The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2206.12348 · v1 · pith:CFKUCRWS · submitted 2022-06-24 · cs.RO · cs.SY· eess.SY

MPC-based Imitation Learning for Safe and Human-like Autonomous Driving

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:CFKUCRWSrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY
keywords drivingcontroldemonstrationsautonomousbehaviorsclosed-loopconstraintsdesired
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

To ensure user acceptance of autonomous vehicles (AVs), control systems are being developed to mimic human drivers from demonstrations of desired driving behaviors. Imitation learning (IL) algorithms serve this purpose, but struggle to provide safety guarantees on the resulting closed-loop system trajectories. On the other hand, Model Predictive Control (MPC) can handle nonlinear systems with safety constraints, but realizing human-like driving with it requires extensive domain knowledge. This work suggests the use of a seamless combination of the two techniques to learn safe AV controllers from demonstrations of desired driving behaviors, by using MPC as a differentiable control layer within a hierarchical IL policy. With this strategy, IL is performed in closed-loop and end-to-end, through parameters in the MPC cost, model or constraints. Experimental results of this methodology are analyzed for the design of a lane keeping control system, learned via behavioral cloning from observations (BCO), given human demonstrations on a fixed-base driving simulator.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. C-CoT: Counterfactual Chain-of-Thought with Vision-Language Models for Safe Autonomous Driving

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    C-CoT applies VLMs to autonomous driving via five-stage reasoning with a meta-action tree for counterfactuals, yielding 81.9% risk recall, 3.52% collision rate, and 1.98 m L2 error on a new dataset.