pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.16642 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-20 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

A LiDAR-Driven Fallback Longitudinal Controller for Safer Following in Sudden Braking Scenarios

Mohamed Sabry , Enrico Del Re , Walter Morales-Alvarez , Cristina Olaverri-Monreal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 15:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords LiDARlongitudinal controladaptive cruise controlvehicle followingemergency brakingfallback controllerautonomous vehicles
0
0 comments X

The pith

A LiDAR-based fallback controller enables safe vehicle following from standstill and prevents collisions in sudden braking using only distance and speed data.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes a longitudinal controller for adaptive cruise control that operates as a fallback when vehicle-to-vehicle communication is unavailable. It relies exclusively on LiDAR distance measurements to the lead vehicle and the follower's own velocity, with a time-independent design that avoids synchronization requirements. Simulations demonstrate that this controller supports starting a following maneuver from a complete stop and maintains safe gaps even when the lead vehicle brakes suddenly and hard. The work addresses collision risks in scenarios where information dependencies limit reliability. A sympathetic reader would value reduced reliance on external communication for safer automated driving.

Core claim

The central claim is that a novel fallback longitudinal controller relying solely on LiDAR-based distance measurements and the velocity of the follower vehicle enables vehicle-following from standstill and prevents collisions during emergency braking, even under minimal onboard information, because the time-independent design functions despite sensor delays or synchronization issues.

What carries the argument

The time-independent longitudinal controller driven by LiDAR distance measurements and follower velocity, which computes control actions without external timing or communication.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation accurately captures real-world vehicle dynamics, sensor noise, and actuator delays so the time-independent design remains effective on physical vehicles.

What would settle it

A physical vehicle test in which the lead car brakes suddenly from speed while the follower starts from standstill using only the proposed controller, with collision occurring or not as the decisive outcome.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.16642 by Cristina Olaverri-Monreal, Enrico Del Re, Mohamed Sabry, Walter Morales-Alvarez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: This figure illustrates the vehicle-following pipeline. The system is initialized with the current speed of the follower vehicle and checks for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The figure illustrates the truncated cosine curve employed to regulate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The figure presents the 3D model of the JKU-ITS research vehicle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The figure shows the results from the test path in the CARLA simulator with four speeds. Over a test distance of approximately 650 meters, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Adaptive Cruise Control has seen significant advancements, with Collaborative Adaptive Cruise Control leveraging Vehicle-to-Vehicle communication to enhance coordination and stability. However, the reliance on stable communication channels limits its reliability. Research on reducing information dependencies in Adaptive Cruise Control systems has remained limited, despite its critical role in mitigating collision risks during sudden braking scenarios. This study proposes a novel fallback longitudinal controller that relies solely on LiDAR-based distance measurements and the velocity of a follower vehicle. The controller is designed to be time-independent, ensuring operation in the presence of sensor delays or synchronization issues. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed controller enables vehicle-following from standstill and prevents collisions during emergency braking, even under minimal onboard information.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a time-independent fallback longitudinal controller for vehicle following that uses only LiDAR-based inter-vehicle distance and the follower's own velocity as inputs. The design is intended to maintain safe following from standstill and to prevent collisions during sudden braking of the lead vehicle even when V2V communication is unavailable or delayed. Simulation results are cited to support that the controller achieves these goals under minimal onboard information.

