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].

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 [1][3][53]. Summary by Sections 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 [3]. - End-to-end algorithms take raw sensor data as input and directly output path points, simplifying the process and reducing error accumulation [3][5]. - Traditional algorithms are easier to debug and have some level of interpretability, but they suffer from cumulative error issues due to the inability to ensure complete accuracy in perception and prediction modules [3][5]. Limitations of End-to-End Algorithms - End-to-end algorithms face challenges such as limited ability to handle corner cases, as they rely heavily on data-driven methods [7][8]. - The use of imitation learning in these algorithms can lead to difficulties in learning optimal ground truth and handling exceptional cases [53]. - Current end-to-end paradigms include imitation learning (behavior cloning and inverse reinforcement learning) and reinforcement learning, with evaluation methods categorized into open-loop and closed-loop [8]. Current Implementations - The ST-P3 algorithm is highlighted as an early work focusing on end-to-end autonomous driving, utilizing a framework that includes perception, prediction, and planning modules [10][11]. - Innovations in the ST-P3 algorithm include a perception module that uses a self-centered cumulative alignment technique and a prediction module that employs a dual-path prediction mechanism [11][13]. - The planning phase of ST-P3 optimizes predicted trajectories by incorporating traffic light information [14][15]. Advanced Techniques - The UniAD system employs a full Transformer framework for end-to-end autonomous driving, integrating multiple tasks to enhance performance [23][25]. - The TrackFormer framework focuses on the collaborative updating of track queries and detect queries to improve prediction accuracy [26]. - The VAD (Vectorized Autonomous Driving) method introduces vectorized representations for better structural information and faster computation in trajectory planning [32][33]. Future Directions - The article suggests that end-to-end algorithms still primarily rely on imitation learning frameworks, which have inherent limitations that need further exploration [53]. - The introduction of more constraints and multi-modal planning methods aims to address trajectory prediction instability and improve model performance [49][52].