Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 42 references

Bridging Predictive Uncertainty and Safe Action: Sample-Conditioned Differentiable Planning for Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A conditional diffusion model supplies multiple future scenarios to a differentiable planner that uses an empirical CVaR constraint to produce safe driving trajectories.

desk verdict The paper wires conditional diffusion samples into a differentiable CVaR planner plus a directed-graph encoder and reports gains on Waymo and Argoverse, but the tail-risk protection stays empirical. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.03296 v1 pith:ZVJ2JCLQ submitted 2026-06-02 cs.RO

Chengzhen Meng , Pei Liu , Zhiyu Huang , Chen Lv , Jun Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords autonomousdrivingmotionplanningdiffusionmodelsCVaRdifferentiablepredictiveuncertaintydirectedgraphsafetrajectoryoptimization
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 shows how to connect expressive uncertainty modeling with interpretable planning by generating a set of future trajectories from a conditional diffusion model and passing those samples straight into a differentiable optimizer. The optimizer applies an empirical Conditional Value-at-Risk constraint so that the single output trajectory accounts for rare but dangerous tail events. A directed-graph encoding of scene context improves both the quality of the samples and the speed of the planner. Experiments on the Waymo Open Motion and Argoverse 2 datasets report gains in safety, efficiency, and comfort under both open-loop and closed-loop conditions. The central move is to keep uncertainty explicit in the form of concrete samples rather than collapsing it early.

What carries the argument

Sample-conditioned differentiable planner that ingests diffusion-generated trajectories under an empirical CVaR constraint, augmented by a directed-graph scene representation.

What would settle it

Execute the full pipeline in closed-loop simulation on a held-out collection of scenarios that contain rare safety-critical interactions and measure whether collision rates or safety violations fall below those of planners that omit the sample-conditioned CVaR step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By conditioning a diffusion model on scene context to produce diverse future trajectories and feeding those samples into a differentiable planner equipped with an empirical CVaR tail-risk constraint, the method produces physically interpretable trajectories that remain safe under rare but critical interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The diffusion samples must form an empirical distribution close enough to the true conditional distribution of future trajectories that optimizing under the CVaR constraint produces genuine closed-loop safety gains rather than only open-loop metric improvements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The resulting trajectory stays robust to rare safety-critical events while preserving efficiency and ride comfort.
  • Directed-graph encoding of scene context raises both prediction accuracy and planning speed.
  • Closed-loop tests on real driving datasets show better safety, efficiency, and comfort than prior baselines.
  • Uncertainty remains explicit in the form of concrete samples instead of being collapsed into a single deterministic forecast.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same sample-conditioned CVaR structure could be tested on other uncertain control tasks such as robot navigation in crowded spaces.
  • Extending the tail-risk constraint across multiple interacting agents might further lower collision rates in dense traffic.
  • Evaluating the framework on additional datasets that emphasize long-horizon interactions would test whether the reported safety gains hold outside the current benchmarks.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sample-conditioned differentiable planning framework for autonomous driving that uses a conditional diffusion model to generate a diverse set of future trajectory samples. These samples are fed directly into a differentiable planner that applies an empirical Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) tail-risk constraint to optimize physically interpretable trajectories robust to predictive uncertainty. A directed graph representation encodes scene context for improved prediction and efficiency. The approach is validated with open-loop and closed-loop experiments on the Waymo Open Motion and Argoverse 2 datasets, claiming superior performance over baselines in safety, efficiency, and ride comfort.

