SECRM‐2D: RL‐Based Efficient and Comfortable Route‐Following Autonomous Driving With Analytic Safety Guarantees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Over the last decade, there has been increasing interest in autonomous driving systems. Reinforcement learning (RL) shows great promise for training autonomous driving controllers, being able to directly optimize a combination of criteria such as efficiency comfort, and stability. However, RL‐based controllers typically offer no safety guarantees, making their readiness for real deployment questionable. In this paper, we propose SECRM‐2D (the safe, efficient and comfortable RL‐based driving model with lane‐changing), an RL autonomous driving controller (both longitudinal and lateral) that balances optimization of efficiency and comfort and follows a fixed route, while being subject to hard analytic safety constraints. The aforementioned safety constraints are derived from the criterion that the follower vehicle must have sufficient headway to be able to avoid a crash if the leader vehicle brakes suddenly. We evaluate SECRM‐2D against several learning and non‐learning baselines in simulated test scenarios, including freeway driving, exiting, merging, and emergency braking. Our results confirm that representative previously published RL AV controllers may crash in both training and testing, even if they are optimizing a safety objective. By contrast, our controller SECRM‐2D is successful in avoiding crashes during both training and testing, improves over the baselines in measures of efficiency and comfort, and is more faithful in following the prescribed route. In addition, we achieve a good theoretical understanding of the longitudinal steady‐state of a collection of SECRM‐2D vehicles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".