MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214496626 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2022.3151651

Highway Decision-Making and Motion Planning for Autonomous Driving via Soft Actor-Critic

2022· article· en· W4214496626 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaolin Tang, Bing Huang, Teng Liu, Xianke Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNatural Science Foundation of ChongqingNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsReinforcement learningMotion planningCruise controlAction (physics)EngineeringOptimal controlMotion (physics)Controller (irrigation)Vehicle dynamicsControl (management)Computer scienceSimulationControl engineeringArtificial intelligenceAutomotive engineeringRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, a decision-making and motion planning controller with continuous action space is constructed in the highway driving scenario based on deep reinforcement learning. In the decision-making and planning problem, the goal is to achieve the safety, efficiency, and comfort of automated vehicles. In the driving scenario, the surrounding vehicles are controlled by the intelligent driver model and a general model (minimizing overall braking induced by lane change, MOBIL), which enables them to react to the environment and mimic the vehicle interactions on the highway. Given the uncertainties in the driving conditions, a specific deep reinforcement learning technique, called soft actor-critic, is used to solve the decision-making and planning problem with continuous action space. Simulation results show that the proposed method can solve the decision-making and motion planning problem in the interactive traffic environment to carry out safe lane-change maneuvers and cruise at high speed. In addition, two control policies are developed with different weights on safety, efficiency, and comfort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations130
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207