Evaluating the Impact of Computational Perception Architectures on Autonomous Vehicle Safety Through Hardware in the Loop Analysis of Processing Latency andStopping Distance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajaset.v10i3.8544Keywords:
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), Automotive Safety, Autonomous Vehicles, Computer Engineering, Computer Vision, Electronic Control Unit (ECU), Emergency Braking, Hardware-In-The-Loop (HIL), LiDAR, Processing Latency, Real-Time Processing, Sensor FusionAbstract
The rapid integration of computer engineering into modern vehicles has shifted automotive safety from predominantly passive mechanical protection to intelligent, software-driven, actively responsive systems. This study investigates the influence of computational perception architecture on autonomous vehicle safety, with particular emphasis on processing latency and its effect on emergency stopping performance. A hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) experimental framework was developed using the CARLA simulator and an NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin embedded computing platform to evaluate three perception architectures: Vision-Only (VO), LiDAR-Only (LO), and Sensor Fusion (VO+LO). Each architecture was evaluated under identical forward-collision conditions at an initial vehicle speed of 60 km/h, with 100 simulation runs conducted per configuration. The results demonstrate a direct relationship between computational latency, reaction distance, and total stopping distance. The Vision-Only architecture exhibited the highest mean processing latency of 284.17 ms, corresponding to a reaction distance of 4.74 m and a total stopping distance of 23.63 m. In contrast, the LiDAR-Only architecture achieved the lowest latency of 141.05 ms, reducing the reaction distance to 2.35 m and the total stopping distance to 21.24 m. The Sensor Fusion architecture produced an intermediate latency of 197.62 ms and a stopping distance of 22.18 m while providing greater perceptual redundancy and environmental robustness. Overall, the findings demonstrate that reducing computational latency can directly improve emergency braking performance by increasing the available physical safety margin. Although LiDAR-Only provides the fastest computational response, Sensor Fusion offers a more balanced solution between response speed, detection robustness, and redundancy. The study therefore highlights the importance of deterministic, redundant, and computationally efficient architectures for the development of reliable safety-critical autonomous driving systems.
Downloads
References
Al-Sultan, S., Al-Doori, M. M., Al-Bayatti, A. H., & Zedan, H. (2014). A comprehensive survey on vehicular ad hoc network. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 37, 380–392.
Baleani, M., Ferrari, A., Mangeruca, L., Peri, M., Pezzini, A., & Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A. L. (2003). Fault-tolerant platforms for automotive safety-critical applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Compilers, Architecture, and Synthesis for Embedded Systems (CASES) (pp. 170–177).
Benso, A., Chiusano, S., Prinetto, P., & Tagliaferri, L. (2001). A hardware performance counter-based fault injection tool for dependability assessment of automotive software. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Defect and Fault Tolerance in VLSI Systems (pp. 410–417).
Born, M., Hubner, F., & Muller, K. (2013). Model-based development of safety-critical automotive systems according to ISO 26262. ATZelektronik Worldwide, 8(3), 24–29.
Broy, M., Krüger, I. H., Pretschner, A., & Salzmann, C. (2007). Engineering automotive software. Proceedings of the IEEE, 95(2), 357–373.
Bunzel, S. (2008). AUTOSAR: The worldwide standard for automotive software development. In Proceedings of the SAE World Congress & Exhibition (Technical Paper No. 2008-01-0379).
Buttazzo, G. C. (2011). Hard real-time computing systems: Predictable scheduling algorithms and applications (3rd ed.). Springer.
Caesar, H., Bankiti, V., Lang, A. H., Vora, S., Liong, V. E., Xu, Q., Krishnan, A., Pan, Y., Baldan, G., & Beijbom, O. (2020). nuScenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (pp. 11621–11631).
Chavez-Garcia, R. O., & Aycard, C. (2016). Multiple sensor fusion and classification for moving object detection and tracking. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17(2), 525–534.
