Skip to main content
Log in

Fast nonlinear risk assessment for autonomous vehicles using learned conditional probabilistic models of agent futures

  • Published:
Autonomous Robots Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents fast non-sampling based methods to assess the risk for trajectories of autonomous vehicles when probabilistic predictions of other agents’ futures are generated by deep neural networks (DNNs). The presented methods address a wide range of representations for uncertain predictions including both Gaussian and non-Gaussian mixture models to predict both agent positions and control inputs conditioned on the scene contexts. We show that the problem of risk assessment when Gaussian mixture models of agent positions are learned can be solved rapidly to arbitrary levels of accuracy with existing numerical methods. To address the problem of risk assessment for non-Gaussian mixture models of agent position, we propose finding upper bounds on risk using nonlinear Chebyshev’s Inequality and sums-of-squares programming; they are both of interest as the former is much faster while the latter can be arbitrarily tight. These approaches only require higher order statistical moments of agent positions to determine upper bounds on risk. To perform risk assessment when models are learned for agent control inputs as opposed to positions, we propagate the moments of uncertain control inputs through the nonlinear motion dynamics to obtain the exact moments of uncertain position over the planning horizon. To this end, we construct deterministic linear dynamical systems that govern the exact time evolution of the moments of uncertain position in the presence of uncertain control inputs. The presented methods are demonstrated on realistic predictions from DNNs trained on the Argoverse and CARLA datasets and are shown to be effective for rapidly assessing the probability of low probability events.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. normalization is valid because \({\mathbb {P}}(X\le 0) = {\mathbb {P}}(cX\le 0)\) for \(c>0\)

References

  • Alahi, A., Goel, K., Ramanathan, V., Robicquet, A., Fei-Fei, L.,& Savarese, S. (2016). Social LSTM: Human trajectory prediction in crowded spaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 961–971).

  • Bansal, M., Krizhevsky, A.,& Ogale, A. (2019). Chauffeurnet: Learning to drive by imitating the best and synthesizing the worst. In Robotics: Science and systems.

  • Blackmore, L.,& Ono, M. (2009). Convex chance constrained predictive control without sampling. In AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference (p. 5876).

  • Blackmore, L., Ono, M., & Williams, B. C. (2011). Chance-constrained optimal path planning with obstacles. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 27(6), 1080–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chai, Y., Sapp, B., Bansal, M.,& Anguelov, D. (2019). Multipath: Multiple probabilistic anchor trajectory hypotheses for behavior prediction. In Conference on robot learning (CoRL).

  • Chang, M.-F., Lambert, J., Sangkloy, P., Singh, J., Bak, S., Hartnett, A., Wang, D., Carr, P., Lucey, S., Ramanan, D., et al. (2019). Argoverse: 3D tracking and forecasting with rich maps. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 8748–8757).

  • Çınlar, E. (2011). Probability and stochastics (Vol. 261). Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, H., Nguyen, T., Chou, F.-C., Lin, T.-H., Schneider, J., Bradley, D., & Djuric, N. (2019). Deep kinematic models for physically realistic prediction of vehicle trajectories. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.00219.

  • De Micheaux, P. L. (2017). Compquadform: Distribution function of quadratic forms in normal variables. R package version, vol. 1, no. 3.

  • Deo, N., & Trivedi, M. M. (2018). Multi-modal trajectory prediction of surrounding vehicles with maneuver based lstms. In 2018 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV) (pp. 1179–1184). IEEE.

  • Dosovitskiy, A., Ros, G., Codevilla, F., Lopez, A.,& Koltun, V. (2017). CARLA: An open urban driving simulator. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Robot Learning (pp. 1–16).

  • Duchesne, P., & De Micheaux, P. L. (2010). Computing the distribution of quadratic forms: Further comparisons between the Liu–Tang–Zhang approximation and exact methods. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 54(4), 858–862.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, D. D., Otsu, K., Kubo, Y., Dixit, A., Burdick, J., & Agha-Mohammadi, A.-A. (2021). Step: Stochastic traversability evaluation and planning for safe off-road navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.02828.

