Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This survey claims that game-theoretic autonomous driving is best understood scenario by scenario, judged by how each method adapts the standard game model.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-05 04:57 UTC pith:7XBTT2JS

load-bearing objection A useful scenario taxonomy for game-theoretic driving, but the garbled equations sink its reliability as a survey. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2509.05777 v1 pith:7XBTT2JS submitted 2025-09-06 cs.RO

Scenario-based Decision-making Using Game Theory for Interactive Autonomous Driving: A Survey

Zhihao Lin , Zhen Tian This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords game theoryautonomous drivinginteractive decision-makingscenario-based surveyNash equilibriumStackelberg gamehuman-vehicle interactionautonomous racing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This survey tries to establish that game-theoretic decision-making for autonomous driving has matured into a set of scenario-specific methods, best understood by grouping them under five road scenarios: highways, on-ramp merging, roundabouts, unsignalized intersections, and autonomous racing. For each scenario, the paper summarizes recent work and the roadway features that shape the interaction, then assesses each algorithm by how it adapts the standard game model — its equilibrium concept, payoff design, and information assumptions. A sympathetic reader would care because this provides a structured comparison of a fragmented literature and a basis for choosing which game formulation suits which driving task. The paper also argues that combining game theory with learning, bounded-rationality models, and hierarchical planning is the most promising route to safe, socially compliant autonomous vehicles.

Core claim

The paper claims a comprehensive, scenario-organized evaluation of game-based interactive driving. Its central claim: the literature maps onto five road environments — highways, on-ramp merging, roundabouts, unsignalized intersections, and racing — and what matters is how each method adapts the standard game model. Highways use Stackelberg, Nash, and Markov games plus social preferences; merging uses short-horizon Stackelberg or stochastic games; roundabouts use level-k, Bayesian, prospect-theoretic, and multi-leader Stackelberg games; intersections use chicken, mixed-strategy Nash, and switchable modes; racing uses Nash, sequential, cooperative, blocking, and dynamic potential games. The su

What carries the argument

The organizing instrument is a scenario taxonomy — highways, on-ramp merging, roundabouts, unsignalized intersections, and autonomous racing — combined with a comparison axis: how each method modifies the standard game model. That axis covers equilibrium concept (Nash, Stackelberg, Markov-perfect, Bayesian-Nash, level-k, quantal response, potential), payoff structure (Social Value Orientation, prospect theory, relative driving style, aggressiveness scaling), and information assumptions (complete vs incomplete, full vs partial observability). This lets the survey compare methods across different tasks and identify which game-theoretic ingredients matter per scenario.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's value as a reliable reference depends on its summaries and reproduced equations matching the original papers, because no systematic literature-search or verification protocol is described.

What would settle it

Compare the equations printed for any central cited method — for example, the Markov-game equilibrium inequalities in Eqs. (13)-(18) or the Stackelberg formulation in Eq. (8) — against the original publication; if the inequalities and cost functions differ, the claim of a reliable scenario-by-scenario evaluation fails. The repeated identical inequalities in Eqs. (13)-(18) are a concrete starting point.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • A design team can use the survey as a scenario-to-model menu: Stackelberg for leader-follower merges, Nash or Markov games for highway lane changes, level-k and Bayesian methods for roundabouts, mixed-strategy or switchable games for intersections, and potential or blocking games for racing.
  • The scenario comparisons show that equilibrium concept choice matters: simultaneous Nash can cause deadlock; sequential Stackelberg or hierarchical formulations often resolve it.
  • Bounded-rationality models — level-k reasoning, quantal response equilibrium, prospect theory — are the current frontier for matching observed human driver behavior.
  • Hybrid game-plus-learning methods — MARL, IRL, deep Q-networks with game-theoretic rewards — are the most promising route to scaling these models to dense mixed traffic.
  • Hierarchical architectures separating high-level game decisions from low-level trajectory optimization are a practical key to real-time deployment, especially in racing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Implicit in the survey's organization is a decision procedure it does not spell out: choose the equilibrium concept first, then the payoff mechanism, then the learning wrapper — rather than starting from a favorite algorithm.
  • If the scenario taxonomy is correct, evaluation benchmarks should be stratified by these five scenario classes with scenario-specific metrics (merge success, deadlock frequency, crossing-order stability, race rank) to make methods comparable.
  • The equation-reproduction inconsistencies in the text, such as repeated identical inequalities in Eqs. (13)-(18), hint the field lacks standardized notation for game-theoretic driving models; a canonical formulation would reduce ambiguity.
  • A testable extension: use the taxonomy to build a rule-based game-model selector that takes scenario features such as number of agents, information availability, and risk tolerance, and outputs a recommended equilibrium concept.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript surveys game-theoretic decision-making methods for interactive autonomous driving, organized around five scenarios: highways, on-ramp merging, roundabouts, unsignalized intersections, and autonomous racing. It introduces basic game-theoretic concepts, reproduces equations from selected papers, summarizes methods and mechanisms in tables, and closes with scenario-specific discussions and future directions. The abstract and conclusion claim that game-theoretic models outperform traditional simulation methods and that the survey provides a comprehensive, critical evaluation.

