FlowAD: Ego-Scene Interactive Modeling for Autonomous Driving
Mingzhe Guo, Yixiang Yang, Chuanrong Han, Rufeng Zhang, Shirui Li, Ji Wan, Zhipeng Zhang

TL;DR
FlowAD introduces a novel ego-scene interactive modeling framework for autonomous driving that leverages scene flow relative to the ego-vehicle, improving environment understanding and planning capabilities using existing datasets.
Contribution
The paper proposes FlowAD, a flow-based framework that models ego-motion feedback through scene flow, enhancing perception and planning in autonomous driving without relying on scenario simulations.
Findings
Reduces collision rate by 19% over SparseDrive
Improves FCP by 1.39 frames (60%) on nuScenes
Achieves a driving score of 51.77 on Bench2Drive
Abstract
Effective environment modeling is the foundation for autonomous driving, underpinning tasks from perception to planning. However, current paradigms often inadequately consider the feedback of ego motion to the observation, which leads to an incomplete understanding of the driving process and consequently limits the planning capability. To address this issue, we introduce a novel ego-scene interactive modeling paradigm. Inspired by human recognition, the paradigm represents ego-scene interaction as the scene flow relative to the ego-vehicle. This conceptualization allows for modeling ego-motion feedback within a feature learning pattern, advantageously utilizing existing log-replay datasets rather than relying on scenario simulations. We specifically propose FlowAD, a general flow-based framework for autonomous driving. Within it, an ego-guided scene partition first constructs basic flow…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
1. Modeling the ego-scene interaction as "scene flow" in the feature space, inspired by human optic flow, is an interesting approach to the problem. 2. The paper is well written.
1. The newly proposed FCP metric judges "correctness" using L2 distance to the Ground Truth (GT) trajectory. This is a strong and potentially flawed assumption, as "closeness to GT" does not equal "correct" in planning. A safer, more conservative plan (e.g., braking earlier) might deviate from the GT but would be unfairly penalized by FCP as a "slow" or "wrong" response. 2. The paper does not demonstrate how FCP, an open-loop metric based on GT, translates to or predicts better closed-loop perfo
- The paper explicitly addresses the gap of neglecting ego vehicle feedback by proposing to model this effect as a “relative scene flow,” balancing physical intuition with practical data-driven learning from logged data. - FlowAD is built with end-to-end components, making it pluggable into various autonomous driving baselines. - Extensive experiments covering open-loop and closed-loop scenarios, multiple tasks, ablation studies, and introducing the FCP metric, effectively demonstrate the method
- Many world-model–style approaches like DriveDreamer [1] and Drive-WM [2] exploit action-guided future status to optimize the trajectory. The claim that previous methods “ignore feedback” seems somewhat absolute and would benefit from a more rigorous comparison and clear delineation of the differences. - The estimation of the partition starting point and turning radius depends heavily on the accuracy of the ego vehicle’s pose/odometry. It would be better to give more analysis of sensitivity to
I appreciate the clarity with which the authors formulate ego-scene interaction as a modeling problem. This is a conceptual contribution with potential impact. The flow-unit partitioning is elegant and physically interpretable. The method’s modular design allows integration into various downstream tasks, which enhances its practical value. The introduction of FCP as a metric is also interesting, as it focuses on ego-scene alignment, something that existing metrics often overlook. Empirical resul
Robustness is also under-characterized: the method hinges on ego-guided partition but offers little evidence for stability under sharp turns, high speeds, or other extreme maneuvers. The proposed FCP metric is interesting yet its external validity remains unclear—there is no systematic analysis of how it correlates with closed-loop planning metrics across routes/seeds or datasets.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety · Robotic Path Planning Algorithms · Robotics and Sensor-Based Localization
