PreprintCited by 406Autonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsReinforcement Learning in Robotics

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

End-to-end Interpretable Neural Motion Planner

Open access

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a neural motion planner (NMP) for learning to drive autonomously in complex urban scenarios that include traffic-light handling, yielding, and interactions with multiple road-users. Towards this goal, we design a holistic model that takes as input raw LIDAR data and a HD map and produces interpretable intermediate representations in the form of 3D detections and their future trajectories, as well as a cost volume defining the goodness of each position that the self-driving car can take within the planning horizon. We then sample a set of diverse physically possible trajectories and choose the one with the minimum learned cost. Importantly, our cost volume is able to naturally capture multi-modality. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in real-world driving data captured in several cities in North America. Our experiments show that the learned cost volume can generate safer planning than all the baselines.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2101.06679

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Autonomous vehicles can be trained to operate securely by adhering to traffic regulations such as relinquishing, interacting with other pedestrians, and obeying road signs.

    “In accordance with the proposal put forth by Zeng et al., autonomous vehicles can be trained to operate securely by adhering to traffic regulations such as relinquishing, interacting with the other pedestrians, and obeying road signs [95].”
  • Justifications never ensure that system categorical imperatives are achieved.

    “we emphasize that justifications never ensure that system categorical imperatives are achieved [65], [66].”
  • The L-1 and L-2 ranges used in movement predictions help determine whether faulty movements result from inaccurate pace or directional estimations.

    “The L-1 and L-2 ranges used in movement predictions help to determine if faulty movements are indeed the result of inaccurate pace or directional estimations.”

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zeng, W., Luo, W., Suo, S., Sadat, A., Yang, B., Casas, S., & Urtasun, R.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
Pages
8652-8661
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2968008415
Cited by
406
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 73
FWCI
46.25
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robotic Path Planning Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
autonomous driving, LiDAR, HD maps, 3D object detection, trajectory prediction, cost volume, yielding, multi-user interaction, urban driving, trajectory sampling

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