Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Extensive Exploration in Complex Traffic Scenarios using Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-level reinforcement learning controller with separately trained high- and low-level policies is claimed to escape highway slow-traffic traps in 97.67% of test episodes, while a single-level controller never escapes.

desk verdict A modest, clearly written extension of h-DQN to highway driving with an untested transfer assumption between high-level training and low-level deployment. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14992 v1 pith:O7AQ74GT submitted 2025-01-25 cs.LG cs.RO

Zhihao Zhang , Ekim Yurtsever , Keith A. Redmill This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.RO
keywords hierarchicalreinforcementlearningautonomousdrivingexplorationhighwaytrapscenariodoubleDQNtwo-steptrainingovertakingmaneuver
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

The paper claims that a deep reinforcement learning driving controller organized into two levels—a high-level policy that picks target lanes and speeds, and a low-level policy that executes steering and acceleration—can solve a highway 'trap' scenario that defeats a single-level controller. The high-level policy is trained first while a rule-based motion planner executes its goals, then the low-level policy is trained to follow the learned goals. In simulations, the hierarchical controller reaches a 97.67% trap-escape success rate in testing versus 0% for the single-level controller, with higher average reward and speed. The point of the claim is that decomposing decisions into long-term and short-term subproblems improves exploration for delayed rewards in complex traffic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is a two-level hierarchical deep Q-network architecture where the high-level controller outputs a goal consisting of a target lane index and a target speed, and the low-level controller outputs a discrete steering–acceleration pair $(a,\theta)$ drawn from nine combinations. The two-step training is what carries the argument: step 1 trains the high-level controller against a rule-based motion planner, using critic functions that check whether the lateral distance to the target lane center is below $D_\delta$ and whether the speed gap to the target speed is below $V_\delta$; step 2 freezes that high-level policy and trains the low-level controller to realize its goals. The reward function is speed-biased with an ideal zone at 15 m/s, augmented by lane-centering and steering-smoothness terms and a -10 accident penalty, which together force the agent to weigh immediate deceleration against long-term speed gains.

What would settle it

Run the trained hierarchical controller in the same simulation environment used in the paper while increasing the critic thresholds $D_\delta$ and $V_\delta$ during testing, or adding random actuation noise to the low-level controller, and record the trap-escape success rate over the same 300 test episodes; if the success rate falls well below 97.67%, the reported result depends on the assumption that low-level goals are reliably achieved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that separately training the high- and low-level controllers, rather than training one flat policy, lets the agent discover an overtaking maneuver that requires temporarily sacrificing immediate reward for a later speed gain. The high-level controller explores at the scale of lane-change and speed-target decisions, while the low-level controller learns fine-grained control to realize those goals. In the trap scenario with two slow vehicles blocking the ego vehicle, the hierarchical controller learns to decelerate, change lanes twice, and accelerate to the ideal speed, achieving an average escape success of 97.67% and average speed of 13.42 m/s over 300 test episodes, while the single-level controller settles into following the slow vehicle and never escapes.

