Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper surveys the analytical models and system software necessary for ensuring temporal correctness in autonomous driving (AD) systems, which must process multi-rate and asynchronous sensor data for vehicle actuation. It highlights the inadequacy of traditional timing analysis methods in the face of complex data fusion and parallel processing demands, emphasizing the need for new models that account for execution-time variability and safety mechanisms like minimal-risk maneuvers. The authors identify critical gaps in current research and propose directions for future work across five dimensions, aiming to enhance the reliability of AD systems in real-world scenarios.
Traditional timing analysis falls short for autonomous driving systems, revealing critical gaps that could jeopardize safety and performance.
Autonomous driving (AD) systems continuously transform multi-rate and asynchronous sensor streams into vehicle actuation through graphs of callbacks, nodes, and middleware components. In such systems, temporal correctness cannot be characterized by the execution time or deadline of an individual task alone: localization and perception chains run in parallel, fuse data with different timestamps, converge at planning, and propagate through control to actuation. Moreover, the demand for high processing capability places AD systems on high-performance processors with multicore parallelism and GPU acceleration, where execution times vary strongly with the input scene, hardware state, and co-running work. Rare deadline misses at runtime therefore cannot be ruled out, and safety is preserved through fail-safe mechanisms such as the minimal-risk maneuver (MRM). This raises a two-sided question: what analytical models are needed to reason about timing in AD systems, and what system software is needed to realize, observe, and enforce those models on real platforms? On the analytical side, real-time research has evolved from periodic/sporadic tasks, directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), pipelines, mixed-criticality systems, and timer-/event-driven models toward end-to-end latency along cause-effect chains, data freshness, timing disparity, probabilistic timing, highest-criticality fail-safe operation, and early deadline-miss detection. On the system-software side, AD stacks and middleware, such as Autoware and ROS~2, expose both the opportunities and limitations of implementing analyzable timing behavior through executors, communication layers, tracing tools, and evaluation frameworks. This paper surveys these two lines of work and identifies the remaining gaps along five dimensions: units of timing constraints, timing metrics, resource models, execution-time variability, and safety integration...
