Xiantong Yang

Di Zeng, Ling Zheng, Xiantong Yang et al.

Reinforcement learning (RL) faces challenges in trajectory planning for urban automated driving due to the poor convergence of RL and the difficulty in designing reward functions. Consequently, few RL-based trajectory planning methods can achieve performance comparable to that of imitation learning-based methods. The convergence problem is alleviated by combining RL with supervised learning. However, most existing approaches only reason one step ahead and lack the capability to plan for multiple future steps. Besides, although inverse reinforcement learning holds promise for solving the reward function design issue, existing methods for automated driving impose a linear structure assumption on reward functions, making them difficult to apply to urban automated driving. In light of these challenges, this paper proposes a novel RL-based trajectory planning method that integrates RL with imitation learning to enable multi-step planning. Furthermore, a transformer-based Bayesian reward function is developed, providing effective reward signals for RL in urban scenarios. Moreover, a hybrid-driven trajectory planning framework is proposed to enhance safety and interpretability. The proposed methods were validated on the large-scale real-world urban automated driving nuPlan dataset. Evaluated using closed-loop metrics, the results demonstrated that the proposed method significantly outperformed the baseline employing the identical policy model structure and achieved competitive performance compared to the state-of-the-art method. The code is available at https://github.com/Zigned/nuplan_zigned.

Ehsan Latif, Yifan Zhou, Shuchen Guo et al.

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance, it demonstrates capabilities comparable to human intelligence, with significant potential to transform education and workforce development. This study evaluates OpenAI o1-preview's ability to perform higher-order cognitive tasks across 14 dimensions, including critical thinking, systems thinking, computational thinking, design thinking, metacognition, data literacy, creative thinking, abstract reasoning, quantitative reasoning, logical reasoning, analogical reasoning, and scientific reasoning. We used validated instruments like the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test and the Biological Systems Thinking Test to compare the o1-preview's performance with human performance systematically. Our findings reveal that o1-preview outperforms humans in most categories, achieving 150% better results in systems thinking, computational thinking, data literacy, creative thinking, scientific reasoning, and abstract reasoning. However, compared to humans, it underperforms by around 25% in logical reasoning, critical thinking, and quantitative reasoning. In analogical reasoning, both o1-preview and humans achieved perfect scores. Despite these strengths, the o1-preview shows limitations in abstract reasoning, where human psychology students outperform it, highlighting the continued importance of human oversight in tasks requiring high-level abstraction. These results have significant educational implications, suggesting a shift toward developing human skills that complement AI, such as creativity, abstract reasoning, and critical thinking. This study emphasizes the transformative potential of AI in education and calls for a recalibration of educational goals, teaching methods, and curricula to align with an AI-driven world.

Ehsan Latif, Yifan Zhou, Shuchen Guo et al.

This study evaluates the performance of OpenAI's o1-preview model in higher-order cognitive domains, including critical thinking, systematic thinking, computational thinking, data literacy, creative thinking, logical reasoning, and scientific reasoning. Using established benchmarks, we compared the o1-preview models's performance to human participants from diverse educational levels. o1-preview achieved a mean score of 24.33 on the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (EWCTET), surpassing undergraduate (13.8) and postgraduate (18.39) participants (z = 1.60 and 0.90, respectively). In systematic thinking, it scored 46.1, SD = 4.12 on the Lake Urmia Vignette, significantly outperforming the human mean (20.08, SD = 8.13, z = 3.20). For data literacy, o1-preview scored 8.60, SD = 0.70 on Merk et al.'s "Use Data" dimension, compared to the human post-test mean of 4.17, SD = 2.02 (z = 2.19). On creative thinking tasks, the model achieved originality scores of 2.98, SD = 0.73, higher than the human mean of 1.74 (z = 0.71). In logical reasoning (LogiQA), it outperformed humans with average 90%, SD = 10% accuracy versus 86%, SD = 6.5% (z = 0.62). For scientific reasoning, it achieved near-perfect performance (mean = 0.99, SD = 0.12) on the TOSLS,, exceeding the highest human scores of 0.85, SD = 0.13 (z = 1.78). While o1-preview excelled in structured tasks, it showed limitations in problem-solving and adaptive reasoning. These results demonstrate the potential of AI to complement education in structured assessments but highlight the need for ethical oversight and refinement for broader applications.