Significance. If the closed-loop safety gains are attributable to the CVaR mechanism on diffusion samples rather than ancillary components, the work would usefully connect expressive generative uncertainty modeling with interpretable, optimizable planning. The differentiable planner and use of empirical CVaR as an explicit constraint are strengths that allow direct incorporation of samples without black-box end-to-end training. The significance hinges on whether the finite-sample empirical distribution adequately captures safety-critical tails in interactive settings.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and method description: the central claim that 'these samples are directly fed into a differentiable planner, which explicitly mitigates predictive uncertainty via an empirical Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) tail-risk constraint' and yields robustness to rare safety-critical interactions is load-bearing. The stress-test concern applies directly: without evidence (e.g., coverage metrics, mode-recovery analysis, or ablation on sample count) that the finite diffusion ensemble includes or properly weights the low-probability modes that actually arise in closed-loop interaction, the empirical CVaR supplies no guarantee on true tail risk and observed gains could arise from the directed-graph encoder or open-loop metrics instead.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and detailed review. The major comment raises an important point about validating the coverage of safety-critical modes by finite diffusion samples. We address it directly below and outline targeted revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and method description: the central claim that 'these samples are directly fed into a differentiable planner, which explicitly mitigates predictive uncertainty via an empirical Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) tail-risk constraint' and yields robustness to rare safety-critical interactions is load-bearing. The stress-test concern applies directly: without evidence (e.g., coverage metrics, mode-recovery analysis, or ablation on sample count) that the finite diffusion ensemble includes or properly weights the low-probability modes that actually arise in closed-loop interaction, the empirical CVaR supplies no guarantee on true tail risk and observed gains could arise from the directed-graph encoder or open-loop metrics instead.

    Authors: We agree that the finite-sample nature of the diffusion ensemble limits any strict guarantee on true tail risk and that explicit validation of mode coverage would strengthen the central claim. The manuscript already reports ablations varying the number of diffusion samples (Section 5.3), which demonstrate consistent improvements in closed-loop safety metrics as sample count increases before saturating; these results are obtained on the same interactive Waymo and Argoverse 2 scenarios used for the main claims. We also include an ablation removing the CVaR constraint while retaining the directed-graph encoder and diffusion samples, showing degradation in safety metrics that cannot be explained by the encoder alone. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that dedicated coverage or mode-recovery metrics for low-probability interactive events are absent. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the discussion section explicitly addressing the limitations of empirical CVaR with finite samples and include a supplementary analysis of sample diversity (e.g., pairwise trajectory distances and collision-rate coverage) on the existing evaluation splits. These changes can be made without new data collection. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation uses external standard components

full rationale

The paper's core approach combines a conditional diffusion model (standard generative technique) with a differentiable planner incorporating empirical CVaR (standard risk measure). No load-bearing step reduces a claimed prediction or uniqueness result to a parameter fitted inside the paper, a self-citation chain, or a self-definitional equivalence. The directed graph representation and sample-conditioned optimization are presented as novel combinations of independent building blocks, with validation on external datasets (Waymo, Argoverse). The framework remains self-contained against external benchmarks without internal reduction.

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

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The directed-graph scene representation is introduced as a novel component whose independent justification is not visible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging Predictive Uncertainty and Safe Action: Sample-Conditioned Differentiable Planning for Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZVJ2JCLQ

@misc{pith2026260603296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging Predictive Uncertainty and Safe Action: Sample-Conditioned Differentiable Planning for Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZVJ2JCLQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.03296}
}
read the original abstract

Complex, dynamic, and interactive driving environments pose significant challenges for autonomous driving, primarily due to the pervasive uncertainty of surrounding traffic. A fundamental bottleneck in current systems is the disconnect between highly expressive uncertainty modeling and interpretable, safe motion planning. In this paper, we propose a novel sample-conditioned differentiable planning framework that bridges this gap by explicitly incorporating diffusion-generated future trajectories into the optimization process. Rather than compressing predictions into a single deterministic future or relying on black-box end-to-end architectures, our approach leverages a conditional diffusion model to generate a diverse set of plausible future scenarios. Crucially, these samples are directly fed into a differentiable planner, which explicitly mitigates predictive uncertainty via an empirical Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) tail-risk constraint. This allows the planner to optimize a physically interpretable trajectory that is robust to rare yet safety-critical interactions. Furthermore, we introduce a directed graph representation for scene context that yields substantial improvements in both predictive effectiveness and computational efficiency. Validated through extensive open-loop and closed-loop evaluations on the Waymo Open Motion and Argoverse 2 datasets, our framework significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in safety, efficiency, and ride comfort.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03296 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Learning-based frameworks for Autonomous Driving. (a) Probabilis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall architecture of our proposed framework. The model first encodes agent histories and global scene context into a concatenated representation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Construction of the directed graph representation from a standard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the joint training framework. During training, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative evaluation of the proposed framework across diverse open-loop scenarios. Colored solid lines represent the planned trajectory for the EV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative evaluation of the proposed framework across diverse closed-loop scenarios. Colored solid lines represent the planned trajectory for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Uncertainties in Onboard Algorithms for Autonomous Vehicles: Chal- lenges, Mitigation, and Perspectives,

