Motion Planning for Autonomous Driving in Unsignalized Intersections Using Combined Multi-Modal GNN Predictor and MPC Planner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an interaction-aware motion planning framework that integrates a graph neural network (GNN) based multi-modal trajectory predictor with a model predictive control (MPC) based planner. Unlike past studies that predict a single future trajectory per agent, our algorithm outputs three distinct trajectories for each surrounding road user, capturing different interaction scenarios (e.g., yielding, non-yielding, and aggressive driving behaviors). We design a GNN-based predictor with bi-directional gated recurrent unit (Bi-GRU) encoders for agent histories, VectorNet-based lane encoding for map context, an interaction-aware attention mechanism, and multi-head decoders to predict trajectories for each mode. The MPC-based planner employs a bicycle model and solves a constrained optimal control problem using CasADi and IPOPT (Interior Point OPTimizer). All three predicted trajectories per agent are fed to the planner; the primary prediction is thus enforced as a hard safety constraint, while the alternative trajectories are treated as soft constraints via penalty slack variables. The designed motion planning algorithm is examined in real-world intersection scenarios from the INTERACTION dataset. Results show that the multi-modal trajectory predictor covers possible interaction outcomes, and the planner produces smoother and safer trajectories compared to a single-trajectory baseline. In high-conflict situations, the multi-modal trajectory predictor anticipates potential aggressive behaviors of other drivers, reducing harsh braking and maintaining safe distances. The innovative method by integrating the GNN-based multi-modal trajectory predictor with the MPC-based planner is the backbone of the effective motion planning algorithm for robust, safe, and comfortable autonomous driving in complex intersections.
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 | 0.000 | 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".