Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 69 references

Design Space of Behaviour Planning for Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that every behaviour planner for autonomous driving is a choice among three design axes, each with unavoidable trade-offs.

desk verdict A useful but internally inconsistent taxonomy: the programmed-vs-learned exclusive-or contradicts the paper's own prediction of hybrid systems. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07931 v1 pith:I7QT2XF5 submitted 2019-08-21 cs.RO cs.AIcs.LGcs.SE

Marko Ilievski , Sean Sedwards , Ashish Gaurav , Aravind Balakrishnan , Atrisha Sarkar , Jaeyoung Lee , Frédéric Bouchard , Ryan De Iaco
show 1 more author
Krzysztof Czarnecki
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.LGcs.SE
keywords behaviourplanningautonomousdrivingdesignspacemotionenvironmentrepresentationplannerarchitecturedecisionlogicfeaturediagrams
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the messy space of behaviour planning in autonomous driving—the high-level decisions like turning, stopping, or yielding—can be usefully organized along three independent axes of design choice. The axes are how the environment is represented (raw sensor data, extracted features, grids, or learned latent vectors), how the behaviour planner is wired into the motion planner and prediction modules (separated versus integrated, explicit versus implicit prediction), and how the decision logic itself is expressed (programmed rules versus learned from examples or interaction). The point is not to rank options but to show that every option solves one problem by creating another: more abstract inputs cut computation but lose fidelity; integrated planners make better-informed decisions but are harder to verify; learned logic generalizes but resists safety analysis. If the decomposition is right, it gives designers a checklist for anticipating which trade-offs a proposed architecture will inherit. The paper also uses this frame to point at hybrid, heterogeneous planners as the likely route to high-performance and safe behaviour planning.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a three-axis feature diagram: environment representation, planner architecture, and decision logic representation, each drawn as an exclusive-or or optional feature tree. Feature diagrams are a notation for showing which design choices are mandatory, alternative, or optional, and the paper uses them to make the design space explicit and comparable. The work this device does is to convert a diffuse set of engineering experiences into a structured map, so that a designer can see which combinations are possible and which trade-offs are built into each branch.

What would settle it

Compare two identical planners that differ only in environment representation, such as an occupancy grid versus a feature-based map, on a fixed scenario suite and measure decision quality and computation time; if the higher-fidelity representation yields no improvement in decision quality, the claimed fidelity-versus-computation trade-off for the first axis is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that behaviour planning designs can be decomposed into precisely three principal axes of choice, and that along each axis the available options form a small set with an inevitable qualitative trade-off. Environment representation runs from raw lidar or camera data through feature-based maps and occupancy grids to latent vectors, trading fidelity for computational convenience and human interpretability. Planner architecture ranges from a behaviour planner cleanly separated from a local planner to fully integrated learned pipelines, trading simplicity and verifiability against the accuracy that comes from planning over the actual executable trajectory. Prediction can be explicitly modeled outside or inside the planner, or left implicit inside a learned policy. Decision logic is either programmed (imperative state machines or declarative expert/optimization systems) or learned (from example, from interaction, or both). The paper argues that no cell in this space is uniformly best; each choice constrains others, and for every axis the trade-off is structural rather than accidental.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that behaviour planning and local planning can be treated as separable sub-tasks, with the behaviour planner issuing discrete high-level actions; if that separation is not fundamental, the three-axis decomposition describes engineering convention rather than the true design space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A designer choosing an environment representation can predict which failure modes will dominate: raw data maximizes information but forces end-to-end learning, while grids and features simplify perception at the cost of decision errors from lost detail.
  • If the behaviour planner is architecturally separated from the local planner, the system risks computational redundancy and conflicting solutions, so separated designs must accept that cost or add a path-generation step.
  • Using an internal belief-space prediction model, as in POMDP-based planners, can produce safer responses to other road users who react to the ego vehicle, but the paper notes this is computationally intractable with many road users.
  • Programmed logic supports traceability and traditional software safety analysis, while learned logic generalizes better but is hard to verify, so any safety case must be designed around one of these two properties.
  • Because no single axis choice dominates, the paper's conclusion is that practical high-performance systems will likely be hybrid, with learned modules supervised by programmed logic.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that reported system-level failures should cluster along the axis the designer simplified: perception errors for grid- and feature-based planners, verification failures for learned logic, and redundancy or conflict bugs for separated architectures.
  • The taxonomy implies a natural comparison benchmark the paper says is missing: place published planners in the three-axis grid and compare performance within each cell while holding one axis fixed, which would also reveal whether the axes are truly independent or strongly correlated in practice.
  • The paper stops short of saying so, but its own examples suggest that the choice of prediction architecture may be the axis that most determines the others, since every prediction option carries a different environment representation and decision-logic requirement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a decomposition of the design space of behaviour planning for autonomous driving into three principal axes: environment representation (raw data, features, grid-based, latent space), motion-planner architecture (integration of behaviour planning and local planning, and prediction architecture), and decision-logic representation (programmed vs learned logic). The authors review representative literature along each axis, discuss qualitative trade-offs, and illustrate the choices with feature diagrams. They conclude that no benchmark currently exists for behaviour planners and speculate that future solutions will be hybrid, incorporating learned modules supervised by programmed logic.