Load-bearing premise

The high-level controller is trained with a rule-based motion planner that always executes its goals exactly, but in testing a learned low-level controller executes those goals, and if the learned low-level controller sometimes fails to reach the target lane or speed within the critic thresholds, the high-level decisions become invalid and the 97.67% success rate may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two-step training protocol can be applied to any hierarchical driving controller that separates high-level goals from low-level actuation, not just the specific highway scenario tested.
  • The speed-biased reward function provides a concrete template for shaping exploration toward long-term rewards in other driving tasks with delayed returns.
  • The trap scenario itself becomes a benchmark for measuring exploration capability in highway driving, with a clear success criterion of passing all slow vehicles before the episode ends.
  • Increasing the exploration probability of a single-level controller did not improve its escape success, which suggests that exploration probability alone does not compensate for a flat policy's lack of temporal abstraction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The hierarchical decomposition may transfer to urban driving situations with analogous 'traps', such as blocked intersections, merge ramps, or double-parked vehicles, where a temporary sacrifice in speed is needed to reach a faster path.
  • The 2.33% accident rate reported for the hierarchical controller, versus 0% for the single-level controller, implies a safety trade-off that the paper does not explore; a safety-constrained low-level layer could potentially preserve the escape success while eliminating collisions.
  • A testable extension would be to vary the critic thresholds $D_\delta$ and $V_\delta$ during deployment: if escape success degrades sharply when goal-achievement tolerances are loosened, the two-step training's reliance on exact goal execution is confirmed as a bottleneck.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a hierarchical deep reinforcement learning (H-DRL) controller for highway driving, with a high-level controller that selects lane-change and speed-increment goals and a low-level controller that outputs discrete steering/acceleration pairs. The two controllers are trained separately in two steps: first the high-level policy is trained with a rule-based motion planner and goal-achievement thresholds (Eqs. 13-14), then the low-level controller is trained with the frozen high-level policy. The authors evaluate the approach in a 'trap' scenario in highway-env, where two slow vehicles block the ego vehicle, and report that the hierarchical controller achieves a 97.67% escape success rate and higher average reward/speed than a single-level DDQN baseline (0% success).

