Uncertainty-Aware Decision-Making for Autonomous Driving at Uncontrolled Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforcement learning (RL) has been widely used in the decision-making of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in recent studies. However, existing RL methods generally find the optimal policy by maximizing the expectation of future returns, which lacks distributional treatments of risky situations. Additionally, various uncertainties arising from the environment could also cause unreliable decisions, particularly in some complex urban environments. In this paper, the fully parameterized quantile network (FPQN) is utilized to estimate the full return distribution. Then, the conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) is utilized with the return distribution information to generate uncertainty-aware driving behavior. Additionally, an uncontrolled four-way intersection is developed by the Simulation of Urban Mobility (SUMO) simulation platform, which considers both the surrounding vehicles (SVs) and pedestrians. More specifically, to simulate the real-world traffic environment, the uncertainty arising from the occlusion, and the behavior uncertainty of surrounding traffic participants are also considered. The experiment results suggest that the proposed method outperforms the baseline methods in terms of safety. Furthermore, the results also indicate that the proposed method can make reasonable decisions in some challenging driving cases in the presence of uncertainty.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".