U.S. patent application number 13/733919 was filed with the patent office on 2014-07-10 for autonomous driving merge management system.
This patent application is currently assigned to CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY. The applicant listed for this patent is CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC. Invention is credited to JOHN M. DOLAN, BAKHTIAR BRIAN LITKOUHI, JUNQING WEI.
Application Number | 20140195093 13/733919 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 51061609 |
Filed Date | 2014-07-10 |
United States Patent
Application |
20140195093 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
LITKOUHI; BAKHTIAR BRIAN ;
et al. |
July 10, 2014 |
Autonomous Driving Merge Management System
Abstract
An autonomous driving merge management system includes an
autonomous driving control device and an intention decision
management system. The management system includes a candidate
strategy subsystem generating a plurality of candidate driving
strategies, a merging vehicle behavior recognition subsystem
predicting a merging intention of a merging vehicle; an
intention-based interactive prediction subsystem predicting future
merging scenarios between the host vehicle and merging vehicle as a
function of inputs by the merging vehicle behavior recognition
subsystem and inputs by the candidate strategy subsystem, and a
cost function-based evaluation subsystem determining a cost for
each future merging scenario generated by the intention-based
interactive prediction subsystem. A processor selects a merge
strategy of the host vehicle based on intention-based prediction
results and cost function-based evaluation results. The autonomous
driving control device applies the merge strategy to the host
vehicle for allowing the merging vehicle to cooperatively merge
with the host vehicle.
Inventors: |
LITKOUHI; BAKHTIAR BRIAN;
(WASHINGTON, MI) ; WEI; JUNQING; (PITTSBURGH,
PA) ; DOLAN; JOHN M.; (PITTSBURGH, PA) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY |
DETROIT
PITTSBURGH |
MI
PA |
US
US |
|
|
Assignee: |
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
PITTSBURGH
PA
GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC
DETROIT
MI
|
Family ID: |
51061609 |
Appl. No.: |
13/733919 |
Filed: |
January 4, 2013 |
Current U.S.
Class: |
701/23 |
Current CPC
Class: |
B60W 30/16 20130101;
B60W 30/18163 20130101; G08G 1/167 20130101; B62D 15/0255
20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
701/23 |
International
Class: |
G05D 1/00 20060101
G05D001/00 |
Claims
1. An autonomous driving merge management system comprising: an
autonomous driving control device for autonomously controlling
accelerations of a host vehicle; an intention decision management
system comprising: a candidate strategy subsystem generating a
plurality of candidate driving strategies, each candidate driving
strategy being a potential driving strategy executable by the host
vehicle; a merging vehicle behavior recognition subsystem
predicting a merging intention of a merging vehicle; the merging
intention relating to a positive acceleration or a negative
acceleration of the merging vehicle; an intention-based interactive
prediction subsystem predicting future merging scenarios between
the host vehicle and merging vehicle as a function of inputs by the
merging vehicle behavior recognition subsystem and inputs by the
candidate strategy subsystem; a cost function-based evaluation
subsystem determining a cost for each future merging scenario
generated by the intention-based interactive prediction subsystem;
and a processor for selecting a merge strategy of the host vehicle
based on intention-based prediction results and cost function-based
evaluation results; wherein the autonomous driving control device
applies the merge strategy to the host vehicle for allowing the
merging vehicle to cooperatively merge with the host vehicle.
2. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 1
wherein the cost function-based evaluation subsystem determines the
cost for each scenario based on a progress cost, a comfort cost, a
safety cost, and fuel consumption cost associated with a respective
scenario.
3. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 2
wherein the progress cost includes an efficiency of completing a
task during a merging maneuver.
4. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 2
wherein the comfort cost includes avoiding excessive accelerations
of the vehicle to complete the merging maneuver.
5. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 2
wherein the safety cost includes maintaining a respective distance
to the merging vehicle and maintaining a braking distance based on
the velocity of the host vehicle and merging vehicle.
6. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 2
wherein the fuel consumption cost includes an amount of fuel
expended to complete a merging maneuver.
7. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 2
wherein the cost function-based evaluation subsystem determines the
cost for a respective scenario based on the following formula:
C.sub.sce=.mu..sub.1C.sub.progress+.mu..sub.2C.sub.comfort+.mu..sub.3C.su-
b.safety+.mu..sub.4C.sub.fuel (8) where C.sub.progress is the
progress cost, C.sub.comfort is the comfort cost, C.sub.safety is
the safety cost, C.sub.fuel fuel consumption cost, and .mu..sub.1,
.mu..sub.2, .mu..sub.3, and .mu..sub.4 represent weight
factors.
8. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 7
wherein a cost for a respective strategy for a respective intention
is represented by the following formula: C str ( i ) I = t = 0 t
Predict ( C sce ( i , t ) I ##EQU00006## where C.sub.sce(i,t) is a
cost of an i.sup.th scenario for a respective time t, I is an
intention, and t.sub.Predict is a duration of time over which
system will predict the respective scenario.
9. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 8
wherein a cost for a respective strategy given a respective
probability of an intention is represented by the following
formula: C.sub.str(i)=p(I=Y)C.sub.str(i)|Y+p(I=N)C.sub.str(i)|N
where p(I=Y) is a probability of the remote vehicle yielding during
the merging maneuver, p(I=Y)C.sub.str(i)|Y is the cost associated
to the host vehicle given the probability as a result of the
merging vehicle yielding to the host vehicle, p(I=N) is a
probability of the merging vehicle not yielding during the merging
maneuver, and p(I=N)C.sub.str(i)|N is the cost associated to the
host vehicle given the probability as a result of the merging
vehicle not yielding to the host vehicle.
10. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 1
wherein the merging vehicle behavior recognition subsystem utilizes
a statistical merging vehicle model for determining a vehicle
behavior of the merging vehicle.
11. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 1
wherein statistical merging vehicle model is represented by the
following formula: p ( Y B ) = p ( B Y ) p ( Y ) / [ p ( Y ) p ( B
Y ) + p ( N ) p ( B N ) ] = p ( B Y ) .times. 0.5 / [ 0.5 p ( B Y )
+ 0.5 p ( B N ) ] = p ( B Y ) / [ p ( B Y ) + p ( B N ) ]
##EQU00007## where p(Y|B|) is the probability of merging vehicle's
intention to yield (Y) given an observed behavior B, and p(B|Y) and
p(B|N) are respectively probabilities of the same behavior given
intention Y or N.
12. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 10
wherein the statistical merging vehicle model is derived from a
deterministic model utilizing a Gaussian distribution.
13. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 10
wherein the statistical merging vehicle model is represented by the
following equations:
d.sub.yield=d.sub.C-(d.sub.min+k.sub.vv.sub.host)
d.sub.nyield=d.sub.C+(d.sub.min+k.sub.vv.sub.host)
.DELTA.t=(d.sub.yield,nyield-d.sub.merge)/v.sub.merge-(d.sub.C-d.sub.host-
)/v.sub.host acc.sub.merge=c.sub.gain.DELTA.t where d.sub.yield is
the distance from C to D.sub.yield, d.sub.nyield the distance from
C to D.sub.nyield, d.sub.min is the minimum desired distance to the
leading vehicle, k is a gain causing the desired distance to grow
with the host vehicle's speed, d.sub.merge and d.sub.host are the
positions of the merging and host vehicles at any given instance of
time, acc.sub.merge is a desired control command for the merging
vehicle, .DELTA.t is a time difference between the host vehicle and
merging vehicle arrivals at C, and c.sub.gain is the proportional
gain converting the time difference into the acceleration command
of the merging vehicle.
14. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 1
wherein the autonomous driving control device includes a speed
controller device.
15. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 1
wherein the intention decision management system determines an
intention of the merging vehicle to merge relative to the host
vehicle when transitioning from an entrance ramp to a primary
driven road traveled by the host vehicle.
16. The autonomous driving merge management system of claim 1
wherein the intention decision management system determines an
intention of the merging vehicle relative to the host vehicle when
changing lanes from an adjacent lane to a primary driven lane of
the host vehicle.
17. A method for autonomously controlling a vehicle speed during a
merging maneuver between a host vehicle and a merging vehicle, the
method comprising the steps of: obtaining speed data and position
data of the host vehicle and the remote data; generating a
plurality of candidate driving strategies by a processor, each
candidate driving strategy being a potential driving strategy
executable by the host vehicle; predicting an intention of the
merging vehicle to merge forward or rearward of the host vehicle by
the processor, generating a plurality of merging scenarios between
the host vehicle and merging vehicle by the processor as a function
of the predicted merging intention of the merging vehicle and the
plurality of candidate driving strategies; determining a cost for
each merging scenario by the processor based on a cost function
evaluation analysis technique; selecting a merge strategy of the
host vehicle by the processor based on the cost function evaluation
results; and autonomously controlling accelerations of a host
vehicle using an autonomous driving control device, wherein the
autonomous driving control device applies the merge strategy to the
host vehicle for cooperatively allowing the merging vehicle to
cooperatively merge with the host vehicle.
18. The method of claim 17 wherein processor determines the cost
for each scenario based on a progress cost, a comfort cost, a
safety cost, and fuel consumption cost associated with a respective
scenario.
19. The method of claim 18 wherein the processor determines the
cost for a respective scenario based on the following formula:
C.sub.sce=.mu..sub.1C.sub.progress+.mu..sub.2C.sub.comfort+.mu..sub.3C.su-
b.safety+.mu..sub.4C.sub.fuel (8) where C.sub.progress is the
progress cost, C.sub.comfort is the comfort cost, C.sub.safety is
the safety cost, C.sub.fuel fuel consumption cost, and .mu..sub.1,
.mu..sub.2, .mu..sub.3, and .mu..sub.4 represent weight
factors.
20. The method of claim 19 wherein a cost for a respective strategy
for a respective intention is represented by the following formula:
C str ( i ) I = t = 0 t Predict ( C sce ( i , t ) I ##EQU00008##
where C.sub.sce(i,t) is a cost of an i.sup.th scenario for a
respective time t, I is an intention, and t.sub.Predict is a
duration of time over which system will predict the respective
scenario.
21. The method of claim 20 wherein a cost for a respective strategy
given a respective probability of an intention is represented by
the following formula:
C.sub.str(i)=p(I=Y)C.sub.str(i)|Y+p(I=N)C.sub.str(i)|N where p(I=Y)
is a probability of the remote vehicle yielding during the merging
maneuver, p(I=Y)C.sub.str(i)|Y is the cost associated to the host
vehicle given the probability as a result of the merging vehicle
yielding to the host vehicle, p(I=N) is a probability of the
merging vehicle not yielding during the merging maneuver, and
p(I=N)C.sub.str(i)|N is the cost associated to the host vehicle
given the probability as a result of the merging vehicle not
yielding to the host vehicle.
Description
BACKGROUND OF INVENTION
[0001] An embodiment relates generally to autonomous traffic
merging behaviors.