Significance. If the results are reliable, the paper provides a useful empirical demonstration that hierarchical decomposition with separate training can solve a long-horizon overtaking problem that a flat DDQN with the same reward cannot, and the exploration-schedule ablation in Figure 6 is a valuable check that the baseline failure is not simply due to insufficient epsilon. However, the significance is tempered by the narrow evaluation (one fixed trap configuration), the absence of statistical tests, and an unvalidated assumption about the transfer of the high-level policy from the rule-based planner to the learned low-level controller. The paper does not provide code or reproducibility checklists, so reproduction would require significant effort.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-B, V] The high-level controller is trained under goal-gating with the rule-based motion planner: Eqs. (13)-(14) must be satisfied before a new goal is set. In the testing procedure described in Section V, however, the high-level controller updates its goal at every timestep without requiring that the previous goal has been achieved, and execution is performed by the learned low-level controller. The manuscript never reports how often the low-level controller actually satisfies Eqs. (13)-(14) during testing or during the low-level training. If the goal-achievement rate is low, the high-level policy is evaluated on a state distribution different from its training distribution, so the reported 97.67% escape success measured on the fixed test configuration may not transfer to other settings. This is a load-bearing assumption for the central claim and should be validated by measuring the goal-achievement rate and, if necessary, re-aligning the test-time procedure with the training-time gating.
  2. [V, Tables III-IV] The comparison between the hierarchical and single-level controllers is based on point estimates without any measure of variability: Table III reports averages over '5 runs' but no standard deviation or confidence interval, and Table IV reports results from '300 episodes' as single values. The text itself notes that the hierarchical controller 'exhibited greater variance in all of the evaluation criteria' (Section V, paragraph after Fig. 5). Without error bars, box plots, or a statistical test (e.g., a bootstrap or paired test across seeds), the claimed superiority cannot be distinguished from random variation, especially because the single-level controller has near-zero success in all reported metrics. This should be fixed for the 'demonstrate the superiority' conclusion to be supported.
  3. [V, Table IV; I] The test evaluation is conducted at a single fixed trap configuration (D1 = 15.62 m, D2 = 6.61 m) and a single traffic pattern. The abstract claims effectiveness in 'complex highway driving situations,' yet Section I explicitly lists four more complex trap scenarios that are outside the paper's scope, and no sensitivity analysis is provided over D1, D2, traffic density, or road layout. The 97.67% escape success rate is therefore a point estimate for one initial condition, not evidence of general superiority in complex scenarios. Please add tests over a range of initial gaps and traffic conditions, or temper the generality claims accordingly.
  4. [IV-B, Table II] The total training budget for the hierarchical agent is not clearly defined, which confounds the comparison with the single-level baseline. The text states the high-level controller is trained for 1000 episodes, but the episode count for low-level training is not given and Table II lists only a global 'training episode 2000' value. If the hierarchical agent receives more total environment interactions (e.g., 1000 high-level + 2000 low-level) than the single-level baseline (2000), the performance difference may be due to additional training rather than to hierarchical decomposition. Please report the exact number of episodes for each training phase and either match the total interaction count or justify why the comparison remains fair.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] Figure 5 caption mentions 'h-DQN controller performance,' but the body text never describes or reports h-DQN results; either add this baseline or correct the caption.
  2. [Table I] The rows 'Steering range at [−1, 1]m/s2' and 'Acceleration range θt [−π/36, π/36]rad' appear to have their labels/units swapped.
  3. [III-B, Table II] Section III-B defines the high-level speed increment δ, but its numerical value is not listed in Table II; please report this hyperparameter.
  4. [V] Section V contains the typo 'The The results' in the paragraph before Table IV.
  5. [IV-B] Section IV-B calls Eqs. (13)-(14) a 'critic function,' which is not a learned critic but a threshold-based goal-check; a different term would avoid confusion.
  6. [III-A] The state vector includes a constant binary flag Iego (Section III-A) that carries no information; consider removing it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the superiority claim is an empirical comparison against a baseline trained with the same reward, and no prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the hierarchical DRL controller outperforms a single-level DRL controller in escaping a highway 'trap'—is supported by simulation experiments, not by a derivation that assumes the conclusion. The speed, lane-centering, steering, and accident reward terms in Eqs. (3)-(6) are defined independently of the escape-success metric, which is based on the ego vehicle's rear bumper passing the front of all trap vehicles (Section V). The single-level baseline is trained with the same external reward and still fails (0% success in Tables III and IV), so the hierarchical success is not forced by the reward construction. The two-step training procedure in Section IV-B uses a rule-based motion planner and critic thresholds (Eqs. 13-14) only as an internal training mechanism for the high-level controller; the reported testing success is measured by physical overtaking, not by whether the critic thresholds are satisfied. The h-DQN reference [31] is an external prior method, not a self-citation chain, and the paper explicitly distinguishes its design from h-DQN. The skeptical concern about goal-achievement rate under the learned low-level controller is a legitimate generalization/transfer assumption, but it is an empirical validity risk, not a circularity: the paper does not define its success metric in terms of the high-level goal critic, nor does it fit a parameter and then rename that fit as a prediction. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by definition, by fitted-input renaming, or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-tuned reward weights, critic thresholds, and a discount factor, plus the untested transfer assumption between the rule-based planner and the learned low-level controller. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • speed reward weight wv = 1.5
    Hand-tuned in the composite reward (Eq. 6) to balance speed against steering and lane centering; central to shaping the learned behavior.
  • steering reward weight wtheta = 0.05
    Hand-tuned; small value reduces penalty for steering actions.
  • lane centering reward weight wy = 0.05
    Hand-tuned; encourages lane keeping but small relative to speed.
  • high-level speed increment delta = not specified
    Defines the granularity of target speed changes in high-level actions (Section III-B); never given a numeric value, affecting exploration and control resolution.
  • critic thresholds Ddelta and Vdelta = 0.3 m and 0.3 m/s
    Define goal achievement during high-level training (Eqs. 13-14); hand-chosen tolerances that shape the high-level policy.
  • discount factor gamma = 0.8
    Hand-chosen; affects how far ahead the controller plans long-term rewards.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The highway-env simulator provides a valid model of vehicle dynamics and traffic interaction.
    All results are generated in this simulator; the paper does not validate against real-world or higher-fidelity simulators.
  • ad hoc to paper The rule-based motion planner used to train the high-level controller is representative enough of the later learned low-level controller.
    Adopted without validation; if the learned low-level behaves differently from the planner, the high-level policy may be miscalibrated.
  • domain assumption IDM and MOBIL models describe the behavior of traffic vehicles.
    Borrowed from prior traffic modeling literature (refs [13], [14]); assumed accurate for the scenario.
  • domain assumption The vehicle dynamics in highway-env are deterministic and fully observable through the 26-feature state.
    The MDP formulation assumes full observability and Markovian state; sensor noise and partial observability are not modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extensive Exploration in Complex Traffic Scenarios using Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7AQ74GT

