MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409233654 · doi:10.1109/tits.2025.3553077

Decision Making in Urban Traffic: A Game Theoretic Approach for Autonomous Vehicles Adhering to Traffic Rules

2025· article· en· W4409233654 on OpenAlexafffund
Keqi Shu, Minghao Ning, Ahmad Reza Alghooneh, Shen Li, Mohammad Pirani, Amir Khajepour

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGame theoryComputer scienceTransport engineeringEngineeringOperations researchMathematical economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the primary challenges in urban autonomous vehicle decision-making and planning lies in effectively managing intricate interactions with diverse traffic participants characterized by unpredictable movement patterns. Additionally, interpreting and adhering to traffic regulations within rapidly evolving traffic scenarios pose significant hurdles. This paper proposed a rule-based autonomous vehicle decision-making and planning framework which extracts right-of-way from traffic rules to generate behavioural parameters, integrating them to effectively adhere to and navigate through traffic regulations. The framework considers the strong interaction between traffic participants mathematically by formulating the decision-making and planning problem into a differential game. By finding the Nash equilibrium of the problem, the autonomous vehicle is able to find optimal decisions. The proposed framework was tested under simulation as well as full-size vehicle platform, the results show that the ego vehicle is able to safely interact with surrounding traffic participants while adhering to traffic rules.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation SystemsSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207