Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Fast and Scalable Game-Theoretic Trajectory Planning with Intentional Uncertainties

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper works to prove that a Bayesian game of agents with uncertain intentions is a potential game, so its Bayesian Nash equilibrium is the solution of one unified optimization problem.

desk verdict The potential-game reduction is correct and worth publishing, but the paper overstates its scope and the ADMM convergence theory does not cover the non-convex algorithm actually deployed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12174 v1 pith:XANHXY2I submitted 2025-07-16 cs.RO cs.MA

Zhenmin Huang , Yusen Xie , Benshan Ma , Shaojie Shen , Jun Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.MA
keywords Bayesiangamepotentialtrajectoryplanningintentionaluncertaintymulti-agentinteractiondualconsensusADMMNashequilibriumcontingency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Interactive trajectory planning must reason about what other agents intend to do, and those intentions are uncertain. This paper models the interaction as a Bayesian game in which each agent has a private type (such as an aggressive or conservative driving style) and all agents share a common prior over types. The central claim is that under two assumptions — every type has positive probability, and every pairwise interaction cost is symmetric — this Bayesian game is an exact potential game. That makes the Bayesian Nash equilibrium obtainable by minimizing a single potential function, rather than solving a coupled system of best-response problems. If true, the result turns a hard multi-agent equilibrium search into a tractable optimal control problem.

What carries the argument

The agent-form game, in which each type of each agent is treated as its own player, is the central object. Theorem 1 (from standard game theory) says a BNE of the Bayesian game is exactly an NE of this agent-form game. The paper then constructs an exact potential function $P(X)$ whose pairwise terms use the joint type probabilities $p(t_i,t_j)$; Assumption 3, the symmetry of the coupled costs $c_{t_i t_j}=c_{t_j t_i}$, is what lets the cross terms in the potential difference reduce to the single type-player's expected cost. Theorem 2 states that $P$ is a potential function for the agent-form game, so the NE — and hence the BNE — is found by minimizing $P$ in Problem 3.

What would settle it

Construct a two-agent Bayesian game in which one type has collision penalty coefficient $\beta_1$ and the other has $\beta_2$ with $\beta_1 \neq \beta_2$, so $c_{t_1 t_2} \neq c_{t_2 t_1}$. Verify numerically that the difference $P(X_{t_1},X_{-t_1}) - P(X'_{t_1},X_{-t_1})$ no longer equals $p(t_1)[C_{t_1}(X_{t_1},X_{-t_1}) - C_{t_1}(X'_{t_1},X_{-t_1})]$, and that the minimizer of $P$ is not a BNE by a best-response deviation test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is Theorem 2: the agent-form game derived from the Bayesian game is an exact potential game with potential function $P(X)=\sum_i\sum_{t_i}p(t_i)c_{t_i}(X_{t_i})+\sum_{i,j:j>i}\sum_{t_i,t_j}p(t_i,t_j)c_{t_i t_j}(X_{t_i},X_{t_j})$. Because the agent-form game's Nash equilibria coincide with the Bayesian Nash equilibria of the original game (Theorem 1), minimizing $P$ over all type-players' trajectories delivers a BNE. The paper also shows that contingency games, in which an ego agent branches its plan across hypotheses, are potential games with the same structure, and it presents a distributed dual-consensus ADMM algorithm whose iterates provably converge to a solution of the unified optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The entire potential-game reduction stands on the assumption that every pairwise interaction cost is symmetric: agent A's collision penalty with agent B must equal agent B's collision penalty with A, even when the two agents have different types.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The BNE of the Bayesian game can be computed by a single nonconvex optimization problem, so existence and local attainability follow from standard optimality conditions.
  • The same potential construction turns interactive contingency planning into a unified problem with extra consistency constraints, giving a tractable solver for multi-hypothesis planning.
  • The pairwise structure of the potential function permits a dual-consensus ADMM decomposition in which each type-player solves a local LQR subproblem, with computation time scaling nearly linearly with the number of type-players in the reported simulations.
  • Closed-loop evaluation indicates that planning with the BNE, rather than with a maximum-likelihood single intention, increases minimum distance to other agents in uncertain interaction scenarios.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The symmetry assumption means all agents must value safety identically; in traffic, an aggressive driver's lower collision penalty breaks exact potentiality, so applying the method directly to mixed driver styles would require an approximate or weighted-potential relaxation.
  • Minimizing a single nonconvex potential function does not guarantee the global BNE; in practice the solver returns a local minimizer, and the realized equilibrium may depend on initialization and on the convexification schedule.
  • Because the potential function is a sum of local and pairwise terms, the method should extend to other sparsely coupled multi-agent optimization problems beyond trajectory planning, such as distributed resource allocation or sensor coordination, as long as the symmetry condition holds.
  • A direct test of the theory's boundary is to construct a two-agent Bayesian game with asymmetric collision weights and compare the minimizer of $P$ against a best-response verification: if a player can improve by deviating, the potential reduction fails exactly as the proof predicts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a game-theoretic trajectory planning method that models intentional uncertainties (e.g., unknown driving intentions or driving styles) as a Bayesian game. The central theoretical claim is that, under certain assumptions, the agent-form equivalent of this Bayesian game is an exact potential game, so the Bayesian Nash equilibrium can be obtained by minimizing a single potential function instead of solving coupled best-response problems. A dual-consensus ADMM algorithm is then developed to solve the resulting optimization in a distributed and parallel manner. The paper reports open-loop simulations, closed-loop Monte Carlo studies, and real-world experiments showing improved computational efficiency and scalability relative to several baselines, including iLQGames, IPOPT, and potential iLQR.