@misc{pith2026250114992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extensive Exploration in Complex Traffic Scenarios using Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7AQ74GT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14992}
}
read the original abstract

Developing an automated driving system capable of navigating complex traffic environments remains a formidable challenge. Unlike rule-based or supervised learning-based methods, Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) based controllers eliminate the need for domain-specific knowledge and datasets, thus providing adaptability to various scenarios. Nonetheless, a common limitation of existing studies on DRL-based controllers is their focus on driving scenarios with simple traffic patterns, which hinders their capability to effectively handle complex driving environments with delayed, long-term rewards, thus compromising the generalizability of their findings. In response to these limitations, our research introduces a pioneering hierarchical framework that efficiently decomposes intricate decision-making problems into manageable and interpretable subtasks. We adopt a two step training process that trains the high-level controller and low-level controller separately. The high-level controller exhibits an enhanced exploration potential with long-term delayed rewards, and the low-level controller provides longitudinal and lateral control ability using short-term instantaneous rewards. Through simulation experiments, we demonstrate the superiority of our hierarchical controller in managing complex highway driving situations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14992 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experiment Setting to Evaluate Exploration Ability: In this setup, the DRL agent initially encounters a group [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hierarchical DRL framework for highway driving. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two-Step Training Process for High-Level and Low-Level Frameworks: Initially, the high-level controller [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The trap vehicles are initialized with a longitu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Single-level, hierarchical DRL, and h-DQN con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing three single-level DRL controllers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The driving policies for slow-moving vehicles as implemented by both single-level and hierarchical DRL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Velocity profile of the initial 40 timesteps of the single-level and hierarchical DRL controller. (b) Reward [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Bootstrapping Reinforcement Learning with Sub-optimal Policies for Autonomous Driving

    cs.RO 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A sub-optimal rule-based controller used as a soft constraint and replay-buffer data source lets a SAC agent escape a highway slow-traffic trap, outperforming SAC, CQL, and GAIL.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Deep reinforcement learning for autonomous driving: A survey

    B Ravi Kiran, Ibrahim Sobh, Victor Talpaert, Patrick Mannion, Ahmad A Al Sallab, Senthil Yogamani, and Patrick P ´erez. Deep reinforcement learning for autonomous driving: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 23(6):4909– 4926, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    A survey of autonomous driving: Common practices and emerging technologies

    Ekim Yurtsever, Jacob Lambert, Alexander Carballo, and Kazuya Takeda. A survey of autonomous driving: Common practices and emerging technologies. IEEE access, 8:58443–58469, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Evaluating the utility of driving: Toward automated decision making under uncertainty

    Robin Schubert. Evaluating the utility of driving: Toward automated decision making under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 13(1):354–364, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Sketch of an ivhs systems architecture

    Pravin Varaiya and Steven E Shladover. Sketch of an ivhs systems architecture. In Vehicle Navigation and Information Systems Conference, 1991, volume 2, pages 909–922. IEEE, 1991

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    A multiple- goal reinforcement learning method for complex vehicle overtak- ing maneuvers

    Daniel Chi Kit Ngai and Nelson Hon Ching Yung. A multiple- goal reinforcement learning method for complex vehicle overtak- ing maneuvers. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 12(2):509–522, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    A reinforcement learning approach to autonomous decision making of intelligent vehicles on highways

    Xin Xu, Lei Zuo, Xin Li, Lilin Qian, Junkai Ren, and Zhenping Sun. A reinforcement learning approach to autonomous decision making of intelligent vehicles on highways. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , 50(10):3884–3897, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    A review and analysis of lit- erature on autonomous driving

    Juan Rosenzweig and Michael Bartl. A review and analysis of lit- erature on autonomous driving. E-Journal Making-of Innovation, pages 1–57, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    An integrated model for autonomous speed and lane change decision- making based on deep reinforcement learning

    Jiankun Peng, Siyu Zhang, Yang Zhou, and Zhibin Li. An integrated model for autonomous speed and lane change decision- making based on deep reinforcement learning. IEEE Transac- tions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(11):21848–21860, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Lane change and merge maneuvers for connected and automated vehicles: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 1(1):105–120, 2016

    David Bevly, Xiaolong Cao, Mikhail Gordon, Guchan Ozbilgin, David Kari, Brently Nelson, Jonathan Woodruff, Matthew Barth, Chase Murray, Arda Kurt, et al. Lane change and merge maneuvers for connected and automated vehicles: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 1...