[0002] Merging maneuvers includes at least one vehicle traveling in
separate lanes wherein the vehicle must merge into a single lane of
travel. The merging maneuver is performed implicitly by the driver
of each vehicle wherein the driver individually decides whether
they should merge in front of or behind the other vehicle. That is,
each driver is not in communication with the other drivers and must
make a decision on what merging position should be executed based
on their observance of the relative position and speed between the
two vehicles. The merging vehicle may speed up to merge ahead of
the vehicle on the thoroughfare or slow down to merge behind the
vehicle on the thoroughfare. Alternatively, the vehicle on the
thoroughfare may speed up or slow down to accommodate the merging
vehicle. In addition, the vehicle traveling on the thoroughfare may
change lanes to accommodate the merging vehicle.
[0003] Often times drivers may choose to perform the same action as
the other vehicle resulting in both vehicles accelerating or both
vehicle decelerating at the same time thereby causing one of the
vehicles to brake after it is realized that both vehicles are
attempting a same acceleration action or deceleration action. As a
result, one of the vehicles may brake to avoid a collision when it
is apparent to one of the drivers that both drivers have the same
intention such as merging ahead of the other vehicle. A change of
speed such as braking may cause a chain of braking events for
vehicles trailing the braking vehicle, which may ultimately lead to
a traffic slow down or collision.
SUMMARY OF INVENTION
[0004] An advantage of an embodiment is an autonomous and
cooperative merging between a merging vehicle and a host vehicle by
recognizing the merging vehicles merging intentions and uses a cost
technique to perform cooperative social behavior for merging the
merging vehicle into traffic. An intention estimator extracts a
probability of surrounding vehicles intentions in real time. Then
for each surrounding candidate vehicle, a strategy is determined
and a prediction engine considers the interaction between a host
vehicle and surrounding candidate vehicle to predict future
scenarios. Cost function-based evaluations are applied to determine
the cost for each scenario and select the decision corresponding to
the lowest cost.
[0005] An embodiment contemplates a method for autonomously
controlling a vehicle speed during a merging maneuver between a
host vehicle and a merging vehicle. Speed data and position data of
the host vehicle and the remote data are obtained. A plurality of
candidate driving strategies is generated by a processor. Each
candidate driving strategy is a potential driving strategy
executable by the host vehicle. An intention of the merging vehicle
to merge forward or rearward of the host vehicle is predicted by
the processor. A plurality of merging scenarios between the host
vehicle and merging vehicle is generated by the processor as a
function of a predicted merging intention of the merging vehicle
and the plurality of candidate driving strategies. A cost for each
merging scenario is determined by the processor based on a cost
function evaluation analysis technique. A merge strategy of the
host vehicle is selected by the processor based on the cost
function evaluation results. Accelerations of a host vehicle are
autonomously controlled using an autonomous driving control device.
The autonomous driving control device applies the merge strategy to
the host vehicle for cooperatively allowing the merging vehicle to
cooperatively merge with the host vehicle.
[0006] An embodiment contemplates an autonomous driving merge
management system that comprises an autonomous driving control
device for autonomously controlling accelerations of a host vehicle
and an intention decision management system. The intention decision
management system comprises a candidate strategy subsystem
generating a plurality of candidate driving strategies where each
candidate driving strategy is a potential driving strategy
executable by the host vehicle. A merging vehicle behavior
recognition subsystem predicts a merging intention of a merging
vehicle. The merging intention relates to a positive acceleration
or a negative acceleration of the merging vehicle. An
intention-based interactive prediction subsystem predicts future
merging scenarios between the host vehicle and merging vehicle as a
function of inputs by the merging vehicle behavior recognition
subsystem and inputs by the candidate strategy subsystem. A cost
function-based evaluation subsystem determines a cost for each
future merging scenario generated by the intention-based
interactive prediction subsystem. A processor selects a merge
strategy of the host vehicle based on intention-based prediction
results and cost function-based evaluation results. The autonomous
driving control device applies the merge strategy to the host
vehicle for allowing the merging vehicle to cooperatively merge
with the host vehicle.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS
[0007] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an intention-integrated
prediction- and cost function-based system.
[0008] FIG. 2 is an illustration of a freeway entrance ramp with
merging vehicles.
[0009] FIG. 3 is an illustration of a freeway entrance ramp
identifying key positions along the entrance ramp.
[0010] FIG. 4a represents a simulation result for a merging vehicle
given an intention to yield.
[0011] FIG. 4b represents a simulation result for a merging vehicle
given an intention not to yield.
[0012] FIG. 5 illustrates a graph identifying exemplary probability
estimates of merging vehicle accelerations given two possible
merging intentions.
[0013] FIG. 6a illustrates is an exemplary estimated probability of
a merging intention to yield.
[0014] FIG. 6b illustrates a corresponding entrance ramp scenario
at a first and second time period.
[0015] FIG. 7 is a plot of discretization velocity strategies.
[0016] FIG. 8a illustrates a speed plot of the host and merging
vehicle using adaptive cruise control.
[0017] FIG. 8b illustrates a lateral and longitudinal plot of the
host and merging vehicle using adaptive cruise control.
[0018] FIG. 9a illustrates a speed plot of the host and merging
vehicle using geographical-based adaptive cruise control.
[0019] FIG. 9b illustrates a lateral and longitudinal plot of the
host and merging vehicle using geographical-based adaptive cruise
control.
[0020] FIG. 10a illustrates a speed plot of the host and merging
vehicle using the iPCB system.
[0021] FIG. 10b illustrates a lateral and longitudinal plot of the
host and merging vehicle using the iPCB system.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0022] The availability of freeway and highway transportation has
strongly contributed to efficient and faster travel between two
locations. However, traffic congestion on road networks, including
highways and freeways has become a bottleneck for further
development of cities when the populated use of the roads grows
well beyond the initial intended capacity. Autonomous vehicles have
shown a potential to lessen this problem by reducing the number of
traffic accidents and greatly increasing the capacity and
efficiency of the transportation system. Recently, autonomous
vehicle intelligence has increased from lane centering to actually
driving on public roads with lane-changing capability.
