Evaluating Rule-Based and AI-based approaches for

real-time decision-making in Autonomous Vehicles

1st Ngo Minh Tien Dat, 2nd Dang Bach Tung, 3rd Pham Tuong Han,
4th Vo Nguyen Kieus My
FPT University, Ho Chi Minh Campus, Vietnam
{TienDatNM, TungDB, HanPT, MyVNK}@[Link]
Abstract
In autonomous vehicle (AV) operations, real-time decision-making is a key factor to ensure safety during travel. There are two
popular approaches to decision-making systems: rule-based, which is interpretable and accurate but limited in generalization; and
AI-based, which generalizes better and provides flexibility in complex environments but requires high computational resources.
Current research largely focuses on advancing one approach in isolation, with limited direct comparisons between the two, and
hybrid solutions remain underexplored without comprehensive benchmarks. To address this gap, this study employs a Systematic
Literature Review (SLR) to synthesize and analyze recent academic work on AV decision-making. The selected studies come
from reputable academic sources and are classified into two main groups: (1) real-time decision-making mechanisms, and (2)
practical problems where both approaches are used. This research aims to clarify the fundamental differences between rule-based
and AI-based methods, highlight their respective strengths and limitations, and provide insights for selecting appropriate strategies
in real-world AV deployment.
Keywords—rule-based, AI-based, autonomous vehicles, decision-making, real-time
I. Introduction
Real-time decision-making is a critical component of autonomous vehicle (AV) operations to ensure safety and efficiency.
Traditional rule-based approaches have been widely used in the behavioral planning layer, offering transparency and alignment
with traffic laws. However, these systems lack flexibility in adapting to dynamic traffic environments [1]–[3]. To address this
limitation, AI-based approaches such as Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL), Large Language Models (LLMs), and Edge
AI have been introduced, enabling self-learning, adaptability, and improved performance under adverse weather conditions
[4]–[6].
In Vietnam, research has focused on operational challenges in local traffic contexts characterized by high mixed-vehicle
density, dominance of motorbikes, complex signposts, and uneven lanes. Hybrid architectures that combine deep learning models
with traditional control algorithms are emerging as a promising direction. However, systematic publications and real-world
experiments on such hybrid approaches remain limited [2], [5], [7].
In practice, rule-based algorithms have been applied in Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), such as Automated
Emergency Braking (AEB) at Level 2 and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) at Level 1 [1]. At higher autonomy levels, decision-
making systems increasingly rely on AI-based models. A notable example is Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD v12), which
eliminates hard-coded rules and instead employs an end-to-end neural network [8].
These observations highlight a critical research gap: although rule-based and AI-based approaches have been widely
investigated, direct comparisons between them in real-time autonomous vehicle decision-making remain limited. In particular,
existing studies often evaluate different methods, scenarios, and performance criteria, making it difficult to determine the
conditions in which each approach is most appropriate. Therefore, this study aims to provide a structured comparison of
rule-based and AI-based approaches based on their responsiveness, safety, adaptability, transparency, and computational
requirements.
Accordingly, this study addresses the following research question:
RQ: How do rule-based and AI-based approaches compare in terms of responsiveness, safety, adaptability, transparency,
and computational requirements in real-time autonomous vehicle decision-making?
II. Related Works

Fig. 1. Decision-making architecture of an autonomous vehicle with rule-based and AI-based planning.
A. Rule-based Decision-making
Rule-based approaches rely on finite sets of traffic situations and corresponding actions, often modeled as state machines.
They are transparent, easy to implement, and closely follow traffic laws [1]. In Vietnam, Nguyen et al. introduced Vi-DiSC,
a framework that uses rule-based logic to extract and interpret information from Vietnamese signposts [3]. Similarly, Tiến
and Hương applied deep learning for lane detection in self-driving systems [5], while Quang and Hiền evaluated scheduling
algorithms such as A*, Dijkstra, and EBAND for autonomous navigation [7]. Pham et al. also proposed multi-sensor fusion
combined with rule-based decision-making for navigation in mixed urban traffic [2]. The main limitation of rule-based systems
is their inability to handle situations outside predefined rules, reducing adaptability in dynamic environments.
B. AI-based Decision-Making
AI-based approaches leverage machine learning models to improve adaptability. Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL)
has been applied to freeway decision-making, showing the ability to learn safe and efficient strategies but requiring large
computational resources [1]. To enhance learning efficiency, Pang et al. proposed combining DRL with Large Language
Models (LLMs), reducing reliance on human expert guidance but facing high inference costs [4]. Edge AI has also been
explored to process data locally, reducing latency and improving performance in adverse weather conditions [6].
C. Comparison and Research Gap
Surveys such as Paden et al. [8] show the evolution from modular rule-based systems to end-to-end AI-based architectures.
In summary:
• Rule-based: transparent, easy to verify, suitable for traffic laws, but lacks adaptability.
• AI-based: strong in learning and handling complex environments, but costly and less transparent.
• Hybrid approaches: combining both methods has been suggested, especially in Vietnam, but systematic studies and
benchmarks for real-time decision-making are still missing.
To provide a clearer overview of the approaches, Table I summarizes the eight selected studies, categorized by method,
focus, result, and limitation.

