Decision-Making Strategy on Highway for Autonomous Vehicles Using Deep Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous driving is a promising technology to reduce traffic accidents and improve driving efficiency. In this work, a deep reinforcement learning (DRL)-enabled decision-making policy is constructed for autonomous vehicles to address the overtaking behaviors on the highway. First, a highway driving environment is founded, wherein the ego vehicle aims to pass through the surrounding vehicles with an efficient and safe maneuver. A hierarchical control framework is presented to control these vehicles, which indicates the upper-level manages the driving decisions, and the lower-level cares about the supervision of vehicle speed and acceleration. Then, the particular DRL method named dueling deep Q-network (DDQN) algorithm is applied to derive the highway decision-making strategy. The exhaustive calculative procedures of deep Q-network and DDQN algorithms are discussed and compared. Finally, a series of estimation simulation experiments are conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed highway decision-making policy. The advantages of the proposed framework in convergence rate and control performance are illuminated. Simulation results reveal that the DDQN-based overtaking policy could accomplish highway driving tasks efficiently and safely.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".