ADPerf: Investigating and Testing Performance in Autonomous Driving Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obstacle detection is crucial to the operation of autonomous driving systems, which rely on multiple sensors, such as cameras and LiDARs, combined with code logic and deep learning models to detect obstacles for time-sensitive decisions. Consequently, obstacle detection latency is critical to the safety and effectiveness of autonomous driving systems. However, the latency of the obstacle detection module and its resilience to various changes in the LiDAR point cloud data are not yet fully understood. In this work, we present the first comprehensive investigation on measuring and modeling the performance of the obstacle detection modules in two industry-grade autonomous driving systems, i.e., Apollo and Autoware. Learning from this investigation, we introduce ADPerf, a tool that aims to generate realistic point cloud data test cases that can expose increased detection latency. Increasing latency decreases the availability of the detected obstacles and stresses the capabilities of subsequent modules in autonomous driving systems, i.e., the modules may be negatively impacted by the increased latency in obstacle detection.We applied ADPerf to stress-test the performance of widely used 3D obstacle detection modules in autonomous driving systems, as well as the propagation of such tests on trajectory prediction modules. Our evaluation highlights the need to conduct performance testing of obstacle detection components, especially 3D obstacle detection, as they can be a major bottleneck to increased latency of the autonomous driving system. Such an adverse outcome will also further propagate to other modules, reducing the overall reliability of autonomous driving systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".