Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
I. I NTRODUCTION
The application of intelligent transportation systems is
significantly aiding drivers, reducing some driving-associated
tedious tasks. Specifically, highway driving has become safer
thanks to the development of the Cruise Control (CC), Adaptive CC (ACC) and, lately, the Cooperative ACC (CACC)
where both longitudinal actuators, throttle and brake pedals,
are controlled using a pre-defined gap with the preceding
vehicle [1]. For urban environments, systems like emergency
braking with assistance of active suspension [2], automatic
parking [3] or blind angle vehicle detection [4] are also
contributing toward a safer driving in populated areas.
These systems improve safety, comfort, transport time and
energy consumption. Such systems are known as advanced
driving assistance system (ADAS). Fully automated driving
capabilities, that is, vehicles able to drive by themselves
without human interventions are an extension of current partial
automated ADAS. As a matter of fact, recent demonstrations
on automated driving are facing complex real scenarios. Implementations from Google (with more than 700.000 hours
of automated driving in different environments), Daimler and
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), recreating the first
cross-country automobile journey in history, in an autonomous
way [5]; and Vislab and the University of Parma, showing
Authors are with the Robotics and Intelligent Transportation Systems
(RITS) Team, Inria Paris-Rocquencourt, Domaine de Voluceau,
78153 Le Chesnay, France david.gonzalez-bautista,
joshue.perez_rastelli, vicente.milanes,
fawzi.nashashibi @inria.fr
ACQUISITION
Propioceptive
sensors
PERCEPTION
Environment
recognition
Exteroceptive
sensors
COMMUNICATION
Ego-vehicle
localization
Vehicle to
infrastructure
Obstacle detection
& classification
Vehicle to
vehicle
Vehicle to X
DECISION
Supervision
Data Base
Global planning
Mission planning
Route planning
HMI
Behavioral Planning
ACTUATION
Steering wheel
Throttle/Brake
Simulators
Local planning
Trajectory generation
Obstacle avoidance
CONTROL
Lateral control
Longitudinal control
Reactive control
An overview of the tendencies and orientation of the stateof-the-art according to research centers and industry developments is included. Finally, Section IV presents remaining challenges, current research direction from important researchers
and manufactures, including future steps in motion planning
developments.
II. M OTION PLANNING STATE - OF - THE - ART
Intelligent vehicles development was very limited before the
90s because reduced investments in the field [13]. Thanks to
evolution of information technology applicable to vehicle automation, the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) concept
was created. Different research centers around the world were
oriented to this end (e.g. California PATH, Parma University,
among others), improving intelligent vehicle systems. An
overview of some important development events in automated
navigation systems is presented in Section III.
A description of the first automated vehiclesdating back
to the late 80s and beginning of the 90s (see also Fig.
3)are mentioned by [13] and [14]. Shladover et al. [13]
describe longitudinal control systems (including vehicle following control, inter-vehicular communications and a comparison between different methods), and lateral control systems
(considering vehicle lateral dynamics and magnetic sensors as
path reference with no path planning involved), in order to
improve the Advance Highway Systems (AHS). Behringer et
al. [14] describe the architecture proposed for the VaMoRsL vehicle in the PROMETHEUS project. A vehicle that was
able to perform automated driving, aided by vision and path
generation algorithms.
Following these first implementations, different control architectures have been proposed for automated driving. In Fig.
1, perception, decision and control are the three main components of the software configuration. The main focus of this
work is related to the decision component of the architecture,
specifically path planning techniques in automated vehicles.
Path planning in mobile robotics has been a subject of study
for the last decades. Most of the authors divide the problem
into global and local planning. A review of the different
approaches and concept definitions (as global, local or reactive
motion planning) can be found in [19], [20] and [21].
(d) A* [36]
d1
d2
R2
Tn+1
P3
P4
R1
P2
Tn
d2
P1
d1
Bzier curves generated
Bzier curve selected
Road constraints
P0
Vector projection
(convex hull property)
Intersection Critical Point
W/2
R0
Rw
(f) Line&Circle
[41]
Fig. 2. Planning algorithms as presented in the literature. a) Representation of a global path by the Dijkstra algorithm in [29]. b) Trajectory optimization
from [38], taking into account a vehicle in the other lane. c) Lattices and motion primitives as presented in [39]. d) Hybrid A* as implemented in the DARPA
Challenge by Junior [36]. e) RRT* as showed in [40]. f) Optimal path to turn the vehicle around as proven in [41]. g) Planning a turn for the Audi TTS from
Stanford [42]. h) Different motion states, planned with polynomial curves as presented in [43]. i) Evaluation of several Bezier curve in a turn, as showed in
[44]. j) Spline behavior when a knot changes place, as presented in [45].