Significance. If the decomposition were correct, it would give practitioners a common vocabulary for describing and comparing behaviour planning systems and a structured map of research gaps. The paper's strengths are its broad reference set, its explicit feature-diagram notation, and its candid admissions about the lack of benchmarks and the likely hybrid future of the field. However, all claims are qualitative and are grounded in the authors' practical experience rather than a systematic evaluation, so the contribution is a position/taxonomy paper whose value depends on whether the chosen axes and trade-offs are accepted and found useful by the community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V, Fig. 6, Section VI] The top-level exclusive-or in Fig. 6 and the claim in Section V that 'the final high level driving decision is made by exclusively following one of these two paradigms' are internally inconsistent with Section VI, which states that future safe and high-performance behaviour planning will be 'hybrid and heterogeneous, incorporating modules consisting of learned systems supervised by programmed logic.' The paper's own cited literature also contains such hybrids: [5] adds a rule-based safety layer on an imitation policy, [9] combines a learned model with tree search, and [64] bootstraps reinforcement learning with imitation learning. Because the taxonomy's central claim is to decompose the design space with 'inevitable qualitative trade-offs,' excluding the very design that the authors themselves endorse from the decision-logic axis makes the decomposition incomplete. The fix is to replace the exclusive-or with an or-connective or to add an explicit hybrid/composite category, and to adjust the accompanying text accordingly.
  2. [Section I, Fig. 3] The paper asserts that the design space decomposes into 'three principal axes,' but it never states the criteria by which a design choice is 'principal,' nor how completeness of the decomposition is established. The feature-diagram notation in Fig. 3 has a formal semantics (xor, or, optional) that implies the diagram is intended to be exhaustive; however, the text justifies the choice only by 'practical experience' (Section I) and does not rule out other axes, such as prediction model class, perception interface, or fail-safe behavior. As a result, the central claim of a faithful decomposition cannot be checked or falsified. The authors should either provide explicit selection criteria (for example, orthogonality and coverage of the state of the art) and justify each axis against them, or explicitly frame the work as an experience-based taxonomy that is not claimed to be complete.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II] There is a typo in 'will be discussd in Section IV-A'; it should read 'discussed.'
  2. [Section II, Section IV-A2] The definition of behaviour planning as issuing discrete high-level actions and local planning as generating continuous trajectories (Section II) is not literally applicable to the integrated/end-to-end architectures described in Section IV-A2, where no separate BP module exists. The paper would benefit from stating that 'behaviour planning' denotes a functional role rather than a mandatory separate module, so that the taxonomy clearly covers both separated and integrated designs.
  3. [Section IV-B, Fig. 5] The feature diagram in Fig. 5 does not make the relationship between 'Explicitly Defined' prediction and the 'Internal/External' alternatives visually unambiguous; the text says explicit prediction models can be either internal or external, but the diagram's connectors should be drawn to reflect that choice explicitly.