Significance. The scenario-organized taxonomy is genuinely useful: grouping methods by roadway scenario is a reasonable way to structure a fast-moving literature, and the tables provide a quick entry point. If the reproduced equations and descriptions were faithful, the survey would fill a real gap. The paper also covers recent learning-plus-game hybrids (MARL, IRL, MCTS, level-k) and discusses the relationship between equilibrium concepts and driving tasks. However, no original quantitative analysis or reproducible artifact is provided, and the manuscript's reliability is not currently established because several central equation blocks are internally inconsistent or misstate the cited solution concepts. The claimed advantage over traditional methods is asserted, not demonstrated.

major comments (5)
  1. [§IV, Eqs. (12)–(18)] Equations (12)–(18) cannot be used as printed. Eq. (12) is introduced by 'where (11)' and then labeled '(7)', but Eq. (11) is absent. The equilibrium conditions (13)–(18) are five identical inequalities plus Eq. (14) with the inequality sign reversed, all with the same quantifiers ∀u_SV_x(k), ∀u_TV_x(k). A two-player Markov-perfect equilibrium requires separate best-response inequalities for the SV and TV, each holding with the other player's equilibrium strategy fixed. As printed, the condition is either vacuous or a misstatement of [92]. Since this block is the basis for the survey's assessment of Markov-game methods, the error is load-bearing.
  2. [§IV, Eqs. (7)–(8)] Equations (7)–(8) misrepresent the solution concepts attributed to [91]. In Eq. (7), the ego vehicle's arg min ranges over a_AC—the adjacent vehicle's action—while a_AC* is simultaneously defined as the arg min of J_AC. This is not a Nash equilibrium, in which each player optimizes its own cost given the other's strategy. In Eq. (8), the leader minimizes over a_AC directly instead of over the follower's best-response mapping, and the γ2 constraint is not defined. The surrounding discussion claims a hybrid Nash/Stackelberg game, but the equations as written cannot be solved as such.
  3. [Abstract and §IX] The abstract and conclusion assert that game-based models 'outperform traditional simulation methods' and that several reviewed algorithms yield 'significant improvements' in success rate, efficiency, and safety. No comparative metric, baseline, dataset, or quantitative synthesis is provided anywhere in the manuscript. A survey can report the original papers' claims, but it cannot, without a comparative table or at least a consistent reporting standard, make this blanket comparative claim as its own conclusion. This unsupported claim is central to the paper's motivation.
  4. [§I (ref. [40])] Section I claims there is no 'comprehensive review' of game-based interactive driving across scenarios, but the authors' companion survey [40] has a nearly identical scope. The manuscript does not state how it differs from [40] in coverage period, selection criteria, or assessment dimensions. Without this distinction, the novelty/gap claim is not substantiated, and the heavy reliance on the authors' own papers (e.g., [7], [10], [27], [40], [53], [70], [71]) becomes difficult to evaluate.
  5. [General methodology] The survey has no stated methodology: no search databases, query terms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or quality-appraisal protocol. For a work whose central claim is to be 'a comprehensive evaluation', this is not a minor omission; it makes the coverage and the selection of references non-auditable and prevents the reader from distinguishing a systematic review from an opportunistic collection.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (3)] The spacing term is typeset as 'xℓ −x−l', which is ambiguous; please use (x_ℓ − x − l)^2 and define all symbols.
  2. [§VIII, Eq. (29) and Algorithm 1] The cross-reference 'Algorithm??' before Eq. (29) is unresolved; Algorithm 1 is labeled 'Interactive Decision-Making Planner [146]' but the link is missing.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and garbled phrases: 'stkelberg' in §IV, 'framwwork' in §VI, 'blocked chains' in §I (likely 'blockchain'), and inconsistent spacing in 'A Vs'.
  4. [References [116] and [122]] References [116] and [122] appear to be the same paper; the text in §V discusses them as two different approaches. Please disambiguate or merge.
  5. [Tables I–V] The tables mix surname-only citations and bracketed reference numbers; for example, Table I entries 'Kim (2014)' and 'Talebpour (2015)' do not include reference numbers. Add explicit citation keys for verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the survey summarizes external literature; self-citations are not load-bearing, and equation errors are reliability defects, not circular reductions.

