Probabilistic Model for Interaction Aware Planning in Merge Scenarios

Merge scenarios confront drivers with some of the most complicated driving maneuvers in every day driving, requiring anticipatory reasoning of positions of other vehicles, and the own vehicles future trajectory. In congested traffic it might be impossible to merge without cooperation of up-stream vehicles, therefore, it is essential to gauge the effect of our own trajectory when planning a merge maneuver. For an autonomous vehicle to perform a merge maneuver in congested traffic similar capabilities are required. This includes a model describing the future evolution of the scene that allows for optimizing the autonomous vehicle's planned trajectory with respect to risk, comfort, and dynamical limitations. We present a probabilistic model that explicitly models interaction between vehicles and allows for evaluating the utility of a large number of candidate trajectories of an autonomous vehicle using a receding horizon approach in order to select an appropriate merge maneuver. The model is an extension of the intelligent driver model and the modeled behavior of other vehicles are adjusted using on-line model parameter estimation in order to give better predictions. The prediction model is evaluated using naturalistic traffic data and the merge maneuver planner is evaluated in simulation.

[1]  Julius Ziegler,et al.  Optimal trajectories for time-critical street scenarios using discretized terminal manifolds , 2012, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[2]  Nico Kaempchen,et al.  Highly Automated Driving on Freeways in Real Traffic Using a Probabilistic Framework , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[3]  Edwin Olson,et al.  MPDM: Multipolicy decision-making in dynamic, uncertain environments for autonomous driving , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[4]  Marcello Montanino,et al.  Do We Really Need to Calibrate All the Parameters? Variance-Based Sensitivity Analysis to Simplify Microscopic Traffic Flow Models , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[5]  Daniel Axehill,et al.  Interaction aware trajectory planning for merge scenarios in congested traffic situations , 2016, 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[6]  Charles E. Thorpe,et al.  Integrated mobile robot control , 1991 .

[7]  Jeffrey K. Uhlmann,et al.  New extension of the Kalman filter to nonlinear systems , 1997, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[8]  Dizan Vasquez,et al.  A survey on motion prediction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles , 2014, ROBOMECH Journal.

[9]  Martin Treiber,et al.  Calibrating Car-Following Models by Using Trajectory Data , 2008, 0803.4063.

[10]  Fredrik Lindsten,et al.  Backward Simulation Methods for Monte Carlo Statistical Inference , 2013, Found. Trends Mach. Learn..

[11]  Markus Maurer,et al.  Towards Tactical Lane Change Behavior Planning for Automated Vehicles , 2015, 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[12]  David González,et al.  A Review of Motion Planning Techniques for Automated Vehicles , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[13]  T. Gindele,et al.  A robust algorithm for handling moving traffic in urban scenarios , 2008, 2008 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium.

[14]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  General Lane-Changing Model MOBIL for Car-Following Models , 2007 .

[15]  Julian Eggert,et al.  The Foresighted Driver Model , 2015, 2015 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[16]  Alois Knoll,et al.  Tactical cooperative planning for autonomous highway driving using Monte-Carlo Tree Search , 2016, 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[17]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Enhanced intelligent driver model to access the impact of driving strategies on traffic capacity , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[18]  Bodo Rosenhahn,et al.  A tractable interaction model for trajectory planning in automated driving , 2016, 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

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

[20]  Markus Maurer,et al.  Situation Assessment in Tactical Lane Change Behavior Planning for Automated Vehicles , 2015, 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[21]  Emilio Frazzoli,et al.  A Survey of Motion Planning and Control Techniques for Self-Driving Urban Vehicles , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles.

[22]  Vinny Cahill,et al.  Real-Time Estimation of Drivers' Behaviour , 2015, 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[23]  Jonas Sjöberg,et al.  Predictive manoeuvre generation for automated driving , 2013, 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2013).

[24]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Delays, inaccuracies and anticipation in microscopic traffic models , 2006 .

[25]  John M. Dolan,et al.  Autonomous vehicle social behavior for highway entrance ramp management , 2013, 2013 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[26]  Dirk Wollherr,et al.  A prediction-based reactive driving strategy for highly automated driving function on freeways , 2014, 2014 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings.

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

[28]  Helbing,et al.  Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations , 2000, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[29]  Maxim Likhachev,et al.  Motion planning in urban environments , 2008, J. Field Robotics.