  4. [References] References [46] and [64] are the same technical report by Shalev-Shwartz et al., 'Safe, multi-agent, reinforcement learning for autonomous driving'; they should be merged or cross-referenced to avoid duplicate bibliography entries.
  5. [Section V-A1] The statement that 'the authors do not believe that these approaches can adequately handle the noisy aspects of real world driving' is presented as an unsupported assertion. Since it is used to support the trade-off between interpretability and robustness, it should be explicitly labeled as a subjective assessment or supported with evidence.
  6. [Section III-D] The abbreviation 'V AE' should be written as 'VAE' without the space.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a literature-based taxonomy with no fitted inputs, no predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper makes no empirical predictions and fits no parameters, so the usual fit-to-prediction circularity cannot arise. Its three-axis decomposition is justified by reference to the surveyed literature plus the authors' practical experience (e.g., [2] is a press account of the Waterloo Autonomoose project; [22] is one author's trajectory-prediction paper). These citations frame the survey but do not constitute the load-bearing derivation of any claim: the environment-representation, architecture, and decision-logic axes are each illustrated with multiple independently published systems ([6]-[8], [13]-[15], [28]-[31], [33]-[42], [47]-[70]), so the taxonomy's content is not reducible to the authors' own prior results. The main internal tension, Section V's exclusive-or between programmed and learned logic versus Section VI's suggestion of hybrids with learned systems supervised by programmed logic, is a consistency problem in the proposed taxonomy, not a case where a prediction or derivation is equivalent to its inputs by construction. Under the hard rules, this does not count as circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is a taxonomy; it introduces no fitted parameters and no new physical or conceptual entities. Its load-bearing presuppositions are the completeness of its three axes, the behaviour planner and local planner separation, and the generality of qualitative trade-offs.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The three principal axes (environment representation, architecture, decision logic representation) are the principal and sufficiently complete decomposition of the behaviour planning design space.
    Introduced in Section I as based on practical experience [2] and the state of the art, with no systematic or empirical justification.
  • domain assumption Behaviour planning and local planning are separable stages, with the behaviour planner making discrete high-level choices and the local planner producing continuous trajectories.
    Section II adopts this common decomposition, and the taxonomy and trade-offs depend on the separation being meaningful.
  • domain assumption Qualitative trade-offs, such as fidelity versus computational burden and interpretability versus performance, are generalizable across systems.
    Stated throughout Sections III-V without quantitative support; Section VI concedes there is no benchmark for behaviour planning.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design Space of Behaviour Planning for Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7QT2XF5