Significance. If the main theoretical reduction holds, the paper makes a useful contribution: it connects Bayesian games with multimodal intentional uncertainties to potential games, thereby giving a constructive route to BNE via a single optimization problem. The paper also provides a clean proof of the potential-game structure under its stated assumptions, releases an open-source implementation, and demonstrates real-time performance on physical robots. However, the advertised generality of the method is substantially limited by the symmetry assumption on coupled costs, and the convergence of the actual nonconvex algorithm used in the experiments is not covered by the proved theorem. These issues weaken the central claims but are potentially addressable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section VI, Algorithm 2 and Theorem 4] Theorem 4 proves convergence of Algorithm 1 for a fixed convex problem of the form (22) under Assumption 4, but Algorithm 2 solves a sequence of convexified surrogates: the dynamic constraints are linearized and the collision cost is Gauss-Newton approximated at each outer iteration (Eqs. (44)-(45)). The convexified problem changes from one outer iteration to the next, and no convergence analysis is provided for this outer loop. The stated convergence criterion in Algorithm 2 (change in potential function below 0.1) is heuristic. Thus the claim that Algorithm 2 outputs BNE trajectories is not supported by the paper's theoretical results; the theory applies only to the inner ADMM solver for a fixed convex subproblem.
  2. [Appendix C, proof of Theorem 4] The proof of Theorem 4 assumes the existence of the limits X^{v*}, w^*_e, and y^*_e without establishing that the ADMM primal iterates converge. The stated assumptions (existence of a primal-dual solution, strong duality, and uniqueness of the subproblem solution (37)) are not sufficient by themselves to guarantee convergence of the primal sequence in standard ADMM; typical treatments additionally require strict convexity, coercivity, or boundedness of iterates. The proof takes limits in Eqs. (69)-(76) without justifying that the limit points exist and are reached, so the convergence claim for the primal iterates is not fully demonstrated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Assumption 4] Assumption 4 contains a typo: 'a prime-dual solution' should read 'a primal-dual solution.'
  2. [Appendix C] In the proof of Theorem 4, the sentence 'It suffices to proof Theorem 3 by showing...' should refer to Theorem 4, not Theorem 3.
  3. [Section VIII] There is a figure numbering inconsistency: the computation time for the merging scenario is referenced as 'Fig. 17' in the text, but Fig. 17 is later captioned as the settings for the intersection scenario. The merging computation time plot should have its own figure number.
  4. [Section VII-B, Table III] The claim that 'other performance indices are also improved' for the BNE setting over MLE is not fully supported by the table: in the merging scenario the average deviation from the reference trajectory (||ΔX||) is worse for BNE (3.307 m) than for MLE (3.204 m). The text should acknowledge this exception or discuss why it is acceptable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the potential-game reduction is a self-contained proof from stated assumptions, not a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central claim (Theorem 2, Eq. 12) is derived directly from the stated cost structure and Assumptions 2 and 3. Appendix A computes the unilateral deviation of P and shows it equals p(t'_k)[C_{t'_k}(X) - C_{t'_k}(Xhat)], which is exactly the weighted agent-form best-response objective in Problem 2. This is a standard exact-potential construction, not a circular one: no parameter is fitted to the benchmark, and the trajectories are not used to define the potential. The agent-form equivalence to BNE is imported from the external textbook [48], not from the authors' own prior work. The only self-citations ([20], [52]) concern implementation elements such as convexification, the