Toward a More Complete, Flexible, and Safer Speed Planning for Autonomous Driving via Convex Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a complete, flexible and safe convex-optimization-based method to solve speed planning problems over a fixed path for autonomous driving in both static and dynamic environments. Our contributions are five fold. First, we summarize the most common constraints raised in various autonomous driving scenarios as the requirements for speed planner developments and metrics to measure the capacity of existing speed planners roughly for autonomous driving. Second, we introduce a more general, flexible and complete speed planning mathematical model including all the summarized constraints compared to the state-of-the-art speed planners, which addresses limitations of existing methods and is able to provide smooth, safety-guaranteed, dynamic-feasible, and time-efficient speed profiles. Third, we emphasize comfort while guaranteeing fundamental motion safety without sacrificing the mobility of cars by treating the comfort box constraint as a semi-hard constraint in optimization via slack variables and penalty functions, which distinguishes our method from existing ones. Fourth, we demonstrate that our problem preserves convexity with the added constraints, thus global optimality of solutions is guaranteed. Fifth, we showcase how our formulation can be used in various autonomous driving scenarios by providing several challenging case studies in both static and dynamic environments. A range of numerical experiments and challenging realistic speed planning case studies have depicted that the proposed method outperforms existing speed planners for autonomous driving in terms of constraint type covered, optimality, safety, mobility and flexibility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".