@misc{pith2026190807931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design Space of Behaviour Planning for Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7QT2XF5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07931}
}
read the original abstract

We explore the complex design space of behaviour planning for autonomous driving. Design choices that successfully address one aspect of behaviour planning can critically constrain others. To aid the design process, in this work we decompose the design space with respect to important choices arising from the current state of the art approaches, and describe the resulting trade-offs. In doing this, we also identify interesting directions of future work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07931 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Four environment representations used in motion planning for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. General architecture of motion planning. White boxes denote the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Environment representation design choices. See Fig. 3 for key. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Feature diagram of architecture design choices. See Fig. 3 for key. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Feature diagram of decision logic design choices. See Fig. 3 for key. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Chauffeurnet: Learning to drive by imitating the best and synthesizing the worst,

    M. Bansal et al., “Chauffeurnet: Learning to drive by imitating the best and synthesizing the worst,” 2018, http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.03079

    arXiv 2018

  2. [9]

    Combining neural networks and tree search for task and motion planning in challenging environments,

    C. Paxton et al., “Combining neural networks and tree search for task and motion planning in challenging environments,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , September 2017, pp. 6059–6066

    work page 2017

  3. [64]

    Safe, multi-agent, reinforcement learning for autonomous driving,

    S. Shalev-Shwartz et al., “Safe, multi-agent, reinforcement learning for autonomous driving,” 2016, http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03295

    arXiv 2016

  4. [1]

    Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis,

    A. MacLean et al. , “Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis,” HumanComputer Interaction , vol. 6, no. 3-4, pp. 201–250, 1991

    work page 1991

  5. [2]

    Waterloo’s ‘Autonomoose’ hits 100- kilometre milestone,

    T. Pender, “Waterloo’s ‘Autonomoose’ hits 100- kilometre milestone,” Waterloo Region Record , Au- gust 2018. [Online]. Available: www.therecord.com/news-story/ 8859691-waterloo-s-autonomoose-hits-100-kilometre-milestone/

    work page 2018

  6. [3]

    Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA): feasi- bility study,

    K. C. Kang et al. , “Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA): feasi- bility study,” Carnegie Mellon Univ., Software Eng. Inst., Tech. Rep., 1990

    work page 1990

  7. [4]

    Environment representations for automated on-road vehicles,

    M. Schreier, “Environment representations for automated on-road vehicles,” at - Automatisierungstechnik , vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 107–118, feb 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [6]

    End to end learning for self-driving cars,

    M. Bojarski et al. , “End to end learning for self-driving cars,” 2016, http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07316

    arXiv 2016

Show all 69 references
  1. [7]

    Implementing a rule-based system to represent decision criteria for on-road autonomous navigation,

    N. Zimmerman et al., “Implementing a rule-based system to represent decision criteria for on-road autonomous navigation,” in 2004 AAAI Spring Symp. on Knowledge Representation and Ontologies for Au- tonomous Systems, 2004

    2004

  2. [8]

    Lanelets: Efficient map representation for au- tonomous driving,

    P. Bender et al. , “Lanelets: Efficient map representation for au- tonomous driving,” in 2014 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symp. (IV) , June 2014, pp. 420–425

    2014

  3. [10]

    K. P. Murphy, Machine Learning, A Probabilistic Perspective . MIT Press, 2012

    2012

  4. [11]

    Learning sampling distributions for robot motion planning,

    B. Ichter et al. , “Learning sampling distributions for robot motion planning,” Sep 2017, http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05448

    2017 arXiv

  5. [12]

    World models,

    D. Ha and J. Schmidhuber, “World models,” 2018, http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10122

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Autonomous driving in urban environments: Boss and the Urban Challenge,

    C. Urmson et al., “Autonomous driving in urban environments: Boss and the Urban Challenge,” Journal of Field Robotics Special Issue on the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge, Part I, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 425–466, June 2008

    2007

  7. [14]

    Odin: Team VictorTango’s entry in the DARPA urban challenge,

    A. Bacha et al., “Odin: Team VictorTango’s entry in the DARPA urban challenge,” Journal of field Robotics, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 467–492, 2008

    2008

  8. [15]

    Tartan Racing: A multi-modal approach to the DARPA urban challenge,

    C. Urmson et al. , “Tartan Racing: A multi-modal approach to the DARPA urban challenge,” Carnegie Mellon Univ., Tech. Rep., 2007. [Online]. Available: http://repository.cmu.edu/robotics/967

    2007

  9. [16]

    A behavioral planning framework for autonomous driving,

    J. Wei et al. , “A behavioral planning framework for autonomous driving,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symp. Proc. IEEE, 2014, pp. 458–464

    2014

  10. [17]

    Learning driving styles for autonomous vehicles from demonstration,

    M. Kuderer et al. , “Learning driving styles for autonomous vehicles from demonstration,” in 2015 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA), May 2015, pp. 2641–2646

    2015

  11. [18]

