Decision-Making for Automated Vehicles Using a Hierarchical Behavior-Based Arbitration Scheme

Behavior planning and decision-making are some of the biggest challenges for highly automated systems. A fully automated vehicle (AV) is faced with numerous tactical and strategical choices. Most state-of-the-art AV platforms are implementing tactical and strategical behavior generation using finite state machines. However, these usually result in poor explainability, maintainability and scalability. Research in robotics has raised many architectures to mitigate these problems, most interestingly behavior-based systems and hybrid derivatives. Inspired by these approaches, we propose a hierarchical behavior-based architecture for tactical and strategical behavior generation in automated driving. It is a generalizing and scalable decision-making framework, utilizing modular behavior blocks to compose more complex behaviors in a bottom-up approach. The system is capable of combining a variety of scenario- and methodology-specific solutions, like POMDPs, RRT* or learning-based behavior, into one understandable and traceable architecture. We extend the hierarchical behavior-based arbitration concept to address scenarios where multiple behavior options are applicable, but have no clear priority among each other. Then, we formulate the behavior generation stack for automated driving in urban and highway environments, incorporating parking and emergency behaviors as well. Finally, we illustrate our design in an explanatory evaluation.

[1]  Martin Lauer,et al.  CoInCar-Sim: An Open-Source Simulation Framework for Cooperatively Interacting Automobiles , 2018, 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[2]  Peter King,et al.  Odin: Team VictorTango's entry in the DARPA Urban Challenge , 2008, J. Field Robotics.

[3]  Christoph Stiller,et al.  Provably Safe and Smooth Lane Changes in Mixed Trafic , 2019, 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC).

[4]  Mykel J. Kochenderfer,et al.  Scalable Decision Making with Sensor Occlusions for Autonomous Driving , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[5]  P. Maes How to Do the Right Thing , 1989 .

[6]  Julio Rosenblatt,et al.  DAMN: a distributed architecture for mobile navigation , 1997, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[7]  Julius Ziegler,et al.  Making Bertha Drive—An Autonomous Journey on a Historic Route , 2014, IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine.

[8]  Lutz Gröll,et al.  Lateral Vehicle Trajectory Optimization Using Constrained Linear Time-Varying MPC , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[9]  Christoph Stiller,et al.  Deep Semantic Lane Segmentation for Mapless Driving , 2018, 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).

[10]  Jonas Fredriksson,et al.  Lane Change Maneuvers for Automated Vehicles , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[11]  Sanjiv Singh,et al.  The DARPA Urban Challenge: Autonomous Vehicles in City Traffic, George Air Force Base, Victorville, California, USA , 2009, The DARPA Urban Challenge.

[12]  Martin Lauer,et al.  Tackling Occlusions & Limited Sensor Range with Set-based Safety Verification , 2018, 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[13]  Klaus C. J. Dietmayer,et al.  Entering crossroads with blind corners. A safe strategy for autonomous vehicles , 2017, 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[14]  Matthias Mayr,et al.  Lanelet2: A high-definition map framework for the future of automated driving , 2018, 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[15]  Sebastian Thrun,et al.  Junior: The Stanford entry in the Urban Challenge , 2008, J. Field Robotics.

[16]  Werner Huber,et al.  Experience, Results and Lessons Learned from Automated Driving on Germany's Highways , 2015, IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine.

[17]  Martin Lauer,et al.  Cooperative Multiple Vehicle Trajectory Planning using MIQP , 2018, 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[18]  Jan Erik Stellet,et al.  From Footprints to Beliefprints: Motion Planning under Uncertainty for Maneuvering Automated Vehicles in Dense Scenarios , 2018, 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[19]  Julius Ziegler,et al.  The combinatorial aspect of motion planning: Maneuver variants in structured environments , 2015, 2015 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[20]  Julius Ziegler,et al.  Trajectory planning for Bertha — A local, continuous method , 2014, 2014 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings.

[21]  Martin Lauer,et al.  Cognitive concepts in autonomous soccer playing robots , 2010, Cognitive Systems Research.

[22]  Christoph Stiller,et al.  A Belief State Planner for Interactive Merge Maneuvers in Congested Traffic , 2018, 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[23]  Darren Liccardo,et al.  Automatic collision avoidance using model-predictive online optimization , 2012, 2012 IEEE 51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC).

[24]  Christoph Stiller,et al.  Automated Driving in Uncertain Environments: Planning With Interaction and Uncertain Maneuver Prediction , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles.

[25]  Rodney A. Brooks,et al.  A Robust Layered Control Syste For A Mobile Robot , 2022 .