MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411239062 · doi:10.1155/atr/9995539

Comparison of Different Controller Architectures for Autonomous Driving and Recommendations for Robust and Safe Implementations

2025· article· en· W4411239062 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. A. Shadab Siddiqui, M.S. Rabbi, Md. Shariful Islam, Radif Uddin Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplementationComputer scienceController (irrigation)Control engineeringEngineeringSoftware engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This comprehensive review examines various controller architectures for autonomous driving systems, from rule‐based approaches to advanced deep learning methods. Research trends reveal a significant shift toward deep learning approaches (65.6%) compared to rule‐based methods (34.4%), reflecting the growing dominance of data‐driven techniques in autonomous vehicle research. Performance analysis of transformer‐based models demonstrates exceptional accuracy, with ViT‐SAC achieving 100% success rate in low‐density traffic scenarios and DRLNDT reaching 99.9% success rate in navigation tasks. Temporal reasoning capabilities assessment shows BEVWorld excelling in context maintenance and historical data integration (both 95/100), while Holistic Transformer demonstrates superior noise robustness (95/100). Computational efficiency varies significantly, with VCNN (38.50 FPS) and DSCNN Transformer (34.07 FPS) exceeding real‐time thresholds, while complex BEV architectures like BEVSegformer (3.97 FPS) require further optimization. Simulation platform comparison identifies CARLA as the most comprehensive environment, supporting five of seven key testing features, though no single platform provides complete coverage of all requirements. Technical challenges assessment quantifies real‐time processing requirements as the most critical challenge (90/100), followed by generalization limitations (85/100). These suggest that while rule‐based approaches offer computational efficiency and interpretability, deep learning methods demonstrate superior perception and decision‐making capabilities. A balanced combination of learning‐based, rule‐based, and simulation‐based validation approaches, with particular emphasis on addressing real‐time performance and generalization capabilities, will likely be necessary to achieve reliable autonomous driving systems capable of navigating complex and dynamic environments.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207