7.5SYApr 6
Anti-bullying Adaptive Cruise Control: A proactive right-of-way protection approachJia Hu, Zhexi Lian, Haoran Wang et al.
Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems have been widely commercialized in recent years. However, existing ACC systems remain vulnerable to close-range cut-ins, a behavior that resembles "road bullying". To address this issue, this research proposes an Anti-bullying Adaptive Cruise Control (AACC) approach, which is capable of proactively protecting right-of-way against such "road bullying" cut-ins. To handle diverse "road bullying" cut-in scenarios smoothly, the proposed approach first leverages an online Inverse Optimal Control (IOC) based algorithm for individual driving style identification. Then, based on Stackelberg competition, a game-theoretic-based motion planning framework is presented in which the identified individual driving styles are utilized to formulate cut-in vehicles' reaction functions. By integrating such reaction functions into the ego vehicle's motion planning, the ego vehicle could consider cut-in vehicles' all possible reactions to find its optimal right-of-way protection maneuver. To the best of our knowledge, this research is the first to model vehicles' interaction dynamics and develop an interactive planner that adapts cut-in vehicle's various driving styles. Simulation results show that the proposed approach can prevent "road bullying" cut-ins and be adaptive to different cut-in vehicles' driving styles. It can improve safety and comfort by up to 79.8% and 20.4%. The driving efficiency has benefits by up to 19.33% in traffic flow. The proposed approach can also adopt more flexible driving strategies. Furthermore, the proposed approach can support real-time field implementation by ensuring less than 50 milliseconds computation time.
13.1CVFeb 13, 2025
A Solver-Aided Hierarchical Language for LLM-Driven CAD DesignBenjamin T. Jones, Felix Hähnlein, Zihan Zhang et al.
Large language models (LLMs) have been enormously successful in solving a wide variety of structured and unstructured generative tasks, but they struggle to generate procedural geometry in Computer Aided Design (CAD). These difficulties arise from an inability to do spatial reasoning and the necessity to guide a model through complex, long range planning to generate complex geometry. We enable generative CAD Design with LLMs through the introduction of a solver-aided, hierarchical domain specific language (DSL) called AIDL, which offloads the spatial reasoning requirements to a geometric constraint solver. Additionally, we show that in the few-shot regime, AIDL outperforms even a language with in-training data (OpenSCAD), both in terms of generating visual results closer to the prompt and creating objects that are easier to post-process and reason about.
24.2LGJan 29, 2021
Improved Variance-Aware Confidence Sets for Linear Bandits and Linear Mixture MDPZihan Zhang, Jiaqi Yang, Xiangyang Ji et al.
This paper presents new \emph{variance-aware} confidence sets for linear bandits and linear mixture Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). With the new confidence sets, we obtain the follow regret bounds: For linear bandits, we obtain an $\tilde{O}(poly(d)\sqrt{1 + \sum_{k=1}^{K}σ_k^2})$ data-dependent regret bound, where $d$ is the feature dimension, $K$ is the number of rounds, and $σ_k^2$ is the \emph{unknown} variance of the reward at the $k$-th round. This is the first regret bound that only scales with the variance and the dimension but \emph{no explicit polynomial dependency on $K$}. When variances are small, this bound can be significantly smaller than the $\tildeΘ\left(d\sqrt{K}\right)$ worst-case regret bound. For linear mixture MDPs, we obtain an $\tilde{O}(poly(d, \log H)\sqrt{K})$ regret bound, where $d$ is the number of base models, $K$ is the number of episodes, and $H$ is the planning horizon. This is the first regret bound that only scales \emph{logarithmically} with $H$ in the reinforcement learning with linear function approximation setting, thus \emph{exponentially improving} existing results, and resolving an open problem in \citep{zhou2020nearly}. We develop three technical ideas that may be of independent interest: 1) applications of the peeling technique to both the input norm and the variance magnitude, 2) a recursion-based estimator for the variance, and 3) a new convex potential lemma that generalizes the seminal elliptical potential lemma.
29.3LGSep 28, 2020
Is Reinforcement Learning More Difficult Than Bandits? A Near-optimal Algorithm Escaping the Curse of HorizonZihan Zhang, Xiangyang Ji, Simon S. Du
Episodic reinforcement learning and contextual bandits are two widely studied sequential decision-making problems. Episodic reinforcement learning generalizes contextual bandits and is often perceived to be more difficult due to long planning horizon and unknown state-dependent transitions. The current paper shows that the long planning horizon and the unknown state-dependent transitions (at most) pose little additional difficulty on sample complexity. We consider the episodic reinforcement learning with $S$ states, $A$ actions, planning horizon $H$, total reward bounded by $1$, and the agent plays for $K$ episodes. We propose a new algorithm, \textbf{M}onotonic \textbf{V}alue \textbf{P}ropagation (MVP), which relies on a new Bernstein-type bonus. Compared to existing bonus constructions, the new bonus is tighter since it is based on a well-designed monotonic value function. In particular, the \emph{constants} in the bonus should be subtly setting to ensure optimism and monotonicity. We show MVP enjoys an $O\left(\left(\sqrt{SAK} + S^2A\right) \poly\log \left(SAHK\right)\right)$ regret, approaching the $Ω\left(\sqrt{SAK}\right)$ lower bound of \emph{contextual bandits} up to logarithmic terms. Notably, this result 1) \emph{exponentially} improves the state-of-the-art polynomial-time algorithms by Dann et al. [2019] and Zanette et al. [2019] in terms of the dependency on $H$, and 2) \emph{exponentially} improves the running time in [Wang et al. 2020] and significantly improves the dependency on $S$, $A$ and $K$ in sample complexity.