    2016

  2. [10]

    Automated lane change controller design

    Cem Hatipoglu, Umit Ozguner, and Keith A Redmill. Automated lane change controller design. IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems, 4(1):13–22, 2003

    2003

  3. [11]

    Traffic dynamics: studies in car following

    Robert E Chandler, Robert Herman, and Elliott W Montroll. Traffic dynamics: studies in car following. Operations research, 6(2):165–184, 1958

    1958

  4. [12]

    A behavioural car-following model for computer simulation

    Peter G Gipps. A behavioural car-following model for computer simulation. Transportation research part B: methodological , 15(2):105–111, 1981

    1981

  5. [13]

    Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simula- tions

    Martin Treiber, Ansgar Hennecke, and Dirk Helbing. Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simula- tions. Physical review E , 62(2):1805, 2000

    2000

  6. [14]

    General lane- changing model mobil for car-following models

    Arne Kesting, Martin Treiber, and Dirk Helbing. General lane- changing model mobil for car-following models. Transportation Research Record, 1999(1):86–94, 2007

    1999

  7. [15]

    Driving intention recognition and lane change prediction on the highway

    Teawon Han, Junbo Jing, and ¨Umit ¨Ozg¨uner. Driving intention recognition and lane change prediction on the highway. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 957–962. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    End to end learning for self-driving cars

    Mariusz Bojarski, Davide Del Testa, Daniel Dworakowski, Bern- hard Firner, Beat Flepp, Prasoon Goyal, Lawrence D Jackel, Mathew Monfort, Urs Muller, Jiakai Zhang, et al. End to end learning for self-driving cars. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07316 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Explaining how a deep neural network trained with end-to-end learning steers a car

    Mariusz Bojarski, Philip Yeres, Anna Choromanska, Krzysztof Choromanski, Bernhard Firner, Lawrence Jackel, and Urs Muller. Explaining how a deep neural network trained with end-to-end learning steers a car. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.07911 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    End-to-end driving via condi- tional imitation learning

    Felipe Codevilla, Matthias M ¨uller, Antonio L ´opez, Vladlen Koltun, and Alexey Dosovitskiy. End-to-end driving via condi- tional imitation learning. In 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , pages 4693–4700. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Urban driving with conditional imitation learning

    Jeffrey Hawke, Richard Shen, Corina Gurau, Siddharth Sharma, Daniele Reda, Nikolay Nikolov, Przemysław Mazur, Sean Mick- lethwaite, Nicolas Griffiths, Amar Shah, et al. Urban driving with conditional imitation learning. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Aut...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Integrating deep reinforcement learning with model-based path planners for automated driving

    Ekim Yurtsever, Linda Capito, Keith Redmill, and Umit Ozgune. Integrating deep reinforcement learning with model-based path planners for automated driving. In 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 1311–1316. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Learning to drive in a day

    Alex Kendall, Jeffrey Hawke, David Janz, Przemyslaw Mazur, Daniele Reda, John-Mark Allen, Vinh-Dieu Lam, Alex Bewley, and Amar Shah. Learning to drive in a day. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 8248–

    2019

  14. [22]

    Deep hierarchical reinforcement learning for autonomous driving with distinct behaviors

    Jianyu Chen, Zining Wang, and Masayoshi Tomizuka. Deep hierarchical reinforcement learning for autonomous driving with distinct behaviors. In 2018 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), pages 1239–1244. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Exploiting hierarchy for scalable decision making in autonomous driving

    Ekhlas Sonu, Zachary Sunberg, and Mykel J Kochenderfer. Exploiting hierarchy for scalable decision making in autonomous driving. In 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 2203–2208. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Hierarchical finite state machines for autonomous mobile systems