full rationale

This manuscript is a survey rather than a derivation. Its central claim—that game-based interactive driving methods can be organized and assessed across five scenarios—is carried by citations to a large external literature (e.g., [88], [91], [98], [109], [124], [145]) and by reproductions of external equations. No parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction; no concept is defined in terms of its own conclusion; no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is imported to force a choice. The many self-citations (e.g., [7], [10], [40], [53], [70], [71]) are used as examples of recent work, and the companion survey [40] is cited only as background on interactive decision-making, not as the sole evidence for the scenario taxonomy or critical assessment. I considered the garbled equation blocks in §IV (Eqs. (13)–(18) are identical; Eq. (12) references a missing Eq. (11); Eq. (14) should be ≤ but is printed ≥). These are serious accuracy problems that undermine the survey's reliability, but they are not circularity: they do not reduce a claimed result to its input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The survey introduces no new free parameters or entities. Its claims rest entirely on the representativeness and faithfulness of its secondary reporting of the literature, which is not systematically justified.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The selection of reviewed papers is representative of the field
    No systematic search or inclusion criteria are described, so the survey's coverage is an unstated premise.
  • domain assumption The descriptions and equations attributed to cited works are accurate
    The survey reproduces many equations (e.g., Eq. (3), (9)-(18)) with apparent copy-paste errors, so this faithfulness is load-bearing but unverified.
  • ad hoc to paper Game-theoretic approaches outperform traditional simulation methods
    Stated in the abstract without aggregated evidence; the paper assumes this superiority rather than demonstrating it.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 33406 in / 10570 out tokens · 107899 ms · 2026-08-05T04:57:14.541404+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scenario-based Decision-making Using Game Theory for Interactive Autonomous Driving: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7XBTT2JS

@misc{pith2026250905777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scenario-based Decision-making Using Game Theory for Interactive Autonomous Driving: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7XBTT2JS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05777}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Game-based interactive driving simulations have emerged as versatile platforms for advancing decision-making algorithms in road transport mobility. While these environments offer safe, scalable, and engaging settings for testing driving strategies, ensuring both realism and robust performance amid dynamic and diverse scenarios remains a significant challenge. Recently, the integration of game-based techniques with advanced learning frameworks has enabled the development of adaptive decision-making models that effectively manage the complexities inherent in varied driving conditions. These models outperform traditional simulation methods, especially when addressing scenario-specific challenges, ranging from obstacle avoidance on highways and precise maneuvering during on-ramp merging to navigation in roundabouts, unsignalized intersections, and even the high-speed demands of autonomous racing. Despite numerous innovations in game-based interactive driving, a systematic review comparing these approaches across different scenarios is still missing. This survey provides a comprehensive evaluation of game-based interactive driving methods by summarizing recent advancements and inherent roadway features in each scenario. Furthermore, the reviewed algorithms are critically assessed based on their adaptation of the standard game model and an analysis of their specific mechanisms to understand their impact on decision-making performance. Finally, the survey discusses the limitations of current approaches and outlines promising directions for future research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05777 by Zhen Tian, Zhihao Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Basic concepts in game theory. the integration of game-based approaches into scenario-based interactive driving and outlining future research directions in this evolving field. II. BASIC ELEMENTS OF GAME THEORY IN DRIVING SCENARIOS Game theory provides a powerful mathematical framework to model strategic interactions among intelligent agents—such as AVs in dynamic traffic environments. In the context of dr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Game-theoretic scenarios for AVs: (a) highway driving, (b) on-ramp merging with blockage, (c) navigating multi-exit roundabouts, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The uncountably infinite trajectories of the general game (left) discretized by the high-level planner (middle). The sequence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Human-Machine Bidirectional Trust-Aware Analysis and Design for Human-Led Truck Platooning

    cs.HC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Develops a bidirectional trust framework for human-led truck platooning with distinct human-to-automation and automation-to-human dimensions, a quantitative model centered on following distance, and derived design guidelines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

151 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The rise of electric vehicles—2020 status and future expectations,

    M. Muratori, M. Alexander, D. Arent, M. Bazilian, P. Cazzola, E. M. Dede, J. Farrell, C. Gearhart, D. Greene, A. Jennet al., “The rise of electric vehicles—2020 status and future expectations,”Progress in Energy, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 022002, 2021

    2020

  2. [2]

