Motion Planning for Autonomous Vehicles in the Presence of Uncertainty Using Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motion planning under uncertainty is one of the main challenges in developing autonomous driving vehicles. In this work, we focus on the uncertainty in sensing and perception, resulted from a limited field of view, occlusions, and sensing range. This problem is often tackled by considering hypothetical hidden objects in occluded areas or beyond the sensing range to guarantee passive safety. However, this may result in conservative planning and expensive computation, particularly when numerous hypothetical objects need to be considered. We propose a reinforcement learning (RL) based solution to manage uncertainty by optimizing for the worst case outcome. This approach is in contrast to traditional RL, where the agents try to maximize the average expected reward. The proposed approach is built on top of the Distributional RL with its policy optimization maximizing the stochastic outcomes’ lower bound. This modification can be applied to a range of RL algorithms. As a proof-of-concept, the approach is applied to two different RL algorithms, Soft Actor-Critic and DQN. The approach is evaluated against two challenging scenarios of pedestrians crossing with occlusion and curved roads with a limited field of view. The algorithm is trained and evaluated using the SUMO traffic simulator. The proposed approach yields much better motion planning behavior compared to conventional RL algorithms and behaves comparably to humans driving style.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".