Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
119 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

RACP: Risk-Aware Contingency Planning with Multi-Modal Predictions (2402.17387v2)

Published 27 Feb 2024 in cs.RO

Abstract: For an autonomous vehicle to operate reliably within real-world traffic scenarios, it is imperative to assess the repercussions of its prospective actions by anticipating the uncertain intentions exhibited by other participants in the traffic environment. Driven by the pronounced multi-modal nature of human driving behavior, this paper presents an approach that leverages Bayesian beliefs over the distribution of potential policies of other road users to construct a novel risk-aware probabilistic motion planning framework. In particular, we propose a novel contingency planner that outputs long-term contingent plans conditioned on multiple possible intents for other actors in the traffic scene. The Bayesian belief is incorporated into the optimization cost function to influence the behavior of the short-term plan based on the likelihood of other agents' policies. Furthermore, a probabilistic risk metric is employed to fine-tune the balance between efficiency and robustness. Through a series of closed-loop safety-critical simulated traffic scenarios shared with human-driven vehicles, we demonstrate the practical efficacy of our proposed approach that can handle multi-vehicle scenarios.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (64)
  1. T. Salzmann, B. Ivanovic, P. Chakravarty, and M. Pavone, “Trajectron++: Dynamically-feasible trajectory forecasting with heterogeneous data,” in European Conference on Computer Vision., 2020, pp. 683–700.
  2. N. Rhinehart, R. McAllister, K. Kitani, and S. Levine, “Precog: Prediction conditioned on goals in visual multi-agent settings,” in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision., 2019, pp. 2821–2830.
  3. S. Casas, C. Gulino, S. Suo, K. Luo, R. Liao, and R. Urtasun, “Implicit latent variable model for scene-consistent motion forecasting,” in European Conference on Computer Vision., 2020, pp. 624–641.
  4. Y. Chen, B. Ivanovic, and M. Pavone, “Scept: Scene-consistent, policy-based trajectory predictions for planning,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition., 2022, pp. 17103–17112.
  5. A. Ben-Tal, and A. Nemirovski, “Robust convex optimisation,” in Mathematics of Operations Research., 1998, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 769–805.
  6. P. Trautman, and A. Krause, “Unfreezing the robot: Navigation in dense, interacting crowd,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems., 2010, pp. 797–803.
  7. A. Mesbah, “Stochastic model predictive control: An overview and perspectives for future research,” in IEEE Control Systems Magazine., 2016, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 30–44.
  8. H. Zhu, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Chance-constrained collision avoidance for Mavs in dynamic environments,” in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters., 2019, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 776–783.
  9. A. Wange, A. Jasour, and B. Williams, “Non-gaussian chance- constrained trajectory planning for autonomous vehicles under agent uncertainty,” in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters., 2020, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 6041–6048.
  10. O. de Groot, B. Brito, L. Ferranti, D. Gavrila, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Scenario-based trajectory optimization in uncertain dynamic environments,” in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters., 2021, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 5389–5396.
  11. S. Magdici, and M. Althoff, “Fail-safe motion planning of autonomous vehicles,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems., 2016, pp. 452–458.
  12. C. Pek, and M. Althoff, “Computationally efficient fail-safe trajectory planning for self-driving vehicles using convex optimization,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems., 2018, pp. 1447–1454.
  13. C. Pek, and M. Althoff, “Fail-Safe Motion Planning for Online Verification of Autonomous Vehicles Using Convex Optimization,” in IEEE Transactions on Robotics., 2021, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 798–814.
  14. J. Hardy, and M. Campbell, “Contingency planning over probabilistic obstacle predictions for autonomous road vehicles,” in IEEE Transactions on Robotics., 2013, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 913–929.
  15. W. Zhan, C. Liu, C. Chan, and M. Tomizuka, “A Non-Conservatively Defensive Strategy for Urban Autonomous Driving,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems., 2016, pp. 459–464.
  16. A. Cui, S. Casas, A. Sadat, R. Liao, and R. Urtasun, “LookOut: diverse multi-future prediction and planning for self-driving,” in IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision., 2021, pp. 16087–16096.
  17. A. Bajcsy, A. Siththaranjan, C. J. Tomlin, and A. D. Dragan, “Analyzing human models that adapt online,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation., 2021, pp. 2754–2760.
  18. S. Bansal, A. Bajcsy, E. Ratner, A. D. Dragan, C. J. Tomlin, “A Hamilton-Jacobi reachability-based framework for predicting and analyzing human motion for safe planning,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation., 2020, pp. 7149–7155.
