Science China Technological Sciences

, Volume 61, Issue 10, pp 1446–1471 | Cite as

Intelligent and connected vehicles: Current status and future perspectives

  • DianGe YangEmail author
  • Kun JiangEmail author
  • Ding ZhaoEmail author
  • ChunLei Yu
  • Zhong Cao
  • ShiChao Xie
  • ZhongYang Xiao
  • XinYu Jiao
  • SiJia Wang
  • Kai Zhang


Intelligent connected vehicles (ICVs) are believed to change people’s life in the near future by making the transportation safer, cleaner and more comfortable. Although many prototypes of ICVs have been developed to prove the concept of autonomous driving and the feasibility of improving traffic efficiency, there still exists a significant gap before achieving mass production of high-level ICVs. The objective of this study is to present an overview of both the state of the art and future perspectives of key technologies that are needed for future ICVs. It is a challenging task to review all related works and predict their future perspectives, especially for such a complex and interdisciplinary area of research. This article is organized to overview the ICV key technologies by answering three questions: what are the milestones in the history of ICVs; what are the electronic components needed for building an ICV platform; and what are the essential algorithms to enable intelligent driving? To answer the first question, the article has reviewed the history and the development milestones of ICVs. For the second question, the recent technology advances in electrical/electronic architecture, sensors, and actuators are presented. For the third question, the article focuses on the algorithms in decision making, as the perception and control algorithm are covered in the development of sensors and actuators. To achieve correct decision-making, there exist two different approaches: the principle-based approach and data-driven approach. The advantages and limitations of both approaches are explained and analyzed. Currently automotive engineers are concerned more with the vehicle platform technology, whereas the academic researchers prefer to focus on theoretical algorithms. However, only by incorporating elements from both worlds can we accelerate the production of high-level ICVs.


intelligent connected vehicle (ICV) autonomous driving artificial intelligence advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) electrical/electronic architecture (EEA) environmental perception decision-making ICV computation platform 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    SAE On-Road Automated Vehicle Standards Committee. Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. SAE Standard J, 2014, 3016: 1–16Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ulrich L. Top Ten Tech Cars. IEEE Spectr, 2014, 51: 38–47Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vanholme B, Gruyer D, Lusetti B, et al. Highly automated driving on highways based on legal safety. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2013, 14: 333–347Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grisleri P, Fedriga I. The braive autonomous ground vehicle platform. IFAC Proc Volumes, 2010, 43: 497–502Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kato S, Takeuchi E, Ishiguro Y, et al. An open approach to autonomous vehicles. IEEE Micro, 2015, 35: 60–68Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geiger A, Lauer M, Moosmann F, et al. Team AnnieWAY’s entry to the 2011 grand cooperative driving challenge. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2012, 13: 1008–1017Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Urmson C, Anhalt J, Bagnell D, et al. Autonomous driving in urban environments: Boss and the urban challenge. J Field Robotics, 2008, 25: 425–466Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leonard J, How J, Teller S, et al. A perception-driven autonomous urban vehicle. J Field Robotics, 2008, 25: 727–774Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levinson J, Askeland J, Becker J, et al. Towards fully autonomous driving: Systems and algorithms. In: 2011 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). Baden-Baden: IEEE, 2011. 163–168Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montemerlo M, Becker J, Bhat S, et al. Junior: The stanford entry in the urban challenge. J Field Robotics, 2008, 25: 569–597Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bacha A, Bauman C, Faruque R, et al. Odin: Team VictorTango’s entry in the DARPA urban challenge. J Field Robotics, 2008, 25: 467–492Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merrill G P. The First One Hundred Years of American Geology. New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1924Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurzweil R, Richter R, Kurzweil R, et al. The Age of Intelligent Machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grimes D M, Jones T O. Automotive radar: A brief review. Proc IEEE, 1974, 62: 804–822Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsugawa S. Vision-based vehicles in Japan: Machine vision systems and driving control systems. IEEE Trans Ind Electron, 1994, 41: 398–405Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dickmanns E D, Graefe V. Dynamic monocular machine