PreprintCited by 48Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Think2Drive: Efficient Reinforcement Learning by Thinking in Latent World Model for Quasi-Realistic Autonomous Driving (in CARLA-v2)

Open access
Li, Qifeng, Jia, Xiaosong, Wang, Shaobo, Yan, Junchi·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Real-world autonomous driving (AD) especially urban driving involves many corner cases. The lately released AD simulator CARLA v2 adds 39 common events in the driving scene, and provide more quasi-realistic testbed compared to CARLA v1. It poses new challenge to the community and so far no literature has reported any success on the new scenarios in V2 as existing works mostly have to rely on specific rules for planning yet they cannot cover the more complex cases in CARLA v2. In this work, we take the initiative of directly training a planner and the hope is to handle the corner cases flexibly and effectively, which we believe is also the future of AD. To our best knowledge, we develop the first model-based RL method named Think2Drive for AD, with a world model to learn the transitions of the environment, and then it acts as a neural simulator to train the planner. This paradigm significantly boosts the training efficiency due to the low dimensional state space and parallel computing of tensors in the world model. As a result, Think2Drive is able to run in an expert-level proficiency in CARLA v2 within 3 days of training on a single A6000 GPU, and to our best knowledge, so far there is no reported success (100\% route completion)on CARLA v2. We also propose CornerCase-Repository, a benchmark that supports the evaluation of driving models by scenarios. Additionally, we propose a new and balanced metric to evaluate the performance by route completion, infraction number, and scenario density, so that the driving score could give more information about the actual driving performance.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.16720

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Li, Q., Jia, X., Wang, S., & Yan, J.
Affiliations
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Yan, Junchi
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
142-158
ISSN
0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4404654834
Cited by
48
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 3
FWCI
11.57
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (92370201)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
autonomous driving, reinforcement learning, latent world models, model-based reinforcement learning, corner cases, driving scenarios, training efficiency, benchmark

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