Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2404.09851

Modeling the Lane-Change Reactions to Merging Vehicles for Highway On-Ramp Simulations

Dustin Holley·Jovin Dsa·Hossein Nourkhiz Mahjoub·Gibran Ali·Tyler Naes·Ehsan Moradi-Pari·Pawan Sai Kallepalli
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Enhancing simulation environments to replicate real-world driver behavior is essential for developing Autonomous Vehicle technology. While some previous works have studied the yielding reaction of lag vehicles in response to a merging car at highway on-ramps, the possible lane-change reaction of the lag car has not been widely studied. In this work we aim to improve the simulation of the highway merge scenario by including the lane-change reaction in addition to yielding behavior of main-lane lag vehicles, and we evaluate two different models for their ability to capture this reactive lane-change behavior. To tune the payoff functions of these models, a novel naturalistic dataset was collected on U.S. highways that provided several hours of merge-specific data to learn the lane change behavior of U.S. drivers. To make sure that we are collecting a representative set of different U.S. highway geometries in our data, we surveyed 50,000 U.S. highway on-ramps and then selected eight representative sites. The data were collected using roadside-mounted lidar sensors to capture various merge driver interactions. The models were demonstrated to be configurable for both keep-straight and lane-change behavior. The models were finally integrated into a high-fidelity simulation environment and confirmed to have adequate computation time efficiency for use in large-scale simulations to support autonomous vehicle development.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Dustin Holley, Jovin Dsa, Hossein Nourkhiz Mahjoub, Gibran Ali, Tyler Naes, Ehsan Moradi-Pari, Pawan Sai Kallepalli. 2024-04-15. Modeling the Lane-Change Reactions to Merging Vehicles for Highway On-Ramp Simulations. https://doi.org/10.1109/iv55156.2024.10588857

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