    Arda Kurt and ¨Umit ¨Ozg¨uner. Hierarchical finite state machines for autonomous mobile systems. Control Engineering Practice , 21(2):184–194, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Multi-lane cruising using hierarchical planning and reinforcement learning

    Kasra Rezaee, Peyman Yadmellat, Masoud S Nosrati, Elmira Amirloo Abolfathi, Mohammed Elmahgiubi, and Jun Luo. Multi-lane cruising using hierarchical planning and reinforcement learning. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC) , pages 1800–1806. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    A reinforcement learning based approach for automated lane change maneuvers

    Pin Wang, Ching-Yao Chan, and Arnaud de La Fortelle. A reinforcement learning based approach for automated lane change maneuvers. In 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) , pages 1379–1384. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Learning hierarchical behavior and motion planning for autonomous driving

    Jingke Wang, Yue Wang, Dongkun Zhang, Yezhou Yang, and Rong Xiong. Learning hierarchical behavior and motion planning for autonomous driving. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Confer- 12 ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 2235–2242. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    A hierarchi- cal architecture for sequential decision-making in autonomous driving using deep reinforcement learning

    Majid Moghadam and Gabriel Hugh Elkaim. A hierarchi- cal architecture for sequential decision-making in autonomous driving using deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08464, 2019

    1906 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Interpretable goal-based prediction and planning for au- tonomous driving

    Stefano V Albrecht, Cillian Brewitt, John Wilhelm, Balint Gyev- nar, Francisco Eiras, Mihai Dobre, and Subramanian Ramamoor- thy. Interpretable goal-based prediction and planning for au- tonomous driving. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA),...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Driving decision and control for automated lane change behavior based on deep reinforcement learning

    Tianyu Shi, Pin Wang, Xuxin Cheng, Ching-Yao Chan, and Ding Huang. Driving decision and control for automated lane change behavior based on deep reinforcement learning. In 2019 IEEE intelligent transportation systems conference (ITSC), pages 2895–2900. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Hierarchical deep reinforcement learning: Integrat- ing temporal abstraction and intrinsic motivation

    Tejas D Kulkarni, Karthik Narasimhan, Ardavan Saeedi, and Josh Tenenbaum. Hierarchical deep reinforcement learning: Integrat- ing temporal abstraction and intrinsic motivation. Advances in neural information processing systems , 29, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Reinforcement learning: An introduction

    Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Au- tonomous highway driving using deep reinforcement learning

    Subramanya Nageshrao, H Eric Tseng, and Dimitar Filev. Au- tonomous highway driving using deep reinforcement learning. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), pages 2326–2331. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Deep reinforcement learning with double q-learning

    Hado Van Hasselt, Arthur Guez, and David Silver. Deep reinforcement learning with double q-learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 30, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Human- level control through deep reinforcement learning

    V olodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Andrei A Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G Bellemare, Alex Graves, Martin Riedmiller, Andreas K Fidjeland, Georg Ostrovski, et al. Human- level control through deep reinforcement learning. nature, 518(7540):529–533, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    Intrinsic motivation and reinforcement learning

    Andrew G Barto. Intrinsic motivation and reinforcement learning. Intrinsically motivated learning in natural and artificial systems , pages 17–47, 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    An environment for autonomous driving decision-making

    Edouard Leurent. An environment for autonomous driving decision-making. https://github.com/eleurent/highway-env, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling

    Lili Chen, Kevin Lu, Aravind Rajeswaran, Kimin Lee, Aditya Grover, Misha Laskin, Pieter Abbeel, Aravind Srinivas, and Igor Mordatch. Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:15084–15097, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Offline reinforce- ment learning as one big sequence modeling problem

    Michael Janner, Qiyang Li, and Sergey Levine. Offline reinforce- ment learning as one big sequence modeling problem. Advances in neural information processing systems , 34:1273–1286, 2021. Zhihao Zhang Zhihao Zhang recieved the M.S. degree in electrical and computer en- gineer...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.