Game-Theory in Practice: Application to Motion Planning and Decision Making in an Autonomous Shuttle Bus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous techniques are becoming increasingly integrated into our daily lives. Many advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), including functions like lane-keeping assist and car following, are already implemented in vehicles for controlled environments such as highways. However, to enhance the capabilities of current ADAS, it is essential to extend their application to more general scenarios, like urban driving. Urban environments pose considerable challenges due to the high density of traffic participants, including pedestrians and cyclists, whose behaviors are unpredictable and necessitate strong interactions with self-driving vehicles. Addressing these complex interactions through real-time decision-making is particularly challenging but crucial for effective operation in real-world urban settings. This paper aims to bring the decision-making process of autonomous driving techniques closer to real life by proposing a motion planning and decision-making framework that utilizes game theory to formulate and consider strong interactions. Additionally, we introduce a human-like attention-based traffic actor filter to enable the autonomous vehicle to focus on critical traffic participants with a higher risk of collision. The framework is tested in both simulation and real-world scenarios, demonstrating that the algorithm can make safe and efficient decisions under various traffic scenarios involving multiple types of traffic participants in real time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".