跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.02240 · v1

When to Probe and When to Act: Clarity-Aware Risk-Adaptive Control for Interactive Driving

首次提交 2026-11-02 06:03
版本更新 2026-11-02 06:03
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:42
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Safe navigation in interactive traffic requires autonomous vehicles to reason about unobservable human characteristics and the reciprocal nature of multi-agent interactions. Traditional architectures often decouple prediction from planning, leading to the "Frozen Robot Problem" or unsafe maneuvers under high ambiguity because they treat risk assessment and information acquisition as independent objectives. We argue that the notion of safety should not remain static but must instead dynamically co-evolve with the system's internal confidence: the robot should actively clarify ambiguity when necessary while also recognizing the diminishing returns of information, and naturally transition toward task execution. We introduce a unified belief-space Model Predictive Control (MPC) framework that couples multistep information planning with a clarity-adaptive Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) barrier mechanism. By treating clarity, a scalar informational state, as an explicit planning variable, the controller co-designs its probing strategy with its safety specification, tightening conservatism under high ambiguity and relaxing constraints as confidence improves. We further provide a performance analysis showing that the cost of information seeking and the expected planning-cost gap to a controller that knows the true human characteristic are bounded by residual ambiguity and solver error. We evaluate the framework in lane-merging and unsignalized-intersection scenarios against representative interactive-planning baselines. Across 5,000 simulations, the proposed method achieves the highest success rates (94.6% and 93.2%) and the lowest collision rates (1.2% and 1.4%) among the compared methods, providing a principled foundation for robust decision-making in human-centric environments.

作者备注:8 pages, 4 figures, 2 tables. Submitted to ICRA 2027. Youran Wang and Devodita Chakravarty contributed equally

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-02 06:03 · 最新观测版本

When to Probe and When to Act: Clarity-Aware Risk-Adaptive Control for Interactive Driving

Safe navigation in interactive traffic requires autonomous vehicles to reason about unobservable human characteristics and the reciprocal nature of multi-agent interactions. Traditional architectures often decouple prediction from planning, leading to the "Frozen Robot Problem" or unsafe maneuvers under high ambiguity because they treat risk assessment and information acquisition as independent objectives. We argue that the notion of safety should not remain static but must instead dynamically co-evolve with the system's internal confidence: the robot should actively clarify ambiguity when necessary while also recognizing the diminishing returns of information, and naturally transition toward task execution. We introduce a unified belief-space Model Predictive Control (MPC) framework that couples multistep information planning with a clarity-adaptive Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) barrier mechanism. By treating clarity, a scalar informational state, as an explicit planning variable, the controller co-designs its probing strategy with its safety specification, tightening conservatism under high ambiguity and relaxing constraints as confidence improves. We further provide a performance analysis showing that the cost of information seeking and the expected planning-cost gap to a controller that knows the true human characteristic are bounded by residual ambiguity and solver error. We evaluate the framework in lane-merging and unsignalized-intersection scenarios against representative interactive-planning baselines. Across 5,000 simulations, the proposed method achieves the highest success rates (94.6% and 93.2%) and the lowest collision rates (1.2% and 1.4%) among the compared methods, providing a principled foundation for robust decision-making in human-centric environments.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