TABLE I
Summary of selected studies on rule-based and AI-based decision-making in autonomous vehicles

Reference Approach Focus Result Limitation

Liu, 2024 [1] AI-based DRL for freeway Achieved safe and efficient driving High computation cost
driving strategies in freeway scenarios
Pang et al., 2024 AI-based DRL + LLM for Reduced reliance on human expert Slow inference, costly
[4] decision-making guidance during training
Tiến & Hương, AI-based Deep learning for lane Detected lanes effectively in mixed Accuracy depends on
2025 [5] detection traffic conditions training data
Quang & Hiền, Rule-based Scheduling algorithms Provided fast and transparent path Limited in dynamic traffic
2023 [7] (A*, Dijkstra, planning
EBAND)
Pham et al., Hybrid Multi-sensor fusion in Demonstrated promising adaptability Real-world testing limited
2025 [2] Vietnam traffic in mixed traffic
Nguyen et al., Rule-based Vi-DiSC traffic sign Achieved high accuracy in Struggles with unexpected
2023 [3] recognition Vietnamese traffic sign recognition cases
Rahmati, 2025 AI-based Edge AI under Lowered latency and improved Still slower than rule-based
[6] adverse weather safety under adverse weather
Paden et al., Rule-based Survey of motion Confirmed fast, interpretable, and Poor adaptability in
2016 [8] planning verifiable decision-making complex scenarios
(FSM/HFSM)

III. Methodology
This study adopts a scoped, PRISMA-informed literature review to compare rule-based and AI-based approaches in real-
time autonomous vehicle decision-making. The review process began with the definition of the research question, followed by
keyword-based searches in selected academic databases. The identified studies were screened based on their titles, abstracts,
and full-text relevance to the research topic. Duplicate records and studies that did not directly address autonomous vehicle
decision-making were excluded.
Studies were included if they examined rule-based, AI-based, or hybrid decision-making approaches and provided an applied
method, evaluation, or relevant findings. After the screening and eligibility assessment, eight studies were selected for the final
synthesis. These studies were categorized into rule-based, AI-based, and hybrid approaches rather than by domestic or overseas
origin.
 Data were extracted from each study, including the proposed method, application scenario, main findings, and reported
limitations. The selected studies were then compared according to five criteria: responsiveness, safety, adaptability, transparency,
and computational requirements. Because the studies used different datasets, scenarios, and evaluation metrics, the findings were
synthesized mainly through qualitative comparison rather than direct statistical analysis. The overall study-selection process is
illustrated in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Research methodology based on keyword search and relevance to the research question (RQ).