Significance. If the simulation results hold under realistic actuator delays, sensor quantization, and longitudinal dynamics, the work would offer a practical, low-information fallback for ACC systems that reduces reliance on communication channels. The time-independent formulation is a clear design choice that directly targets synchronization issues, which is a strength if the performance claims are substantiated beyond high-level descriptions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation Results] Simulation Results section: the central claim that the controller prevents collisions and enables standstill following rests on simulation outcomes, yet no details are supplied on the vehicle longitudinal model (e.g., whether it includes first-order actuator lag or tire-force saturation), the magnitude of LiDAR quantization or noise, or the specific emergency-braking deceleration profiles used. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the reported success is robust or an artifact of idealized dynamics.
  2. [Controller Design] Controller Design section: the time-independent property is presented as a deliberate advantage, but the manuscript does not report a sensitivity analysis in which actuator response time or LiDAR update rate is varied while holding controller gains fixed. Such a test is load-bearing for the transfer argument to hardware.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the controller 'enables vehicle-following from standstill,' but the corresponding simulation description does not clarify the initial conditions or the settling behavior after the lead vehicle resumes motion.
  2. Notation for the distance and velocity inputs should be defined once at first use and used consistently; occasional switches between 'd' and 'distance' reduce readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for recognizing the potential practical value of the time-independent fallback controller. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested details and analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation Results] Simulation Results section: the central claim that the controller prevents collisions and enables standstill following rests on simulation outcomes, yet no details are supplied on the vehicle longitudinal model (e.g., whether it includes first-order actuator lag or tire-force saturation), the magnitude of LiDAR quantization or noise, or the specific emergency-braking deceleration profiles used. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the reported success is robust or an artifact of idealized dynamics.

    Authors: We agree that the Simulation Results section requires more explicit documentation of the underlying models and conditions to support the robustness claims. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection describing the longitudinal vehicle model (including first-order actuator lag and tire-force limits), the LiDAR sensor quantization and noise levels employed, and the precise deceleration profiles used for the lead-vehicle emergency-braking cases. These additions will enable readers to evaluate whether the observed collision avoidance and standstill-following performance hold under the reported conditions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Controller Design] Controller Design section: the time-independent property is presented as a deliberate advantage, but the manuscript does not report a sensitivity analysis in which actuator response time or LiDAR update rate is varied while holding controller gains fixed. Such a test is load-bearing for the transfer argument to hardware.

    Authors: We recognize that a sensitivity study with respect to actuator delay and LiDAR update rate is important for assessing hardware transferability. In the revised manuscript we will include such an analysis, performed with fixed controller gains, and report the resulting spacing-error and collision-avoidance metrics across a range of realistic actuator time constants and sensor update intervals. This will directly substantiate the claimed robustness of the time-independent formulation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: controller derived from distance/velocity inputs without reduction to fitted parameters or self-citations

full rationale

The manuscript proposes a time-independent longitudinal controller using only LiDAR distance and follower velocity as inputs. No derivation chain, equations, or simulation outputs are shown to reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations. The design is presented as directly computed from the stated sensor inputs, with simulation results serving as verification rather than a renamed fit to the target collision-avoidance outcome. This satisfies the criteria for a self-contained derivation with no detectable circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The controller design assumes standard kinematic vehicle models and reliable LiDAR ranging without specifying how these are validated beyond simulation.

free parameters (1)
  • controller gains or thresholds
    Likely tuned parameters in the longitudinal control law to achieve the reported following behavior.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Vehicle longitudinal dynamics can be modeled with standard kinematic or simple dynamic equations
    Required for the simulation environment to produce the claimed collision-avoidance behavior.
  • domain assumption LiDAR distance measurements are accurate and available at sufficient rate for the time-independent controller
    Central to the fallback claim but not tested against real sensor characteristics in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5654 in / 1246 out tokens · 48823 ms · 2026-05-18T15:09:29.456122+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. In-Vehicle Human-Machine Interface to Support Drivers in Conditionally Automated Platooning

    cs.HC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A simulator experiment finds that an HMI displaying system state and inter-vehicle distances reduces manual interventions in conditionally automated platooning by roughly 80% but shows no effect on collisions or respo...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Assessing energy con- sumption in scalable semi-autonomous destination-based e-platoons: A multiplayer approach,

    A. Validi, Y . Liu, and C. Olaverri-Monreal, “Assessing energy con- sumption in scalable semi-autonomous destination-based e-platoons: A multiplayer approach,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 136, p. 104464, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Longitudinal safety impacts of cooperative adaptive cruise control vehicle’s degradation,