ADMM solver, and the receding-horizon closed-loop scheme; these do not support the mathematical equivalence and are not load-bearing for the potential-game result. Assumption 3, requiring symmetric coupled costs, is indeed substantive: without it the proof's merging of p(t_i,t'_k)c_{t_i,t'_k} with p(t'_k,t_i)c_{t'_k,t_i} in Eq. (57) fails, so a minimizer of Problem 3 need not be a BNE for asymmetric collision weights. This is a real scope limitation but not circularity. The simulation evaluations compare the proposed solver against baselines on externally specified costs and beliefs; no 'prediction' is constructed from the quantity it claims to predict. Thus no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central reduction rests on three domain assumptions: a common prior (A1), strictly positive type marginals (A2), and symmetric pairwise costs (A3). The convergence theorem additionally assumes convexity and strong duality (A4), which is not satisfied by the actual nonconvex problem, so the practical algorithm relies on an unproven convexification surrogate. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • ADMM Max Iter = 3
    Number of ADMM iterations per outer convexification loop, set to 3 in the implementation. This is a heuristic and may affect solution quality.
  • convergence threshold = 0.1
    Termination criterion in Algorithm 2: stop when the change in potential function value between consecutive iterations is below 0.1. No theoretical link to BNE accuracy.
  • safety distance d_safe = 4.5 m (merging), 6.5 m (intersection), 0.5 m (contingency)
    Collision avoidance cost activates below this distance; scenario-dependent design parameter.
  • collision weight beta = 1.4
    Weight on the squared penetration-like distance in the coupled cost; chosen by hand.
  • type discretization samples = 10 samples from each Gaussian mixture
    The continuous intentional uncertainty (Gaussian mixture over reference velocity) is discretized into 10 type-players per other agent. The choice of samples {mu-2sigma, ..., mu+2sigma} is heuristic and the induced p(t_i,t_j) on the sampled type space is not specified.
  • Q, R, sigma, rho, Q_contingency = scenario-specific
    Cost weights and ADMM penalty parameters chosen by hand for each scenario.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: A common distribution p over the probabilities of types of all agents can be established and is known to all agents.
    Required to formulate the interaction as a Bayesian game of common priors. If agents have differing beliefs, the BNE notion changes.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: The marginal probability of each type of each player is strictly greater than zero, p(t_i) > 0.
    Needed for the equivalence between Problem 1 and Problem 2 (scaling by p(t_i) does not change minimizers).
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: Coupled costs are symmetric, c_{t_i t_j} = c_{t_j t_i}.
    Critical for the potential function construction in Theorem 2. Without symmetry, the potential property fails.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4: f_v and g_e are convex, proper, and closed; a primal-dual solution exists and strong duality holds; (37) admits a unique and bounded solution.
    Introduced specifically to prove Theorem 4. The actual trajectory optimization problem is nonconvex, so this assumption is not satisfied in practice.
  • ad hoc to paper The nonconvex problem can be replaced by a sequence of convexified surrogates via linearization and Gauss-Newton approximation (Section VI).
    The paper adopts convexification to apply Algorithm 1, but does not prove that the convexified surrogate preserves the BNE of the original game.
  • standard math Theorem 1 (agent-form equivalence of BNE) is taken from [48, Theorem 9.51].
    Standard game theory result; accepted as background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast and Scalable Game-Theoretic Trajectory Planning with Intentional Uncertainties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XANHXY2I