    K. Yang, X. Tang, J. Li, H. Wang, G. Zhong, J. Chen, and D. Cao, “Uncertainties in Onboard Algorithms for Autonomous Vehicles: Chal- lenges, Mitigation, and Perspectives,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 8963–8987, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    From Prediction to Planning: Comprehensive Uncertainty Management in Autonomous Driving,

    W. Shao, J. Xu, Z. Cao, H. Wang, and J. Li, “From Prediction to Planning: Comprehensive Uncertainty Management in Autonomous Driving,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 16466–16480, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Motion Planning for Autonomous Driving: The State of the Art and Future Perspectives,

    S. Teng, X. Hu, P. Deng, B. Li, Y . Li, Y . Ai, D. Yang, L. Li, Z. Xuanyuan, F. Zhu, and L. Chen, “Motion Planning for Autonomous Driving: The State of the Art and Future Perspectives,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 3692–3711, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Decision-making Framework for Automated Driving in Highway Environments,

    S. Noh and K. An, “Decision-making Framework for Automated Driving in Highway Environments,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 58–71, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Adaptive Robust Game-theoretic Decision Making Strategy for Autonomous Vehicles in Highway,

    G. S. Sankar and K. Han, “Adaptive Robust Game-theoretic Decision Making Strategy for Autonomous Vehicles in Highway,”IEEE Transac- tions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 14484–14493, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Trajectory Tree-Based Pairwise Game for Interactive Decision-Making and Motion Planning in Autonomous Driving,

    B. Ma, W. Liu, and J. Ma, “Trajectory Tree-Based Pairwise Game for Interactive Decision-Making and Motion Planning in Autonomous Driving,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 74, no. 12, pp. 18660–18672, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Integrated Decision Making and Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Driving Under Multimodal Uncertainties: A Bayesian Game Approach,

    Z. Huang, T. Li, S. Shen, and J. Ma, “Integrated Decision Making and Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Driving Under Multimodal Uncertainties: A Bayesian Game Approach,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, pp. 1–16, 2026

    2026

  8. [8]

    Uncertainty- aware Safe Trajectory Planner Based on Model Predictive Control for Autonomous Driving,

    Z. Guo, H. Chen, F. Xu, Y . Hu, J. Lin, and L. Guo, “Uncertainty- aware Safe Trajectory Planner Based on Model Predictive Control for Autonomous Driving,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 12068–12079, 2025

    2025

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Non-Gaussian Chance- Constrained Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Vehicles Under Agent Uncertainty,

    A. Wang, A. Jasour, and B. C. Williams, “Non-Gaussian Chance- Constrained Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Vehicles Under Agent Uncertainty,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 6041–6048, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Planning and Decision- making for Autonomous Vehicles,

    W. Schwarting, J. Alonso-Mora, and D. Rus, “Planning and Decision- making for Autonomous Vehicles,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 1, pp. 187–210, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Trajectron++: Dynamically-feasible Trajectory Forecasting with Heterogeneous Data,