TABLE I
TAXONOMY OF MOTION PLANNING TECHNIQUES APPLIED IN AUTOMATED DRIVING SCENARIOS
Algorithm group
Technique
Dijkstras Algorithm
Technique description
Known nodes/cells search space with
associated weights
Grid and node/cells weights computation
according to the environment
Anytime D* with Voronoi cost functions
Hybrid-heuristics A*
A* algorithm family
RRT
Interpolating curve
planners
Clothoid Curves
Polynomial Curves
Bezier Curves
Spline Curves
Numerical optimization
approaches
Function optimization
Implemented in
[27], [51], [52], [53]
[28], [26]
[10], [16], [30]
[36], [54]
[37], [35], [51]
[56]
[16], [30], [46], [57]
[50], [58], [39], [59], [47],
[60]
[66]
[41], [67]
[68], [42], [69], [70],[71],
[72]
[73], [74], [14]
[75], [50]
the design of highways and railways and are also suitable for
car-like robots [99].
The implementation of clothoid primitives was tested in the
VIAC project. In [69] the current curvature is taken from
the steering wheel position and then the other profiles are
evaluated taking into consideration the dynamic limitations
(e.g. fishtailing) and the physical ones (e.g. the steering wheel).
Polynomial Curves: These curves are commonly implemented to meet the constraints needed in the points they
interpolate, i.e. they are useful in terms of fitting position,
angle and curvature constraints, among others. The desired
values or constraints in the beginning and ending segment will
determine the coefficients of the curve. For the computation
of the polynomial coefficient, the reader is referred to [79],
[76] and [77].
The Laboratory on Interactions between Vehicles, Infrastructure and Drivers (LIVIC) [77] implemented these curves
for line change scenarios. Fourth degree polynomials where
used for longitudinal constraints and fifth degree polynomials
TABLE II
C OMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES IN MOTION PLANNING TECHNIQUES
Advantages
Technique
Disadvantages
State lattices
RRT familly
Clothoids
Polynomials
Beziers
Splines
Function Optimization
Dijkstras algorithm
A* family
Interpolating
Interpolating curve
curve
planners
planners
Graph-seach
Graph-seach based
based
planners
planners
Darpa Grand
Challenge
RRT
Cybercars
Splines
Reactive
control
1987
1990's
1997
Audi Developments
Pikes Peaks 2010
Thunderhill
Raceway Park lap
2012
150mph in a F1 track
in 2014
D*
Vehicle and
roadway
cooperation
ITS concept
entrance
Optimization
Optimization
methods
methods
Darpa
PerceptOR
Demo 97
EUREKA
PROMETHEUS
Project
Clothoids
Sample-based
Sample-based
planners
planners
Darpa Urban
Challenge
ARGO Project
RRT
Splines
Splines
GCDC 2011
Longitudinal
control
A*
D*
1998
Google Car
No publications
of underlying
technology
2007
VIAC Challenge
Clothoids
PROUD Project
Clothoids
Google 700.000 miles
Hyundai-Kia
Autonomous Vehicle
Competition
2010 & 2012
Delphi Automotive
Berta-Benz
Memorial Route
Function
optimization
Splines
First US Coast2Coast
automated drive
RRT
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Fig. 3. Timeline with important automated vehicle demonstrations through time and their associated planning techniques.
the development of automated navigation techniques for offroad vehicles [116],[117]. This was achieved by the Darpa
Challenges (Grand and Urban challenge) that encouraged the
research in automated navigation systems, developing path
planning techniques (see Fig. 3).
The first Google Car made its entrance in 2009. Google
driverless cars have carried out several public exhibitions
showing the automated capabilities of their vehicles, achieving
more than 700.0001 miles of travel without accidents attributed
to automation. Google also pushed for the legislation of this
kind of technology, receiving the first license for an automated
vehicle in May 2012 (two months after the state of Nevada
enacted the first automated vehicle law) [118]. Unfortunately
there are no publications about the motion planning or control
techniques that have been used to achieve those results.