@misc{pith2026250712174,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast and Scalable Game-Theoretic Trajectory Planning with Intentional Uncertainties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XANHXY2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12174}
}
read the original abstract

Trajectory planning involving multi-agent interactions has been a long-standing challenge in the field of robotics, primarily burdened by the inherent yet intricate interactions among agents. While game-theoretic methods are widely acknowledged for their effectiveness in managing multi-agent interactions, significant impediments persist when it comes to accommodating the intentional uncertainties of agents. In the context of intentional uncertainties, the heavy computational burdens associated with existing game-theoretic methods are induced, leading to inefficiencies and poor scalability. In this paper, we propose a novel game-theoretic interactive trajectory planning method to effectively address the intentional uncertainties of agents, and it demonstrates both high efficiency and enhanced scalability. As the underpinning basis, we model the interactions between agents under intentional uncertainties as a general Bayesian game, and we show that its agent-form equivalence can be represented as a potential game under certain minor assumptions. The existence and attainability of the optimal interactive trajectories are illustrated, as the corresponding Bayesian Nash equilibrium can be attained by optimizing a unified optimization problem. Additionally, we present a distributed algorithm based on the dual consensus alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) tailored to the parallel solving of the problem, thereby significantly improving the scalability. The attendant outcomes from simulations and experiments demonstrate that the proposed method is effective across a range of scenarios characterized by general forms of intentional uncertainties. Its scalability surpasses that of existing centralized and decentralized baselines, allowing for real-time interactive trajectory planning in uncertain game settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12174 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulation results in the merging scenario with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation results in the merging scenario with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation results in the merging scenario with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation results in the intersection scenario with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation results in the intersection scenario with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation results in the intersection scenario with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Computation time with respect to the number of type-players for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulation results of the contingency game by the proposed method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Closed-loop simulation results in the intersection scenario un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Closed-loop simulation results in the merging scenario under MLE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Computation time in real-world experiments for the merging scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Settings of the real-world experiments for the merging scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Snapshots of real-world experiments for the merging scenario under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Computation time in real-world experiments for the intersection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Snapshots of real-world experiments for the intersection scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Snapshots of real-world experiments for the intersection scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Snapshots of real-world experiments for the intersection scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Snapshots of real-world experiments for the intersection scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Self-organized Flocking in Mobile Robot Swarms,

    A. E. Turgut, H. C ¸ elikkanat, F. G ¨okc ¸e, and E. S ¸ahin, “Self-organized Flocking in Mobile Robot Swarms,” Swarm Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 97– 120, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Swarm of Micro Flying Robots in the Wild,

    X. Zhou, X. Wen, Z. Wang, Y . Gao, H. Li, Q. Wang, T. Yang, H. Lu, Y . Cao, C. Xu et al. , “Swarm of Micro Flying Robots in the Wild,” Science Robotics , vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabm5954, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    A Universal Cooperative Decision-making Framework for Connected Autonomous Vehicles with Generic Road Topologies,

    Z. Huang, W. Liu, S. Shen, and J. Ma, “A Universal Cooperative Decision-making Framework for Connected Autonomous Vehicles with Generic Road Topologies,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Distributed Motion Coordination for Multirobot Systems Under LTL Specifications,

    P. Yu and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Distributed Motion Coordination for Multirobot Systems Under LTL Specifications,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1047–1062, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Unfreezing the Robot: Navigation in Dense, Interacting Crowds,

    P. Trautman and A. Krause, “Unfreezing the Robot: Navigation in Dense, Interacting Crowds,” in 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2010, pp. 797–803

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Efficient Iterative Linear-quadratic Approximations for Non- linear Multi-player General-sum Differential Games,

    D. Fridovich-Keil, E. Ratner, L. Peters, A. D. Dragan, and C. J. Tomlin, “Efficient Iterative Linear-quadratic Approximations for Non- linear Multi-player General-sum Differential Games,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020, pp. 1475–1481

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Algames: A Fast Augmented Lagrangian Solver for Constrained Dynamic Games,

    S. Le Cleac’h, M. Schwager, and Z. Manchester, “Algames: A Fast Augmented Lagrangian Solver for Constrained Dynamic Games,” Au- tonomous Robots , vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 201–215, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Decision Making of Connected Automated Vehicles at an Unsignalized Roundabout Considering Personalized Driving Behaviours,

