Learning a Lattice Planner Control Set for Autonomous Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a method to compute a sparse lattice planner control set that is suited to a particular task by learning from a representative dataset of vehicle paths. To do this, we use a scoring measure similar to the Fréchet distance and propose an algorithm for evaluating a given control set according to the scoring measure. Control actions are then selected from a dense control set according to an objective function that rewards improvements in matching the dataset while also encouraging sparsity. This method is evaluated across several experiments involving real and synthetic datasets, and it is shown to generate smaller control sets when compared to the previous state-of-the-art lattice control set computation technique, with these smaller control sets maintaining a high degree of manoeuvrability in the required task. This results in a planning time speedup of up to 4.31x when using the learned control set over the state-of-the-art computed control set. In addition, we show the learned control sets are better able to capture the driving style of the dataset in terms of path curvature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".