AIBA: An AI Model for Behavior Arbitration in Autonomous Driving

  • Bogdan TrăsneaEmail author
  • Claudiu Pozna
  • Sorin M. Grigorescu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11909)


Driving in dynamically changing traffic is a highly challenging task for autonomous vehicles, especially in crowded urban roadways. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) system of a driverless car must be able to arbitrate between different driving strategies in order to properly plan the car’s path, based on an understandable traffic scene model. In this paper, an AI behavior arbitration algorithm for Autonomous Driving (AD) is proposed. The method, coined AIBA (AI Behavior Arbitration), has been developed in two stages: (i) human driving scene description and understanding and (ii) formal modelling. The description of the scene is achieved by mimicking a human cognition model, while the modelling part is based on a formal representation which approximates the human driver understanding process. The advantage of the formal representation is that the functional safety of the system can be analytically inferred. The performance of the algorithm has been evaluated in Virtual Test Drive (VTD), a comprehensive traffic simulator, and in GridSim, a vehicle kinematics engine for prototypes.


Behavior arbitration Context understanding Autonomous driving Self-driving vehicles Artificial intelligence 



We hereby acknowledge Elektrobit Automotive, Széchenyi István University, and the TAMOP - 4.2.2.C-11/1/KONV-2012-0012 Project “Smarter Transport - IT for co-operative transport system” for providing the infrastructure and for support during research.


  1. 1.
    Katrakazas, C., Quddus, M., Chen, W.H., Deka, L.: Real-time motion planning methods for autonomous on-road driving: state-of-the-art and future research directions. Transp. Res. Part C 60, 416–442 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shalev-Shwartz, S., Shammah, S., Shashua, A.: On a formal model of safe and scalable self-driving cars (2017). arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06374
  3. 3.
    Litman, T.: Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, Canada, p. 28 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Janai, J., Güney, F., Behl, A., Geiger, A.: Computer vision for autonomous vehicles: problems, datasets and state-of-the-art (2017). arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.05519
  5. 5.
    Paden, B., et al.: A survey of motion planning and control techniques for self-driving urban vehicles. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. 1(1), 33–55 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Janai, J., Guney, F., Behl, A., Geiger, A.: Computer vision for autonomous vehicles: Problems, datasets and state-of-the-art (2017). arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.05519
  7. 7.
    Gindele, T., Brechtel, S., Dillmann, R.: Learning driver behavior models from traffic observations for decision making and planning. IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag. 7, 69–79 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lefèvre, S., Dizan, V., Christian, L.: A survey on motion prediction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles. Robomech J. 1, 1–14 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lefevre, S., Gao, Y., Vasquez, D., Tseng, H.E., Bajcsy, R., Borrelli, F.: Lane keeping assistance with learning-based driver model and model predictive control. In: Proceedings of the 12th ISAVC, Tokyo, Japan (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geng, X., Liang, H., Yu, B., Zhao, P., He, L., Huang, R.: A scenario-adaptive driving behavior prediction approach to urban autonomous driving. Appl. Sci. 7(4), 426 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pozna, C., Troester, F.: Human behavior model based control program for ACC mobile robot. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica 3(3), 59–70 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pozna, C., Precup, R.E., Minculete, N., Antonya, C., Dragos, C.A.: Properties of classes, subclasses and objects in an abstraction model. In: 19th International Workshop on Robotics in Alpe-Adria-Danube Region, pp. 291–296 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Piaget, J.: The Psychology of Intelligence. Taylor & Francis, London (2005). ISBN-10: 0415254019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, X., Fu, M., Ma, H., Yang, Y.: Lateral control of autonomous vehicles based on fuzzy logic. Control Eng. Pract. 34, 1–17 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bojarski, M., et al.: End to end learning for self-driving cars. CoRR, vol. abs/1604.07316 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grigorescu, S.: Generative one-shot learning (GOL): a semi-parametric approach for one-shot learning in autonomous vision. In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation ICRA 2018, 21–25 May 2018, Brisbane, Australia (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trasnea, B., Marina, L.A., Vasilcoi, A., Pozna, C., Grigorescu, S.: GridSim: a vehicle kinematics engine for deep neuroevolutionary control in autonomous driving. In: 3rd IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC), pp. 443–444 (2019)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marina, L.A., Trasnea, B., Cocias, T., Vasilcoi, A., Moldoveanu, F., Grigorescu, S.: Deep grid net (DGN): a deep learning system for real-time driving context understanding. In: 3rd IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC), pp. 399–402 (2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bogdan Trăsnea
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Claudiu Pozna
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sorin M. Grigorescu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Robotics, Vision and Control LabTransilvania University of BrasovBraşovRomania
  2. 2.Department of Artificial IntelligenceElektrobit AutomotiveTimişoaraRomania
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsSzéchenyi István University of GyõrGyõrHungary

Personalised recommendations