Evidence Tables

The canonical generated comparison is steering_model_report.pdf. It contains all 52 checkpoints, class-balanced gradient tables, confusion matrices, and per-model details. This page explains the compact metrics used to read it.

Model Families

Family Models Input Output Parameters
Series 1 20 200x66 image direct steering 672,877
Series 2 10 200x66 image direct steering 672,877
Series 3 10 320x180 image v3.0 regression; v3.1+ 19-value hybrid approximately 5.53M
Series 4.0 PC 2 image + three prior targets one 18-value horizon 5,569,186
Series 4.0 CF 2 image four 18-value horizons 5,537,560
Series 4.0 PCF 2 image + three prior targets four 18-value horizons 5,572,696
Series 4.1 PC 2 image + three prior targets one 18-value horizon 5,537,460
Series 4.1 CF 2 image four 18-value horizons 5,537,560
Series 4.1 PCF 2 image + three prior targets four 18-value horizons 5,544,480

Common Challenge Set

All 52 checkpoints are scored on the same frozen 6,952-frame subset from the Series 3/4 dataset. The evaluator applies the matching resize, model invocation, and decoder for each architecture. This reveals how early models behave on the later shadow and lighting distribution instead of comparing unrelated per-series test sets.

Primary Metrics

Metric Calculation What it reveals
Bal9 mean recall of the nine steering classes class-balanced exact steering capability
Turn exact exact-class recall across every non-ST target frame whether the model commits to the correct turn class
Turn +/-1 non-ST recall allowing one adjacent class whether turn direction/magnitude is approximately correct
ST exact recall for the 85-95 degree straight class straight preservation
MAE mean absolute steering error in degrees average numeric error, sensitive to outliers and class imbalance
Median median absolute steering error typical numeric error
Signed mean prediction minus target systematic right-positive or left-negative bias
Hold-last MAE error from repeating the previous target whether the learned model beats a temporal persistence baseline

No single column is the field verdict. Bal9 and turn metrics prevent straight-heavy data from hiding turn collapse; MAE/median expose numeric precision; signed error exposes bias; field testing exposes behavior absent from labels.

Current Baseline and Series 4.0

Model Bal9 Turn exact Turn +/-1 ST exact MAE Median Signed
v3.4 24.2% 22.6% 56.2% 64.2% 15.083 6.069 +0.418
v3.4b 22.4% 19.1% 51.2% 72.7% 13.985 2.478 -1.566
v4.0p 34.5% 32.1% 65.9% 67.7% 12.396 2.967 +0.120
v4.0r 32.9% 27.4% 62.6% 77.6% 11.636 1.846 -1.136
v4.0f 25.4% 23.5% 56.4% 62.8% 15.623 6.723 +1.057
v4.0g 20.4% 17.1% 46.4% 76.0% 14.116 2.114 -1.864
v4.0a 33.5% 30.9% 65.3% 68.1% 12.379 3.115 +0.290
v4.0c 32.0% 29.4% 62.9% 75.5% 11.321 1.825 -0.981

The table makes the tradeoff visible. v4.0p leads balanced and turn metrics; v4.0c leads raw error; v4.0r has the highest straight recall. Physical testing then contradicted the simple offline order: the PC/PCF models echoed prior predictions, while image-only v4.0f remained viable.

Field Status

Version Field evidence
v3.4 Current selection; handled every presented shadow case and tested ordinary turns on July 13, 2026
v3.4b Tested in the same comparison; slightly worse than v3.4
v3.3 Tested; worse than v3.2
v3.3b Tested; much worse than v3.2b
v4.0f Viable and complementary with v3.4; each passed two cases the other failed
v4.0g Tested; worse than v4.0f
v4.0p/r/a/c Tested; rejected for repeated prior steering predictions
v4.1p/r/f/g/a/c Offline-evaluated; live integration and field testing pending

The July 13 result is qualitative because exact route, conditions, clips, and takeover counts were not preserved.

Dataset Summary

Dataset Published size/status Main use
Series 1/2 field set 2,224 labeled images Historical direct-regression training/evaluation
CARLA set 50,000 generated images used in early work Synthetic assistance for Series 1/2 history
Series 3/4 set 81,237 real images Current Series 3 and experimental Series 4 training
Common challenge subset 6,952 anchors Cross-generation offline comparison

Evidence Matrix

Claim area Strongest evidence Remaining gap
Model architecture Trainers, ONNX contracts, parameter counts Independent reproduction
Offline capability Evaluator JSON/PDF and confusion matrices Distribution/field transfer
v3.4 field selection July 13 operator comparison Complete route, clips, and takeover record
Series 4 Training runs, models, evaluator, runtime smoke tests v4.1 integration and physical field comparison
LiDAR AEB Source and deterministic tests Preserved stopping-distance/false-trigger field test
Hardware Wiring/config, photos, bench utilities Finished matching PCB revision

Hardware BOM, failure details, and test procedures are maintained in Build Overview, Failure Records, and Field Testing instead of duplicated tables here.

See Bal9, Model Selection Rubric, and Series 4 Models.