arXiv preprint ·
When an Evaluation Rule Writes Training Labels: Measuring Human-Reference Forgiveness in NAVSIM
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
When the human reference scores zero on a metric, the released GTRS-Dense label generator for NAVSIM marks every candidate trajectory in the scene as passing it. NAVSIM's authors introduced this human-reference forgiveness to avoid penalizing contextually justified maneuvers when scoring one trajectory, and warned that it could overlook important failures. In label generation it sets a whole column of 16,384 candidate targets to passing. To measure the consequences for supervision, we re-run the generator with the overwrite disabled and compare the pre-overwrite targets with the released labels on all 103,288 navtrain scenes. The rule erases a candidate distinction that the training loss reads on 11,237 of them (10.8793%). Firing usually changes most of a column: lane keeping carries 9,982 of the 13,042 forgiven loss columns, and its median forgiven column had 14,391 of 16,384 candidates failing before the overwrite. On held-out navtest scenes forgiven on lane keeping, the released lane-keeping head's median AUC against the pre-overwrite outcome is 0.7095; on unforgiven scenes matched on failing-candidate count it is 0.9807. For the Hydra-MDP checkpoint released with GTRS, whose configuration takes the same label file, the two values are 0.6627 and 0.9761. Continuing the released GTRS-Dense checkpoint for 300 optimizer steps with three paired seeds, we observe the forgiven-scene AUC 0.1086-0.1251 higher with pre-overwrite than with published targets, and a narrower gap between matched groups, still above zero. Scoring with forgiveness disabled, we observe lane keeping higher by 2.478-3.524 points on navtest scenes forgiven on any of five loss metrics, with lower adjacent-frame plan consistency. Both changes are larger there than on the rest. EPDMS, scored the same way, does not separate the two target sets.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
Is Online Interaction Necessary for Recovery? A Minimalist Approach to Robust Planning via Perturbation
Quantile Head for Vision-Language-Action Models
SwingRL: Adaptive Observation Reinforcement Learning with World-Model Prediction for Cable-Suspended Hoisting Control
AD-E2E-JEPA: A Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture For End-to-End Autonomous Driving
REALM: A Coarse-to-Fine Generative Framework for Embodied Reactive Listening
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.