vision. Machine Vis Apps, 1988, 1: 223–240Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leighty R D. DARPA ALV (autonomous land vehicle) summary. Report No. ETL-R-085. Army Engineer Topographic Labs Fort Belvoir VA, 1986Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwarz B. Mapping the world in 3D. Nat Photon, 2010, 4: 429–430Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turk M A, Morgenthaler D G, Gremban K D, et al. VITS-A vision system for autonomous land vehicle navigation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Machine Intell, 1988, 10: 342–361Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lowrie J W, Thomas M, Gremban K, et al. The autonomous land vehicle (ALV) preliminary road-following demonstration. In: Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision IV. Cambridge, 1985. 336–351Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barabba V, Huber C, Cooke F, et al. A multimethod approach for creating new business models: The General Motors OnStar project. Interfaces, 2002, 32: 20–34Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    IEEE 802.11 Working Group. Part 11-Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications: Higherspeed physical layer extension in the 2.4 GHz band. ANSI/IEEE Std 802.11, 1999Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Montemerlo M, Thrun S, Dahlkamp H, et al. Winning the DARPA grand challenge with an AI robot. In: The National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Boston, 2006. 982–987Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Urmson C, Ragusa C, Ray D, et al. A robust approach to high-speed navigation for unrehearsed desert terrain. J Field Robotics, 2006, 23: 467–508zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jung I K, Lacroix S. High resolution terrain mapping using low altitude aerial stereo imagery. In: Proceeding of the Ninth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. Nice, 2003. 946Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen M, Liu Y. Recognition and extraction high precision digital road map. In: International Conference on Information Technology: Coding and Computing (ITCC’05)-Volume II. Las Vegas, NV: IEEE, 2005. 129–134Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Noyer U, Schomerus J, Mosebach H H, et al. Generating high precision maps for advanced guidance support. In: 2008 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. Eindhoven: IEEE, 2008. 871–876Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bojarski M, Del Testa D, Dworakowshi D, et al. End to end learning for self-driving cars. arXiv:1604.07316, 2016Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xu H, Gao Y, Yu F, et al. End-to-end learning of driving models from large-scale video datasets. arXiv:preprint, 2017, Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang J, Cho K. Query-efficient imitation learning for end-to-end autonomous driving. ArXiv:1605.06450, 2016Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hinton G E, Osindero S, Teh Y W. A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural Computation, 2006, 18: 1527–1554MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deng L. A tutorial survey of architectures, algorithms, and applications for deep learning. APSIPA Trans Signal Inf Process, 2014, 3: e2Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ziegler J, Bender P, Schreiber M, et al. Making bertha drive—An autonomous journey on a historic route. IEEE Intell Transport Syst Mag, 2014, 6: 8–20Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yang D, Kong W, Li B, et al. Intelligent vehicle electrical power supply system with central coordinated protection. Chin J Mech Eng, 2016, 29: 781–791Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haas W, Langjahr P. Cross-domain vehicle control units in modern E/ E architectures. In: Bargende M, Reuss H C, Wiedemann J, Eds. Proceedings of Internationales Stuttgarter Symposium. Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Springer, 2016. 1619–1627Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zeng W, Khalid M A S, Chowdhury S. In-vehicle networks outlook: Achievements and challenges. In: IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials. IEEE, 2017. 1552–1571Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Afsin M E, Schmidt K W, Schmidt E G. C3: Configurable CAN FD controller: Architecture, design and hardware implementation. In: 12th IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems. Toulouse: IEEE, 2017. 1–9Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hartwich F. CAN with flexible data-rate. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications. Gerlingen, 2012. 1–9Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    BOSCH. CAN With Flexible Data-Rate Specification. Version 1.0. Gerlingen: BOSCH, 2012Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Matheus K, Königseder T. Automotive Ethernet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    FlexRay Consortium. FlexRay Communication System Protocol Specification. Version 3.0.1. 2010Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Engelmann B. MOST150-development and production launch from an OEM’s per-stective. In: 11th MOST Interconnectivity Conference. Seoul, 2010. 