The Era of End-to-End Autonomy: Transitioning from Rule-Based Driving to Large Driving Models

Autonomous driving is a cornerstone technology for the future of intelligent transportation, where end-to-end learning has emerged as a transformative paradigm that directly maps multimodal sensory inputs to driving actions through unified differentiable models. While offering advantages, the effectiveness of end-to-end autonomous driving (E2E-AD) is ultimately determined by the quality of its training ecosystem. This paper provides a comprehensive review of training methods and ecosystem for E2E-AD. We introduce a Data-Strategy-Platform taxonomy that conceptualizes training as an interdependent system. The data layer defines what can be learned, the strategy layer governs how learning aligns with driving objectives, and the platform layer supports scalability and continuous evolution. Within this framework, we survey recent advances across data-centric pipelines, learning paradigms, and training infrastructures, and analyze their interplay in shaping model performance, robustness, and deployability. Finally, we reflect on current limitations and articulate a forward-looking vision that emphasizes a shift from data quantity to data value, from isolated optimization to foundation-driven generalization, and from static training to integrated training-testing loops, aiming toward robust, scalable, and trustworthy autonomous driving systems. We maintain a continuously updated repository tracking cutting-edge literature and works at Our Project Page.

Autonomous driving systems have become a central focus of intelligent transportation research, with End-to-End Learning and Modular Architectures offering two prominent design paradigms for their implementation. E2E Learning uses deep learning algorithms to map raw sensory inputs directly to driving actuators, providing a streamlined and adaptable solution. while Modular Architectures employ a pipeline-based approach, dividing the system into distinct subsystems for perception, cognition, planning, and control. This paper presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of these paradigms, focusing on their strengths, limitations, and trade-offs to provide insights into their suitability for various autonomous driving applications. The study evaluates key factors such as interpretability, scalability, robustness, and real-world applicability. While End-to-End Learning emphasizes simplicity and adaptability in dynamic environments, it lacks transparency and is highly dependent on large datasets. Conversely, Modular Architectures offer superior interpretability and task-specific optimization, but face challenges related to integration complexity and scalability. To address these limitations, hybrid approaches that combine the strengths of both paradigms have emerged, offering a promising direction for overcoming these challenges. Beyond this comparative synthesis, following work proposes a Four-Dimensional Architecture Selection Framework, comprising twelve binary criteria across safety, operating environment, data/computational resources, and deployment context, and validate it against ten published autonomous driving systems, correctly recommending 7/10 deployed architectures. This work synthesizes existing literature to highlight key trade-offs between the paradigms and identifies hybrid architectures as a promising direction for future research.

End-to-end autonomous driving has evolved from camera-to-control regression toward planning-oriented systems that use structured representations, trajectory-level outputs, and increasingly realistic evaluation protocols. This survey reviews this transition across behavior cloning, conditional imitation learning, privileged distillation, BEV and vectorized planning, unified perception-prediction-planning architectures, world-model-based planners, and vision-language-action systems. We argue that the key distinction in modern end-to-end driving is not whether intermediate representations are used, but whether they are learned, supervised, and evaluated to support safe, feasible, and route-compliant planning. To organize the literature, we synthesize existing methods along four axes: input representation, planning output, supervision signal, and evaluation protocol. We further examine the benchmark shift from open-loop trajectory matching to closed-loop simulation, non-reactive real-log evaluation, long-tail testing, and human-preference-aware metrics. Our analysis highlights that architectural progress is difficult to interpret without benchmark-consistent evaluation, and that displacement-based open-loop metrics alone provide limited evidence for safe and human-aligned driving. We conclude with open challenges in uncertainty-aware planning, learner-expert mismatch, runtime safety assurance, language-action grounding, world-model validation, and reproducible benchmarking.