    T. Salzmann, B. Ivanovic, P. Chakravarty, and M. Pavone, “Trajectron++: Dynamically-feasible Trajectory Forecasting with Heterogeneous Data,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pp. 683–700, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Desire: Distant Future Prediction in Dynamic Scenes with In- teracting Agents,

    N. Lee, W. Choi, P. Vernaza, C. B. Choy, P. H. S. Torr, and M. Chan- draker, “Desire: Distant Future Prediction in Dynamic Scenes with In- teracting Agents,” inProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), July 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Social Gan: Socially Acceptable Trajectories with Generative Adversarial Networks,

    A. Gupta, J. Johnson, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, and A. Alahi, “Social Gan: Socially Acceptable Trajectories with Generative Adversarial Networks,” inProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Multipath: Multiple Probabilistic Anchor Trajectory Hypotheses for Behavior Prediction,

    Y . Chai, B. Sapp, M. Bansal, and D. Anguelov, “Multipath: Multiple Probabilistic Anchor Trajectory Hypotheses for Behavior Prediction,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    TNT: Target- driven Trajectory Prediction,

    H. Zhao, J. Gao, T. Lan, C. Sun, B. Sapp, B. Varadarajan, Y . Shen, Y . Shen, Y . Chai, C. Schmid, C. Li, and D. Anguelov, “TNT: Target- driven Trajectory Prediction,” inProceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    A Survey on Trajectory-prediction Methods for Autonomous Driving,

    Y . Huang, J. Du, Z. Yang, Z. Zhou, L. Zhang, and H. Chen, “A Survey on Trajectory-prediction Methods for Autonomous Driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 652–674, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    R2P2: A Reparameterized Pushforward Policy for Diverse, Precise Generative Path Forecasting,

    N. Rhinehart, K. M. Kitani, and P. Vernaza, “R2P2: A Reparameterized Pushforward Policy for Diverse, Precise Generative Path Forecasting,” in European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), vol. 11217, pp. 47– 62, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Overcoming Limitations of Mixture Density Networks: A Sampling and Fitting Framework for Multimodal Future Prediction,

    O. Makansi, E. Ilg, O. C ¸ ic ¸ek, and T. Brox, “Overcoming Limitations of Mixture Density Networks: A Sampling and Fitting Framework for Multimodal Future Prediction,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 7137–7146, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Stochastic Trajectory Prediction via Motion Indeterminacy Diffusion,

    T. Gu, G. Chen, J. Li, C. Lin, Y . Rao, J. Zhou, and J. Lu, “Stochastic Trajectory Prediction via Motion Indeterminacy Diffusion,” inProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 17113–17122, June 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Score-based Generative Modeling Through Stochastic Differential Equations,

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole, “Score-based Generative Modeling Through Stochastic Differential Equations,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    MotionDiffuser: Controllable Multi-agent Motion Prediction Using Diffusion,

    C. M. Jiang, A. Cornman, C. Park, B. Sapp, Y . Zhou, and D. Anguelov, “MotionDiffuser: Controllable Multi-agent Motion Prediction Using Diffusion,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 9644–9653, June 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    V ADv2: End-to-end Vectorized Autonomous Driving via Probabilistic Planning,

    B. Jiang, S. Chen, H. Gao, B. Liao, Q. Zhang, W. Liu, and X. Wang, “V ADv2: End-to-end Vectorized Autonomous Driving via Probabilistic Planning,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2026

    2026

  15. [23]

    Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples,

    I. J. Goodfellow, J. Shlens, and C. Szegedy, “Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead,

    C. Rudin, “Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead,”Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 206–215, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Deep Kinematic Models for Kinematically Feasible Vehicle Trajectory Predictions,

    H. Cui, T. Nguyen, F.-C. Chou, T.-H. Lin, J. Schneider, D. Bradley, and N. Djuric, “Deep Kinematic Models for Kinematically Feasible Vehicle Trajectory Predictions,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 10563–10569, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    LETO: Learning Constrained Visuomotor Policy with Differentiable Trajectory Optimization,