1–23Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Grzemba A. MOST: The Automotive Multimedia Network, from MOST25 to MOST150. Poing: Franzis Verlag GmbH, 2011Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zeeb E. Optical data bus systems in cars: Current status and future challenges. In: Proceedings 27th European Conference on Optical Communication. Amsterdam, 2001. 70–71Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hank P, Suermann T, Müller S. Automotive ethernet, a holistic approach for a next generation in-vehicle networking standard. In: Meyer G, Ed. Advanced Microsystems for Automotive Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2012. 79–89Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Patsakis C, Dellios K. Securing in-vehicle communication and redefining the role of automotive immobilizer. In: International Conference on Security and Cryptography. Rome, 2012. 221–226Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Patsakis C, Dellios K, Bouroche M. Towards a distributed secure invehicle communication architecture for modern vehicles. Comput Security, 2014, 40: 60–74Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Misener J A, Biswas S, Larson G. Development of V-to-X systems in North America: The promise, the pitfalls and the prognosis. Comput Networks, 2011, 55: 3120–3133Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    DhilipKumar V, Kandar D, Sarkar C K. Enhancement of inter-vehicular communication to optimize the performance of 3G/4G-VANET. In: International Conference on Optical Imaging Sensor and Security. Coimbatore, 2013. 1–5Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Smith S, Razo M. Using traffic microsimulation to assess deployment strategies for the connected vehicle safety pilot. J Intelligent Transpation Syst, 2016, 20: 66–74Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Toulminet G, Boussuge J, Laurgeau C. Comparative synthesis of the 3 main European projects dealing with Cooperative Systems (CVIS, SAFESPOT and COOPERS) and description of COOPERS Demonstration Site 4. In: 11th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems. Beijing, 2008. 809–814Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Stahlmann R, Festag A, Tomatis A, et al. Starting European field tests for Car-2-X communication: The DRIVE C2X framework. In: 18th ITS World Congress and Exhibition. Orlando, FL, 2011. 1–9Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shenjiang L D W. The design of the controller on automobile taillight based on AT89S52 (in Chinese). Foreign Electronic Meas Technol, 2010: 60–63Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jin X U, Zhong F M. Automotive air conditioning control system based on STC12C5A60S2 singlechip (in Chinese). Auto Electric Parts, 2014, 6: 14–16Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gan H, Zhang J, Lu Q. Study on operating mode control of hybrid electric vehicle based on the high performance32-Bit SCM MPC555. Automob Technol, 2004, 11: 9–12Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yu X, Chen B, Ji T. DSP software design for EQ effect of car multimedia system. Microcompute Its Applications, 2011, 30: 47–50Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yu Y, Fu Z, Rao L, et al. DSP-based advance collision warning system. Process Automat Instrum, 2009, 30: 11–13Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Yu J Q, Chen Z Z, Liang P. The design and implementation signal processing system of the automotive collision avoidance based on TMS320vc5402 (in Chinese). Microcomp Inf, 2007: 266–267Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lindholm E, Nickolls J, Oberman S, et al. NVIDIA Tesla: A unified graphics and computing architecture. IEEE Micro, 2008, 28: 39–55Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wübbena G, Bagge A. GNSS multi-station adjustment for permanent deformation analysis networks. In: Symposlum on Geodesy for Geotechnical & Structural Engineering of the IAG Special Commission. Eisenstadt, 1998. 139–144Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jouppi N P, Young C, Patil N, et al. In-datacenter performance analysis of a tensor processing unit. In: 2017 ACM/IEEE 44th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture. Toronto, ON: IEEE, 2017. 1–12Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chevitarese D S, Dos Santos M N. Real-time face tracking and recognition on IBM neuromorphic chip. In: 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia. San Jose, CA: IEEE, 2016. 667–672Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rethinagiri S K, Palomar O, Moreno J A, et al. System-level power & energy estimation methodology and optimization techniques for CPU-GPU based mobile platforms. In: 2014 IEEE 12th Symposium on Embedded Systems for Real-time Multimedia. Greater Noida, 2014. 118–127Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Liu B L, Sun Y B. OSEK/VDX: An open-architectured platform of vehicle electronics system. Acta Armamentarll the Volume of Tank, Armored Vehicle Engine, 2002, 2: 61–64Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Guettier C, Bradai B, Hochart F, et al. Standardization of generic architecture for autonomous driving: A reality check. In: Langheim J, Ed. Energy Consumption and Autonomous Driving. Lecture Notes in Mobility. Cham: Springer, 2016. 