    P. Hang, C. Huang, Z. Hu, Y . Xing, and C. Lv, “Decision Making of Connected Automated Vehicles at an Unsignalized Roundabout Considering Personalized Driving Behaviours,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 4051–4064, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Cooperative Deci- sion Making of Connected Automated Vehicles at Multi-lane Merging Zone: A Coalitional Game Approach,

    P. Hang, C. Lv, C. Huang, Y . Xing, and Z. Hu, “Cooperative Deci- sion Making of Connected Automated Vehicles at Multi-lane Merging Zone: A Coalitional Game Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3829–3841, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Hierarchical Game-theoretic Planning for Autonomous Vehicles,

    J. F. Fisac, E. Bronstein, E. Stefansson, D. Sadigh, S. S. Sastry, and A. D. Dragan, “Hierarchical Game-theoretic Planning for Autonomous Vehicles,” in2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2019, pp. 9590–9596

    2019

  3. [11]

    Stochastic Dynamic Games in Belief Space,

    W. Schwarting, A. Pierson, S. Karaman, and D. Rus, “Stochastic Dynamic Games in Belief Space,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 2157–2172, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Chance-constrained Iterative Linear-quadratic Stochastic Games,

    H. Zhong, Y . Shimizu, and J. Chen, “Chance-constrained Iterative Linear-quadratic Stochastic Games,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 440–447, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Maximum-entropy Multi-agent Dynamic Games: Forward and Inverse Solutions,

    N. Mehr, M. Wang, M. Bhatt, and M. Schwager, “Maximum-entropy Multi-agent Dynamic Games: Forward and Inverse Solutions,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1801–1815, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Multimodal Maximum Entropy Dynamic Games,

    O. So, K. Stachowicz, and E. A. Theodorou, “Multimodal Maximum Entropy Dynamic Games,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12925 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Multi- hypothesis Interactions in Game-theoretic Motion Planning,

    F. Laine, D. Fridovich-Keil, C.-Y . Chiu, and C. Tomlin, “Multi- hypothesis Interactions in Game-theoretic Motion Planning,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2021, pp. 8016–8023

    2021

  8. [16]

    Mpogames: Efficient Multimodal Partially Observable Dy- namic Games,

    O. So, P. Drews, T. Balch, V . Dimitrov, G. Rosman, and E. A. Theodorou, “Mpogames: Efficient Multimodal Partially Observable Dy- namic Games,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 3189–3196

    2023

  9. [17]

    Lane Change Decision-making with Active Interactions in Dense Highway Traffic: A Bayesian Game Approach,

    Z. Deng, W. Hu, Y . Yang, K. Cao, D. Cao, and A. Khajepour, “Lane Change Decision-making with Active Interactions in Dense Highway Traffic: A Bayesian Game Approach,” in 2022 IEEE 25th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) , 2022, pp. 3290–3297

    2022

  10. [18]

    A Non-cooperative Dynamic Game-based Approach for Lane Changing Decision-making in Mixed Traffic Diversion Scenarios,

    T. Zhao, W. ShangGuan, L. Chai, and Y . Cao, “A Non-cooperative Dynamic Game-based Approach for Lane Changing Decision-making in Mixed Traffic Diversion Scenarios,” in 2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) , 2023, pp. 4776–4781

    2023

  11. [19]

    Human-like Interactive Behavior Generation for Autonomous Vehicles: A Bayesian Game- theoretic Approach with Turing Test,

    Y . Zhang, P. Hang, C. Huang, and C. Lv, “Human-like Interactive Behavior Generation for Autonomous Vehicles: A Bayesian Game- theoretic Approach with Turing Test,” Advanced Intelligent Systems , vol. 4, no. 5, p. 2100211, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Integrated Decision Making and Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Driving Under Multimodal Uncer- tainties: A Bayesian Game Approach,

    Z. Huang, T. Li, S. Shen, and J. Ma, “Integrated Decision Making and Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Driving Under Multimodal Uncer- tainties: A Bayesian Game Approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13993, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A Real-time Game Theoretic Planner for Autonomous Two-player Drone Racing,

    R. Spica, E. Cristofalo, Z. Wang, E. Montijano, and M. Schwager, “A Real-time Game Theoretic Planner for Autonomous Two-player Drone Racing,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1389–1403, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Game- theoretic Planning for Self-driving Cars in Multivehicle Competitive Scenarios,

