4.6 Article

Deep Reinforcement Learning Based Game-Theoretic Decision-Making for Autonomous Vehicles

期刊

IEEE ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION LETTERS
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 818-825

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LRA.2021.3134249

关键词

Deep reinforcement learning; cognitive hierarchy theory; LSTM network; self-driving car; decision making

类别

资金

  1. NSERC Alliance [ALLRP 555847-20]
  2. Mitacs Accelerate [IT26108]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study combines game-theoretic decision-making with deep reinforcement learning to enable vehicles to make decisions at unsignalized intersections using 2D Lidar for environmental observations. The inclusion of multiple vehicles and their driving behaviors in the model provides a novel approach to improve the safety and decision-making of self-driving cars.
This letter presents an approach for implementing game-theoretic decision-making in combination with deep reinforcement learning to allow vehicles to make decisions at an unsignalized intersection by use of 2D Lidar to obtain their observations of the environment. The main novelty of this work is modeling multiple vehicles in a complex interaction scenario simultaneously as decision-makers with conservative, aggressive, and adaptive driving behaviors. The game model allows anticipating reactions of additional vehicles to the movements of the ego-vehicle without using any specific coordination or vehicle-to-vehicle communication. The solution of the game is based on cognitive hierarchy reasoning and it uses a deep reinforcement learning algorithm to obtain a near-optimal policy towards a specific goal in a realistic simulator (ROS-Gazebo). The trained models have been successfully tested on the simulator after training. Experiments show that the performance of the lab cars in the real-world is consistent with it in the simulation environment, which may have great significance to improve the safety of self-driving cars, as well as may reduce their dependence on road tests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据