2020 American Control Conference (ACC) 2020
DOI: 10.23919/acc45564.2020.9147924
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Online Parameter Estimation for Human Driver Behavior Prediction

Abstract: Driver models are invaluable for planning in autonomous vehicles as well as validating their safety in simulation. Highly parameterized black-box driver models are very expressive, and can capture nuanced behavior. However, they usually lack interpretability and sometimes exhibit unrealisticeven dangerous-behavior. Rule-based models are interpretable, and can be designed to guarantee "safe" behavior, but are less expressive due to their low number of parameters. In this article, we show that online parameter e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This presents the great potential of combining model-based approaches and learning frameworks, which can produce both safer and more realistic models for human road users. Results on NGSIM and HighD: We first test our approach for NGSIM and HighD datasets under low density traffic (20 agents, no non-reactive agents, 5 seconds) as what was used in [41]. We compare with IDM θ [41], PS-GAIL [19] (a) Comparison for driver-related metrics with the expert policy, PS-GAIL and RAIL using the same training/testing splits as in [19] and [8].…”
Section: B Main Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This presents the great potential of combining model-based approaches and learning frameworks, which can produce both safer and more realistic models for human road users. Results on NGSIM and HighD: We first test our approach for NGSIM and HighD datasets under low density traffic (20 agents, no non-reactive agents, 5 seconds) as what was used in [41]. We compare with IDM θ [41], PS-GAIL [19] (a) Comparison for driver-related metrics with the expert policy, PS-GAIL and RAIL using the same training/testing splits as in [19] and [8].…”
Section: B Main Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We use the original implementation of RAIL provided by the authors. Lastly, we compare with a state-of-the-art (none-learning) calibration methods IDM θ [41] on NGSIM and HighD. Again the IDM θ models in [41] could only work for highway car-following cases so we do not compare with it on other datasets.…”
Section: A Implementation Details Baseline and Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We compare our algorithm with a baseline method, continuous inverse optimal control (CIOC) [3], [49], which is an IOC algorithm for large, continuous domains and does not assume any feedback interaction among the observed agents. Additionally, for the INTERACTION dataset, we also compare with the intelligent driver model (IDM) [6], [50] as our reference model. IDM is a widely used expert-designed model to simulate traffic flow that is known to yield accurate predictions of drivers' trajectories.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To generate safe and kamikaze trajectories, the testing mechanism needs to have a predictive model of the car's behaviour, albeit imperfect. For this purpose, many work can be adopted, such as [4,10,14,20]. Our kamikaze trajectory generation can also benefit from work on pursuit evasion [7] and more recently [16], though the latter is focused on deforming observations rather than an adversary's behaviour.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%