is contributed requiring score basis and stack disclosure, blind probes, overwrite reporting, and rollout stability tests before using such scores for defensive driving claims, and propagating the resulting shared reference failures into compliance credit is added.

Abstract

Defensive driving scores are useful only when they preserve distinctions between policies that observe surrounding actors and those that do not. Re-simulation benchmarks may use reference-conditioned forgiveness, under which an agent receives credit when the logged human reference fails a compliance channel. When agent and reference share an unstable rollout transformation, this rule can propagate shared reference failures into broad compliance credit. We audit this risk in NAVSIM v2.2 original scene single-stage scoring. Under the affected documented-stack condition on the audited numerical backend, the route-blind Ignore-All probe and a route-aware actor-blind probe outrank human replay and PDM-Closed over the complete 12,146-token navtest split. A fresh installation following the public specification reproduces rollout divergence on a fixed 32-token diagnostic set. A same-source dependency stack control and an exact-input diagnostic isolate dependency-sensitive numerical behavior in the shared velocity refit. On a 450-token control pool, replacing only the solver eliminates rollout divergence and restores blind-last ordering while keeping forgiveness enabled. Thus, the numerical instability is the direct trigger. Reference-conditioned forgiveness propagates the resulting shared reference failures into compliance credit. We contribute an audit protocol requiring score basis and stack disclosure, blind probes, overwrite reporting, and rollout stability tests before using such scores for defensive driving claims.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Oct 2026

Are We Measuring Anticipation? Auditing Privileged Information in Procedural Video Evaluation

Benchmark scores license claims about the capabilities being evaluated. We audit the inference licensed by an evaluation protocol, rather than the predictive model alone. Using procedural action anticipation as a controlled case study, we study a broader evaluation-validity failure mode: a protocol can remain temporall...

Mahsa Mohammadi, Sareh Rowlands · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

No Task Fails Every Time: Why One-Shot Audits Are Structurally Blind to Agent Damage

We introduce AgentRelBench, an environment-agnostic reliability instrument that computes ground-truth, severity-priced damage from database state diffs across repeated runs, with no LLM in the measurement path, demonstrated on EnterpriseOps-Gym. Across 2,128 evaluation runs spanning nine models in six families (four de...

Shiven Khurdi · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

When Validation Stops Learning: Auditing Update Admission for Continual Embodied Agents

This work argues that update admission must be assessed through both error control and retained learning opportunities at a stated interaction budget, and identifies a concrete failure: a range-based confidence gate cannot certify unchanged old-task behavior within otherwise substantial budgets.

Qin-Zhen Ma, Rui-Hai Wu · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Counterfactual Sensitivity Is Not Repairability: Auditing Replay Probes for Video Evidence

CARVE is introduced, a black-box counterfactual probe that compares answer changes under matched SHAM and DESTROY replays, and shows only a weak association with annotated temporal coverage, so CARVE is best understood as a routing signal rather than a direct grounding classifier.

Rama Y. AlHamidi, Rasul Khanbayov, E. Serpedin et al. · 0 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Sep 2026

When Does Correction Become Repair? Mechanistic Auditing of Internal Interventions in Tool-Using LLMs

Before invoking external tools, an agentic LLM must select among a K-way action space: executing a call, seeking clarification, answering directly, or declining. While internal activation steering can alter these pre-execution decisions, conventional aggregate metrics obscure where altered states land and what collater...

Jia-Yi Li, Rui-Zhe Li · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.