57–68Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Aly S. Consolidating AUTOSAR with complex operating systems (AUTOSAR on Linux). SAE Technical Paper 2017–01–1617, 2017Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Leitner A, Ochs T, Bulwahn L, et al. Open dependable power computing platform for automated driving. In: Watzenig D, Horn M, Eds. Automated Driving. Cham: Springer, 2017. 353–367Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Traub M, Maier A, Barbehon K L. Future automotive architecture and the impact of IT trends. IEEE Softw, 2017, 34: 27–32Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sagstetter F, Lukasiewycz M, Steinhorst S, et al. Security challenges in automotive hardware/software architecture design. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe. Grenoble, 2013. 458–463Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Risack R, Mohler N, Enkelmann W. A video-based lane keeping assistant. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. Dearborn, MI: IEEE, 2000Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kesting A, Treiber M, Schönhof M, et al. Adaptive cruise control design for active congestion avoidance. Transpat Res Part C-Emerg Technol, 2008, 16: 668–683Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kim S W, Qin B, Chong Z J, et al. Multivehicle cooperative driving using cooperative perception: Design and experimental validation. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2015, 16: 663–680Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dagan E, Mano O, Stein G P, et al. Forward collision warning with a single camera. In: IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. Parma: IEEE, 2004. 37–42Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Leung K Y K, Barfoot T D, Liu H H T. Decentralized cooperative slam for sparsely-communicating robot networks: A centralizedequivalent approach. J Intell Robot Syst, 2012, 66: 321–342zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Perumal D G, Saravanakumar G, Subathra B, et al. Nonlinear state estimation based predictive path planning algorithm using infrastructure-to-vehicle (I2V) communication for intelligent vehicle. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Emerging Research in Computing, Information, Communication and Applications (ERCICA 2014). NMIT, Yelahanka, Bangalore, 2014. 243–248Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Sawant N R. Longitudinal vehicle speed controller for autonomous driving in urban stop-and-go traffic situations. Dissertation of Masteral Degree. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, 2010Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Eskandarian A. Handbook of Intelligent Vehicles. London: Springer, 2012Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Marek J, Trah H P, Suzuki Y, et al. Sensors for Automotive Technology. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2003Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Landau H, Vollath U, Chen X. Virtual reference station systems. J GPS, 2002, 1: 137–143Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Brown N, Geisler I, Troyer L. RTK rover performance using the master-auxiliary concept. Positioning, 2006, 5: 135–144Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wanninger L. Improved ambiguity resolution by regional differential modelling of the ionosphere. In: Proceedings of the ION GPS 95. Palm Springs, 1995. 55–62Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bertozzi M, Broggi A, Fascioli A. Vision-based intelligent vehicles: State of the art and perspectives. Robotics Autonomous Syst, 2000, 32: 1–16zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Maurer M, Behringer R, Furst S, et al. A compact vision system for road vehicle guidance. In: Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Pattern Recognition. Vienna: IEEE, 1996. 313–317Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bertozzi M, Broggi A, Conte G, et al. Vision-based automated vehicle guidance: The experience of the ARGO vehicle. Tecniche di Intelligenza Artificiale e Pattern Recognition per la Visione Artificiale, 1998: 35–40Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Broggi A, Bertozzi M, Fascioli A. Architectural issues on visionbased automatic vehicle guidance: The experience of the ARGO project. Real-Time Imag, 2000, 6: 313–324zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Campbell M, Egerstedt M, How J P, et al. Autonomous driving in urban environments: Approaches, lessons and challenges. Philos Trans R Soc A-Math Phys Eng Sci, 2010, 368: 4649–4672Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Göhring D, Latotzky D, Wang M, et al. Semi-autonomous car control using brain computer interfaces. In: Lee S, Cho H, Yoon KJ, Eds. Intelligent Autonomous Systems 12. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 393–408Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    van Nunen E, Koch R, Elshof L, et al. Sensor safety for the european truck platooning challenge. In: 23rd World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems. Melbourne, 2016. 