    The impact of autonomous vehicles on cities: A review,

    F. Duarte and C. Ratti, “The impact of autonomous vehicles on cities: A review,”Journal of Urban Technology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 3–18, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Itssafe: An intelligent transportation system for improving safety and traffic efficiency,

    A. M. De Souza, L. L. Pedrosa, L. C. Botega, and L. Villas, “Itssafe: An intelligent transportation system for improving safety and traffic efficiency,” in2018 IEEE 87th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring). Ieee, 2018, pp. 1–7

    2018

  4. [4]

    Artificial intelligence of things for smart cities: advanced solutions for enhancing transportation safety,

    S. K. Jagatheesaperumal, S. E. Bibri, J. Huang, J. Rajapandian, and B. Parthiban, “Artificial intelligence of things for smart cities: advanced solutions for enhancing transportation safety,”Computational Urban Science, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 10, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Multi-tree compact hierarchical tensor recurrent neural networks for intelligent transportation system edge devices,

    D. Liu, L. T. Yang, R. Zhao, X. Deng, C. Zhu, and Y . Ruan, “Multi-tree compact hierarchical tensor recurrent neural networks for intelligent transportation system edge devices,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 8719–8729, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Emergency routing protocol for intelligent transportation systems using iot and generative artificial intelligence,

    S. Song and M. Fan, “Emergency routing protocol for intelligent transportation systems using iot and generative artificial intelligence,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 1–12, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    A conflicts-free, speed-lossless kan-based reinforcement learning decision system for interactive driving in roundabouts,

    Z. Lin, Z. Tian, J. Lan, Q. Zhang, Z. Ye, H. Zhuang, and X. Zhao, “A conflicts-free, speed-lossless kan-based reinforcement learning decision system for interactive driving in roundabouts,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Industrial internet robot collaboration system and edge computing optimization,

    Q. Zuoet al., “Industrial internet robot collaboration system and edge computing optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02492, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Ai-driven optimization of blockchain scalability, security, and privacy protection,

    Y . Fujianget al., “Ai-driven optimization of blockchain scalability, security, and privacy protection,”Algorithms, vol. 18, no. 5, p. 263, 2025

    2025

  10. [10]

    Safety- critical multi-agent mcts for mixed traffic coordination at unsignalized intersections,

    Z. Lin, J. Lan, C. Anagnostopoulos, Z. Tian, and D. Flynn, “Safety- critical multi-agent mcts for mixed traffic coordination at unsignalized intersections,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Sys- tems, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Advanced multi-modal sensor fusion architectures for robust autonomous driving systems,

    Q. Zuo, C. Li, Y . Fan, W. Kang, T. Yang, N. Feng, Z. Tian, and M. Yu, “Advanced multi-modal sensor fusion architectures for robust autonomous driving systems,” in2025 IEEE 5th International Con- ference on Electronic Technology, Communication and Information (ICETCI). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1556–1560

    2025

  12. [12]

    Integrated blockchain and federated learning for robust security in internet of vehicles networks,

    Z. He, R. Xu, B. Wang, Q. Meng, Q. Tang, L. Shen, Z. Tian, and J. Duan, “Integrated blockchain and federated learning for robust security in internet of vehicles networks,”Symmetry, vol. 17, no. 7, p. 1168, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    The application of intelligent optical sensor networks in industrial automation,

    Q. Yanget al., “The application of intelligent optical sensor networks in industrial automation,” inFifth International Conference on Telecom- munications, Optics, and Computer Science (TOCS 2024), vol. 13629. SPIE, 2025, pp. 60–67

    2024

  14. [14]

    Research on real-time vehicle detection and tracking algorithm based on dense optical flow,

    W. Ju, Y . Dong, J. Zhu, Z. Tian, and Q. Li, “Research on real-time vehicle detection and tracking algorithm based on dense optical flow,” inIntelligent Transportation and Smart Cities. IOS Press, 2025, pp. 146–154

    2025

  15. [15]

    Intelligent road crack detection and analysis based on improved yolov8,

    H. Zuoet al., “Intelligent road crack detection and analysis based on improved yolov8,” in2025 8th International Conference on Advanced Algorithms and Control Engineering (ICAACE). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1192–1195

    2025

  16. [16]

    Skybound magic: Enabling body-only drone piloting through a lightweight vision–pose interaction framework,

    J. Zhong, X. Fanget al., “Skybound magic: Enabling body-only drone piloting through a lightweight vision–pose interaction framework,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 1–31, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    Ppa-enhanced yolov10: real-time detection of small uavs in complex environments,