    Learning how to drive in a real world simulation with deep Q-networks,

    P. Wolf et al., “Learning how to drive in a real world simulation with deep Q-networks,” in 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symp. (IV) , June 2017, pp. 244–250

    2017

  12. [19]

    Deep reinforcement learning framework for autonomous driving,

    A. El Sallab et al. , “Deep reinforcement learning framework for autonomous driving,” Electronic Imaging, no. 19, pp. 70–76, 2017

    2017

  13. [20]

    Learning driver behavior models from traffic observations for decision making and planning,

    T. Gindele et al. , “Learning driver behavior models from traffic observations for decision making and planning,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 69–79, 2015

    2015

  14. [21]

    A non-conservatively defensive strategy for urban autonomous driving,

    W. Zhan et al. , “A non-conservatively defensive strategy for urban autonomous driving,” in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2016 IEEE 19th Int. Conf. on . IEEE, 2016, pp. 459–464

    2016

  15. [22]

    Trajectory prediction of traffic agents at urban intersections through learned interactions,

    A. Sarkar et al. , “Trajectory prediction of traffic agents at urban intersections through learned interactions,” in 2017 IEEE 20th Int. Conf. on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–8

    2017

  16. [23]

    A survey on motion prediction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles,

    S. Lef `evre et al., “A survey on motion prediction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles,” ROBOMECH Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 1, Jul 2014

    2014

  17. [24]

    Recognition of situation classes at road intersections,

    E. K ¨afer et al., “Recognition of situation classes at road intersections,” in IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2010, pp. 3960–3965

    2010

  18. [25]

    Stationary detection of the pedestrian intention at intersections,

    S. Koehler et al. , “Stationary detection of the pedestrian intention at intersections,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 87–99, 2013

    2013

  19. [26]

    Will the pedestrian cross? A study on pedestrian path prediction,

    C. G. Keller and D. M. Gavrila, “Will the pedestrian cross? A study on pedestrian path prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 494–506, 2014

    2014

  20. [27]

    Pedestrian path prediction using body language traits,

    R. Quintero et al. , “Pedestrian path prediction using body language traits,” in Intelligent Vehicles Symp. Proc., 2014 IEEE . IEEE, 2014, pp. 317–323

    2014

  21. [28]

    Intention-aware motion planning,

    T. Bandyopadhyay et al., “Intention-aware motion planning,” in Algo- rithmic foundations of robotics X . Springer, 2013, pp. 475–491

    2013

  22. [29]

    Probabilistic movement modeling for intention infer- ence in human–robot interaction,

    Z. Wang et al., “Probabilistic movement modeling for intention infer- ence in human–robot interaction,” Int. Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 841–858, 2013

    2013

  23. [30]

    Intention-aware online POMDP planning for au- tonomous driving in a crowd,

    H. Bai et al. , “Intention-aware online POMDP planning for au- tonomous driving in a crowd,” in 2015 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 454–460

    2015

  24. [31]

    Motion planning under uncertainty using dif- ferential dynamic programming in belief space,

    J. Van Den Berg et al., “Motion planning under uncertainty using dif- ferential dynamic programming in belief space,” in Robotics Research. Springer, 2017, pp. 473–490

    2017

  25. [32]

    The mythos of model interpretability,

    Z. C. Lipton, “The mythos of model interpretability,” 2016, http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.03490

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Human driver model and driver decision making for intersection driving,

    Y . Liu and U. Ozguner, “Human driver model and driver decision making for intersection driving,” in 2007 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symp. (IV), June 2007, pp. 642–647

    2007

  27. [34]

    A system architecture for au- tonomous visual road vehicle guidance,

    M. Maurer and E. D. Dickmanns, “A system architecture for au- tonomous visual road vehicle guidance,” inProc. of Conf. on Intelligent Transportation Systems, November 1997, pp. 578–583

    1997

  28. [35]

    Automatic deployment of autonomous cars in a robotic urban-like environment (RULE),