306–311Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Johnson D G. Development of a high resolution MMW radar employing an antenna with combined frequency and mechanical scanning. In: 2008 IEEE Radar Conference. Rome: IEEE, 2008. 1–5Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Han S, Wang X, Xu L, et al. Frontal object perception for Intelligent Vehicles based on radar and camera fusion. In: 35th Chinese Control Conference. Chengdu, China: IEEE, 2016Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Song S, Chandraker M. Robust scale estimation in real-time monocular SFM for autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Columbus, OH: IEEE, 2014. 1566–1573Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Park K Y, Hwang S Y. Robust range estimation with a monocular camera for vision-based forward collision warning system. Sci World J, 2014, 2014: 1–9Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Dong Y, Hu Z, Uchimura K, et al. Driver inattention monitoring system for intelligent vehicles: A review. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2011, 12: 596–614Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Tawari A, Sivaraman S, Trivedi M M, et al. Looking-in and lookingout vision for urban intelligent assistance: Estimation of driver attentive state and dynamic surround for safe merging and braking. In: 2014 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings. Dearborn, MI: IEEE, 2014. 115–120Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Klette R, Kruger N, Vaudrey T, et al. Performance of correspondence algorithms in vision-based driver assistance using an online image sequence database. IEEE Trans Veh Technol, 2011, 60: 2012–2026Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Lazaros N, Sirakoulis G C, Gasteratos A. Review of stereo vision algorithms: From software to hardware. Int J Optomechatron, 2008, 2: 435–462Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Tippetts B, Lee D J, Lillywhite K, et al. Review of stereo vision algorithms and their suitability for resource-limited systems. J Real- Time Image Proc, 2016, 11: 5–25Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Benet G, Blanes F, Simae J E, et al. Using infrared sensors for distance measurement in mobile robots. Robotics Autonomous Syst, 2002, 40: 255–266Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Takagi K, Morikawa K, Ogawa T, et al. Road environment recognition using on-vehicle LIDAR. In: 2006 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. Tokyo: IEEE, 2006. 120–125Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Himmelsbach M, Hundelshausen F V, Wuensche H J. Fast segmentation of 3d point clouds for ground vehicles. In: 2010 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). San Diego, CA: IEEE, 2010. 560–565Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Lee J H, Tsubouchi T, Yamamoto K, et al. People tracking using a robot in motion with laser range finder. In: 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Beijing, China: IEEE, 2006. 2936–2942Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Brscic D, Kanda T, Ikeda T, et al. Person tracking in large public spaces using 3-D range sensors. IEEE Trans Human-Mach Syst, 2013, 43: 522–534Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Pathak K, Birk A, Vaskevicius N, et al. Online three-dimensional SLAM by registration of large planar surface segments and closedform pose-graph relaxation. J Field Robotics, 2010, 27: 52–84Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Zhang J, Singh S. LOAM: Lidar odometry and mapping in real-time. In: Robotics: Science and Systems. Berkeley, CA: 2014. 9Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Park J, Kim H, Tai Y W, et al. High quality depth map upsampling for 3D-TOF cameras. In: 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision. Barcelona: IEEE, 2011. 1623–1630Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Hwang S, Kim N, Choi Y, et al. Fast multiple objects detection and tracking fusing color camera and 3D LIDAR for intelligent vehicles. In: 2016 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI). Xi’an, China: IEEE, 2016. 234–239Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Zhong Y, Wang S, Xie S, et al. 3D scene reconstruction with sparse LiDAR data and monocular image in single frame. SAE Int J Passeng Cars-Electron Electr Syst, 2017, 11: 48–56Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Hofmann U, Senger F, Soerensen F, et al. Biaxial resonant 7mm- MEMS mirror for automotive LIDAR application. In: 2012 International Conference on Optical MEMS and Nanophotonics. Banff, AB: IEEE, 2012. 150–151Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Ye L, Zhang G, You Z. 5 V compatible two-axis PZT driven MEMS scanning mirror with mechanical leverage structure for miniature LiDAR application. Sensors, 2017, 17: 521Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    McManamon P F, Bos P J, Escuti M J, et al. A review of phased array steering for narrow-band electrooptical systems. Proc IEEE, 2009, 97: 1078–1096Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Yoo B W, Megens M, Chan T, et al. Optical phased array using high contrast gratings for two dimensional beamforming and beamsteering. Opt Express, 2013, 21: 12238–12248Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Sugimoto S, Tateda H, Takahashi H, et al. Obstacle detection using millimeter-wave radar and its visualization on image sequence. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. Cambridge, UK: IEEE, 2004. 342–345Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Song Y, Nuske S, Scherer S. A multi-sensor fusion MAV state estimation from long-range stereo, IMU, GPS and barometric sensors. Sensors, 2016, 17: 11Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Chen Z. Bayesian filtering: From Kalman filters to particle filters, and beyond. Statistics, 2003, 182: 1–69Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Zhang Z, Li Y, Wang F, et al. A novel multi-sensor environmental perception method using low-rank representation and a particle filter for vehicle reversing safety. Sensors, 2016, 16: 848Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Weiß C. V2X communication in Europe—From research projects towards standardization and field testing of vehicle communication technology. Comput Networks, 2011, 55: 3103–3119Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Kalman R E. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. J Basic Eng, 1960, 82: 35–45Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Arulampalam M S, Maskell S, Gordon N, et al. A tutorial on particle filters for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking. IEEE Trans Signal Process, 2002, 50: 174–188Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Ghods A, Severi S, Abreu G. Localization in V2X communication networks. In: 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). Gothenburg: IEEE, 2016. 5–9Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Rohani M, Gingras D, Vigneron V, et al. A new decentralized Bayesian approach for cooperative vehicle localization based on fusion of GPS and VANET based inter-vehicle distance measurement. IEEE Intell Transp Syst Mag, 2015, 7: 85–95Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Obst M, Hobert L, Reisdorf P. Multi-sensor data fusion for checking plausibility of V2V communications by vision-based multiple-object tracking. In: 2014 IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC). Paderborn: IEEE, 2014. 143–150Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Liu W, Kim S W, Marczuk K, et al. Vehicle motion intention reasoning using cooperative perception on urban road. In: 17th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). Qingdao, China: IEEE, 2014, 424–430Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Kim S W, Liu W, Ang M H, et al. The impact of cooperative perception on decision making and planning of autonomous vehicles. IEEE Intell Transp Syst Mag, 2015, 7: 39–50Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Luthardt S, Han C, Willert V, et al. Efficient graph-based V2V free space fusion. In: Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). Los Angeles, CA: IEEEGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Bétaille D, Toledo-Moreo R. Creating enhanced maps for lane-level vehicle navigation. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2010, 11: 786–798Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Jo K, Sunwoo M. Generation of a precise roadway map for autonomous cars. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2014, 15: 925–937Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Joshi A, James M R. Generation of accurate lane-level maps from coarse prior maps and lidar. IEEE Intell Transp Syst Mag, 2015, 7: 19–29Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Billah M, Maskooki A, Rahman F, et al. Roadway feature mapping from point cloud data: A graph-based clustering approach. In: 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). Los Angeles, CA: IEEE, 2017Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Guan H, Li J, Yu Y, et al. Using mobile laser scanning data for automated extraction of road markings. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens, 2014, 87: 93–107Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Zeng W, Church R L. Finding shortest paths on real road networks: The case for A*. Int J Geogr Inf Sci, 2009, 23: 531–543Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Vu A, Ramanandan A, Chen A, et al. Real-time computer vision/ DGPS-aided inertial navigation system for lane-level vehicle navigation. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2012, 13: 899–913Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Levinson J, Montemerlo M, Thrun S. Map-based precision vehicle localization in urban environments. In: Robotics: Science and Systems. Georgia, 2007. 1Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Wolcott R W, Eustice R M. Visual localization within LIDAR maps for automated urban driving. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Chicago, IL: IEEE, 2014. 176–183Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Xu Y, John V, Mita S, et al. 3D point cloud map based vehicle localization using stereo camera. In: 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). Los Angeles, CA: IEEE, 2017. 