The VisLab International Autonomous Challenge (VIAC)
was carried out in 2010 [11]. 13.000km traveled from Italy
(Parma) to China (Shanghai) in autonomous mode, where the
planning consisted on a cost function that considered clothoid
curve generation [69]. In the same year and also in 2012,
the Hyundai Motor Group organized their own automated
vehicle competitions in Korea. The 2010 challenge focused
in path following and obstacle avoidance. The 2012 challenge
focused in understanding urban driving and detecting traffic
signals [17]. Motion planning techniques included clothoids
[119],[18], RRT [120], among others.
The European Grand Cooperative Driving Challenge
(GCDC) in 2011 promoted longitudinal vehicle control [143].
Nonetheless, some teams have already developed path planning strategies (such as state lattices by AnnieWAY [131]). In
this sense, there is a call for a second edition of the GCDC
Challenge in 20162 , where lateral control in platoon, busy road
merging and urban environments will be considered.
Recently, Audi presented high performance vehicle control
in a conjoint effort with Stanford [42], [144], implementing
clothoids to plan curved segments. Among the demonstrations:
1) the climbe of Pikes Peak in 2010; 2) a racing lap at the
Thunderhill Raceway Park in 2012, reaching 150mph in a F1
track in 20143 ; and 3) automated driving in real scenarios from
1 Available
TABLE III
I NTERNATIONAL ITS RESEARCH GROUPS
Main Focus
One of the first robotic center to focus in ITS. Key player
of Demo 97 and different Darpa Challenges. Motion
planning research is focused in graph search algorithms
as D* and state lattices.
Related work
Demo 97 [113], DARPA PerceptOR [116], Grand
Challenge [121], Urban Challenge[10],[16], D* [31],
[32], state lattices [46], [57], [50], [92], [58], automated
driving platform [122], [123], [108]
Hanyang University
Inria
California Path
Stanford University
OEMs
Team / Program
Carnegie Mellon
University
Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
ford), Bezier curves (Inria) and polynomial curves (Daimler or Inria). The main reason for choosing this technique
is because an enhanced map in structured environments
can provide the needed way-pointsi.e. GPS data. Then,
optimal curves in terms of smoothness, continuity, vehicle
constraints, speed and comfort are generated.
Graph search is the second algorithm most applied when
dealing with real implementations. Specifically, state lattices is the most used onei.e. CMU, KIT, GMC. The
main reason for choosing this technique is because a fast
search of the optimal path can be performed in real-time,
considering comfort, safety and vehicle constraints although the solution is only resolution complete (depends
on the resolution of the underlying grid/lattice).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors wants to thank to the ECSEL project DESERVE
and FP7 CityMobil2 for its support in the development of this
work.
R EFERENCES
[1] V. Milanes, S. Shladover, J. Spring, C. Nowakowski, H. Kawazoe,
and M. Nakamura, Cooperative adaptive cruise control in real traffic
situations, Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 296305, Feb 2014.
[2] J.-S. Lin and W.-E. Ting, Nonlinear control design of anti-lock
braking systems with assistance of active suspension, Control Theory
Applications, IET, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 343348, January 2007.
[3] T. hua Hsu, J.-F. Liu, P.-N. Yu, W.-S. Lee, and J.-S. Hsu, Development
of an automatic parking system for vehicle, in Proc. IEEE Vehicle
Power and Propulsion Conf. VPPC 08, 2008, pp. 16.
[4] R. OMalley, M. Glavin, and E. Jones, Vision-based detection and
tracking of vehicles to the rear with perspective correction in low-light
conditions, IET Intelligent Transport Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 110,
2011.
[5] J. Ziegler, P. Bender, M. Schreiber, H. Lategahn, T. Strauss, C. Stiller,
T. Dang, U. Franke, N. Appenrodt, C. Keller, E. Kaus, R. Herrtwich,
C. Rabe, D. Pfeiffer, F. Lindner, F. Stein, F. Erbs, M. Enzweiler,
C. Knoppel, J. Hipp, M. Haueis, M. Trepte, C. Brenk, A. Tamke,
M. Ghanaat, M. Braun, A. Joos, H. Fritz, H. Mock, M. Hein, and
E. Zeeb, Making bertha drive an autonomous journey on a historic
route, Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, IEEE, vol. 6,
no. 2, pp. 820, Summer 2014.
[6] A. Broggi, M. Buzzoni, S. Debattisti, P. Grisleri, M. Laghi, P. Medici,
and P. Versari, Extensive tests of autonomous driving technologies,
Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 14,
no. 3, pp. 14031415, Sept 2013.
