Skip to main content
Log in

Multiple Adaptive Agents for Tactical Driving

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent research in automated highway systems has ranged from low-level vision-based controllers to high-level route-guidance software. However, there is currently no system for tactical-level reasoning. Such a system should address tasks such as passing cars, making exits on time, and merging into a traffic stream. Many previous approaches have attempted to hand construct large rule-based systems which capture the interactions between multiple input sensors, dynamic and potentially conflicting subgoals, and changing roadway conditions. However, these systems are extremely difficult to design due to the large number of rules, the manual tuning of parameters within the rules, and the complex interactions between the rules. Our approach to this intermediate-level planning is a system which consists of a collection of autonomous agents, each of which specializes in a particular aspect of tactical driving. Each agent examines a subset of the intelligent vehicle's sensors and independently recommends driving decisions based on their local assessment of the tactical situation. This distributed framework allows different reasoning agents to be implemented using different algorithms.

When using a collection of agents to solve a single task, it is vital to carefully consider the interactions between the agents. Since each reasoning object contains several internal parameters, manually finding values for these parameters while accounting for the agents' possible interactions is a tedious and error-prone task. In our system, these parameters, and the system's overall dependence on each agent, is automatically tuned using a novel evolutionary optimization strategy, termed Population-Based Incremental Learning (PBIL).

Our system, which employs multiple automatically trained agents, can competently drive a vehicle, both in terms of the user-defined evaluation metric, and as measured by their behavior on several driving situations culled from real-life experience. In this article, we describe a method for multiple agent integration which is applied to the automated highway system domain. However, it also generalizes to many complex robotics tasks where multiple interacting modules must simultaneously be configured without individual module feedback.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. Michon, “A critical view of driver behavior models: What do we know, what should we do?,” in Human Behavior and Traffic Safety, edited by L. Evans and R. Schwing, Plenum, 1985.

  2. J. Rillings and R. Betsold, “Advanced driver information systems” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 40, no.1, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. von Tomkewitsch, “Dynamic route guidance and interactive transport management with ALI-Scout,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 40, no.1, 1991.

  4. K. Gardels, “Automatic car controls for electronic highways,” Technical Report GMR-276, General Motors Research Labs, June 1960.

  5. I. Masaki (Ed.), Vision-Based Vehicle Guidance, Springer-Verlag, 1992.

  6. E. Dickmanns and A. Zapp, “A curvature-based scheme for improving road vehicle guidance by computer vision,” in Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Mobile Robots, 1986.

  7. D. Pomerleau, “Neural network perception for mobile robot guidance,” Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, February 1992.

  8. D. Reece, “Selective perception for robot driving,” Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, May 1992.

  9. J. Cremer, J. Kearney, Y. Papelis, and R. Romano, “The software architecture for scenario control in the Iowa driving simulator,” in Proceedings of the 4th Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation, 1994.

  10. A. Ram, R. Arkin, G. Boone, and M. Pearce, “Using genetic algorithms to learn reactive control parameters for autonomous robotic navigation,” Adaptive Behavior, vol. 2, no.3, 1994.

  11. C. Thorpe, M. Hebert, T. Kanade, and S. Shafer, “Vision and navigation for the Carnegie Mellon Navlab,” IEEE Transactions on PAMI, vol. 10, no.3, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. Sukthankar, D. Pomerleau, and C. Thorpe, “SHIVA: Simulated highways for intelligent vehicle algorithms,” in Proceedings of IEEE Intelligent Vehicles, 1995.

  13. R. Sukthankar, J. Hancock, D. Pomerleau, and C. Thorpe, “A simulation and design system for tactical driving algorithms,” in Proceedings of AI, Simulation and Planning in High Autonomy Systems, 1996.

  14. R. Sukthankar, “Situation awareness for tactical driving,” Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, January 1997. Also available as CMU Tech Report CMU-RI-TR-97-08.

  15. B. Krogh, “A generalized potential field approach to obstacle avoidance control,” in Proceedings of Robotics Research: The Next Five Years and Beyond, 1984.

  16. B. Krogh and C. Thorpe, “Integrated path planning and dynamic steering control for autonomous vehicles,” in Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1986.

  17. D. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. Baluja, “Population-based incremental learning: A method for integrating genetic search based function optimization and competitive learning,” Technical Report CMU-CS-94-163, Carnegie Mellon University, 1994.

  19. S. Baluja and R. Caruana, “Removing the genetics from the standard genetic algorithm,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ML-95), 1995.

  20. J. McKnight and B. Adams, “Driver education and task analysis volume 1: Task descriptions,” Technical Report, Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Bureau, November 1970.

  21. National Safety Council, “Coaching the experienced driver II,” Defensive Driving Course Training Manuals, 1995.

  22. M. Fracker and S. Davis, “Explicit, implicit, and subjective rating measures of situation awareness in a monitoring task,” Technical Report, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 1991.

  23. M. Endsley, “Towards a theory of situation awareness,” Technical Report, Texas Technical University, Department of Industrial Engineering, 1993.

  24. N. Sarter and D. Woods, “How in the world did we ever get into that mode? mode error and awareness in supervisory control,” Human Factors, vol. 37, no.1, 1995.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sukthankar, R., Baluja, S. & Hancock, J. Multiple Adaptive Agents for Tactical Driving. Applied Intelligence 9, 7–23 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008243013521

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008243013521

Navigation