    W. Qin, J. Liet al., “Ppa-enhanced yolov10: real-time detection of small uavs in complex environments,” inSecond International Conference on Image Processing and Artificial Intelligence (ICIPAI 2025), vol. 13780. SPIE, 2025, pp. 375–381

    2025

  18. [18]

    A survey of multi-vehicle consensus in uncertain networks for autonomous driving,

    D. Chu, C. Zhao, R. Wang, Q. Xiao, W. Wang, and D. Cao, “A survey of multi-vehicle consensus in uncertain networks for autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 19 319–19 341, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Review of intelligent vehicle driving risk assessment in multi-vehicle interaction scenarios,

    X. Xiong, S. Zhang, and Y . Chen, “Review of intelligent vehicle driving risk assessment in multi-vehicle interaction scenarios,”World Electric Vehicle Journal, vol. 14, no. 12, p. 348, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    Enhancing digital driver models: Identification of distinct postural strategies used by drivers,

    G. Kyung, M. A. Nussbaum, and K. L. Babski-Reeves, “Enhancing digital driver models: Identification of distinct postural strategies used by drivers,”Ergonomics, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 375–384, 2010

    2010

  21. [21]

    Managing unsafe drivers and their unsafe habits,

    P. R. Moser, “Managing unsafe drivers and their unsafe habits,” in ASSE Professional Development Conference and Exposition. ASSE, 2010, pp. ASSE–10

    2010

  22. [22]

    Bad behaviour or societal failure? perceptions of the factors contributing to drivers’ engagement in the fatal five driving behaviours,

    P. M. Salmon, G. J. Read, V . Beanland, J. Thompson, A. J. Filtness, A. Hulme, R. McClure, and I. Johnston, “Bad behaviour or societal failure? perceptions of the factors contributing to drivers’ engagement in the fatal five driving behaviours,”Applied ergonomics, vol. 74, pp. 162–171, 2019

    2019

  23. [23]

    Self- driving cars: A survey,

    C. Badue, R. Guidolini, R. V . Carneiro, P. Azevedo, V . B. Cardoso, A. Forechi, L. Jesus, R. Berriel, T. M. Paixao, F. Mutzet al., “Self- driving cars: A survey,”Expert systems with applications, vol. 165, p. 113816, 2021

    2021

  24. [24]

    Road accidents and safety statistics,

    Department for Transport, “Road accidents and safety statistics,” https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-accidents-and-safety- statistics, 2023, accessed: 2024-04-28

    2023

  25. [25]

    Verkehrs- und unfalldaten - kurzzusammenstellung der entwicklung in deutschland,

    “Verkehrs- und unfalldaten - kurzzusammenstellung der entwicklung in deutschland,” Bundesanstalt f ¨ur Straßenwesen (BASt), Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, Tech. Rep., 2020, technical report. [Online]. Available: https://www.bast.de/DE/Publikationen

    2020

  26. [26]

    An advanced machine learning approach to predicting pedestrian fatality caused by road crashes: A step toward sustainable pedestrian safety,

    W. Tao, M. Aghaabbasi, M. Ali, A. H. Almaliki, R. Zainol, A. A. Almaliki, and E. E. Hussein, “An advanced machine learning approach to predicting pedestrian fatality caused by road crashes: A step toward sustainable pedestrian safety,”Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 2436, 2022

    2022

  27. [27]

    Dpl-slam: enhancing dynamic point-line slam through dense semantic methods,

    Z. Lin, Q. Zhang, Z. Tian, P. Yu, and J. Lan, “Dpl-slam: enhancing dynamic point-line slam through dense semantic methods,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 14 596–14 607, 2024

    2024

  28. [28]

    Slam2: Simultaneous localization and multimode mapping for indoor dynamic environments,

    Z. Lin, Q. Zhang, Z. Tian, P. Yu, Z. Ye, H. Zhuang, and J. Lan, “Slam2: Simultaneous localization and multimode mapping for indoor dynamic environments,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 158, p. 111054, 2025

    2025

  29. [29]

    Enhanced visual slam for collision-free driving with lightweight autonomous cars,

    Z. Lin, Z. Tian, Q. Zhang, H. Zhuang, and J. Lan, “Enhanced visual slam for collision-free driving with lightweight autonomous cars,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 19, p. 6258, 2024

    2024

  30. [30]

    Explanations in autonomous driving: A survey,

    D. Omeiza, H. Webb, M. Jirotka, and L. Kunze, “Explanations in autonomous driving: A survey,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 10 142–10 162, 2021

    2021

  31. [31]