  19. A. Bajcsy, S. Bansal, E. Ratner, C. J. Tomlin, and A. D. Dragan, “A robust control framework for human motion prediction,” in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters., 2021, vol. 6, pp. 24–31.
  20. S. Kousik, S. Vaskov, M. Johnson-Roberson, and R. Vasudevan, “Safe trajectory synthesis for autonomous driving in unforeseen environments,” in ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Conference., 2017.
  21. Y. Chen, U. Rosolia, C. Fan, A. D. Ames, and R. Murray, “Reactive motion planning with probabilistic safety guarantees,” in Conference on robot learning., 2021.
  22. A. D. Dragan, K. Lee, S. S. Srinivasa “Legibility and predictability of robot motion,” in IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction., 2013, vol. 1, pp. 301–308.
  23. T. Brudigam, K. Ahmic, M. Leibold, and D. Wollherr, “Legible model predictive control for autonomous driving on highways,” in IFAC-PapersOnline., 2018, vol. 51, no. 20, pp. 215–221.
  24. N. J. Hetherington, E. A. Croft, and H. Van der Loos, “Hey robot, which way are you going? nonverbal motion legibility cues for human-robot spatial interaction,” in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters., 2021, vol. 6, pp. 5010–5015.
  25. A. D. Dragan, and S. S. Srinivasa “Generating legible motion,” in Robotics: Science and Systems., 2013.
  26. J. P. Alsterda, M. Brown, and J. C. Gerdes, “Contingency model predictive control for automated vehicles,” in American Control Conference., 2019, pp. 717–722.
  27. I. Batkovic, U. Rosolia, M. Zanon, and P. Falcone, “A robust scenario MPC approach for uncertain multi-modal obstacles,” in IEEE Control Systems Letters., 2021, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 947–952.
  28. W. Liu, S. Kim, S. Pendleton, and M. H. Ang, “Situation-aware decision making for autonomous driving on urban road using online POMDP,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV)., 2015, pp. 1126–1133.
  29. C. Hubmann, J. Schulz, M. Becker, D. Althoff, and C. Stiller, “Auto- mated driving in uncertain environments: Planning with interaction and uncertain maneuver prediction,” in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicle., 2018, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5–17.
  30. Y. Chen, U. Rosolia, W. Ubellacker, N. Csomay-Shanklin, and A. Ames, “Interactive multi-modal motion planning with Branch Model Predictive Control,” in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters., 2022, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5365–5372.
  31. R. Oliveira, S. Nair, and B. Wahlberg, “Interaction and decision making-aware motion planning using branch model predictive control,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicle Symposium., 2023.
  32. V. Fors, B. Olofsson, and E. Frisk, “Resilient branching MPC for multi-vehicle traffic scenarios using adversarial disturbance sequences,” in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles., 2022, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 838–848.
  33. A. G. Cunningham, E. Galceran, R. M. Eustice, and E. Olson, “MPDM: Multipolicy decision-making in dynamic, uncertain environments for autonomous driving,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation., 2015, pp. 1670–1677.
  34. E. Galceran, A. G. Cunningham, R. M. Eustice, and E. Olson, “Multi-policy decision-making for autonomous driving via changepoint-based behavior prediction: Theory and experiment,” in Autonomous Robots., 2017, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1367–1382.
  35. L. Zhang, W. Ding, J. Chen, and S. Shen, “Efficient uncertainty-aware decision-making for automated driving using guided branching,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation., 2020, pp. 3291–3297.
  36. N. Rhinehart, J. He, C. Packer, M. A. Right, R. McAllister, J. E. Gonzalez, and S. Levine “Contingencies from observations: Tractable contingency planning with learned behavior models,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation., 2021, pp. 13663–13669.
  37. C. Packer, N. Rhinehart, R. McAllister, M. A. Right, X. Wang, J. He, S. Levine, and J. E. Gonzalez, “Is anyone there? learning a planner contingent on perceptual uncertainty,” in Conference on Robot Learning., 2022.
  38. M. Werling, S. Kammel, J. Ziegler, and L. Gröll, “Optimal trajectories for time-critical street scenarios using discretized terminal manifolds,” in International Journal of Robotics Research., 2012, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 346–359.
  39. I. Mutlu, M. Freese K. Alaa, and F. Schroedel, “Case study on model free fetermination of optimal trajectories in highly automated driving,” in The 9th Symposium on Advances in Automotive Control, 2019, pp. 205–211.
  40. R. Vosswinkel, I. Mutlu, K. Alaa, and F. Schroedel, “A modular and model-free trajectory planning strategy for automated driving,” in European Control Conference (ECC)., 2020, pp. 1186–1191.