Checkoway, S., McCoy, D., Kantor, B., Anderson, D., Shacham, H., Savage, S., Koscher, K., Czeskis, A., Roesner, F., & Kohno, T. (2011). Comprehensive experimental analyses of automotive attack surfaces. In Proceedings of the 20th USENIX Security Symposium (pp. 77–92).
Chen, X., Ma, H., Wan, J., Li, B., & Xia, T. (2017). Multi-view 3D object detection network for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (pp. 1907–1915).
Cho, H., Seo, Y., Kumar, B. V., & Rajkumar, R. R. (2014). A multi-sensor and multi-hypothesis approach to real-time object tracking for autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo (ITEC) (pp. 1–6).
Davis, R. I., Burns, A., Bril, R. J., & Lukkien, J. J. (2007). Controller Area Network (CAN) schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised. Real-Time Systems, 35(3), 239–272.
Debouk, G., Rossi, G., & Vitellaro, R. (2011). Application of ISO 26262 to automotive electrical and electronic architectures. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars: Electronic and Electrical Systems, 4(1), 78–89.
Di Natale, M., Zeng, H., Giusto, P., & Ghosal, A. (2012). Understanding and using the Controller Area Network communication protocol: Theory and practice. Springer.
Feng, D., Haase-Schütz, C., Rosenbaum, L., Hertlein, H., Glaeser, C., Timm, F., Wiesbeck, W., & Dietmayer, K. (2021). Deep multi-modal object detection and semantic segmentation for autonomous driving: Datasets, methods, and challenges. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 22(3), 1341–1360.
Filipenko, M., & Afanasyev, K. (2022). Comparison of radar and lidar sensor performance under adverse weather conditions for autonomous vehicles. Sensors, 22(19), Article 7321.
Fürst, S., Mössinger, J., Bunzel, U., Weber, T., Kirschke-Biller, F., Heitkämper, P., Kinkelin, G., Nishikawa, K., & Lange, K. (2009). AUTOSAR: A worldwide standard is on the road. In Proceedings of the 14th International VDI Congress Electronic Vehicles (pp. 1–14).
Geiger, A., Lenz, P., & Urtasun, R. (2012). Are we ready for autonomous driving? The KITTI vision benchmark suite. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (pp. 3354–3361).
Gmiden, M., Gmiden, M. H., & Trabelsi, H. (2016). An intrusion detection system for in-vehicle network based on neural networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Green Energy Technologies (ICGET) (pp. 1–6).
Hasirlioglu, I., Doric, I., Lauer, C., & Riener, A. (2016). Modeling and simulation of fog for the test of vision-based automotive sensors. In Proceedings of the IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 1876–1881).
Isermann, R., Schaffnit, J., & Sinsel, S. (1999). Hardware-in-the-loop simulation for the design and testing of engine-control systems. Control Engineering Practice, 7(5), 643–653.
Kang, Y., Zhao, H., Laurenzano, M. A., Ling, P., Akella, P., & Mars, J. (2018). Neuro-architectures for autonomous driving: Real-time considerations on heterogeneous edge chips. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO) (pp. 680–692).
Kopetz, H., & Bauer, G. (2003). The time-triggered architecture. Proceedings of the IEEE, 91(1), 112–126.
Koscher, K., Czeskis, A., Roesner, F., Patel, S., Kohno, T., Checkoway, S., McCoy, D., Kantor, B., Anderson, D., Shacham, H., & Savage, S. (2010). Experimental security analysis of a modern automobile. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (pp. 447–462).
Li, C., Zhang, Y., Chen, X., & Qiu, M. (2020). Real-time edge computing scheduling for autonomous vehicle safety control. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(5), 3843–3852.
Lin, S.-C., Zhang, Y., Hsu, C.-H., Skach, M., Haque, M., Tang, L., & Mars, J. (2018). The architectural implications of autonomous driving: Constraints and acceleration. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) (pp. 751–766).
Lu, R., Lin, X., Zhu, H., Ho, P.-H., & Shen, X. (2008). ECPP: Efficient conditional privacy preservation protocol for secure vehicular communications. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) (pp. 1229–1237).