Nevertheless, human-driven vehicles still continue to be the
dominate controls for driving a vehicle.
[0023] For human drivers, an intuitive cooperation occurs when a
merging vehicle is nearby, consisting in an estimate of the other
driver's intention and a corresponding reaction. Without intuition,
in scenarios such as entrance ramps onto highways and freeways, it
is difficult for an autonomous robot to behave in what might be
termed a socially acceptable manner. Consequently, this will make
it difficult for human drivers to understand, predict, and
cooperate with autonomous vehicles.
[0024] There are few platforms that attempt to cooperatively
interact between a human driver and an autonomous vehicle. System
platforms include lane centering and cruise control-level
autonomous driving on highways. Such autonomous vehicles are able
to deal with relatively light human traffic; however, these
vehicles do not perform as well in heavy traffic in comparison to
human drivers due to their limited ability to understand and
cooperate with surrounding cars.
[0025] Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) is one of the most widely
deployed advanced driver assist systems. This system senses a
vehicle forward of the vehicle and attempts to maintain a minimum
spacing between the autonomous driven vehicle and the vehicle
forward of the autonomous vehicle. However, the problem with ACC
systems is that the system is only capable of limited single-lane
highway autonomy.
[0026] In human driver behavior models, experienced human drivers
can understand each other's intentions and smoothly cooperate with
each other while driving. Therefore, it is reasonable to utilize a
human driver behavior model to control an autonomous vehicle.
However, it has been found that in such models, temporal and some
unobservable state information (e.g. intention) of surrounding
vehicles are not used because of the difficulty of data collection
and complexity of model training. Therefore, such systems have
difficulty emulating human decisions at the social cooperation
level.
[0027] In a fully autonomous driving system, a motion planner
typically commands the vehicle's lateral and longitudinal
movements. The most straightforward way to safely avoid moving
obstacles is to regard them as static obstacles cycle by cycle and
use a re-planning mechanism to react to these obstacles in real
time. A more advanced approach is to assume moving obstacles will
keep constant velocity and heading. However, the deficiency is that
the assumption must be made that moving obstacles will keep
constant velocity while driving along the road. None of these
assumptions captures the fact that the host autonomous vehicle's
movement will affect surrounding vehicles' behavior.
[0028] A proposed prediction and cost function-based (PCB) system
and technique is described herein for autonomous freeway driving
applications. The PCB framework is extended via a sampled-based
approach to deal with sensor uncertainties and field-of-view
constraints. The sample-based PCB algorithm is integrated with a
Bayesian driving intention recognition model for the autonomous
vehicle for performing social behavior. This intention-integrated
Prediction-and Cost function-based (iPCB) system is implemented and
tested in a simulated scenario of social cooperation with vehicles
merging from freeway entrance ramps.
[0029] As shown in FIG. 1, there are four main subsystems in the
iPCB system 10. The system includes a surrounding intention
recognition estimation subsystem 12, a candidate strategy
generation subsystem 14, an intention-based interactive prediction
subsystem 16, a cost function-based strategy evaluation subsystem
18, and a controller in the autonomous driving system 20. It should
be understood that each respective subsystem may utilize separate
processors, controllers, and memory, or may share a processors,
controllers, and memory.
[0030] The surrounding intention recognition estimation subsystem
12 captures the surrounding vehicle information input from the
autonomous vehicle's perception system. The surrounding intention
recognition subsystem uses a knowledge-based technique to output
the probability of each surrounding vehicle's intention to the
intention based interference prediction subsystem 16.
[0031] The candidate strategy generation subsystem 14 proposes a
plurality of candidate driving strategies for the host vehicle to
execute. The plurality of candidate driving strategies include sets
of accelerations (i.e., positive accelerations) and/or
decelerations (negative accelerations) applied by the host vehicle
when encountering a vehicle merging into its lane. The
intention-integrated prediction subsystem 16 uses the surrounding
vehicles' intentions provided by the merging vehicle behavior
recognition system 12 to predict the future traffic scenario
assuming each of the candidate strategies is applied. The cost
function-based evaluation subsystem 18 computes costs for each
scenario and sums them together as the strategy cost. The
autonomous driving system 20 selects the best strategy
corresponding to the lowest cost and performs an autonomous merging
maneuver.
[0032] To describe the operation of the iPCB system 10, a freeway
entrance ramp management is selected which represents a difficult
scenario where vehicles (autonomous or nonautonmous) need to
exhibit social behavior, and the iPCB technique can be applied. For
the entrance ramp management system, a scenario is shown in FIG. 2.
A host vehicle 22 is driving in the rightmost lane of the freeway
24. Start point A of the entrance ramp is a location where the
autonomous vehicle begins to consider the intentions of the merging
vehicle 26. End point B is a location of the entrance ramp where
there merging vehicle 26 fully merges in the rightmost lane of the
freeway 24. Distances d.sub.A and d.sub.B are the longitudinal
distances from a reference point O to points A and B. Point C in
FIG. 2 is defined as the point at which the interaction between the
two vehicles needs to be complete. The position of C and d.sub.C is
computed using the following formula:
d.sub.c=d.sub.A+(d.sub.B-d.sub.A)/.omega..sub.lane(.omega..sub.lane-.ome-
ga..sub.car (1)
where .omega..sub.lane is the width of the lane and .omega..sub.car
is the width of the merging vehicle.