    Y . Tu, W. Wang, Y . Li, C. Xu, T. Xu, and X. Li, “Longitudinal safety impacts of cooperative adaptive cruise control vehicle’s degradation,” Journal of Safety Research, vol. 69, pp. 177–192, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Automated driving: Interactive automation control system to enhance situational awareness in conditional automation,

    C. Olaverri-Monreal, S. Kumar, and A. D `ıaz-`Alvarez, “Automated driving: Interactive automation control system to enhance situational awareness in conditional automation,” in2018 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1698–1703

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    A nonlinear control design for cooperative adaptive cruise control with time-varying communication delay,

    P. A. Bonab and A. Sargolzaei, “A nonlinear control design for cooperative adaptive cruise control with time-varying communication delay,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 10, p. 1875, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Integrated longitudinal and lateral control for kuafu-ii autonomous vehicle,

    L. Xu, Y . Wang, H. Sun, J. Xin, and N. Zheng, “Integrated longitudinal and lateral control for kuafu-ii autonomous vehicle,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 2032–2041, 2015

    work page 2032

  6. [6]

    Lidar sensing based exponential adaptive cruise control and steering assist for adas,

    A. Thakur, C. R. Ram, and R. Pachamuthu, “Lidar sensing based exponential adaptive cruise control and steering assist for adas,” IEEE Sensors Journal, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Design and implementation of adaptive pid controller for speed control of dc motor,

    S. D. Sahputro, F. Fadilah, N. A. Wicaksono, and F. Yusivar, “Design and implementation of adaptive pid controller for speed control of dc motor,” in 2017 15th International Conference on Quality in Research (QiR): International Symposium on Electrical and Computer Engineering. IEEE, 2017, pp. 179–183

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Mpc based collaborative adaptive cruise control with rear end collision avoidance,

    F. E. Sancar, B. Fidan, J. P. Huissoon, and S. L. Waslander, “Mpc based collaborative adaptive cruise control with rear end collision avoidance,” in 2014 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium proceedings. IEEE, 2014, pp. 516–521

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    Explicitly incorporating surrogate safety measures into connected and automated vehicle longitudinal control objectives for enhancing platoon safety,

    Y . Dai, C. Wang, and Y . Xie, “Explicitly incorporating surrogate safety measures into connected and automated vehicle longitudinal control objectives for enhancing platoon safety,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 183, p. 106975, 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Safety aware fuzzy longitudinal controller for automated vehicles,

    K. Mattas, G. Botzoris, and B. Papadopoulos, “Safety aware fuzzy longitudinal controller for automated vehicles,” Journal of traffic and transportation engineering (English edition), vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 568–581, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Robust longitudinal control of multi-vehicle systems—a distributed h-infinity method,

    S. E. Li, F. Gao, K. Li, L.-Y . Wang, K. You, and D. Cao, “Robust longitudinal control of multi-vehicle systems—a distributed h-infinity method,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 2779–2788, 2017

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Design and validation of a novel adaptive cruise control law for a platoon of vehicles,

    A. Farag, A. Hussein, O. M. Shehata, and E. I. Morgan, “Design and validation of a novel adaptive cruise control law for a platoon of vehicles,” in 2020 2nd Novel Intelligent and Leading Emerging Sciences Conference (NILES). IEEE, 2020, pp. 81–86

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    Multiple-model switching control of vehicle longitudinal dynamics for platoon-level automation,

    S. E. Li, F. Gao, D. Cao, and K. Li, “Multiple-model switching control of vehicle longitudinal dynamics for platoon-level automation,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 4480–4492, 2016

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    A robust longitudinal control strategy of platoons under model uncertainties and time delays,

    N. Chen, M. Wang, T. Alkim, and B. Van Arem, “A robust longitudinal control strategy of platoons under model uncertainties and time delays,” Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 2018, no. 1, p. 9852721, 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Robust lateral and longitudinal control for vehicle platoons with unknown interaction topology subject to multiple communication delays,