Macher, G., Armengaud, E., Schmittner, C., & Kreiner, C. (2020). Integrated safety and cybersecurity risk assessment for automotive embedded systems. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 39(11), 3315–3326.
Michaelis, C., Mitzkus, B., Geirhos, R., Rusak, E., Bringmann, O., Ecker, A. S., Bethge, M., & Brendel, W. (2019). Benchmarking robustness in object detection: Autonomous driving when winter is coming. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.07484
Miller, C., & Valasek, C. (2015). Remote exploitation of an unmodified passenger vehicle. Black Hat USA.
Molnar, M., Oetiker, S. B., & Benini, L. (2019). FPGA-based low-latency sensor processing pipeline for automotive applications. IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, 27(8), 1823–1834.
Navet, N., Song, Y., Simonot-Lion, F., & Wilwert, C. (2005). Trends in automotive communication systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 93(6), 1204–1223.
Pretschner, A., Broy, M., Krüger, I. H., & Stauner, C. (2007). Software engineering for automotive systems: A roadmap. In Future of Software Engineering (FOSE ’07) (pp. 55–71).
Raya, M., & Hubaux, J.-P. (2007). Securing vehicular ad hoc networks. Journal of Computer Security, 15(1), 39–68.
Salay, R., Queiroz, R., & Czarnecki, K. (2018). An analysis of ISO 26262: Using machine learning safely in automotive software (SAE Technical Paper No. 2018-01-1075). SAE International.
Schamai, A., Fritzson, P., Pareis, C., & Pop, A. (2014). Modelica-based simulation of automotive embedded software systems using hardware-in-the-loop. Simulation, 90(7), 759–774.
Schmidt, K., & Schmidt, E. G. (2009). Message scheduling for the FlexRay communication protocol. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 58(5), 2560–2570.
Schwalb, H., Sahr, M., & Sakic, E. (2022). Safety argumentation for artificial intelligence in automated driving: SOTIF and ISO 21448 considerations. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (SAFECOMP) (pp. 112–126).
Short, M. J., & Pont, M. J. (2008). Assessment of high-integrity time-triggered automotive embedded architectures. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 4(2), 108–118.
Short, M. J., Pont, M. J., & Huang, Q. (2008). Simulation-based design of steer-by-wire systems utilizing time-triggered communication. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 57(4), 2108–2117.
Song, H. M., Kim, H. R., & Kim, H. K. (2016). Intrusion detection system based on the analysis of time intervals of CAN messages for in-vehicle network. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN) (pp. 63–68).
Steinbach, L. L., Lim, H., Kim, H. K., & Park, T. (2020). Time-sensitive networking for automotive in-vehicle networks: A survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 22(3), 1950–1973.
Stolte, T., Reschka, A., Bagschik, G., & Maurer, M. (2016). Towards a system architecture for fail-operational autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 3060–3067).
Tariq, Z., Shah, S., & Lee, Y. (2021). CANTransfer: Transfer learning based intrusion detection for in-vehicle networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 70(7), 6378–6389.
Trapp, M., Schneider, D., & Weiss, M. (2020). Runtime safety management in adaptive automotive embedded systems. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 69(1), 153–167.
Tuohy, S., Glavin, M., Hughes, C., Jones, E., Trivedi, M., & Kilmartin, L. (2015). Intra-vehicle networks: A review. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16(2), 534–545.
Wang, Z., Wu, Y., & Niu, Q. (2020). Multi-sensor fusion in automated driving: A survey. IEEE Access, 8, 2847–2868.
Ward, D. D., Crawford, R. C., & Miller, J. A. (2013). Implementation of ISO 26262 in automotive electronics (SAE Technical Paper No. 2013-01-0182). SAE International.
Zhang, J., Wang, K., & Xia, F. (2020). Thermal-aware real-time task scheduling on multi-core automotive microprocessors. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 39(11), 3512–3523.
