Autonomous Driving Planning
Overview
Autonomous driving planning turns sensor and map information, navigation goals, and predictions about other road users into decisions and vehicle trajectories. Approaches range from search and model predictive control (MPC), reachability and barrier methods, and game-theoretic planning to imitation learning, reinforcement learning, diffusion planners, and vision-language-action or world-action models. Systems increasingly combine prediction with planning to handle interactions, uncertainty, occlusion, and rare hazards, and are evaluated on benchmarks such as nuPlan, nuScenes, NAVSIM, Bench2Drive, and Waymo. A central challenge is that good open-loop trajectory scores do not guarantee safe, efficient closed-loop driving, while stronger safety checks and richer models must still meet real-time constraints and generalize to unfamiliar scenarios.
Latest papers
385 papers50 papers in the last four weeks, up 35% on the four weeks before. 0.3% of all new papers.
Parking Assistance for Trailer-Truck Transport Vehicles Using Sensor Fusion and Motion Planning
MILD: Mediator Agent System with Bidirectional Perception and Multi-Layered Alignment for Human-Vehicle Collaboration
VLADriver-RAG: Retrieval-Augmented Vision-Language-Action Models for Autonomous Driving
Do Open-Loop Metrics Predict Closed-Loop Driving? A Cross-Benchmark Correlation Study of NAVSIM and Bench2Drive
Judge, Then Drive: A Critic-Centric Vision Language Action Framework for Autonomous Driving
PALCAS: A Priority-Aware Intelligent Lane Change Advisory System for Autonomous Vehicles using Federated Reinforcement Learning
ProDrive: Proactive Planning for Autonomous Driving via Ego-Environment Co-Evolution
Hybrid A*-Based Reverse Path-Planning of a Vehicle with Trailer System
Large Language Model based Interactive Decision-Making for Autonomous Driving
Cross-Stage Coherence in Hierarchical Driving VQA: A Consistency Protocol and Parameter-Efficient Gated Context Routing
MISTY: High-Throughput Motion Planning via Mixer-based Single-step Drifting
Reasoning About Traversability: Language-Guided Off-Road 3D Trajectory Planning
Lexicographic Minimum-Violation Motion Planning using Signal Temporal Logic
Toward Cooperative Driving in Mixed Traffic: An Adaptive Potential Game-Based Approach with Field Test Verification
SpanVLA: Learning from Negative-Recovery Samples with Fast Action Bridging for Vision-Language-Action Model
OneDrive: Unified Multi-Paradigm Driving with Vision-Language-Action Models
Evolution of Lane-Changing Behavior in Mixed Traffic: A Quantum Game Theory Approach
RAD-2: Scaling Reinforcement Learning in a Generator-Discriminator Framework
CooperDrive: Enhancing Driving Decisions Through Cooperative Perception
Beyond Conservative Automated Driving in Multi-Agent Scenarios via Coupled Model Predictive Control and Deep Reinforcement Learning
Mosaic: An Extensible Framework for Composing Rule-Based and Learned Motion Planners
A Comparison of Reinforcement Learning and Optimal Control Methods for Path Planning
no-go' zone. A mission failure is claimed if the vehicle enters this no-go' zone at any time or does not reach a neighborhood of the destination. The DDPG agent is trained to learn a direct mapping from its current state (position and velocity) to a series of feasible actions that guide the agent to safely reach its goal. A reward function and two neural networks, critic and actor, are used to describe the environment and guide the control efforts. The DDPG trains the agent to find the largest possible set of starting points (feasible set'') wherein a safe path to the goal is guaranteed. This provides critical information for mission planning, showing beforehand whether a task is achievable from a given starting point, assisting pre-mission planning activities. The approach is validated in simulation. A comparison between the DDPG method and a traditional optimal control (pseudo-spectral) method is carried out. The results show that the learning-based agent may produce effective paths while being significantly faster, making it a better fit for real-time applications. However, there are areas (infeasible set'') where the DDPG agent cannot find paths to the destination, and the paths in the feasible set may not be optimal. These preliminary results guide our future research: (1) improve the reward function to enlarge the DDPG feasible set, (2) examine the feasible set obtained by the pseudo-spectral method, and (3) investigate the arc-search IPM method for the path planning problem.