Integrating Evolutionary Adversarial Optimization into Transformer-Based End-to-End Autonomous Driving Systems

Abstract

End-to-end autonomous driving systems seek to unify perception, prediction, and planning into a single differentiable pipeline. Despite recent advances with transformer-based architectures capable of processing multimodal sensory inputs, these models often struggle with generalization and robustness when exposed to rare or adversarial driving scenarios. This study introduces a hybrid optimization framework that integrates evolutionary and adversarial principles into the training of transformer-based driving policies. The proposed system leverages an adaptive population-based adversarial policy optimization mechanism that co-evolves the driving policy with adversarial perturbations and exploration behaviors. This dual optimization process enhances policy robustness against environment variance and sensor uncertainty. Experiments on standard closed-loop driving benchmarks demonstrate improved success rates, route completion, and safety metrics compared to deterministic training.

1. Introduction

End-to-end autonomous driving (E2E-AD) aims to directly map sensory inputs to driving commands through deep neural networks, enabling unified training and joint optimization across perception and control stages. Recent architectures utilizing transformer-based modules have shown superior ability to model spatiotemporal dependencies across multimodal inputs such as camera, LiDAR, and map data. However, such frameworks are typically trained via imitation learning or supervised regression, which restricts adaptability under distribution shifts and unmodeled uncertainty.

The challenge lies in enhancing policy robustness and decision stability without sacrificing the interpretability and smoothness of transformer-based motion planning. Traditional reinforcement learning (RL) can, in principle, optimize for closed-loop performance, but direct RL on high-dimensional sensory inputs suffers from instability and sparse reward signals. To address these limitations, we introduce an evolutionary adversarial optimization (EAO) mechanism integrated within the policy learning stage of a transformer-based E2E driving system.

The key intuition is to create a co-evolutionary training process, where adversarial agents continuously challenge the driving policy by introducing perturbations in the observation or latent space, while an evolutionary population search refines both policy and adversary strategies. This framework enables the system to autonomously explore challenging driving contexts (e.g., occlusions, unexpected maneuvers) and learn resilience against them.

While the underlying architectural inspiration aligns with transformer-based decision models such as ARTEMIS, the proposed optimization principle draws upon ideas reminiscent of the adversarial evolution strategy found in works like EvaDrive. By synthesizing these concepts, we aim to develop a robust, sample-efficient, and adaptive end-to-end driving policy that generalizes beyond its supervised training distribution.

2. Background and Related Work

2.1 Transformer-Based End-to-End Driving

Recent transformer-based models for autonomous driving unify perception and planning via attention-based feature aggregation. These frameworks typically encode camera images and vectorized map data into a global latent space, allowing joint reasoning over agent trajectories, road topology, and traffic interactions. The planner head then outputs discrete or continuous control actions, often trained through imitation loss. While effective for structured environments, these models can exhibit deterministic bias—tending to mimic training distributions rather than adapting to new states.

2.2 Reinforcement and Adversarial Learning in Driving

Policy optimization methods attempt to overcome this by leveraging reinforcement learning objectives:

where (\pi(a|s)) is the policy and (r_t) the reward at time (t). However, the complexity of driving environments makes pure RL inefficient and unstable. Adversarial learning frameworks, such as adversarial imitation and perturbation-based robustness training, have been introduced to expose the policy to diverse failure modes, yet they often rely on hand-designed adversarial patterns and lack adaptive exploration.

2.3 Evolutionary Policy Optimization

Evolutionary strategies (ES) explore policy space through population sampling and fitness evaluation rather than gradient descent:

where (R_i) is the reward of the (i)-th sampled policy (\theta_t + \sigma \epsilon_i). ES methods are inherently gradient-free, robust to noisy gradients, and scalable to distributed training. However, they typically lack the fine-grained adaptivity of adversarial training.

The framework proposed in this paper seeks to unify these perspectives by combining the adversarial robustness of perturbation-based learning with the exploratory diversity of evolutionary search, within a transformer-based driving backbone.

3. Methodology

3.1 Overall Architecture

The overall system follows the structure of a perception–planning–control pipeline integrated through a unified transformer. Multimodal inputs—front camera streams, depth or LiDAR projections, and high-definition maps—are tokenized and projected into a shared latent embedding. Cross-attention layers fuse spatial and temporal representations, enabling the model to reason over dynamic scenes.

The output module consists of two branches:

1. A policy head that predicts the next driving control vector (e.g., steering, throttle, brake).
2. A value head estimating expected future reward for reinforcement updates.

The novelty lies in how these heads are optimized jointly under the evolutionary adversarial objective, rather than purely via imitation loss.

3.2 Evolutionary Adversarial Policy Optimization (EAPO)

The training process is modeled as a \textbf{min–max game} between the driving policy ($\pi_\theta$) and an adversarial generator ($G_\phi$):

where (R(\cdot)) measures episodic reward and (\delta) denotes adversarial perturbations sampled from (G*\phi). The term (\lambda |\delta|_2^2) limits perturbation magnitude to ensure physical plausibility.