[0033] After point C, the vehicles should return to their normal
lane driving and distance keeping mode. For the example described
herein, all scenarios are implemented with parameters d.sub.A=40 m,
d.sub.B=120 m, .omega..sub.lane=6 m, .omega..sub.car=2 m.
[0034] In this embodiment, only the autonomous vehicle's
single-lane driving performance is considered, which means the host
vehicle 22 (autonomous vehicle) will keep performing lane centering
in its current lane without changing to another lane. The host
vehicle's function is to adjust speed by changing its acceleration
g.sub.host. The host vehicle's state is given by d.sub.host,
v.sub.host and l.sub.host where d.sub.host and v.sub.host are
respectively the longitudinal distance and speed of the autonomous
vehicle, and l.sub.host is the lateral position of the host vehicle
22.
[0035] It is assumed that the merging vehicle 26 will merge along a
fixed path corresponding to the center line of the entrance ramp.
Similarly to the host vehicle, it has observable state d.sub.merge,
v.sub.merge and l.sub.merge obtainable from the perception system
of the autonomous vehicle. In addition, to represent the autonomous
vehicle's understanding of the merging vehicle's behavior, an
intention state i.sub.merge is included which can be either Yield
(Y) or Not Yield (NY).
[0036] For other remote vehicles, including vehicles in adjacent
lanes and any vehicles leading or following the autonomous vehicle,
parameters d.sub.i, v.sub.i and l.sub.i are used to represent other
remote vehicle's longitudinal position, speed, and lateral
distance.
[0037] A first step in the iPCB process framework is to generate a
statistical model by estimating the merging vehicle intention I and
use probability, p(I=Y) or p(Y) (i.e., the probability of the
merging vehicle to yield) and p(I=N) or p(N) (i.e., the probability
of the merging vehicle to not yield) to capture the uncertainty of
the estimation. The intention recognition mechanism proposed herein
referred to as the merging vehicle behavior recognition technique
is based on Bayes' theorem as represented as follows:
p ( Y B ) = p ( B Y ) p ( Y ) / [ p ( Y ) p ( B Y ) + p ( N ) p ( B
N ) ] = p ( B Y ) .times. 0.5 / [ 0.5 p ( B Y ) + 0.5 p ( B N ) ] =
p ( B Y ) / [ p ( B Y ) + p ( B N ) ] ( 2 ) ##EQU00001##
where p(Y|B) is the probability of merging vehicle's intention to
yield (Y) given an observed behavior B, and p(B|Y) and p(B|N) are
respectively the probabilities of that same behavior given
intention Y or N. As no prior knowledge of the intention of the
merging vehicle is available, the most difficult scenario is
selected and the probability of yield p(Y) and not yield p(N) are
both set to 0.5.
[0038] To estimate intent of the merging vehicle, the acceleration
of the merging vehicle must be determined. The acceleration may be
captured by sensing devices of the host vehicle or may be obtained
through vehicle-to-vehicle communications between the host vehicle
and the merging vehicle. A decelerating vehicle is more likely to
intend to yield to host vehicle, and an accelerating vehicle less
likely to yield to the host vehicle. Therefore, the acceleration is
computed from the velocity measurement of the merging vehicle and
is represented as follows:
acct(t)=(v(t)-v(t-t.sub.filter)) (3)
where v(t) is the observed merging vehicle velocity at time t and
t.sub.filter is the filtering horizon.
[0039] A merging vehicle behavior model B|I is generated
representing the behavior B (acceleration or deceleration) expected
from the merging vehicle given a particular intention I. If the
merging vehicle intends to yield to the host vehicle, it will tend
to merge into the lane of the host vehicle with a proper forward
distance to the host vehicle. Otherwise, the merging vehicle will
try to get ahead of the host vehicle and keep a reasonable backward
distance when it enters the lane.
[0040] To generate the statistical model, a deterministic model is
first generated and then the deterministic model is converted to a
statistical model utilizing a Gaussian distribution. The
deterministic model will provide a position and velocity of the
merging vehicle from a kinematics point of view for identifying
where the merging vehicle will be. FIG. 3 illustrates the freeway
entrance ramp identifying key positions along the entrance ramp.
Point C represents an end of the interaction region. Points
D.sub.yield and D.sub.nyield are locations where the merging
vehicle is supposed to be when the host vehicle arrives at C for
the yield and not-yield cases, respectively. Equations for a
deterministic model are as follows:
d.sub.yield=d.sub.C-(d.sub.min+k.sub.vv.sub.host)
d.sub.nyield=d.sub.C+(d.sub.min+k.sub.vv.sub.host)
.DELTA.t=(d.sub.yield,nyield-d.sub.merge)/v.sub.merge-(d.sub.C-d.sub.hos-
t)/v.sub.host
acc.sub.merge=c.sub.gain.DELTA.t (4)
where d.sub.yield is the distance from C to D.sub.yield,
d.sub.nyield the distance from C to D.sub.nyield d.sub.min is the
minimum desired distance to the leading vehicle, k is a gain
causing the desired distance to grow with the host vehicle's speed,
d.sub.merge and d.sub.host are the positions of the merging and
host vehicles at any given instance of time. The desired control
command for the merging vehicle acc.sub.merge is computed using a
proportional controller applied to the difference between the
arrival times of the merging vehicle and the autonomous vehicle,
where .DELTA.t is the time difference between the two vehicles'
arrivals at C, and c.sub.gain is the proportional gain converting
the time difference into the acceleration command of the merging
vehicle.