    M. Lahijanian et al., “Automatic deployment of autonomous cars in a robotic urban-like environment (RULE),” in 2009 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , May 2009, pp. 2055–2060

    2009

  29. [36]

    Highly automated driving on freeways in real traffic using a probabilistic framework,

    M. Ardelt et al., “Highly automated driving on freeways in real traffic using a probabilistic framework,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1576–1585, December 2012

    2012

  30. [37]

    Fuzzy logic steering control of autonomous vehicles inside roundabouts,

    J. P ´erez Rastelli and M. Santos Peas, “Fuzzy logic steering control of autonomous vehicles inside roundabouts,” Applied Software Computer, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 662–669, Jul 2015

    2015

  31. [38]

    Situation-aware decision making for autonomous driving on urban road using online POMDP,

    W. Liu et al., “Situation-aware decision making for autonomous driving on urban road using online POMDP,” inIntelligent Vehicles Symp. (IV), 2015, pp. 1126–1133

    2015

  32. [39]

    Online decision-making for scalable autonomous systems,

    K. H. Wray et al., “Online decision-making for scalable autonomous systems,” in 26th International Joint Conference of Artificial Intelli- gence (IJCAI), 2017, pp. 4768–4774

    2017

  33. [40]

    Multipolicy decision-making for autonomous driving via changepoint-based behavior prediction: Theory and exper- iment,

    E. Galceran et al. , “Multipolicy decision-making for autonomous driving via changepoint-based behavior prediction: Theory and exper- iment,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1367–1382, Aug 2017

    2017

  34. [41]

    Automated driving in uncertain environments: Planning with interaction and uncertain maneuver prediction,

    C. Hubmann et al. , “Automated driving in uncertain environments: Planning with interaction and uncertain maneuver prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5–17, 2018

    2018

  35. [42]

    Probabilistic decision-making under uncertainty for autonomous driving using continuous POMDPs,

    S. Brechtel et al., “Probabilistic decision-making under uncertainty for autonomous driving using continuous POMDPs,” 17th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) , pp. 392–399, Oct 2014

    2014

  36. [43]

    Biologically inspired online learning of visual autonomous driving,

    K. ¨Ofj¨all and M. Felsberg, “Biologically inspired online learning of visual autonomous driving,” in British Machine Vision Conf. 2014, Nottingham, UK September 1-5 2014 . BMV A Press, 2014, pp. 137– 156

    2014

  37. [44]

    Visual autonomous road following by symbiotic online learning,

    K. ¨Ofj¨all et al., “Visual autonomous road following by symbiotic online learning,” in 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symp. (IV), June 2016, pp. 136–143

    2016

  38. [45]

    Evolving large-scale neural networks for vision- based reinforcement learning,

    J. Koutn ´ık et al. , “Evolving large-scale neural networks for vision- based reinforcement learning,” in 15th Annual Conf. on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) . ACM, 2013, pp. 1061–1068

    2013

  39. [47]

    Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network,

    D. A. Pomerleau, “Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network,” in Advances in neural information processing systems, 1989, pp. 305–313

    1989

  40. [48]

    Off-road obstacle avoidance through end-to-end learning,

    U. Muller et al. , “Off-road obstacle avoidance through end-to-end learning,” in Advances in neural information processing systems, 2006, pp. 739–746

    2006

  41. [49]

    Learning on-road visual control for self-driving vehicles with auxiliary tasks,

    Y . Chen et al. , “Learning on-road visual control for self-driving vehicles with auxiliary tasks,” 2018, http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.07760

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learn- ing

    B. D. Ziebart et al., “Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learn- ing.” in AAAI, vol. 8. Chicago, IL, USA, 2008, pp. 1433–1438

    2008

  43. [51]

    A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,

    S. Ross et al. , “A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,” in 14th Int. Conf. on artificial intelligence and statistics , 2011, pp. 627–635

