Unsupervised Driving Situation Detection in Latent Space for Autonomous Cars
Source abstract
Abstract
A policy determines the action that an autonomous car needs to take according to its current situation. For example, the car keeps itself on track or overtakes another car, among other policies. Some autonomous cars could need more than one policy to drive appropriately. In those systems, the behavior selector subsystem selects the policy that the car needs to follow. However, in the current literature, there is not a unified way to create these policies. In most cases, the amount and definition of the policies are hand-engineering using the information taken from observations and the knowledge of the engineers. That paradigm requires a lot of human effort. Additionally, there is human subjectivity due to the hand labeling. Furthermore, the experts could not agree about the number of existing situations and the boundaries between policies (the point at which one situation turns into another). To deal with the subjectivity of setting the number and definition of policies, we propose a novel approach that uses the “divide and conquer” paradigm. This method first, sets the number of required policies by clustering previous observations into situations, and second, it configures a regression-based policy for each situation. As a result, (i) the method can detect driving situations from raw data automatically using unsupervised algorithms, helping to avoid the hand-engineering made by an expert, and (ii) the method creates relatively small and efficient policies without human intervention using behavioral cloning. To validate the method, we have collected a custom dataset in simulation and we have conducted several experiments comparing the performance of our proposal versus two state-of-the-art end-to-end methods. Our results show that our method outperforms the end-to-end approaches in terms of a bigger R square metric (0.19 over the tested methods) and a lower mean squared error (0.48 below the tested methods).
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety · Advanced Neural Network Applications · Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Centro de Innovación y Desarrollo Tecnológico en Cómputo (CIDETEC), Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), Mexico City 07700, Mexico
Gus Chat, Mexico City 06600, Mexico
Funding
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. Van, N.D., Sualeh, M., Kim, D., and Kim, G.W. (2020). A hierarchical control system for autonomous driving towards urban challenges. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10103543 ↗
2. Self-driving cars: A survey10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113816 ↗
3. Buehler, M., Iagnemma, K., and Singh, S. (2009). The DARPA Urban Challenge: Autonomous Vehicles in City Traffic, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-03991-1 ↗
4. Development of autonomous car—Part II: A case study on the implementation of an autonomous driving system based on distributed architecture10.1109/TIE.2015.2410258 ↗
5. Multipolicy decision-making for autonomous driving via changepoint-based behavior prediction: Theory and experiment10.1007/s10514-017-9619-z ↗
6. DESPOT: Online POMDP planning with regularization
7. Bandyopadhyay, T., Won, K.S., Frazzoli, E., Hsu, D., Lee, W.S., and Rus, D. (2013). Intention-aware motion planning. Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics X, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-36279-8_29 ↗
8. Brechtel, S., Gindele, T., and Dillmann, R. (2014, January 8–11). Probabilistic decision-making under uncertainty for autonomous driving using continuous POMDPs. Proceedings of the 17th international IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Qingdao, China.10.1109/ITSC.2014.6957722 ↗
9. Deep learning10.1038/nature14539 ↗
10. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., and Courville, A. (2016). Deep Learning, MIT Press.