  41. X. Jin, Z. Yan, G. Yin, S. Li, and C. Wei, “An Adaptive Motion PLanning Technique for on-road autonomous driving,” in IEEE Access., 2021, vol. 11, pp. 2655–2664.
  42. J. Cheng, Y. Chen, Q. Zhange, L. Gan, C. Liu, and M. Liu, “Real-time trajectory planning for autonomous driving with gaussian process and incremental refinement,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation., 2022, pp. 8999–9005.
  43. S. Sun, Z. Liu, H. Yin, and M.H. Ang, “FISS: A trajectory planning framework using fast iterative search and sampling strategy for autonomous driving,” in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2022, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 9985–9992.
  44. Y. Chai, B. Sapp, M. Bansal, and D. Anguelov, “MultiPath: multiple probabilistic anchor trajectory hypotheses for behavior prediction,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL)., 2019.
  45. J. Hong, B. Sapp, J. Philbin, “Rules of the road: predicting driving behavior with a convolutional model of semantic interactions,” in IEEE/CVF Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR)., 2019.
  46. K. Nakamura, and S. Bansal, “Online update of safety assurances using confidence-based predictions,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation., 2023.
  47. S. Fruhwirth-Schnatter, “Finite mixture and Markov switching models,” in Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.
  48. W. Xu, J. Pan, J. Wei, and J. M. Dolan, “Motion planning under uncertainty for on-road autonomous driving,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation., 2014, pp. 2507–2512.
  49. ISO26262, “International organization for standardization: Road vehicle - functional safety,” 2018.
  50. ISO21448, “International organization for standardization: Safety of the intended functionality,” 2022.
  51. M. Geisslinger, F. Poszler, and M. Lienkamp, “An ethical trajectory planning algorithm for autonomous vehicles,” in Nature Machine Intelligence., 2022, vol. 5, pp. 137–144.
  52. K. Mustafa, O. de Groot, X. Wang, J. Kober, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Probabilistic risk assessment for chance-constrained collision avoidance in uncertain dynamic environments,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation., 2023, pp. 3628–3634.
  53. F. S. Barbosa, B. Lacerda, P. Duckworth, J. Tumova, and N. Hawes, “Risk-aware motion planning in partially known environments,” in IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)., 2019.
  54. X. Huang, A. Jasour, M. Deyo, A. Hofmann, and B. C. Williams, “Hybrid risk-aware conditional planning with applications in autonomous vehicles,” in IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)., 2018.
  55. F. Damerow, and J. Eggert, “Balancing risk against utility: Behavior planning using predictive risk maps,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV)., 2015.
  56. X. Wang, J. Alonso-Mora, and M. Wang, “Probabilistic risk metric for highway driving leveraging multi-modal trajectory predictions,” in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems., 2022, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 19399-19412.
  57. A. Philipp, and D. Goehring, “Analytic collision risk calculation for autonomous vehicle navigation,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)., 2019.
  58. M. Geisslinger, F. Poszler, J. Betz, C. Luetge, and M. Lienkamp, “Autonomous driving ethics: from trolley problem to ethics of risk,” in Philosophy & Technology., 2021, vol. 34, pp. 1033-1055.
  59. S. Yan, P. Goulart, and M. Connan, “Stochastic model predictive control with discounted probabilistic constraints,” in European Control Conference., 2018.
  60. A. Majumdar, and M. Pavone, “How should a robot assess risk? towards an axiomatic theory of risk in robotics,” in Robotics Research, Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics, 2020, vol. 10, pp. 75-84
  61. M. Althoff, M. Koschi, and S. Manzinger, “CommonRoad: Composable benchmarks for motion planning on roads,” in IEEE International Vehicle Symposium., 2017, pp. 719–726.
  62. J. Kong, M. Pfeiffer, G. Schildbach, and F. Borrelli, “Kinematic and dynamic vehicle models for autonomous driving control design,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicle Symposium., 2015, pp. 1094–1099.
  63. L. Peters, A. Bajcsy, C. Chiu, D. Fridovich, F. Laine, L. Ferranti, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Contingency games for multi-agent interaction,” in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters., 2024, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 2208-2215.
  64. T. Li, L. Zhang, S. Liu, and S. Shen, “MARC: multipolicy and risk-aware contingency planning for autonomous driving,” in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters., 2023, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 6587-6594.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Khaled A. Mustafa (4 papers)
  2. Daniel Jarne Ornia (9 papers)
  3. Jens Kober (52 papers)
  4. Javier Alonso-Mora (76 papers)
Citations (2)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now