IV. Comparative Analysis

A. Comparison of Decision-Making Mechanisms
Rule-based decision-making converts sensor data into predefined traffic states and then matches them with a set of rules to
generate actions such as lane keeping, lane changing, or stopping. Models like FSM and HFSM allow the system to respond
quickly, remain transparent, and be easy to verify [8]. For example, algorithms such as A*, Dijkstra, and EBAND have been
applied to find the shortest route [7], while the Vi-DiSC study shows that rule-based captioning can recognize Vietnamese
traffic signs with high accuracy [3]. However, rule-based methods struggle to handle complex or unexpected situations.
AI-based decision-making replaces fixed rules with machine learning models, representing the environment state and inferring
control policies. Methods such as DRL and LLM-assisted policy enable vehicles to learn driving strategies from data and adapt
better in dynamic environments [1], [4]. Nevertheless, they require significant computational resources, have higher latency,
and are less transparent. For instance, DRL freeway achieves strong performance but at high cost [1], while DRL+LLM reduces
the need for human experts but still suffers from slow inference [4].
In the Vietnamese context, studies on lane detection using deep learning [5] and multi-sensor fusion [2] demonstrate the
potential of AI-based approaches in mixed traffic, though real-world testing remains limited. Conversely, rule-based methods
continue to be effective in tasks with clear rules, such as traffic sign recognition [3].
B. Comparison of Operational Performance
Latency: Rule-based systems show lower latency because they only match the current state with predefined rules. Their
structure is simple and requires fewer processing steps. In contrast, AI-based systems need to perform several operations such
as feature extraction and policy inference, which makes them slower. Edge AI can reduce latency, but it still cannot reach the
speed of rule-based approaches [1], [4], [6].
Safety: Rule-based systems are safe in environments with clear traffic rules (for example, lane keeping or traffic sign
recognition). However, they may fail when facing unexpected situations or cases not included in the rule set [3]. AI-based
systems can learn to avoid collisions in dynamic environments and adapt better under adverse weather conditions, but they
are less transparent and harder to certify legally [1], [6].
Accuracy: Rule-based systems achieve high accuracy in scenarios with well-defined rules, such as Vi-DiSC’s recognition
of Vietnamese traffic signs [3]. Yet they are limited when applied to more complex situations. AI-based systems have stronger
generalization ability and can handle diverse scenarios, but their accuracy depends on training data and may drop in new or
noisy environments [2], [4], [5].
C. Comparison in Practical Driving Scenarios

TABLE II
Comparison in practical driving scenarios

Scenario Rule-based AI-based

Freeway FSM/HFSM allow fast DRL learns safe,
driving reactions, keeping or efficient strategies in
changing lanes high-speed
according to environments, adapts
predefined rules. better but needs
Effective in moderate significant
traffic density [8]. computation [1].
Intersections Difficult to handle DRL and
/ Round- complex situations, LLM-assisted policy
abouts often fails when many manage complex
vehicles compete for scenarios, but latency
space or behave is high and
unpredictably. transparency is
limited [4].
Mixed Effective in traffic sign Lane detection [5]
traffic in recognition and route and multi-sensor
Vietnam planning [3], [7], but fusion [2] show
struggles with potential, though
motorbike-dominated real-world testing is
traffic. limited.
Adverse Easily affected by Edge AI processes
weather noisy sensor data, data locally, lowering
reducing accuracy. latency and collision
rates [6].

