arXiv:2607.28665cs.LGcs.AI2026-07

用行车数据区分自动驾驶系统,三种模型表现接近,但时间抖动严重干扰识别。

Sensitivity Analysis of GRU, LSTM and Transformer Encoder in Classification of Automated Driving Systems

论文配图:Sensitivity Analysis of GRU, LSTM and Transformer Encoder in Classification of Automated Driving Systems
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 用GRU、LSTM和Transformer编码器分析车辆遥测数据,识别不同自动驾驶系统
  • 干净数据下三模型宏F1均超0.90,威胁匹配训练后仍保持0.90以上
  • 时间抖动导致性能暴跌至0.44-0.50,是主要脆弱环节,适合安全监控研究者

自动驾驶系统(ADS)日益普及,未来软件定义汽车可能同时运行多个原厂或第三方系统(如Comma.ai的Openpilot)。独立监测哪个系统在运行对安全、合规、保险和异常检测至关重要。本文评估了三种基于序列的分类模型:门控循环单元(GRU)、长短期记忆网络(LSTM)和Transformer编码器,仅使用车辆遥测数据识别Level 2自动驾驶系统(Comma Openpilot、Tesla Autopilot、Cadillac Super Cruise)与手动驾驶。三模型在干净数据上表现优异,宏F1分别为0.92(GRU)、0.90(LSTM)、0.93(Transformer编码器);威胁匹配训练后宏F1为0.904–0.916,仅轻微下降。其次,提出模块化鲁棒性评估框架,通过五类扰动(五个强度等级)模拟真实遥测退化:连续信号受加性高斯白噪声、累积漂移、跨通道相关噪声及时间抖动影响;二值事件信号受突发丢失、延迟转换、虚假翻转及跨特征不一致影响。鲁棒性以宏F1衡量,适用于不平衡多分类。结果揭示明显故障模式分裂:事件级扰动仅轻微降低宏F1(L5时仍≥0.87),而时间抖动使所有模型宏F1降至0.44–0.50。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Automated driving systems (ADSs) are becoming ubiquitous. Future Software Defined Vehicles (SDVs) may be able to run multiple ADSs, both native and aftermarket such as Comma.ai's Openpilot. Monitoring systems to independently verify which automated driving system is active are important for safety monitoring, regulatory compliance, insurance assessment, and anomaly detection. In this paper, we first evaluate the effectiveness of three sequence-based classification models: Gated Recurrent Units (GRU), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, and a Transformer encoder model for identifying Level 2 automated driving systems using vehicle telematics data alone: Comma Openpilot, Tesla Autopilot, and Cadillac Super Cruise, along with manual driving. All three models achieve strong clean-data performance with macro F1-scores of 0.92 (GRU), 0.90 (LSTM), and 0.93 (Transformer encoder model) when trained on clean data; threat-matched training yields 0.904-0.916 macro F1 with only a modest clean-data penalty. Second, we introduce a modular robustness evaluation framework that simulates realistic telematics degradation through five corruption families at five severity levels (L1-L5). Continuous channels are perturbed using additive white Gaussian noise with cumulative drift, correlated cross-channel noise, and temporal jitter. Binary event signals are subjected to burst loss, delayed transitions, spurious toggles and cross-feature inconsistencies inspired by communication errors. Robustness is measured using macro-F1, which gives equal weight to each class and is suitable for imbalanced multiclass evaluation. Our evaluation reveals a sharp failure-mode split: event-level corruptions reduce macro-F1 only slightly (greater than equal to 0.87 at L5), while temporal jitter collapses macro-F1 to 0.44-0.50 across GRU, LSTM, and Transformer encoder model.

自动驾驶序列模型鲁棒性评估遥测分析

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。