IGDrivSim: A Benchmark for the Imitation Gap in Autonomous Driving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing autonomous vehicles that can navigate complex environments with human-level safety and efficiency is a central goal in self-driving research. A common approach to achieving this is imitation learning, where agents are trained to mimic human expert demonstrations collected from real- world driving scenarios. However, discrepancies between human perception and the self-driving car's sensors can introduce an imitation gap, leading to imitation learning failures. In this work, we introduce IGDrivSim, a benchmark built on top of the Waymax simulator, designed to investigate the effects of the imitation gap in learning autonomous driving policy from human expert demonstrations. Our experiments show that this perception gap between human experts and selfdriving agents can hinder the learning of safe and effective driving behaviors. We further show that combining imitation with reinforcement learning, using a simple penalty reward for prohibited behaviors, effectively mitigates these failures. All code developed for this work is released as open source <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".