    2011

  44. [52]

    A fast integrated planning and control framework for autonomous driving via imitation learning,

    L. Sun et al. , “A fast integrated planning and control framework for autonomous driving via imitation learning,” in ASME 2018 Dynamic Systems and Control Conf. American Society of Mechanical Engi- neers, 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    End-to-end driving via conditional imitation learning,

    F. Codevilla et al. , “End-to-end driving via conditional imitation learning,” in2018 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–9

    2018

  46. [54]

    Apprenticeship learning for motion planning with application to parking lot navigation,

    P. Abbeel et al. , “Apprenticeship learning for motion planning with application to parking lot navigation,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2008, pp. 1083–1090

    2008

  47. [55]

    Learning from demonstration for autonomous nav- igation in complex unstructured terrain,

    D. Silver et al. , “Learning from demonstration for autonomous nav- igation in complex unstructured terrain,” Int. Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 1565–1592, 2010

    2010

  48. [56]

    High speed obstacle avoidance using monocular vision and reinforcement learning,

    J. Michels et al. , “High speed obstacle avoidance using monocular vision and reinforcement learning,” in 22nd Int. Conf. on Machine Learning. ACM, 2005, pp. 593–600

    2005

  49. [57]

    Autonomous overtaking decision making of driverless bus based on deep Q-learning method,

    L. Yu et al. , “Autonomous overtaking decision making of driverless bus based on deep Q-learning method,” in 2017 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 2267–2272

    2017

  50. [58]

    Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning,

    T. P. Lillicrap et al. , “Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning,” 2015, http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.02971

    2015 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Combining deep reinforcement learning and safety based control for autonomous driving,

    X. Xiong et al. , “Combining deep reinforcement learning and safety based control for autonomous driving,” 2016, http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.00147

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks,

    J. Kirkpatrick et al. , “Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks,” National Academy of Sciences , pp. 3521–3526, 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    Combating reinforcement learning’s Sisyphean curse with intrinsic fear,

    Z. C. Lipton et al. , “Combating reinforcement learning’s Sisyphean curse with intrinsic fear,” 2016, http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.01211

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Environment-independent task specifications via GLTL,

    M. L. Littman et al., “Environment-independent task specifications via GLTL,” 2017, http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04341

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A learning based approach to control synthesis of Markov decision processes for linear temporal logic specifications,

    D. Sadigh et al. , “A learning based approach to control synthesis of Markov decision processes for linear temporal logic specifications,” in Decision and Control (CDC), 2014 IEEE 53rd Annual Conf. on . IEEE, 2014, pp. 1091–1096

    2014

  56. [65]

    Composing meta-policies for autonomous driving using hierarchical deep reinforcement learning,

    R. Liaw et al. , “Composing meta-policies for autonomous driving using hierarchical deep reinforcement learning,” 2017, http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01503

    2017 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Uncertainty-aware reinforcement learning for collision avoidance,

    G. Kahn et al., “Uncertainty-aware reinforcement learning for collision avoidance,” 2017, http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01182

    2017 arXiv

  58. [67]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press, 2018

    2018

  59. [68]

    Adaptive learning based on guided exploration for decision making at roundabouts,

    F. Gritschneder et al., “Adaptive learning based on guided exploration for decision making at roundabouts,” in 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symp. (IV), June 2016, pp. 433–440

    2016

  60. [69]

    Interaction-aware driver maneuver inference in highways using realistic driver models,

    D. S. Gonz ´alez et al., “Interaction-aware driver maneuver inference in highways using realistic driver models,” in 2017 IEEE 20th Int. Conf. on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) , October 2017, pp. 1–8

    2017

  61. [70]

    Individual versus difference rewards on reinforce- ment learning for route choice,

    R. Grunitzki et al., “Individual versus difference rewards on reinforce- ment learning for route choice,” in 2014 Brazilian Conf. on Intelligent Systems, October 2014, pp. 253–258

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.