MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200400844 · doi:10.32920/17313137

Safe Driving Of Autonomous Vehicles Through Improved Deep Reinforcement Learning

2021· preprint· en· W4200400844 on OpenAlexaff
Abhishek Gupta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceObstacleTrainObstacle avoidancePerceptionTrajectoryAction (physics)Object (grammar)RobotMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, we propose an environment perception framework for autonomous driving using deep reinforcement learning (DRL) that exhibits learning in autonomous vehicles under complex interactions with the environment, without being explicitly trained on driving datasets. Unlike existing techniques, our proposed technique takes the learning loss into account under deterministic as well as stochastic policy gradient. We apply DRL to object detection and safe navigation while enhancing a self-driving vehicle’s ability to discern meaningful information from surrounding data. For efficient environmental perception and object detection, various Q-learning based methods have been proposed in the literature. Unlike other works, this thesis proposes a collaborative deterministic as well as stochastic policy gradient based on DRL. Our technique is a combination of variational autoencoder (VAE), deep deterministic policy gradient (DDPG), and soft actor-critic (SAC) that adequately trains a self-driving vehicle. In this work, we focus on uninterrupted and reasonably safe autonomous driving without colliding with an obstacle or steering off the track. We propose a collaborative framework that utilizes best features of VAE, DDPG, and SAC and models autonomous driving as partly stochastic and partly deterministic policy gradient problem in continuous action space, and continuous state space. To ensure that the vehicle traverses the road over a considerable period of time, we employ a reward-penalty based system where a higher negative penalty is associated with an unfavourable action and a comparatively lower positive reward is awarded for favourable actions. We also examine the variations in policy loss, value loss, reward function, and cumulative reward for ‘VAE+DDPG’ and ‘VAE+SAC’ over the learning process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207