    M. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Talbot, J. C. Gerdes, and M. Schwager, “Game- theoretic Planning for Self-driving Cars in Multivehicle Competitive Scenarios,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1313– 1325, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Effi- cient Game-theoretic Planning with Prediction Heuristic for Socially- compliant Autonomous Driving,

    C. Li, T. Trinh, L. Wang, C. Liu, M. Tomizuka, and W. Zhan, “Effi- cient Game-theoretic Planning with Prediction Heuristic for Socially- compliant Autonomous Driving,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Let- ters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10 248–10 255, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    A Generalized Nash Equilibrium Approach for Optimal Control Problems of Autonomous Cars,

    A. Dreves and M. Gerdts, “A Generalized Nash Equilibrium Approach for Optimal Control Problems of Autonomous Cars,” Optimal Control Applications and Methods , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 326–342, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Decision Making for Connected Automated Vehicles at Urban Intersections Considering Social and Individual Benefits,

    P. Hang, C. Huang, Z. Hu, and C. Lv, “Decision Making for Connected Automated Vehicles at Urban Intersections Considering Social and Individual Benefits,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 22 549–22 562, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    A Three-level Game-theoretic Decision-making Framework for Autonomous Vehicles,

    M. Liu, Y . Wan, F. L. Lewis, S. Nageshrao, and D. Filev, “A Three-level Game-theoretic Decision-making Framework for Autonomous Vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 20 298–20 308, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Contingency Games for Multi-agent Interaction,

    L. Peters, A. Bajcsy, C.-Y . Chiu, D. Fridovich-Keil, F. Laine, L. Ferranti, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Contingency Games for Multi-agent Interaction,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2208–2215, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    A game theory- based approach for modelling mandatory lane-changing behaviour in a connected environment,

    Y . Ali, Z. Zheng, M. M. Haque, and M. Wang, “A game theory- based approach for modelling mandatory lane-changing behaviour in a connected environment,” Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, vol. 106, pp. 220–242, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    A human-like game theory-based controller for automatic lane changing,

    H. Yu, H. E. Tseng, and R. Langari, “A human-like game theory-based controller for automatic lane changing,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , vol. 88, pp. 140–158, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Bas ¸ar and G

    T. Bas ¸ar and G. J. Olsder, Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory . SIAM, 1998

    1998

  23. [31]

    Potential Games,

    D. Monderer and L. S. Shapley, “Potential Games,” Games and Eco- nomic Behavior , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 124–143, 1996

    1996

  24. [32]

    A Class of Games Possessing Pure-strategy Nash Equilibria,

    R. W. Rosenthal, “A Class of Games Possessing Pure-strategy Nash Equilibria,” International Journal of Game Theory , vol. 2, pp. 65–67, 1973

    1973

  25. [33]

    Potential Game-based Decision-making for Autonomous Driving,

    M. Liu, I. Kolmanovsky, H. E. Tseng, S. Huang, D. Filev, and A. Gi- rard, “Potential Game-based Decision-making for Autonomous Driving,” 20 IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 8014–8027, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Safe and human-like autonomous driving: A predictor–corrector potential game approach,

    M. Liu, H. E. Tseng, D. Filev, A. Girard, and I. Kolmanovsky, “Safe and human-like autonomous driving: A predictor–corrector potential game approach,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 834–848, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Multi-vehicle automated driving as a generalized mixed-integer potential game,

    F. Fabiani and S. Grammatico, “Multi-vehicle automated driving as a generalized mixed-integer potential game,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 1064–1073, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Efficient constrained multi-agent trajec- tory optimization using dynamic potential games,

    M. Bhatt, Y . Jia, and N. Mehr, “Efficient constrained multi-agent trajec- tory optimization using dynamic potential games,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 7303–7310

    2023

  29. [37]

    Potential iLQR: A Potential- minimizing Controller for Planning Multi-agent Interactive Trajectories,

    T. Kavuncu, A. Yaraneri, and N. Mehr, “Potential iLQR: A Potential- minimizing Controller for Planning Multi-agent Interactive Trajectories,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.04926 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Strategic decision-making in multi-agent domains: A weighted constrained potential dynamic game approach,