[0041] Simulation results are shown in FIGS. 4a and 4b. In FIG. 4a,
the merging vehicle is given an intention (I) of Yield, so it
gradually applies deceleration and eventually merges into the main
lane behind the host vehicle with the desired distance to the
leader. Under this intention (I), the merging vehicle should try to
reach D.sub.yield when the host vehicle is at C. In FIG. 4b, the
merging vehicle is given an intention (I) of Not Yield, so merging
vehicle accelerates to merge in front of the host vehicle. Under
this intention (I), the merging vehicle should try to reach
D.sub.nyield when the host vehicle is at C. This model can emulate
the behavior of a merging vehicle performing speed adjustment to
enact its intention.
[0042] The following description utilizes a deterministic model of
B|I for converting the model to a statistical (i.e., probabilistic)
model. Although the deterministic model provides details as to the
position and velocity of the merging vehicle, the deterministic
model does not provide foresight as to the intentions of the
merging vehicle. Therefore, by integrating intent with the
deterministic model, the intentions of the merging model can be
estimated with a respective confidence level. Under this scenario,
the model is extended by superimposing a Gaussian distribution with
its peak at the acc.sub.merge values for B|Y and B|N and standard
deviation .sigma.=0.8 m/s.sup.2, as shown in FIG. 5. B|Y represents
the merging vehicle's intention to yield, whereas B|N represents
the merging vehicle's intention to not yield. The graph shown in
FIG. 5 gives exemplary probabilistic estimates p(B|Y) and p(B|N) of
the merging vehicle acceleration given the two possible intentions
and is used to capture the uncertainty-based deviation of the
merging vehicle's behavior from the B|I model. It should be
understood that other probabilistic distributions can be
considered. By integrating p(B|I) with the Bayesian rule in Eq. 2,
a merging vehicle intention probability estimator is produced. As a
result, a social behavior of the merging vehicle can be
quantified.
[0043] FIGS. 6a and 6b illustrate verification results implemented
in simulation to verify the intention estimator's performance. The
test parameters were provided that the merging vehicle was given a
certain intention (I=Y or I=N) and followed the model B|I. The
results of the real-time intention probability recognition are
illustrated in FIG. 6a. Corresponding scenarios are shown in FIG.
6b. In FIG. 6b, the vehicle begins to perform minor adjustment of
its speed around t=4.0 s. FIG. 6b also shows the corresponding
scenarios at t=6.0 s. The intention estimator captures the initial
behavior and outputs a probability of intention of the merging
vehicle. The intention estimation results are very ambiguous at the
beginning, but as the merging vehicle gets closer to point C around
t=6.0 s, confidence of the estimation result increases rapidly.
[0044] Although the command for the autonomous vehicle in the
freeway entrance ramp management system is an instantaneous
velocity command, the host vehicle is attempting to identity an
immediate and best available action based on the actions of the
merging vehicle. The host vehicle also needs to consider a series
of future control commands, (i.e., a velocity profile for the next
t.sub.predictLength in seconds). Due to the real-time requirement
and limited computation power, only a limited number of strategies
can be searched and evaluated. Therefore, a discretization of the
strategy set is used.
[0045] FIG. 7 illustrates the discretization strategies of the host
vehicle. The strategies include velocity profiles that are plotted
as velocity (m/sec) over time (sec). Each of the strategies
includes various combinations of positive acceleration and or
negative accelerations that the host vehicle may utilize when
encountering a vehicle merging within its lane. For example, the
velocity provides may include a positive acceleration that changes
to elevated acceleration, a negative acceleration that changes to a
lower negative acceleration, a positive acceleration that changes
to a negative acceleration, and a negative acceleration that
changes to a positive acceleration.
[0046] Each velocity profile is represented by three parameters:
t.sub.adjust, the total speed adjustment time, a.sub.first which is
the acceleration amplitude for the first half of t.sub.adjust, and
a.sub.second which is the acceleration amplitude for the second
half of t.sub.adjust. The entire timeframe t.sub.predictLength is
chosen to be 10.0 seconds and is discretized into two values, 3.0 s
or 5.0 s. There are 13 different acceleration options covering the
range from -3.0 m/s.sup.2 to 2.0 m/s.sup.2. The candidate strategy
generator outputs 378 strategies in all, which allows the iPCB
algorithm to re-assess the host vehicle strategy in relation to the
merging vehicle fast enough for the real-time implementation. As a
result, the host vehicle can force a respective strategy in an
attempt to illicit a respective intention of the merging
vehicle.
[0047] After the candidate strategy generation, a prediction engine
is used to simulate future scenarios for each strategy. For
surrounding vehicles, including the leading or following vehicle of
the autonomous car, the following prediction model:
.DELTA. d 1 = d 1 - d v ( t ) a v ( t ) = { .mu. free ( v lim - v v
( t ) ) if .DELTA. d i > 100 .mu. dk ( d d - d 1 ) + .mu. dkv (
v l - v v ( t ) ) if .DELTA. d i < 100 } ( 5 ) ##EQU00002##
where .DELTA.d.sub.i is the distance to vehicle v.sub.i's leader,
.mu..sub.free is the proportional gain for the vehicle to gradually
approach the speed limit when there are no obstacles in front of
it, .mu..sub.dk is the proportional gain of the distance keeping
controller, and .mu..sub.dkv is the proportional gain on the
velocity difference between the leader and the vehicle v.sub.i.
[0048] The intention of a merging vehicle from the intention
recognition technique will be used to determine a more accurate
prediction. The model as described earlier to generate B|I is used.
The following steps are used with the B|I model. When the merging
car's yield/not yield decision is obvious, the input/will be
overridden, as identified in the following equation:
I = { Y , if .DELTA. t > 3.0 N , if .DELTA. t < 3.0 } ( 6 )
##EQU00003##
where .DELTA.t is computed using Eq. 4. For instance, if the
merging vehicle is much slower than and far behind the host
vehicle, it will surely yield to the host vehicle. In these cases,
only one intention will be considered in prediction.