V. Results and Discussion

A. Prototype Implementation
The studies analyzed include two approaches:
Rule-based: FSM/HFSM [8], path planning algorithms such as A*, Dijkstra, EBAND [7], and the Vi-DiSC traffic sign
recognition system [3].
AI-based: DRL freeway [1], DRL+LLM [4], lane detection using deep learning [5], multi-sensor fusion in mixed traffic
[2], and Edge AI under adverse weather conditions [6].
B. Results
Overall, the synthesis of the eight selected studies reveals a clear trend: rule-based approaches consistently outperform AI-
based methods in latency and transparency, while AI-based approaches excel in adaptability and generalization. Quantitatively,
rule-based algorithms, such as Dijkstra’s and A*, demonstrate consistent low-latency performance, maintaining response times
below 50 ms [7]. By contrast, AI-based approaches—particularly DRL-LLM hybrid models like LGDRL—significantly enhance
efficiency, achieving decision-making within roughly 0.01 s [8]. Furthermore, deployment architecture critically impacts speed:
Cloud AI exhibits a latency of 240–310 ms, whereas Edge AI operates at just 45–55 ms, representing a nearly fivefold
improvement [6].
In simulation environments, the A*, Dijkstra, and EBAND algorithms all exhibit good collision avoidance, with EBAND
additionally calculating the vehicle’s occupied space [7]. For scenarios with clear regulations, the rule-based approach ensures
good safety but is prone to failure when encountering unexpected situations outside its rule set [3]. Conversely, the AI-based
approach handles complex traffic and adverse weather conditions well. Specifically, the model combining DRL with LLM
achieves a collision rate of only 10%, significantly lower than that of conventional DRL algorithms (over 26%) [4]. Notably,
shifting from Cloud AI to Edge AI reduces the collision rate from 12.3% to 5.7% under extreme weather conditions [6].
The two approaches exhibit a sharp contrast in their accuracy strengths, highly depending on the specific nature of the task
[3], [4]. While AI-based methods dominate in dynamic decision-making—demonstrated by the LGDRL model achieving a
success rate of up to 90% in complex lane-changing scenarios [4]—rule-based approaches excel in processing rule-rich tasks
with fixed logic [3]. Specifically, for signpost recognition, the rule-based model achieves an accuracy of 89.25%, which is
2.5 times higher than that of deep-learning architectures such as CNN-Transformer (34.10%) and Transformer-Transformer
(38.35%) [3].
C. Discussion
The comparison of rule-based and AI-based approaches shows that each has clear advantages and limitations. Rule-based
methods, such as FSM/HFSM [8], classical path planning algorithms [7], and Vi-DiSC traffic sign recognition [3], provide fast
responses, transparency, and high accuracy in environments with clear rules. Yet they struggle in complex or unpredictable
traffic situations. AI-based approaches, including DRL freeway [1], DRL+LLM [4], lane detection [5], multi-sensor fusion [2],
and Edge AI [6], demonstrate stronger adaptability and generalization, allowing vehicles to learn strategies directly from data
and perform better in dynamic conditions. However, they require greater computational resources, introduce higher latency, and
remain less transparent, which complicates safety certification. In Vietnam’s mixed traffic, hybrid solutions such as multi-sensor
fusion [2] appear promising, combining rule-based clarity with AI-based learning.
VI. Conclusion
This study, based on eight papers, highlights the differences between rule-based and AI-based decision-making in autonomous
vehicles. Rule-based systems excel in low latency, transparency, and accuracy in structured environments [3], [7], [8], while
AI-based systems are superior in adaptability and generalization, as shown in DRL freeway [1], DRL+LLM [4], lane detection
[5], and Edge AI [6]. Yet AI-based methods face challenges of computation cost, latency, and certification. In Vietnam’s traffic
context, multi-sensor fusion [2] offers a promising path forward, combining the strengths of both approaches. Overall, the
findings confirm that rule-based and AI-based systems differ significantly in mechanism and performance, and hybrid models
may provide the most effective solution for real-time autonomous driving.

This study is limited by the small number of selected papers and the absence of real-world validation. In the future, our
group can expand the scope of the literature review with more sources and design evaluation criteria tailored to Vietnam’s
traffic conditions to strengthen the practical relevance of the analysis.
References
[1] T. Liu, Y. Yang, W. Xiao, X. Tang, and M. Yin, “A comparative analysis of deep reinforcement learning-enabled freeway decision-making for automated
vehicles,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 24 090–24 103, 2024.
[2] L. T. Pham, H. M. Le, and T. N. Do, “Integration of multi-sensor fusion and decision-making architecture for autonomous vehicle navigation apply in
vietnam traffic conditions,” Preprints, 2025, art. no. 202408.0123.
[3] T. M. Nguyen, H. V. Tran, and Q. T. Nguyen, “Vi-disc: A novel dataset and framework for extracting information from vietnamese signposts images,”
in Proc. Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Image Processing, 2023, pp. 112–125.
[4] H. Pang, Z. Wang, and G. Li, “Large language model guided deep reinforcement learning for decision making in autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:2412.18511, 2024, available: [Link]
[5] L. Q. Tiến and T. T. Hương, “Research on applying deep learning networks in lane detection for self-driving vehicle systems,” Journal of Maritime
Science and Technology, no. 82, pp. 196–203, apr 2025, available: [Link]
[6] M. Rahmati, “Edge ai-powered real-time decision-making for autonomous vehicles in adverse weather conditions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09638,
2025.
[7] N. V. A. Quang and Đ. Q. Hiền, “Implement performance evaluation for scheduling algorithms used in autonomous driving vehicles,” University of
Danang, Tech. Rep. ĐHVH-2022-13, may 2023.
[8] B. Paden, M. Čáp, S. Z. Yong, D. Yershov, and E. Frazzoli, “A survey of motion planning and control techniques for self-driving urban vehicles,” IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 33–55, 2016.