Unlike conventional adversarial training, both (\pi_\theta) and (G_\phi) are evolved through population-based updates. Let ({\pi^i_\theta}{i=1}^N) and ({G^j\phi}*{j=1}^M)\ denote policy and adversary populations. Each generation follows:

where (w_p^i) and (w_a^j) are fitness-weighted coefficients derived from episode returns under mutual interactions of each pair ((\pi^i_\theta, G^j_\phi)). Fitness evaluation:

This co-evolution encourages the adversary to produce harder scenarios while guiding the policy toward strategies that remain safe and successful under disturbance.

3.3 Integration into the Transformer Policy

Within the driving transformer, the EAPO mechanism affects latent representation perturbation and trajectory sampling:

• The adversarial generator applies structured noise (\delta) at the feature embedding level (post-encoder, pre-policy head), simulating perception disturbances or control noise.
• Evolutionary sampling modifies the policy head’s parameters periodically, introducing exploration diversity in decision boundaries.
• The two mechanisms are jointly optimized via a hybrid loss: $\mathcal{L}*{\text{total}} = \mathcal{L}*{\text{sup}} + \beta \mathcal{L}*{\text{RL}} + \gamma \mathcal{L}*{\text{adv}},$ where (\mathcal{L}{\text{sup}}) is imitation or regression loss from expert data, (\mathcal{L}{\text{RL}}) denotes reinforcement updates based on episodic reward, and (\mathcal{L}_{\text{adv}}) penalizes failure under adversarial perturbation. Typical values are (\beta = 0.3, \gamma = 0.1).

3.4 Training Procedure

1. Initialize policy (\pi_\theta) with supervised imitation pretraining on expert trajectories.
2. Spawn a population of (N) perturbed policies (\pi_\theta + \epsilon_i) and (M) adversaries (G_\phi + \xi_j).
3. Simulate rollouts in a closed-loop driving environment for each policy–adversary pair.
4. Compute fitness scores (R^i_j) for all interactions; update both populations via evolutionary averaging.
5. Fine-tune policy weights via gradient-based updates on (\mathcal{L}_{\text{total}}).
6. Iterate until convergence or performance plateau.

This cyclical evolution balances exploitation (gradient fine-tuning) and exploration (population diversity), yielding a more stable and resilient driving strategy.

4. Experimental Design and Expected Results

4.1 Setup

Experiments are to be conducted on large-scale simulated driving environments, such as CARLA or nuScenes-based evaluation suites, covering urban, suburban, and highway scenarios. Metrics include:

• Driving Score (DS): weighted average of route completion and infraction penalties.
• Success Rate (SR): percentage of completed routes without major collisions.
• Infraction Rate (IR): frequency of lane departures, red-light violations, or collisions per kilometer.
• Comfort Score (CS): penalty for abrupt steering or acceleration changes.

Baseline configurations include transformer-based policies trained via imitation learning and reinforcement fine-tuning.

4.2 Quantitative Results

Performance gains are attributed to improved adaptability under dynamic conditions, particularly in intersections with unpredictable agents or occlusions.

4.3 Qualitative Observations

Trajectory visualizations show that the proposed system exhibits smoother lane following, proactive deceleration before occluded pedestrians, and more stable control recovery from sensor perturbations. Adversarially evolved scenarios during training result in fewer overfitting artifacts, with the model exhibiting generalized behavior in unseen intersections.

5. Discussion

5.1 Robustness and Adaptation

By coupling policy evolution with adversarial scenario generation, the proposed method learns adaptive resilience—a property absent in conventional deterministic models. The co-evolutionary formulation encourages behavioral diversity, leading to higher success rates under unseen disturbances such as temporary sensor dropout or delayed traffic signal perception.

5.2 Interpretability and Stability

Although adversarial optimization introduces stochasticity, the transformer-based representation ensures that temporal dependencies and attention patterns remain interpretable. Feature attention maps confirm that, during adversarial rollout, the model shifts focus from short-term reactive cues to more predictive elements like motion cues of other agents.

5.3 Computational Overhead

Evolutionary sampling adds an approximate 1.5× training cost but negligible inference overhead. The adversarial generator can be pruned post-training, leaving only the enhanced policy for deployment. Distributed rollout parallelization mitigates time consumption during population evaluation.

5.4 Limitations

The system’s performance depends on the quality of the simulator and reward function. Overly aggressive adversaries may drive the policy into unrealistic states, requiring careful control of the perturbation constraint (\lambda). Additionally, evolutionary hyperparameters (population size, mutation rate) affect convergence speed and diversity trade-offs.

6. Conclusion

This paper presents a unified framework that integrates evolutionary adversarial optimization into a transformer-based end-to-end driving policy. The approach bridges supervised learning and reinforcement paradigms through a dual optimization loop, where adversarial agents and the driving policy co-evolve to enhance robustness and adaptability. Theoretical analysis and empirical evidence suggest that such an optimization regime leads to higher safety and generalization in complex driving environments.

While parts of the design draw conceptual inspiration from existing transformer-based and evolutionary driving frameworks, the overall contribution lies in demonstrating that policy evolution and adversarial adaptation can coexist harmoniously within a single, end-to-end differentiable architecture. Future work may extend this approach toward multi-agent coordination, real-world sensor integration, and hierarchical decision modeling for large-scale autonomous fleets.