[0049] An important effect of this override mechanism is that even
when a merging vehicle intention ambiguity exists at the beginning
of the prediction, if the host vehicle performs a certain behavior,
it has the ability to force the merging vehicle to converge to a
predictable decision.
[0050] The interactive prediction module gives the iPCB framework
the ability to predict how surrounding vehicles will react to the
host vehicle's strategy, which is a key factor enabling the
autonomous vehicle to socially interact with them. Compared with
the prediction mechanism of other motion planning and distance
keeping techniques, which is based on the assumption that
surrounding vehicles will keep constant velocity and will not be
affected by the host vehicle's behavior, the proposed prediction
model is more accurate.
[0051] The prediction module generates a sequence of predicted
scenarios from the current time t=0 to t=t.sub.predictLength with
constant time step .DELTA.t. Each entrance ramp scenario is
represented by the longitudinal positions, speeds, and lateral
positions of the host, merging and surrounding vehicles
d.sub.host,merge,i, v.sub.host,merge,i, l.sub.host,merge,i. A cost
for each scenario C.sub.sce is then computed, which consists of
four different cost functions. The four cost functions include,
progress cost, comfort cost, safety cost, and fuel consumption
cost.
[0052] The progress cost (C.sub.progress) represents how well a
strategy does in finishing a given task by penalizing those
strategies which take longer to finish the task. The goal of the
distance keeper is to keep a desired distance d.sub.desired to its
leader, which is represented as follows by the following
equation:
d.sub.desired=d.sub.min+k.sub.vv (7)
where v is the current velocity of the vehicle, d.sub.min is the
distance to the leader when the vehicle is stationary, and k.sub.v
is the gain of the desired distance increase corresponding to
v.
[0053] Comfort cost (C.sub.comfort) represents scenarios when
driving a vehicle, human drivers will generally try to avoid large
accelerations for greater comfort.
[0054] The safety cost C.sub.safety of a scenario consists of two
terms: the clear distance cost C.sub.distance and the braking
distance cost C.sub.brake. The clear distance cost C.sub.distance
penalizes the host vehicle when it is moving too close to
surrounding vehicles. However, this cost is not informative enough
to avoid collision in some situations, since this factor does not
consider the vehicles' relative velocities. Therefore, another
safety cost based on the braking distance difference
.DELTA.d.sub.brake between two vehicles is also considered.
[0055] The fuel consumption cost C.sub.fuel is proportional to the
fuel usage as estimated by a comprehensive modal emission
statistical model.
[0056] The parameters of these cost functions are selected based on
case tests and statistical tests in a simulator with simulated
traffic vehicles. The total cost of a scenario is the weighted sum
of all these costs and is represented by the following formula:
C.sub.sce=.mu..sub.1C.sub.progress+.mu..sub.2C.sub.comfort+.mu..sub.3C.s-
ub.safety+.mu..sub.4C.sub.fuel (8)
where .mu..sub.1, .mu..sub.2, .mu..sub.3, and .mu..sub.4 represent
a weight factor. That is, various cost parameters may not be as
important as others, and therefore, the equation may be forced to
provide greater weight to those factors that are more
important.
[0057] By summing the scenario costs together, the cost for the
i.sup.th strategy for a given intention (I) is generated as
follows:
C str ( i ) I = t = 0 t Predict ( C sce ( i , t ) I ( 9 )
##EQU00004##
where C.sub.sce(i,t) is a cost of an i.sup.th scenario for a
respective time t, (I) is an intention, and t.sub.Predict is
duration of time over which system will predict the respective
scenario. For example, if short duration of time is selected (e.g.,
5 seconds), then the initial results will be more accurate; however
long estimations will be unknown. If a longer duration of time is
selected (e.g., 10 seconds), then the system will predict long term
results; however, inaccuracies may result, as changes, such as
speed, may occur which may skew the cost estimation.
[0058] The following formula represents a cost for a respective
strategy for a given set of probabilities of an intention (I) to
yield and not yield. The formula is represented as follows:
C.sub.str(i)=p(I=Y)C.sub.str(i)|Y+p(I=N)C.sub.str(i)|N (10)
where p(I=Y) is a probability of the merging vehicle yielding
during the merging maneuver, p(I=Y)C.sub.str(i)|N is the cost
associated to the host vehicle as a result of the merging vehicle
yielding to the host vehicle, p(I=N) is a probability of the
merging vehicle not yielding during the merging maneuver, and,
p(I=N)C.sub.str(i)|N is the cost associated to the host vehicle as
a result of the merging vehicle not yielding to the host
vehicle.
[0059] To manage any uncertainty in the state variable I, a
sample-based approach is used to compute the expectation of the
strategy cost C.sub.str(i).
[0060] The best freeway entrance ramp management strategy is
selected based on the lowest accumulated cost, which is computed
using Eq. 10.
[0061] To verify the performance of the proposed iPCB framework for
autonomous freeway driving entrance ramp management, case tests
focused on qualitative analysis were implemented. FIGS. 8a and 8b
show the speeds (host and merging) and lateral and longitudinal
distances, respectively, between vehicles for the autonomous
vehicle performing single-lane autonomous driving with three
different algorithms. Since the adaptive cruise control system only
considers vehicles in the same lane as the host vehicle, it does
not react to the merging vehicle until it crosses the lane divider
which causes emergency braking and an uncomfortably small distance
between vehicles (5.2 m).