    An overview of sensors in autonomous vehicles,

    H. A. Ignatious, M. Khanet al., “An overview of sensors in autonomous vehicles,”Procedia Computer Science, vol. 198, pp. 736–741, 2022

    2022

  32. [32]

    Autonomous driving manoeuvres in urban road traffic environment: a study on roundabouts,

    J. P ´erez, V . Milan´eset al., “Autonomous driving manoeuvres in urban road traffic environment: a study on roundabouts,”IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 13 795–13 800, 2011

    2011

  33. [33]

    Technology developments and impacts of connected and autonomous vehicles: An overview,

    H. U. Ahmed, Y . Huang, P. Lu, and R. Bridgelall, “Technology developments and impacts of connected and autonomous vehicles: An overview,”Smart Cities, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 382–404, 2022

    2022

  34. [34]

    Advanced methods and algorithms for selected con- nected autonomous vehicles (cavs) benefits,

    A. Eskandarian, “Advanced methods and algorithms for selected con- nected autonomous vehicles (cavs) benefits,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 405–442, 2024

    2024

  35. [35]

    Bio-inspired hybrid path planning for efficient and smooth robotic navigation: F. yuan et al

    F. Yuan, Z. Lin, Z. Tian, B. Chen, Q. Zhou, C. Yuan, H. Sun, and Z. Huang, “Bio-inspired hybrid path planning for efficient and smooth robotic navigation: F. yuan et al.”International Journal of Intelligent Robotics and Applications, pp. 1–31, 2025

    2025

  36. [36]

    Human– machine interaction in intelligent and connected vehicles: A review of status quo, issues, and opportunities,

    Z. Tan, N. Dai, Y . Su, R. Zhang, Y . Li, D. Wu, and S. Li, “Human– machine interaction in intelligent and connected vehicles: A review of status quo, issues, and opportunities,”IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 13 954–13 975, 2021

    2021

  37. [37]

    Interac- tion of automated driving systems with pedestrians: Challenges, current solutions, and recommendations for ehmis,

    R. Ezzati Amini, C. Katrakazas, A. Riener, and C. Antoniou, “Interac- tion of automated driving systems with pedestrians: Challenges, current solutions, and recommendations for ehmis,”Transport Reviews, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 788–813, 2021

    2021

  38. [38]

    Towards safe autonomy in hybrid traffic: Detecting unpredictable abnormal behaviors of human drivers via information sharing,

    J. Wang, L. Su, S. Han, D. Song, and F. Miao, “Towards safe autonomy in hybrid traffic: Detecting unpredictable abnormal behaviors of human drivers via information sharing,”ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1–25, 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    Review of autonomous driving in unexpected events,

    Y . Chen, “Review of autonomous driving in unexpected events,” in 2024 International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Automatic Control (IRAC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 45–51

    2024

  40. [40]

    Evaluating scenario-based decision-making for interactive autonomous driving using rational criteria: A survey,

    Z. Tian, Z. Lin, D. Zhao, W. Zhao, D. Flynn, S. Ansari, and C. Wei, “Evaluating scenario-based decision-making for interactive autonomous driving using rational criteria: A survey,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01886, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Path planning method with improved artificial potential field—a reinforcement learning perspective,

    Q. Yao, Z. Zhenget al., “Path planning method with improved artificial potential field—a reinforcement learning perspective,”IEEE access, vol. 8, pp. 135 513–135 523, 2020

    2020

  42. [42]

    Local information using stereo camera in artificial potential field based path planning,

    H. H. Triharminto, O. Wahyunggoro, T. B. Adji, A. Cahyadi, I. Ardiyanto, and Iswanto, “Local information using stereo camera in artificial potential field based path planning,”IAENG International Journal of Computer Science, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 316–326, 2017

    2017

  43. [43]

    A novel of repulsive func- tion on artificial potential field for robot path planning,

    H. H. Triharminto, O. Wahyunggoroet al., “A novel of repulsive func- tion on artificial potential field for robot path planning,”International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 6, no. 6, p. 3262, 2016

    2016

  44. [44]

    Adaptive field effect planner for safe interactive autonomous driving on curved roads,

    Q. Li, Z. Tian, X. Wang, J. Yang, and Z. Lin, “Adaptive field effect planner for safe interactive autonomous driving on curved roads,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14747, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Minimax approaches to robust model predictive control,

    J. L ¨ofberg, “Minimax approaches to robust model predictive control,” vol. 812, pp. 29–37, 2003

    2003

  46. [46]

    H-infinity control,

    K. Glover, “H-infinity control,” inEncyclopedia of systems and control. Springer, 2021, pp. 896–902

    2021

  47. [47]