  • Hakobyan, A., Kim, G. C., & Yang, I. (2019). Risk-aware motion planning and control using cvar-constrained optimization. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 4(4), 3924–3931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, J., Sapp, B.,& Philbin, J. (2019). Rules of the road: Predicting driving behavior with a convolutional model of semantic interactions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 8454–8462).

  • Hong, L. J., Yang, Y., & Zhang, L. (2011). Sequential convex approximations to joint chance constrained programs: A Monte Carlo approach. Operations Research, 59(3), 617–630.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, X., McGill, S. G., DeCastro, J. A., Fletcher, L., Leonard, J. J., Williams, B. C., & Rosman, G. (2020). Diversitygan: Diversity-aware vehicle motion prediction via latent semantic sampling. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(4), 5089–5096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, X., McGill, S. G., Williams, B. C., Fletcher, L.,& Rosman, G. (2019). Uncertainty-aware driver trajectory prediction at urban intersections. In 2019 International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 9718–9724). IEEE.

  • Imhof, J.-P. (1961). Computing the distribution of quadratic forms in normal variables. Biometrika, 48(3/4), 419–426.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jasour, A. (2016). Convex approximation of chance constrained problems: Application in systems and control. In Dissertation in School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The Pennsylvania State University.

  • Jasour, A. (2019). Risk aware and robust nonlinear planning. Course Notes for MIT 16.S498, rarnop.mit.edu.

  • Jasour, A., & Williams, B. C. (2019a). Risk contours map for risk bounded motion planning under perception uncertainties. In 2019 Robotics: Science and system (RSS), Germany.

  • Jasour, A., & Williams, B. C. (2019b). Sequential convex chance optimization for flow-tube based control of probabilistic nonlinear systems. In 2019 IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC), France.

  • Jasour, A., Aybat, N. S., & Lagoa, C. M. (2015). Semidefinite programming for chance constrained optimization over semialgebraic sets. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 25(3), 1411–1440.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jasour, A., Hofmann, A., & Williams, B. C. (2018). Moment-sum-of-squares approach for fast risk estimation in uncertain environments. In 2018 IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC) (pp. 2445–2451).

  • Jasour, A., Wang, A., & Williams, B. C. (2021). Moment-based exact uncertainty propagation through nonlinear stochastic autonomous systems. arXiv:2101.12490.

  • Julier, S. J., & Uhlmann, J. K. (2004). Unscented filtering and nonlinear estimation. Proceedings of the IEEE, 92(3), 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalman, R. E., & Bucy, R. S. (1961). New results in linear filtering and prediction theory.

  • Kotz, S., Johnson, N. L., & Boyd, D. (1967). Series representations of distributions of quadratic forms in normal variables II. Non-central case. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 38(3), 838–848.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, N., Choi, W., Vernaza, P., Choy, C. B., Torr, P. H.,& Chandraker, M. (2017). Desire: Distant future prediction in dynamic scenes with interacting agents. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 336–345).

  • Li, J., Ma, H.,& Tomizuka, M. (2019). Interaction-aware multi-agent tracking and probabilistic behavior prediction via adversarial learning. In 2019 International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 6658–6664). IEEE.

  • Liu, H., Tang, Y., & Zhang, H. H. (2009). A new chi-square approximation to the distribution of non-negative definite quadratic forms in non-central normal variables. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 53(4), 853–856.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Löfberg, J. (2004). YALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB. In Proceedings of the CACSD conference, Taipei, Taiwan.

  • Luders, B., Kothari, M.,& How, J. (2010). Chance constrained rrt for probabilistic robustness to environmental uncertainty. In AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference (p. 8160).

  • Nakka, Y. K., & Chung, S.-J. (2019). Trajectory optimization for chance-constrained nonlinear stochastic systems. In 2019 IEEE 58th conference on decision and control (CDC) (pp. 3811–3818). IEEE.