[7] M. Van Schijndel-de Nooij, B. Krosse, T. Van den Broek, S. Maas,
E. Van Nunen, H. Zwijnenberg, A. Schieben, H. Mosebach, N. Ford,
M. McDonald, and J. Sanchez, Definition of necessary vehicle and
infrastructure systems for automated driving, SMART 2010/0064 European Commission, 2011.
[8] J. van Dijke and M. van Schijndel, Citymobil, advanced transport
for the urban environment: Update, Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, no. 2324, pp. 2936,
2012.
[9] B. Walker Smith, Automated driving: Legislative and regulatory
action, The Center for Internet and Society, Tech. Rep., 2013.
[10] C. Urmson, J. Anhalt, D. Bagnell, C. Baker, R. Bittner, M. Clark,
J. Dolan, D. Duggins, T. Galatali, C. Geyer et al., Autonomous driving
in urban environments: Boss and the urban challenge, Journal of Field
Robotics, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 425466, 2008.
[11] M. Bertozzi, L. Bombini, A. Broggi, M. Buzzoni, E. Cardarelli,
S. Cattani, P. Cerri, A. Coati, S. Debattisti, A. Falzoni et al., Viac:
An out of ordinary experiment, in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV),
2011 IEEE. IEEE, 2011, pp. 175180.
[12] S. Han, B. Choi, and J. Lee, A precise curved motion
planning for a differential driving mobile robot, Mechatronics,
vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 486 494, 2008. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957415808000512
[13] S. E. Shladover, C. A. Desoer, J. K. Hedrick, M. Tomizuka, J. Walrand,
W.-B. Zhang, D. H. McMahon, H. Peng, S. Sheikholeslam, and
N. McKeown, Automated vehicle control developments in the path
program, Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 40, no. 1,
pp. 114130, 1991.
[14] R. Behringer and N. Muller, Autonomous road vehicle guidance
from autobahnen to narrow curves, Robotics and Automation, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 810815, 1998.
[15] S. Thrun, M. Montemerlo, H. Dahlkamp, D. Stavens, A. Aron,
J. Diebel, P. Fong, J. Gale, M. Halpenny, G. Hoffmann et al., Stanley:
The robot that won the darpa grand challenge, Journal of field
Robotics, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 661692, 2006.
[16] D. Ferguson, T. M. Howard, and M. Likhachev, Motion planning in
urban environments, Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 25, no. 11-12, pp.
939960, 2008.
[17] K. Jo, J. Kim, D. Kim, C. Jang, and M. Sunwoo, Development of
autonomous carpart i: Distributed system architecture and development process, Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, no. 12,
Dec 2014.
[18] , Development of autonomous carpart ii: A case study on the
implementation of an autonomous driving system based on distributed
architecture, Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 2015.
[19] V. Kunchev, L. Jain, V. Ivancevic, and A. Finn, Path planning
and obstacle avoidance for autonomous mobile robots: A review,
in Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems.
Springer, 2006, pp. 537544.
[42] J. Funke, P. Theodosis, R. Hindiyeh, G. Stanek, K. Kritatakirana, C. Gerdes, D. Langer, M. Hernandez, B. Muller-Bessler, and
B. Huhnke, Up to the limits: Autonomous audi tts, in Intelligent
Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2012 IEEE, June 2012, pp. 541547.
[43] W. Xu, J. Wei, J. Dolan, H. Zhao, and H. Zha, A real-time motion
planner with trajectory optimization for autonomous vehicles, in
Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2012 IEEE International Conference
on, May 2012, pp. 20612067.
[44] D. Gonzalez, J. Perez, R. Lattarulo, V. Milanes, and F. Nashashibi,
Continuous curvature planning with obstacle avoidance capabilities
in urban scenarios, in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2014
IEEE 17th International Conference on, Oct 2014, pp. 14301435.
[45] R. T. Farouki, PythagoreanHodograph Curves. Springer, 2008.
[46] M. Pivtoraiko and A. Kelly, Efficient constrained path planning via
search in state lattices, in International Symposium on Artificial
Intelligence, Robotics, and Automation in Space, 2005.
[47] A. Kushleyev and M. Likhachev, Time-bounded lattice for efficient
planning in dynamic environments, in Robotics and Automation, 2009.
ICRA09. IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1662
1668.
[48] M. Rufli, R. Siegwart, R. Y. Siegwart, and R. Y. Siegwart, On the
application of the d* search algorithm to time-based planning on lattice
graphs, ECMR, vol. 9, pp. 105110, 2009.