    Sliding mode control in power converters and drives: A review,

    L. Wu, J. Liu, S. Vazquez, and S. K. Mazumder, “Sliding mode control in power converters and drives: A review,”IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 392–406, 2021

    2021

  48. [48]

    Efficient and safe planner for automated driving on ramps considering unsatisfication,

    Q. Li, Z. Tian, X. Wang, J. Yang, and Z. Lin, “Efficient and safe planner for automated driving on ramps considering unsatisfication,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15320, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    A risk-aware spatial-temporal trajectory plan- ning framework for autonomous vehicles using qp-mpc and dynamic hazard fields,

    Z. Tian, Z. Lin, D. Zhao, C. Anagnostopoulos, Q. Wang, W. Zhao, X. Wang, and C. Wei, “A risk-aware spatial-temporal trajectory plan- ning framework for autonomous vehicles using qp-mpc and dynamic hazard fields,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.00643, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    A survey of monte carlo tree search methods,

    C. B. Browneet al., “A survey of monte carlo tree search methods,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in games, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–43, 2012

    2012

  51. [51]

    Tactical cooperative planning for autonomous highway driving using monte-carlo tree search,

    D. Lenz, T. Kessler, and A. Knoll, “Tactical cooperative planning for autonomous highway driving using monte-carlo tree search,” in2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2016, pp. 447–453

    2016

  52. [52]

    Multi-agent monte carlo tree search for safe decision making at unsignalized intersections,

    Z. Linet al., “Multi-agent monte carlo tree search for safe decision making at unsignalized intersections,” 2025

    2025

  53. [53]

    Safety-critical multi- agent mcts for mixed traffic coordination at unsignalized roundabout,

    Z. Lin, S. Liu, Z. Tian, D. Zhao, and J. Lan, “Safety-critical multi- agent mcts for mixed traffic coordination at unsignalized roundabout,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.01856, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Recent advances in rapidly-exploring random tree: A review,

    T. Xu, “Recent advances in rapidly-exploring random tree: A review,” Heliyon, 2024

    2024

  55. [55]

    An adaptive rapidly-exploring random tree,

    B. Li and B. Chen, “An adaptive rapidly-exploring random tree,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 283–294, 2021

    2021

  56. [56]

    A hybrid rule-based and data-driven approach to driver modeling through particle filtering,

    R. Bhattacharyya, S. Jung, L. A. Kruse, R. Senanayake, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “A hybrid rule-based and data-driven approach to driver modeling through particle filtering,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 13 055–13 068, 2021

    2021

  57. [57]

    Rule-based optimal control for autonomous driving,

    W. Xiao, N. Mehdipour, A. Collin, A. Y . Bin-Nun, E. Frazzoli, R. D. Tebbens, and C. Belta, “Rule-based optimal control for autonomous driving,” inProceedings of the ACM/IEEE 12th International Confer- ence on Cyber-Physical Systems, 2021, pp. 143–154

    2021

  58. [58]

    A rule-based behaviour planner for autonomous driving,

    F. Bouchard, S. Sedwards, and K. Czarnecki, “A rule-based behaviour planner for autonomous driving,” inProceeding of the International Joint Conference on Rules and Reasoning. Springer, 2022, pp. 263– 279

    2022

  59. [59]

    Highway decision-making and motion planning for autonomous driving via soft actor-critic,

    X. Tang, B. Huang, T. Liu, and X. Lin, “Highway decision-making and motion planning for autonomous driving via soft actor-critic,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 4706–4717, 2022

    2022

  60. [60]

    Estimating driver’s lane-change intent considering driving style and contextual traffic,

    X. Li, W. Wang, and M. Roetting, “Estimating driver’s lane-change intent considering driving style and contextual traffic,”IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 3258–3271, 2018

    2018

  61. [61]

    Applications and Effect Evaluation of Generative Adversarial Networks in Semi-Supervised Learning

    J. Huet al., “Applications and effect evaluation of generative adversarial networks in semi-supervised learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19522, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Balanced exploration and attention-inspired decision making for autonomous driving,

    T. Zhenet al., “Balanced exploration and attention-inspired decision making for autonomous driving,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2025

    2025

  63. [63]

    Attention-based highway safety planner for autonomous driving via deep reinforcement learning,

    G. Chen, Y . Zhang, and X. Li, “Attention-based highway safety planner for autonomous driving via deep reinforcement learning,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 162–175, 2024

    2024

  64. [64]