[0062] FIGS. 9a and 9b illustrate an extension (i.e., geoACC) of
the basic ACC for better handling of merging vehicles. This
approach includes geographical information such as the shape of the
road and entrance ramp and some rules governing whether the
autonomous vehicle should yield. If the merging vehicle arrives
before the host vehicle, then the autonomous system will decide to
yield, as indicated by the following equation:
D host = { N , if .DELTA. t > 0 Y , if .DELTA. t < 0 } ( 11 )
##EQU00005##
where d.sub.host is the host vehicle decision, and .DELTA.t is
determined using Eq. 4. If the host vehicle arrives before the
merging vehicle, it will try get in front of the merging vehicle.
Therefore, if the decision is Y (yield), then the autonomous
vehicle will perform distance keeping on the merging vehicle while
it is still on the entrance ramp. If it is N (not yield), it will
ignore the vehicle on the ramp.
[0063] If the host and merging vehicles arrive at around the same
time, these rules may result in oscillation between the yield and
not yield decisions which results in a scenario difficult to handle
by the geoACC. Another problematic case of the geoACC algorithm is
when the merging vehicle wants to perform some social interaction
with the host vehicle, which the host vehicle does not understand.
This is indicated in FIGS. 9a and 9b. At the beginning, the host
vehicle decides to yield to the merging vehicle because
.DELTA.t.ltoreq.0. However, the merging vehicle wants to yield to
the host vehicle, as well. The result is that the merging vehicle
decreases its speed, and the host vehicle applies distance keeping
to it, further decreasing its speed. This social misunderstanding
causes the host vehicle to brake very hard to keep a safe distance
to the merging vehicle, but this causes a potentially dangerous
situation on highways. For a human driver, as long as it is
understood that the merging vehicle wants to yield, the host
vehicle decision will switch from yield to not yield in most
situations.
[0064] In contrast to these two approaches based on the current ACC
system, the iPCB algorithm can actively perform a behavior that
attempts to convey its preference to the merging vehicle in the
social cooperation. For testing purposes, the most ambiguous
scenario is created, in which the host and merging vehicles have
the same longitudinal coordinate and speed, and the merging vehicle
is told to have an intention to yield (I=Y). In the iPCB plots of
FIGS. 10a and 10b, as soon as the merging vehicle performs an
intentional behavior (deceleration to yield to the host vehicle),
the host vehicle understands it and begins to accelerate slightly
to clearly show the merging car its cooperative behavior. This
makes the speed variation of both vehicles much smaller and the
distance between vehicles when the merging vehicle cuts in very
close to the desired distance keeping distance d.sub.desired.
[0065] In summary, the iPCB technique described herein performs in
the most reasonable and cooperative manner to interact with merging
vehicles on entrance ramps. It increases the smoothness of the
velocity adjustment and also keeps the distance between merging and
autonomous vehicles in a safe range.
[0066] In test cases conducted herein, the iPCB algorithm's general
ability to perform social behavior was verified. A statistical test
was implemented in simulation to analyze its ability to deal with a
wide variety of different entrance ramp management scenarios. The
simulation for each algorithm was run 10,000 times to get a more
accurate statistical result.
[0067] Table I illustrates exemplary parameters ranges utilized for
these statistical tests.
TABLE-US-00001 Parameter Min Max d.sub.merge (m) -60.0 20.0
v.sub.merge (m/s) 5.0 15.0 i.sub.merge Y or N d.sub.host (m) -60.0
20.0 v.sub.host (m/s) 5.0 15.0
Table II shows the result of this test, where C.sub.ave is the
average strategy cost.
TABLE-US-00002 ACC geoACC iPCB C.sub.ave 52.25 56.61 30.58
C.sub.safety 7.51 6.56 2.45 C.sub.dk 20.73 20.55 21.94 C.sub.acc
4.84 6.56 0.66 N.sub.danger 52 62 9
C.sub.safety, C.sub.acc, C.sub.dk are respectively the safety,
comfort, and distance keeping progress cost. N.sub.danger is the
number of cases in which the car needed to apply hard braking (with
deceleration larger than 3 m/s.sup.2) to avoid an accident.
[0068] The iPCB algorithm clearly provides the lowest strategy
cost, which indicates that the quality of the decision making at
entrance ramps is improved. Compared with the ACC and geoACC
approaches, the safety and acceleration costs are reduced
considerably, meaning the control of the vehicle is smoother and
safer. The number of potentially dangerous scenarios is also
greatly reduced by using the iPCB algorithm due to its ability to
react earlier to merging vehicles based on their intention. This
test also verifies that the iPCB algorithm framework is beneficial
across a wide range of entrance ramp scenarios.
[0069] Once the autonomous maneuver is selected that provides the
lowest cost and greatest benefit for performing the merging
maneuver, control signals are provided to one or more controllers
for controlling the autonomous driving system for seamlessly
merging with vehicles entering the freeway merging lane. For
example, a vehicle speed controller may be used to control the
speed of the vehicle to follow a selected strategy in an attempt to
illicit a respective intention from the merging vehicle. The
behavior of the merging vehicle is constantly monitored, and
depending on the response of the merging vehicle, the current
strategy for the identified intention may be continuously applied,
or another strategy may be selected and the speed controller will
react accordingly.
[0070] It should be understood that the embodiments described
herein are not limited to high entrance ramps, but may also be
applied to lane changes (using, for example, lateral and
longitudinal accelerations) and other driving maneuvers that
require a host vehicle to monitor surrounding vehicles and
cooperatively allow a remote vehicle access to the host vehicle's
lane.
[0071] While certain embodiments of the present invention have been
described in detail, those familiar with the art to which this
invention relates will recognize various alternative designs and
embodiments for practicing the invention as defined by the
following claims.
* * * * *