[49] T. M. Howard and A. Kelly, Optimal rough terrain trajectory
generation for wheeled mobile robots, The International Journal
of Robotics Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 141166, 2007. [Online].
Available: http://ijr.sagepub.com/content/26/2/141.abstract
[50] M. McNaughton, C. Urmson, J. Dolan, and J.-W. Lee, Motion
planning for autonomous driving with a conformal spatiotemporal
lattice, in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International
Conference on, May 2011, pp. 48894895.
[51] Y.-L. Chen, V. Sundareswaran, C. Anderson, A. Broggi, P. Grisleri,
P. P. Porta, P. Zani, and J. Beck, Terramax: Team oshkosh urban
robot, Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 841860, 2008.
[Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rob.20267
[52] B. J. Patz, Y. Papelis, R. Pillat, G. Stein, and D. Harper, A practical
approach to robotic design for the darpa urban challenge, Journal of
Field Robotics, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 528566, 2008. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rob.20251
[53] S. J. Anderson, S. B. Karumanchi, and K. Iagnemma, Constraint-based
planning and control for safe, semi-autonomous operation of vehicles,
in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2012 IEEE. IEEE, 2012, pp.
383388.
[54] D. Dolgov, S. Thrun, M. Montemerlo, and J. Diebel, Path
planning for autonomous vehicles in unknown semi-structured
environments, The International Journal of Robotics Research,
vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 485501, 2010. [Online]. Available:
http://ijr.sagepub.com/content/29/5/485.abstract
[55] D. Ferguson, A. Stentz, and S. Thrun, Pao for planning with hidden
state, in Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA 04. 2004
IEEE International Conference on, vol. 3, April 2004, pp. 28402847
Vol.3.
[56] I. Miller, M. Campbell, D. Huttenlocher, F.-R. Kline, A. Nathan,
S. Lupashin, J. Catlin, B. Schimpf, P. Moran, N. Zych, E. Garcia,
M. Kurdziel, and H. Fujishima, Team cornells skynet: Robust
perception and planning in an urban environment, Journal of Field
Robotics, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 493527, 2008. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rob.20253
[57] T. M. Howard, C. J. Green, A. Kelly, and D. Ferguson, State
space sampling of feasible motions for high-performance mobile
robot navigation in complex environments, Journal of Field
Robotics, vol. 25, no. 6-7, pp. 325345, 2008. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rob.20244
[58] T. Gu, J. Snider, J. Dolan, and J. woo Lee, Focused trajectory planning
for autonomous on-road driving, in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium
(IV), 2013 IEEE, June 2013, pp. 547552.
[59] M. Werling, S. Kammel, J. Ziegler, and L. Grll, Optimal trajectories
for time-critical street scenarios using discretized terminal manifolds,
The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2011.
[60] P. Furgale, U. Schwesinger, M. Rufli, W. Derendarz, H. Grimmett, P. Muhlfellner, S. Wonneberger, J. Timpner, S. Rottmann,
B. Li, B. Schmidt, T. Nguyen, E. Cardarelli, S. Cattani, S. Bruning,
S. Horstmann, M. Stellmacher, H. Mielenz, K. Koser, M. Beermann,
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79] A. Simon and J. Becker, Vehicle guidance for an autonomous vehicle, in Intelligent Transportation Systems, 1999. Proceedings. 1999
IEEE/IEEJ/JSAI International Conference on, 1999, pp. 429434.
[80] C. G. Keller, T. Dang, H. Fritz, A. Joos, C. Rabe, and D. M. Gavrila,
Active pedestrian safety by automatic braking and evasive steering,
Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 12,
no. 4, pp. 12921304, 2011.
[81] J. Perez, R. Lattarulo, and F. Nashashibi, Dynamic trajectory generation using continuous-curvature algorithms for door to door assistance
vehicles, in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings, 2014 IEEE.
IEEE, 2014, pp. 510515.
[82] J. Perez, J. Godoy, J. Villagra, and E. Onieva, Trajectory generator
for autonomous vehicles in urban environments, in IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2013, pp. 409
414.
[83] L. Han, H. Yashiro, H. T. N. Nejad, Q. H. Do, and S. Mita, Bezier
curve based path planning for autonomous vehicle in urban environment, in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2010 IEEE. IEEE,
2010, pp. 10361042.