    M. Bhatt, Y . Jia, and N. Mehr, “Strategic decision-making in multi-agent domains: A weighted constrained potential dynamic game approach,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Distributed Potential iLQR: Scal- able Game-theoretic Trajectory Planning for Multi-agent Interactions,

    Z. Williams, J. Chen, and N. Mehr, “Distributed Potential iLQR: Scal- able Game-theoretic Trajectory Planning for Multi-agent Interactions,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 01–07

    2023

  32. [40]

    Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning Via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers,

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, J. Eckstein et al. , “Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning Via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers,” F oundations and Trends® in Machine learning, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–122, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    Semi- definite relaxation-based admm for cooperative planning and control of connected autonomous vehicles,

    X. Zhang, Z. Cheng, J. Ma, S. Huang, F. L. Lewis, and T. H. Lee, “Semi- definite relaxation-based admm for cooperative planning and control of connected autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 9240–9251, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Fully decentralized ADMM for coordination and collision avoidance,

    F. Rey, Z. Pan, A. Hauswirth, and J. Lygeros, “Fully decentralized ADMM for coordination and collision avoidance,” in 2018 European Control Conference (ECC) , 2018, pp. 825–830

    2018

  35. [43]

    Distributed Differential Dynamic Programming Architectures for Large-scale Mul- tiagent Control,

    A. D. Saravanos, Y . Aoyama, H. Zhu, and E. A. Theodorou, “Distributed Differential Dynamic Programming Architectures for Large-scale Mul- tiagent Control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 4387–4407, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    ADMM-type Methods for Generalized Nash Equilibrium Problems in Hilbert Spaces,

    E. B ¨orgens and C. Kanzow, “ADMM-type Methods for Generalized Nash Equilibrium Problems in Hilbert Spaces,” SIAM Journal on Opti- mization, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 377–403, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Distributed Nash Equilibrium Seek- ing Via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers,

    F. Salehisadaghiani and L. Pavel, “Distributed Nash Equilibrium Seek- ing Via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers,” IF AC- PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 6166–6171, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Scenario-game ADMM: A Parallelized Scenario-based Solver for Stochastic Noncooperative Games,

    J. Li, C.-Y . Chiu, L. Peters, F. Palafox, M. Karabag, J. Alonso-Mora, S. Sojoudi, C. Tomlin, and D. Fridovich-Keil, “Scenario-game ADMM: A Parallelized Scenario-based Solver for Stochastic Noncooperative Games,” in 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2023...

    2023

  39. [47]

    Decentralized human-like ramp merging decision-making and control based on a stochastic poten- tial game,

    D. Jing, E. Yao, R. Chen, and M. Men ´endez, “Decentralized human-like ramp merging decision-making and control based on a stochastic poten- tial game,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Maschler, S

    M. Maschler, S. Zamir, and E. Solan, Game Theory. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    Decentralized Resource Allocation Via Dual Consensus ADMM,

    G. Banjac, F. Rey, P. Goulart, and J. Lygeros, “Decentralized Resource Allocation Via Dual Consensus ADMM,” in 2019 American Control Conference (ACC), 2019, pp. 2789–2794

    2019

  42. [50]

    H. H. Bauschke, P. L. Combettes, H. H. Bauschke, and P. L. Combettes, Correction To: Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces , 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    Distributed and Constrained H2 Control Design Via System Level Synthesis and Dual Consensus ADMM,

    P. D. Grontas, M. W. Fisher, and F. D¨orfler, “Distributed and Constrained H2 Control Design Via System Level Synthesis and Dual Consensus ADMM,” in 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2022, pp. 301–307

    2022

  44. [52]

    Decentralized iLQR for Cooperative Trajectory Planning of Connected Autonomous Vehicles Via Dual Consensus ADMM,

    Z. Huang, S. Shen, and J. Ma, “Decentralized iLQR for Cooperative Trajectory Planning of Connected Autonomous Vehicles Via Dual Consensus ADMM,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    ros: an open-source robot operating system,

    M. Quigley, K. Conley, B. Gerkey, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, R. Wheeler, A. Y . Ng et al. , “ros: an open-source robot operating system,” in ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software , vol. 3, no. 3.2. Kobe, 2009, p. 5

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.