    N. Zhang, X. Li, J. Chen, H. Li, Y . Nie, and H. Zhang, “Robust lateral and longitudinal control for vehicle platoons with unknown interaction topology subject to multiple communication delays,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Distributed model predictive longitudinal control for a connected autonomous vehicle platoon with dynamic information flow topology,

    F. Zhao, Y . Liu, J. Wang, and L. Wang, “Distributed model predictive longitudinal control for a connected autonomous vehicle platoon with dynamic information flow topology,” in Actuators, vol. 10, no. 9. MDPI, 2021, p. 204

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    A safety reinforced cooperative adaptive cruise control strategy accounting for dynamic vehicle-to-vehicle communi- cation failure,

    Y . Liu and W. Wang, “A safety reinforced cooperative adaptive cruise control strategy accounting for dynamic vehicle-to-vehicle communi- cation failure,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 18, p. 6158, 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    An integrated longitudinal and lateral vehicle following control system with radar and vehicle-to-vehicle communication,

    S. Wei, Y . Zou, X. Zhang, T. Zhang, and X. Li, “An integrated longitudinal and lateral vehicle following control system with radar and vehicle-to-vehicle communication,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 1116–1127, 2019

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Minimum sensor second-order sliding mode longitudinal control of passenger vehicles,

    A. Ferrara and P. Pisu, “Minimum sensor second-order sliding mode longitudinal control of passenger vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 20–32, 2004

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    Autonav in clue: A baseline autonomous software stack for autonomous navigation in closed low-speed unstructured environments

    M. Sabry, A. Farag, B. Magued, A. Mazhr, A. El Mougy, and S. Abdennadher, “Autonav in clue: A baseline autonomous software stack for autonomous navigation in closed low-speed unstructured environments.” in ICAART (1), 2024, pp. 189–197

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Morphological operations for color image processing,

    M. L. Comer and E. J. Delp III, “Morphological operations for color image processing,” Journal of electronic imaging, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 279–289, 1999

    work page 1999

  22. [22]

    Pure pursuit revisited: field testing of autonomous vehicles in urban areas,

    H. Ohta, N. Akai, E. Takeuchi, S. Kato, and M. Edahiro, “Pure pursuit revisited: field testing of autonomous vehicles in urban areas,” in 2016 IEEE 4th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, Networks, and Applications (CPSNA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 7–12

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Iso/iec 9899: 1999 programming languages-c,

    I. Organisation, “Iso/iec 9899: 1999 programming languages-c,” 1999

    work page 1999

  24. [24]

    The general problem of the stability of motion,

    A. M. Lyapunov, “The general problem of the stability of motion,” International journal of control, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 531–534, 1992

    work page 1992

  25. [25]

    Connection of the sumo microscopic traffic simulator and the unity 3d game engine to evaluate v2x communication-based systems,

    C. Olaverri-Monreal, J. Errea-Moreno, A. D ´ıaz-´Alvarez, C. Biurrun- Quel, L. Serrano-Arriezu, and M. Kuba, “Connection of the sumo microscopic traffic simulator and the unity 3d game engine to evaluate v2x communication-based systems,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 12, p. 4399, 2018

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    3dcoautosim: Simulator for cooperative adas and auto- mated vehicles,

    A. Hussein, A. D ´ıaz-´Alvarez, J. M. Armingol, and C. Olaverri- Monreal, “3dcoautosim: Simulator for cooperative adas and auto- mated vehicles,” in 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 2018, pp. 3014–3019

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    3d driving simulator with vanet capabilities to assess cooperative systems: 3dsimvanet,

    F. Michaeler and C. Olaverri-Monreal, “3d driving simulator with vanet capabilities to assess cooperative systems: 3dsimvanet,” in 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2017, pp. 999–1004

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    A quantitative driver model of pre-crash brake onset and control,

    M. Sv ¨ard, G. Markkula, J. Engstr ¨om, F. Granum, and J. B ¨argman, “A quantitative driver model of pre-crash brake onset and control,” in Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol. 61, no. 1. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2017, pp. 339–343

    work page 2017