[84] Z. Liang, G. Zheng, and J. Li, Automatic parking path optimization
based on bezier curve fitting, in Automation and Logistics (ICAL),
2012 IEEE International Conference on, Aug 2012, pp. 583587.
[85] N. Montes, A. Herraez, L. Armesto, and J. Tornero, Real-time clothoid
approximation by rational bezier curves, in Robotics and Automation,
2008. ICRA 2008. IEEE International Conference on, May 2008, pp.
22462251.
[86] N. Montes, M. Mora, and J. Tornero, Trajectory generation based on
rational bezier curves as clothoids, in Intelligent Vehicles Symposium,
2007 IEEE, June 2007, pp. 505510.
[87] P. G. Trepagnier, J. Nagel, P. M. Kinney, C. Koutsougeras, and
M. Dooner, Kat-5: Robust systems for autonomous vehicle navigation
in challenging and unknown terrain, Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 23,
no. 8, pp. 509526, 2006.
[88] Z. Shiller and Y.-R. Gwo, Dynamic motion planning of autonomous
vehicles, Robotics and Automation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 7,
no. 2, pp. 241249, Apr 1991.
[89] T. Berglund, A. Brodnik, H. Jonsson, M. Staffanson, and I. Soderkvist,
Planning smooth and obstacle-avoiding b-spline paths for autonomous
mining vehicles, Automation Science and Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 167172, 2010.
[90] L. B. Cremean, T. B. Foote, J. H. Gillula, G. H. Hines, D. Kogan, K. L.
Kriechbaum, J. C. Lamb, J. Leibs, L. Lindzey, C. E. Rasmussen et al.,
Alice: An information-rich autonomous vehicle for high-speed desert
navigation, Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 777810,
2006.
[91] D. Kogan and R. Murray, Optimization-based navigation for the darpa
grand challenge, in Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2006.
[92] T. Gu and J. M. Dolan, On-road motion planning for autonomous
vehicles, in Intelligent Robotics and Applications. Springer, 2012,
pp. 588597.
[93] L. E. Kavraki, P. Svestka, J.-C. Latombe, and M. H. Overmars, Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration
spaces, Robotics and Automation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 12,
no. 4, pp. 566580, 1996.
[94] S. M. LaValle and J. J. Kuffner, Randomized kinodynamic planning,
The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 20, no. 5, pp.
378400, 2001.
[95] S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, Sampling-based algorithms for
optimal motion planning, The International Journal of Robotics
Research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846894, 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://ijr.sagepub.com/content/30/7/846.abstract
[96] , Optimal kinodynamic motion planning using incremental
sampling-based methods, in Decision and Control (CDC), 2010 49th
IEEE Conference on, Dec 2010, pp. 76817687.
[97] L. Labakhua, U. Nunes, R. Rodrigues, and F. S. Leite, Smooth
trajectory planning for fully automated passengers vehicles: spline and
clothoid based methods and its simulation, in Informatics in Control
Automation and Robotics. Springer, 2008, pp. 169182.
[98] J. Horst and A. Barbera, Trajectory generation for an on-road autonomous vehicle, in Defense and Security Symposium. International
Society for Optics and Photonics, 2006, pp. 62 302J62 302J.
[120]
[121]
[122]
[123]
[124]
[125]
[126]
[127]
[128]
[129]
[130]
[131]
[132]
[133]
[134]
[135]
[136]
[137]
[138]
Joshue Perez is a Research holder at RITS team, INRIA. He received the B.E. degree in electronic engineering from the Simn Bolvar University, Venezuela,
in 2007. His M.E. degree and his PhD degree
from the University Complutense of Madrid were
achieved in 2009 and 2012, respectively. He received
the best PhD thesis award in intelligent control from
the Spanish Committee of Automation (CEA). He
has more than 8 years of experience in the Intelligent
Transportation System field, where he have been
working in national and European projects ranging
from ADAS up to fully automated vehicles.
His research interests include fuzzy logic, modeling, control, path planning,
Cybercars, cooperative maneuvers, automated vehicles, arbitration and control,
and vehicle standards. He is associate editor of IEEE Intelligent Vehicle Symposium. In 2014, he was guest editors of the IEEE Intelligent Transportation
Systems Magazine, in the special issue of ELECTRO-MOBILITY. He has
technically led 10+ EU and national projects for demonstrating different
ADAS technologies. Since 2013, he works as Project Manager for the EU
DESERVE, PICAV and FURBOT projects at INRIA.