SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2505.21161

Collision Probability Estimation for Optimization-based Vehicular Motion Planning

Abstract

Many motion planning algorithms for automated driving require estimating the probability of collision (POC) to account for uncertainties in the measurement and estimation of the motion of road users. Common POC estimation techniques often utilize sampling-based methods that suffer from computational inefficiency and a non-deterministic estimation, i.e., each estimation result for the same inputs is slightly different. In contrast, optimization-based motion planning algorithms require computationally efficient POC estimation, ideally using deterministic estimation, such that typical optimization algorithms for motion planning retain feasibility. Estimating the POC analytically, however, is challenging because it depends on understanding the collision conditions (e.g., vehicle's shape) and characterizing the uncertainty in motion prediction. In this paper, we propose an approach in which we estimate the POC between two vehicles by over-approximating their shapes by a multi-circular shape approximation. The position and heading of the predicted vehicle are modelled as random variables, contrasting with the literature, where the heading angle is often neglected. We guarantee that the provided POC is an over-approximation, which is essential in providing safety guarantees. For the particular case of Gaussian uncertainty in the position and heading, we present a computationally efficient algorithm for computing the POC estimate. This algorithm is then used in a path-following stochastic model predictive controller (SMPC) for motion planning. With the proposed algorithm, the SMPC generates reproducible trajectories while the controller retains its feasibility in the presented test cases and demonstrates the ability to handle varying levels of uncertainty.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Leon Tolksdorf, Arturo Tejada, Christian Birkner, Nathan van de Wouw. 2025-05-27. Collision Probability Estimation for Optimization-based Vehicular Motion Planning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21161

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

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

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

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