    Z. Xu and Y . She, “LETO: Learning Constrained Visuomotor Policy with Differentiable Trajectory Optimization,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 22, pp. 8567–8578, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Integrating decision-making into differentiable optimization guided learning for end-to-end planning of autonomous vehicles,

    W. Liu, Y . Song, C. Meng, Z. Huang, H. Liu, C. Lv, and J. Ma, “Integrating decision-making into differentiable optimization guided learning for end-to-end planning of autonomous vehicles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01234, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Differentiable Integrated Motion Prediction and Planning with Learnable Cost Function for Autonomous Driving,

    Z. Huang, H. Liu, J. Wu, and C. Lv, “Differentiable Integrated Motion Prediction and Planning with Learnable Cost Function for Autonomous Driving,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 15222–15236, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Large Scale Interactive Motion Fore- casting for Autonomous Driving: The Waymo Open Motion Dataset,

    S. Ettinger, S. Cheng, B. Caine, C. Liu, H. Zhao, S. Pradhan, Y . Chai, B. Sapp, C. R. Qi, Y . Zhou,et al., “Large Scale Interactive Motion Fore- casting for Autonomous Driving: The Waymo Open Motion Dataset,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer ...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Argoverse 2: Next Generation Datasets for Self-driving Perception and Forecasting,

    B. Wilson, W. Qi, T. Agarwal, J. Lambert, J. Singh, S. Khandelwal, B. Pan, R. Kumar, A. Hartnett, J. K. Pontes,et al., “Argoverse 2: Next Generation Datasets for Self-driving Perception and Forecasting,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion,

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y . Du, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song, “Diffusion Policy: Visuomotor Policy Learning via Action Diffusion,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 44, no. 10-11, pp. 1684–1704, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Generative Modeling by Estimating Gradients of the Data Distribution,

    Y . Song and S. Ermon, “Generative Modeling by Estimating Gradients of the Data Distribution,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Language Mod- els Are Few-shot Learners,

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell,et al., “Language Mod- els Are Few-shot Learners,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  26. [34]

    Progressive Distillation for Fast Sampling of Diffusion Models,

    T. Salimans and J. Ho, “Progressive Distillation for Fast Sampling of Diffusion Models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00512, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Lateral Vehicle Dynamics,

    R. Rajamani, “Lateral Vehicle Dynamics,” inV ehicle Dynamics and Control, pp. 15–46, Springer, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Differen- tiable Mpc for End-to-end Planning and Control,

    B. Amos, I. Jimenez, J. Sacks, B. Boots, and J. Z. Kolter, “Differen- tiable Mpc for End-to-end Planning and Control,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Chance-constrained Programming,

    A. Charnes and W. W. Cooper, “Chance-constrained Programming,” Management Science, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 73–79, 1959

    1959

  30. [38]

    Risk-Aware Motion Planning and Control Using CVaR-Constrained Optimization,

    A. Hakobyan, G. C. Kim, and I. Yang, “Risk-Aware Motion Planning and Control Using CVaR-Constrained Optimization,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3924–3931, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Optimization of conditional value- at-risk,

    R. T. Rockafellar, S. Uryasev,et al., “Optimization of conditional value- at-risk,”Journal of Risk, vol. 2, pp. 21–42, 2000

    2000

  32. [40]

    GameFormer: Game-theoretic Modeling and Learning of Transformer-based Interactive Prediction and Planning for Autonomous Driving,

    Z. Huang, H. Liu, and C. Lv, “GameFormer: Game-theoretic Modeling and Learning of Transformer-based Interactive Prediction and Planning for Autonomous Driving,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Interna- tional Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 3903–3913, October 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models,

    J. Song, C. Meng, and S. Ermon, “Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Represen- tations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Motion Transformer with Global Intention Localization and Local Movement Refinement,

    S. Shi, L. Jiang, D. Dai, and B. Schiele, “Motion Transformer with Global Intention Localization and Local Movement Refinement,”Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.