  • Nemirovski, A., & Shapiro, A. (2007). Convex approximations of chance constrained programs. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 17(4), 969–996.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Norden, J., O’Kelly, M.,& Sinha, A. (2019). Efficient black-box assessment of autonomous vehicle safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.03618.

  • Parrilo, P. A. (2003). Semidefinite programming relaxations for semialgebraic problems. Mathematical Programming, 96(2), 293–320.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Provost, S. B., & Mathai, A. (1992). Quadratic forms in random variables: Theory and applications. New York: M. Dekker.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rhinehart, N., Kitani, K. M.,& Vernaza, P. (2018). R2P2: A reparameterized pushforward policy for diverse, precise generative path forecasting. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) (pp. 772–788).

  • Schmerling, E.,& Pavone, M. (2017). Evaluating trajectory collision probability through adaptive importance sampling for safe motion planning. In Robotics: Science and systems.

  • Solomon, H., & Stephens, M. A. (1977). Distribution of a sum of weighted chi-square variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72(360a), 881–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturm, J. F. (1999). Using SeDuMi 1.02, a MATLAB toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones. Optimization methods and software, 11(1–4), 625–653.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Summers, T. (2018). Distributionally robust sampling-based motion planning under uncertainty. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) (pp. 6518–6523). IEEE.

  • Wan, E. A.,& Van Der Merwe, R. (2000). The unscented Kalman filter for nonlinear estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2000 adaptive systems for signal processing, communications, and control symposium (Cat. No. 00EX373) (pp. 153–158). IEEE.

  • Wang, A., Huang, X., Jasour, A., & Williams, B. C. (2020a). Fast risk assessment for autonomous vehicles using learned models of agent futures. Robotics: Science and System (RSS).

  • Wang, A., Jasour, A., & Williams, B. C. (2020b). Non-gaussian chance-constrained trajectory planning for autonomous vehicles in the presence of uncertain agents. IEEE Robotics Automation Letters, 5(4), 6041–6048.

  • Zwillinger, D. (2002). CRC standard mathematical tables and formulae. Cambridge: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by Boeing Grant MIT-BA-GTA-1 and by the Masdar Institute Grant 6938857. Allen Wang was supported in part by a NSF Graduate Research Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashkan Jasour.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This is one of the several papers published in Autonomous Robotscomprising the Special Issue on Robotics: Science and Systems 2020.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 A. Moments and characteristic functions of mixture models

Let \(f_X\) denote the pdf of a K-component mixture model X, with pdf components \(f_{X_i}, \forall i\in [K]\) and let \(f_Z\) denote the pdf of the K category Multinoulli. Then, by definition \(f_X(x) = \sum _{i=1}^m f_{X_i}(x) f_Z(i)\). For any measurable function g, by interchanging the order of integration and summation, the following holds true

$$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb {E}}[g(X)]&= \int g(x) f_X(x) dx \end{aligned}$$
(25)
$$\begin{aligned}&= \sum _{i=1}^K f_Z(i)\int g(x) f_{X_i}(x) dx \end{aligned}$$
(26)

By letting \(g(X) = X^n\) or \(g(X) = e^{itX}\), the moments and characteristic function of X can both be computed as the weighted sum of those of their components.

