Charles W. Fox, F. Camara, G. Markkula, R. Romano, R. Madigan, N. Merat
{"title":"小鸡该什么时候过马路?-自动驾驶汽车博弈论-人类互动","authors":"Charles W. Fox, F. Camara, G. Markkula, R. Romano, R. Madigan, N. Merat","doi":"10.5220/0006765404310439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Autonomous vehicle control is well understood for local- [15], good approximations exist such as particle �ltering, \nization, mapping and planning in un-reactive environ- which make use of large compute power to draw samples \nments, but the human factors of complex interactions near solutions. \nstood [16], and despite its exact solution being NP-hard \nwith other road users are not yet developed. \nRoute planning in non-interactive envi- \nronments also has well known tractable solutions such as \nThis po- \nthe A-star algorithm. Given a route, localizing and con- \nsition paper presents an initial model for negotiation be- \ntrol to follow that route then becomes a similar task to \ntween an autonomous vehicle and another vehicle at an \nthat performed by the 1959 General Motors Firebird-III \nunsigned intersections or (equivalently) with a pedestrian \nself-driving car [1], which used electromagnetic sensing \nat an unsigned road-crossing (jaywalking), using discrete \nto follow a wire built into the road. \nSuch path follow- \nsequential game theory. The model is intended as a ba- ing, using wires or SLAM, can then be augmented with \nsic framework for more realistic and data-driven future simple safety logic to stop the vehicle if any obstacle is \nextensions. The model shows that when only vehicle po- in its way, as detected by any range sensor. \nsition is used to signal intent, the optimal behaviors for open source systems for this level of `self-driving' are now \nboth agents must include a non-zero probability of al- widely available [6]. \nlowing a collision to occur. \nIn contrast, \nThis suggests extensions to \nproblems that these vehicles will face \naround interacting with other road users are much harder \nreduce this probability in future, such as other forms of \nboth to formulate and solve. Autonomous vehicles do not \nsignaling and control. Unlike most Game Theory appli- \njust have to deal with inanimate objects, sensors, and \ncations in Economics, active vehicle control requires real- \nmaps. \ntime selection from multiple equilibria with no history, \nThey have to deal with other agents, currently \nhuman drivers and pedestrians and eventually other au- \nand we present and argue for a novel solution concept, \nmeta-strategy convergence , suited to this task.","PeriodicalId":218840,"journal":{"name":"International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Should the Chicken Cross the Road? - Game Theory for Autonomous Vehicle - Human Interactions\",\"authors\":\"Charles W. Fox, F. Camara, G. Markkula, R. Romano, R. Madigan, N. Merat\",\"doi\":\"10.5220/0006765404310439\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Autonomous vehicle control is well understood for local- [15], good approximations exist such as particle �ltering, \\nization, mapping and planning in un-reactive environ- which make use of large compute power to draw samples \\nments, but the human factors of complex interactions near solutions. \\nstood [16], and despite its exact solution being NP-hard \\nwith other road users are not yet developed. \\nRoute planning in non-interactive envi- \\nronments also has well known tractable solutions such as \\nThis po- \\nthe A-star algorithm. Given a route, localizing and con- \\nsition paper presents an initial model for negotiation be- \\ntrol to follow that route then becomes a similar task to \\ntween an autonomous vehicle and another vehicle at an \\nthat performed by the 1959 General Motors Firebird-III \\nunsigned intersections or (equivalently) with a pedestrian \\nself-driving car [1], which used electromagnetic sensing \\nat an unsigned road-crossing (jaywalking), using discrete \\nto follow a wire built into the road. \\nSuch path follow- \\nsequential game theory. The model is intended as a ba- ing, using wires or SLAM, can then be augmented with \\nsic framework for more realistic and data-driven future simple safety logic to stop the vehicle if any obstacle is \\nextensions. The model shows that when only vehicle po- in its way, as detected by any range sensor. \\nsition is used to signal intent, the optimal behaviors for open source systems for this level of `self-driving' are now \\nboth agents must include a non-zero probability of al- widely available [6]. \\nlowing a collision to occur. \\nIn contrast, \\nThis suggests extensions to \\nproblems that these vehicles will face \\naround interacting with other road users are much harder \\nreduce this probability in future, such as other forms of \\nboth to formulate and solve. Autonomous vehicles do not \\nsignaling and control. Unlike most Game Theory appli- \\njust have to deal with inanimate objects, sensors, and \\ncations in Economics, active vehicle control requires real- \\nmaps. \\ntime selection from multiple equilibria with no history, \\nThey have to deal with other agents, currently \\nhuman drivers and pedestrians and eventually other au- \\nand we present and argue for a novel solution concept, \\nmeta-strategy convergence , suited to this task.\",\"PeriodicalId\":218840,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"52\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5220/0006765404310439\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5220/0006765404310439","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
When Should the Chicken Cross the Road? - Game Theory for Autonomous Vehicle - Human Interactions
Autonomous vehicle control is well understood for local- [15], good approximations exist such as particle �ltering,
ization, mapping and planning in un-reactive environ- which make use of large compute power to draw samples
ments, but the human factors of complex interactions near solutions.
stood [16], and despite its exact solution being NP-hard
with other road users are not yet developed.
Route planning in non-interactive envi-
ronments also has well known tractable solutions such as
This po-
the A-star algorithm. Given a route, localizing and con-
sition paper presents an initial model for negotiation be-
trol to follow that route then becomes a similar task to
tween an autonomous vehicle and another vehicle at an
that performed by the 1959 General Motors Firebird-III
unsigned intersections or (equivalently) with a pedestrian
self-driving car [1], which used electromagnetic sensing
at an unsigned road-crossing (jaywalking), using discrete
to follow a wire built into the road.
Such path follow-
sequential game theory. The model is intended as a ba- ing, using wires or SLAM, can then be augmented with
sic framework for more realistic and data-driven future simple safety logic to stop the vehicle if any obstacle is
extensions. The model shows that when only vehicle po- in its way, as detected by any range sensor.
sition is used to signal intent, the optimal behaviors for open source systems for this level of `self-driving' are now
both agents must include a non-zero probability of al- widely available [6].
lowing a collision to occur.
In contrast,
This suggests extensions to
problems that these vehicles will face
around interacting with other road users are much harder
reduce this probability in future, such as other forms of
both to formulate and solve. Autonomous vehicles do not
signaling and control. Unlike most Game Theory appli-
just have to deal with inanimate objects, sensors, and
cations in Economics, active vehicle control requires real-
maps.
time selection from multiple equilibria with no history,
They have to deal with other agents, currently
human drivers and pedestrians and eventually other au-
and we present and argue for a novel solution concept,
meta-strategy convergence , suited to this task.