端到端自动驾驶的万字总结：拆解三大技术路线（UniAD/GenAD/Hydra MDP）

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the current development status of end-to-end autonomous driving algorithms, comparing them with traditional algorithms and highlighting their advantages and limitations [3][5][6]. Group 1: Traditional vs. End-to-End Algorithms - Traditional autonomous driving algorithms follow a pipeline of perception, prediction, and planning, where each module has distinct inputs and outputs [5][6]. - The perception module takes sensor data as input and outputs bounding boxes for the prediction module, which then outputs trajectories for the planning module [6]. - End-to-end algorithms, in contrast, take raw sensor data as input and directly output path points, simplifying the process and reducing error accumulation [6][10]. Group 2: Limitations of End-to-End Algorithms - End-to-end algorithms face challenges such as lack of interpretability, safety guarantees, and issues related to causal confusion [12][57]. - The reliance on imitation learning in end-to-end algorithms limits their ability to handle corner cases effectively, as they may misinterpret rare scenarios as noise [11][57]. - The inherent noise in ground truth data can lead to suboptimal learning outcomes, as human driving data may not represent the best possible actions [11][57]. Group 3: Current End-to-End Algorithm Implementations - The ST-P3 algorithm is highlighted as an early example of end-to-end autonomous driving, focusing on spatiotemporal learning with three core modules: perception, prediction, and planning [14][15]. - Innovations in ST-P3 include a perception module that uses a self-centered cumulative alignment technique, a dual-path prediction mechanism, and a planning module that incorporates prior information for trajectory optimization [15][19][20]. Group 4: Advanced Techniques in End-to-End Algorithms - The UniAD framework introduces a multi-task approach by incorporating five auxiliary tasks to enhance performance, addressing the limitations of traditional modular stacking methods [24][25]. - The system employs a full Transformer architecture for planning, integrating various interaction modules to improve trajectory prediction and planning accuracy [26][29]. - The VAD (Vectorized Autonomous Driving) method utilizes vectorized representations to better express structural information of map elements, enhancing computational speed and efficiency [32][33]. Group 5: Future Directions and Challenges - The article emphasizes the need for further research to overcome the limitations of current end-to-end algorithms, particularly in optimizing learning processes and handling exceptional cases [57]. - The introduction of multi-modal planning and multi-model learning approaches aims to improve trajectory prediction stability and performance [56][57].