1.2 B. Moments of trigonometric random variables

In this section, we show how trigonometric moments of the form \({\mathbb {E}}[\cos ^n(X)]\), \({\mathbb {E}}[\sin ^n(X)]\), and \({\mathbb {E}}[\cos ^m(X)\sin ^n(X)]\) can be computed in terms of the characteristic function of the random variable X, denoted by \(\Phi _{X}\) (Jasour et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2020a). We begin by applying Euler’s Identity to the definition of the characteristic function as follows:

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \Phi _{X}(t)&= {\mathbb {E}}[e^{itX}]\\&= {\mathbb {E}}[\cos (tX)] + i{\mathbb {E}}[\sin (tX)] \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(27)

Thus, we have that \({\mathbb {E}}[\cos (tX)] = \text {Re}(\Phi _{X}(t))\) and \({\mathbb {E}}[\sin (tX)] = \text {Im}(\Phi _{X}(t))\). This immediately gives us the ability to compute the first moments of our trigonometric random variables. For higher moments, the trigonometric power formulas can be used to express quantities of the form \(\cos ^n(X)\) as the sum of quantities of the form \(\cos (mX)\) where \(m\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and similarly for \(\sin ^n(X)\) (Zwillinger 2002). Thus, higher moments of \(\sin (X)\) and \(\cos (X)\) can be computed using \(\Phi _X(t)\). More precisely, given \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}, \) trigonometric moments of order n of the forms \({\mathbb {E}}[{cos}^{n}(X)]\) and \( {\mathbb {E}}[{sin}^{n}(X)]\) reads as (Jasour et al. 2021):

$$\begin{aligned}&{\mathbb {E}}[{cos}^{n}(X)] =\frac{1}{2^{n}} \sum _{k=0}^{n} \left( {\begin{array}{c}n\\ k\end{array}}\right) \Phi _{X}(2k-n) \end{aligned}$$
(28)
$$\begin{aligned}&{\mathbb {E}}[{sin}^{n}(X)]=\frac{(-i)^{n}}{2^{n}} \sum _{k=0}^{n} \left( {\begin{array}{c}n\\ k\end{array}}\right) (-1)^{n-k}\Phi _{X}(2k-n) \end{aligned}$$
(29)

where \(\left( {\begin{array}{c}n\\ k\end{array}}\right) =\frac{n !}{k!(n-k)!}\).

Trigonometric moments of the form:

$$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb {E}}[\cos ^m(X)\sin ^n(X)] \end{aligned}$$
(30)

can also ultimately be computed in terms of \(\Phi _X(t)\). This can be seen if we make the substitutions \(\cos (X) = \frac{1}{2}(e^{ix} + e^{-ix})\) and \(\sin (X) = \frac{1}{2i}(e^{ix} - e^{-ix})\), then (30) can be expressed as:

$$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb {E}}\left[ \frac{1}{i^n2^{m + n}}(e^{iX} + e^{-iX})^m(e^{iX} - e^{-iX})^n\right] \end{aligned}$$
(31)

By applying the binomial theorem to both expressions in parentheses, and multipying the resulting expressions, we find the entire expression in the expectation operator can be expressed as a polynomial in \(e^{iX}\) and \(e^{-iX}\). Thus, the entire expression can be written as the sum of terms of the form \({\mathbb {E}}[e^{itX}]\) for \(t\in {\mathbb {Z}}\) which is in the definition of \(\Phi _X(t)\). More precisely, given \((n,m) \in {\mathbb {N}}^2\), trigonometric moment of the form \({\mathbb {E}}\left[ {cos}^{m}(X){sin}^{n}(X) \right] \) reads as (Jasour et al. 2021):

$$\begin{aligned} {\mathbb {E}}\left[ {cos}^{m}(X){sin}^{n}(X) \right]= & {} \frac{(-i)^{n}}{2^{m+n}} \sum \nolimits _{(k_1,k_2)=(0,0)}^{(m,n)} \left( {\begin{array}{c}m\\ k_1\end{array}}\right) \left( {\begin{array}{c}n\\ k_2\end{array}}\right) \nonumber \\&(-1)^{n-k_2}\Phi _{X}\left( 2(k_1+k_2)-m-n\right) \nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$
(32)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jasour, A., Huang, X., Wang, A. et al. Fast nonlinear risk assessment for autonomous vehicles using learned conditional probabilistic models of agent futures. Auton Robot 46, 269–282 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-021-10000-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-021-10000-1

Keywords

Navigation