Safe, Multi-Agent, Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Driving
Open accessAbstract
Autonomous driving is a multi-agent setting where the host vehicle must apply sophisticated negotiation skills with other road users when overtaking, giving way, merging, taking left and right turns and while pushing ahead in unstructured urban roadways. Since there are many possible scenarios, manually tackling all possible cases will likely yield a too simplistic policy. Moreover, one must balance between unexpected behavior of other drivers/pedestrians and at the same time not to be too defensive so that normal traffic flow is maintained. In this paper we apply deep reinforcement learning to the problem of forming long term driving strategies. We note that there are two major challenges that make autonomous driving different from other robotic tasks. First, is the necessity for ensuring functional safety - something that machine learning has difficulty with given that performance is optimized at the level of an expectation over many instances. Second, the Markov Decision Process model often used in robotics is problematic in our case because of unpredictable behavior of other agents in this multi-agent scenario. We make three contributions in our work. First, we show how policy gradient iterations can be used without Markovian assumptions. Second, we decompose the problem into a composition of a Policy for Desires (which is to be learned) and trajectory planning with hard constraints (which is not learned). The goal of Desires is to enable comfort of driving, while hard constraints guarantees the safety of driving. Third, we introduce a hierarchical temporal abstraction we call an "Option Graph" with a gating mechanism that significantly reduces the effective horizon and thereby reducing the variance of the gradient estimation even further.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The largest portion of papers in deep learning for self-driving cars are focused mainly on perception and End2End learning.
“Currently, the largest portion of papers in deep learning for selfdriving cars are focused mainly on perception and End2End learning [81, 124].”
From A survey of deep learning techniques for autonomous driving (2020) · cites this paper as [81]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Reinforcement Learning: A Survey
Kaelbling, L. P., Littman, M. L., & Moore, A. W. (1996) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.301 · Cited by 8,972 · see citing works
Reinforcement learning in robotics: A survey
Kober, J., Bagnell, J. A., & Peters, J. (2013) · The International Journal of Robotics Research · doi:10.1177/0278364913495721 · Cited by 3,160 · see citing works
Between MDPs and semi-MDPs: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning
Sutton, R. S., Precup, D., & Singh, S. (1999) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(99)00052-1 · Cited by 3,119 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Efficient Processing of Deep Neural Networks: A Tutorial and Survey
Sze, V., Chen, Y.-H., Yang, T.-J., & Emer, J. S. (2017) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2017.2761740 · Cited by 4,215 · see citing works
Deep reinforcement learning for autonomous driving: A survey
Kiran, B. R., Sobh, I., Talpaert, V., Mannion, P., Sallab, A. A. A., Yogamani, S., & Perez, P. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2021.3054625 · Cited by 2,342 · see citing works
A survey of deep learning techniques for autonomous driving
Grigorescu, S., Trasnea, B., Cocias, T., & Macesanu, G. (2020) · Journal of Field Robotics · doi:10.1002/rob.21918 · Cited by 1,809 · see citing works
Virtual to Real Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Driving
Pan, X., You, Y., Wang, Z., & Lu, C. (2017) · Procedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2017 · doi:10.5244/c.31.11 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
“Recently, reinforcement learning has been considered as a promising technique to learn driving policy due to its expertise in action planing [15, 23, 25].”
BackgroundA Survey of Deep Learning Applications to Autonomous Vehicle Control
Kuutti, S., Bowden, R., Jin, Y., Barber, P., & Fallah, S. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2019.2962338 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Towards learning-based planning: The nuPlan benchmark for real-world autonomous driving
Karnchanachari, N., Geromichalos, D., Tan, K. S., Li, N., Eriksen, C., Yaghoubi, S., Mehdipour, N., Bernasconi, G., Fong, W. K., Guo, Y., et al. (2024) · 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) · doi:10.1109/icra57147.2024.10610077 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“However, due to its learning by “trial-and-error” search nature, studies in RL rely on the driving simulation to provide the environment [50], [51], [52].”
BackgroundMARFT: Multi-Agent Reinforcement Fine-Tuning
Liao, J., Wen, M., Wang, J., & Zhang, W. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.16129
- Authors
- Shalev-Shwartz, S., Shammah, S., & Shashua, A.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2016
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1610.03295
- OpenAlex
- W2530849036
- Cited by
- 509
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 92 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
- Keywords
- autonomous driving, multi-agent reinforcement learning, functional safety, gating mechanism, urban traffic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review