    Vision-based autonomous car racing using deep imitative reinforcement learning,

    P. Cai, H. Wanget al., “Vision-based autonomous car racing using deep imitative reinforcement learning,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7262–7269, 2021

    2021

  65. [65]

    Bas ¸ar and G

    T. Bas ¸ar and G. J. Olsder,Dynamic noncooperative game theory. SIAM, 1998

    1998

  66. [66]

    A game-theoretic approach to cross-layer security decision-making in industrial cyber-physical systems,

    K. Huang, C. Zhou, Y . Qin, and W. Tu, “A game-theoretic approach to cross-layer security decision-making in industrial cyber-physical systems,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 2371–2379, 2020

    2020

  67. [67]

    A game theoretic analysis of merging-giveway interaction: a joint estimation model,

    H. Kita, K. Tanimoto, and K. Fukuyama, “A game theoretic analysis of merging-giveway interaction: a joint estimation model,” inTrans- portation and Traffic Theory in the 21st Century. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2002, pp. 503–518

    2002

  68. [68]

    Data-driven evolutionary game- based model predictive control for hybrid renewable energy dispatch in autonomous ships,

    Y . Liu, Z. Tian, J. Yang, and Z. Lin, “Data-driven evolutionary game- based model predictive control for hybrid renewable energy dispatch in autonomous ships,” in2025 4th International Conference on New Energy System and Power Engineering (NESP). IEEE, 2025, pp. 482–490

    2025

  69. [69]

    A human-like game theory-based controller for automatic lane changing,

    H. Yu, H. E. Tseng, and R. Langari, “A human-like game theory-based controller for automatic lane changing,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 88, pp. 140–158, 2018

    2018

  70. [70]

    A mean-field-game-integrated mpc-qp framework for collision-free multi-vehicle control,

    L. Zheng, X. Wanget al., “A mean-field-game-integrated mpc-qp framework for collision-free multi-vehicle control,”Drones, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 375, 2025

    2025

  71. [71]

    Enhanced mean field game for interactive decision-making with varied stylish multi-vehicles,

    L. Zhenget al., “Enhanced mean field game for interactive decision-making with varied stylish multi-vehicles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.00981, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    A review of motion planning for highway autonomous driving,

    L. Claussmann, M. Revilloud, D. Gruyer, and S. Glaser, “A review of motion planning for highway autonomous driving,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1826–1848, 2019

    2019

  73. [73]

    Automated on-ramp merging system for congested traffic situations,

    V . Milan ´es, J. Godoy, J. Villagr ´a, and J. P ´erez, “Automated on-ramp merging system for congested traffic situations,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 500–508, 2010

    2010

  74. [74]

    Evaluation of an infrastructure-based warning system: A case study on roundabout driving behaviors,

    C. Zhang, C. Tian, T. Han, H. Li, Y . Feng, Y . Chen, R. W. Proctor, and J. Zhang, “Evaluation of an infrastructure-based warning system: A case study on roundabout driving behaviors,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2025

    2025

  75. [75]

    Cooperative driving at unsignalized intersections using tree search,

    H. Xu, Y . Zhang, L. Li, and W. Li, “Cooperative driving at unsignalized intersections using tree search,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 4563–4571, 2019

    2019

  76. [76]

    Autonomous vehicles on the edge: A survey on autonomous vehicle racing,

    J. Betz, H. Zheng, A. Liniger, U. Rosolia, P. Karle, M. Behl, V . Krovi, and R. Mangharam, “Autonomous vehicles on the edge: A survey on autonomous vehicle racing,”IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 3, pp. 458–488, 2022

    2022

  77. [77]

    Safe, efficient, and comfortable autonomous driving based on cooperative vehicle infrastructure system,

    J. Chen, C. Zhao, S. Jiang, X. Zhang, Z. Li, and Y . Du, “Safe, efficient, and comfortable autonomous driving based on cooperative vehicle infrastructure system,”International journal of environmental research and public health, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 893, 2023

    2023

  78. [78]

    A payoff-based learning pro- cedure and its application to traffic games,

    R. Cominetti, E. Melo, and S. Sorin, “A payoff-based learning pro- cedure and its application to traffic games,”Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 71–83, 2010

    2010

  79. [79]

    Nash equilibrium,

    D. M. Kreps, “Nash equilibrium,” inGame theory. Springer, 1989, pp. 167–177

    1989

  80. [80]

    Coordination of autonomous vehicles: taxonomy and survey,

    S. Mariani, G. Cabri, and F. Zambonelli, “Coordination of autonomous vehicles: taxonomy and survey,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 1–33, 2021

    work page 2021

Showing first 80 references.