CARLA中自动驾驶的定量评价

Shang Gao, S. Paulissen, M. Coletti, R. Patton
{"title":"CARLA中自动驾驶的定量评价","authors":"Shang Gao, S. Paulissen, M. Coletti, R. Patton","doi":"10.1109/ivworkshops54471.2021.9669240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There have been many recent advancements in imitation and reinforcement learning for autonomous driving, but existing metrics generally lack the means to capture a wide range of driving behaviors and compare the severity of different failure cases. To address this shortcoming, we introduce Quan-titative Evaluation for Driving (QED), which assesses different aspects of driving behavior including the ability to stay in the center of the lane, avoid weaving and erratic behavior, follow the speed limit, and avoid collisions. We compare scores generated by QED against scores assigned by human evaluators on 30 different drivers and 6 different towns in the CARLA driving simulator. In \"easy\" evaluation scenarios where better drivers are easily distinguished from worse drivers, QED attains 0.96 Pearson correlation and 0.97 Spearman correlation with human evaluators, similar to the baseline inter-human-evaluator 0.96 Pearson correlation and 0.95 Spearman correlation. In \"hard\" evaluation scenarios where ranking drivers is more ambiguous, QED attains 0.84 Pearson correlation and 0.74 Spearman correlation with human evaluators, slighter higher than the baseline inter-human-evaluator 0.78 Pearson correlation and 0.7 Spearman correlation. While QED may not capture every characteristic that defines good driving, we consider it an important foundation for reproducibility and standardization in the community.","PeriodicalId":256905,"journal":{"name":"2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Workshops (IV Workshops)","volume":"125 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative Evaluation of Autonomous Driving in CARLA\",\"authors\":\"Shang Gao, S. Paulissen, M. Coletti, R. Patton\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ivworkshops54471.2021.9669240\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There have been many recent advancements in imitation and reinforcement learning for autonomous driving, but existing metrics generally lack the means to capture a wide range of driving behaviors and compare the severity of different failure cases. To address this shortcoming, we introduce Quan-titative Evaluation for Driving (QED), which assesses different aspects of driving behavior including the ability to stay in the center of the lane, avoid weaving and erratic behavior, follow the speed limit, and avoid collisions. We compare scores generated by QED against scores assigned by human evaluators on 30 different drivers and 6 different towns in the CARLA driving simulator. In \\\"easy\\\" evaluation scenarios where better drivers are easily distinguished from worse drivers, QED attains 0.96 Pearson correlation and 0.97 Spearman correlation with human evaluators, similar to the baseline inter-human-evaluator 0.96 Pearson correlation and 0.95 Spearman correlation. In \\\"hard\\\" evaluation scenarios where ranking drivers is more ambiguous, QED attains 0.84 Pearson correlation and 0.74 Spearman correlation with human evaluators, slighter higher than the baseline inter-human-evaluator 0.78 Pearson correlation and 0.7 Spearman correlation. While QED may not capture every characteristic that defines good driving, we consider it an important foundation for reproducibility and standardization in the community.\",\"PeriodicalId\":256905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Workshops (IV Workshops)\",\"volume\":\"125 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Workshops (IV Workshops)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ivworkshops54471.2021.9669240\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Workshops (IV Workshops)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ivworkshops54471.2021.9669240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

最近在自动驾驶的模仿和强化学习方面取得了许多进展,但现有的指标通常缺乏捕捉广泛驾驶行为和比较不同故障情况严重程度的手段。为了解决这一缺陷,我们引入了驾驶定量评估(QED),该方法评估了驾驶行为的不同方面,包括保持车道中心的能力、避免迂回和不稳定行为的能力、遵守速度限制的能力和避免碰撞的能力。我们将QED生成的分数与CARLA驾驶模拟器中30个不同司机和6个不同城镇的人类评估者分配的分数进行比较。在“简单”的评估场景中,更好的司机和更差的司机很容易区分,QED与人类评估者的Pearson相关为0.96,Spearman相关为0.97,类似于人类评估者之间的基线Pearson相关为0.96,Spearman相关为0.95。在“硬”评估场景中,驾驶员排名较为模糊,QED与人类评估者的Pearson相关系数为0.84,Spearman相关系数为0.74,略高于人类评估者之间的基线Pearson相关系数0.78和Spearman相关系数0.7。虽然QED可能无法捕捉到定义良好驾驶的每个特征,但我们认为它是社区可再现性和标准化的重要基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantitative Evaluation of Autonomous Driving in CARLA
There have been many recent advancements in imitation and reinforcement learning for autonomous driving, but existing metrics generally lack the means to capture a wide range of driving behaviors and compare the severity of different failure cases. To address this shortcoming, we introduce Quan-titative Evaluation for Driving (QED), which assesses different aspects of driving behavior including the ability to stay in the center of the lane, avoid weaving and erratic behavior, follow the speed limit, and avoid collisions. We compare scores generated by QED against scores assigned by human evaluators on 30 different drivers and 6 different towns in the CARLA driving simulator. In "easy" evaluation scenarios where better drivers are easily distinguished from worse drivers, QED attains 0.96 Pearson correlation and 0.97 Spearman correlation with human evaluators, similar to the baseline inter-human-evaluator 0.96 Pearson correlation and 0.95 Spearman correlation. In "hard" evaluation scenarios where ranking drivers is more ambiguous, QED attains 0.84 Pearson correlation and 0.74 Spearman correlation with human evaluators, slighter higher than the baseline inter-human-evaluator 0.78 Pearson correlation and 0.7 Spearman correlation. While QED may not capture every characteristic that defines good driving, we consider it an important foundation for reproducibility and standardization in the community.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信