Decision-Making for Autonomous Vehicles in Random Task Scenarios at Unsignalized Intersection Using Deep Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study constructs a decision-making control framework for autonomous ego vehicles (AEV) based on Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) in a random driving task scenario at an unsignalized intersection. The environment vehicles include both AEV and surrounding vehicles, and the three driving tasks through unsignalized intersections are going straight, left turn, and right turn. Since the driving tasks of AEV and surrounding vehicles are random, the environment is characterized by high uncertainty and difficulty. There are three innovative points in this paper. First, this paper proposes a new Mix-Attention Network based on the attention mechanism. Second, this paper improves the state by introducing a new input quantity to represent the driving task of the vehicle itself. Third, this paper has been enhanced in replay buffer, using more collision and arrival experiences to train the neural network. In this paper, the performance of the original and improved models is evaluated in terms of safety and efficiency. The simulation results show that all three proposed improvement methods can improve performance and achieve better results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".