11. Rodríguez-Hernandez, E., Vasquez-Gomez, J.I., and Herrera-Lozada, J.C. (2019, January 11–14). Flying through gates using a behavioral cloning approach. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Atlanta, GA, USA.10.1109/ICUAS.2019.8798172 ↗
12. Farag, W., and Saleh, Z. (2018, January 18–20). Behavior cloning for autonomous driving using convolutional neural networks. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Innovation and Intelligence for Informatics, Computing, and Technologies (3ICT), Sakhier, Bahrain.10.1109/3ICT.2018.8855753 ↗
13. Learning to drive by imitation: An overview of deep behavior cloning methods10.1109/TIV.2020.3002505 ↗
14. Sharma, S., Tewolde, G., and Kwon, J. (2018, January 3–5). Behavioral cloning for lateral motion control of autonomous vehicles using deep learning. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Electro/Information Technology (EIT), Rochester, MI, USA.10.1109/EIT.2018.8500102 ↗
15. Chen, C., Seff, A., Kornhauser, A., and Xiao, J. (2015, January 7–13). Deepdriving: Learning affordance for direct perception in autonomous driving. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Santiago, Chile.10.1109/ICCV.2015.312 ↗
16. A fast accurate fine-grain object detection model based on YOLOv4 deep neural network10.1007/s00521-021-06651-x ↗
17. Real-time growth stage detection model for high degree of occultation using DenseNet-fused YOLOv410.1016/j.compag.2022.106694 ↗
18. Challenges in perception and decision making for intelligent automotive vehicles: A case study10.1109/TIV.2016.2551545 ↗
19. Mihály, A., Farkas, Z., and Gáspár, P. (2020). Multicriteria Autonomous Vehicle Control at Non-Signalized Intersections. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10207161 ↗
20. Experience, results and lessons learned from automated driving on Germany’s highways10.1109/MITS.2014.2360306 ↗
21. Burgard, W., Fox, D., and Thrun, S. (2005). Probabilistic Robotics, MIT Press.
22. Ulbrich, S., and Maurer, M. (2013, January 6–9). Probabilistic online POMDP decision making for lane changes in fully automated driving. Proceedings of the 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2013), The Hague, The Netherlands.10.1109/ITSC.2013.6728533 ↗
23. Zhou, Z., Zhong, Y., Liu, X., Li, Q., and Han, S. (2020). DC-MMD-GAN: A New Maximum Mean Discrepancy Generative Adversarial Network Using Divide and Conquer. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10186405 ↗
24. Ratner, E., Hadfield-Menell, D., and Dragan, A.D. (2018). Simplifying reward design through divide-and-conquer. arXiv.10.15607/RSS.2018.XIV.048 ↗
25. Wang, L., Zhang, J., Wang, O., Lin, Z., and Lu, H. (2020, January 13–19). Sdc-depth: Semantic divide-and-conquer network for monocular depth estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Seattle, WA, USA.10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.00062 ↗
26. Kim, J., Moon, J., Ryu, J., and Lee, G. (2021). Bioinspired Divide-and-Conquer Design Methodology for a Multifunctional Contour of a Curved Lever. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11136015 ↗
27. Convergence results for single-step on-policy reinforcement-learning algorithms10.1023/A:1007678930559 ↗
28. Munos, R., Stepleton, T., Harutyunyan, A., and Bellemare, M.G. (2016). Safe and efficient off-policy reinforcement learning. arXiv.
29. Satopaa, V., Albrecht, J., Irwin, D., and Raghavan, B. (2011, January 20–24). Finding a “kneedle” in a haystack: Detecting knee points in system behavior. Proceedings of the 2011 31st International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, Minneapolis, MN, USA.10.1109/ICDCSW.2011.20 ↗
30. Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7 ↗
31. Wymann, B., Espié, E., Guionneau, C., Dimitrakakis, C., Coulom, R., and Sumner, A. (2022, February 04). Torcs, the Open Racing Car Simulator. Software. Available online: http://torcs.sourceforge.net.
32. Koubâa, A. (2017). Robot Operating System (ROS), Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-54927-9 ↗
33. Xie, P., Deng, Y., Zhou, Y., Kumar, A., Yu, Y., Zou, J., and Xing, E.P. (2017, January 6–11). Learning latent space models with angular constraints. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, Sunday, August.
34. Yaguchi, Y., Shiratani, F., and Iwaki, H. (2019, January 6–9). Mixfeat: Mix feature in latent space learns discriminative space. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, New Orleans, LA, USA.
35. Genetic k-means clustering approach for mapping human vulnerability to chemical hazards in the industrialized city: A case study of Shanghai, China10.3390/ijerph10062578 ↗
36. Bojarski, M., Del Testa, D., Dworakowski, D., Firner, B., Flepp, B., Goyal, P., Jackel, L.D., Monfort, M., Muller, U., and Zhang, J. (2016). End to end learning for self-driving cars. arXiv.
37. Walpole, R.E., Myers, R.H., Myers, S.L., and Ye, K. (1993). Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, Macmillan.