487–492Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Crane C D. The 2005 DARPA grand challenge. In: International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation. Jacksonville, 2007. 1Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Hodge K E, Kellogg Y. Proceedings of the F-8 digital fly-by-wire and supercritical wing first flight’s 20th anniversary celebration. Volume 1. Technical Report NASA-CP-3256-Vol-1. Edwards, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Dryden Flight Research Center, 1996Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Stjärne K, Werner P. Brake by wire system for construction vehicles. Dissertation of Masteral Degree. Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology, 2014Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    He L, Ma B, Zong C. Fault-tolerance control strategy for the steering wheel angle sensor of a steer-by-wire vehicle. Automot Eng, 2015, 37: 327–330, 345Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Fahimi F. Full drive-by-wire dynamic control for four-wheel-steer all-wheel-drive vehicles. Vehicle Syst Dyn, 2013, 51: 360–376Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Janbakhsh A A, Bayani Khaknejad M, Kazemi R. Simultaneous vehicle-handling and path-tracking improvement using adaptive dynamic surface control via a steer-by-wire system. Proc Instit Mech Eng Part D-J Automobile Eng, 2013, 227: 345–360Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Abeysiriwardhana W S P, Abeykoon A H S. Simulation of brake by wire system with dynamic force control. In: 7th International Conference on Information and Automation for Sustainability. Colombo: IEEE, 2014. 1–6Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Pisu P, Serrani A, You S, et al. Adaptive threshold based diagnostics for steer-by-wire systems. J Dyn Sys Meas Control, 2006, 128: 428–435Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Cetin A E, Adli M A, Barkana D E, et al. Compliant control of steerby- wire systems. In: 2009 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics. Singapore: IEEE, 2009. 636–643Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Kang J, Hindiyeh R Y, Moon S W, et al. Design and testing of a controller for autonomous vehicle path tracking using GPS/INS sensors. In: Proceedings of the 17th IFAC World Congress. Seoul, 2008. 6–11Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Xiong L, Teng G W, Yu Z P, et al. Novel stability control strategy for distributed drive electric vehicle based on driver operation intention. Int J Automot Technol, 2016, 17: 651–663Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Yin G D, Jin X J, Zhang Y. Overview for chassis vehicle dynamics control of distributed drive electric vehicle. J Chongqing Univ Technol, 2016: 13–19Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Liu H, Chen X, Wang X. Overview and prospects on distributed drive electric vehicles and its energy saving strategy. Prz Elektrotechniczn, 2012, 88: 122–125Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Wilwert C, Song Y Q, Simonot-Lion F, et al. Evaluating quality of service and behavioral reliability of steer-by-wire systems. In: 9th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation-EFTA’2003. Lisbonne: IEEE, 2003. 193–200Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    He L, Xiang H O, Chen D X, et al. Emergency obstacle avoidance control method based on driver steering intention recognition for steer-by-wire vehicle. In: Liu X H, Zhang K F, Li M Z, Eds. Manufacturing Process and Equipment. Volumes 694–697. Advanced Materials Research. Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications, 2013. 2738–2741Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Hirano Y. Integrated vehicle control of an in-wheel-motor vehicle to optimize vehicle dynamics and energy consumption. In: 2012 10th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation. Beijing, China: IEEE, 2012. 2335–2339Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Pei X, Zhou Y, Sheng Z. Torque ripple suppression of a new in-wheel motor based on quantum genetic algorithm. In: 23rd International Conference on Mechatronics and Machine Vision in Practice. Nanjing, China: IEEE, 2016. 1–6Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Thrun S, Montemerlo M, Dahlkamp H, et al. Stanley: The robot that won the DARPA grand challenge. J Field Robotics, 2006, 23: 661–692Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Sivaraman S, Trivedi M M. Looking at vehicles on the road: A survey of vision-based vehicle detection, tracking, and behavior analysis. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2013, 14: 1773–1795Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Gwon G P, Hur W S, Kim S W, et al. Generation of a precise and efficient lane-level road map for intelligent vehicle systems. IEEE Trans Veh Technol, 2017, 66: 4517–4533Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Khodayari A, Ghaffari A, Ameli S, et al. A historical review on lateral and longitudinal control of autonomous vehicle motions. In: 2nd International Conference on Mechanical and Electrical Technology. Singapore: IEEE, 2010. 421–429Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Souissi O, Benatitallah R, Duvivier D, et al. Path planning: A 2013 survey. In: Proceedings of 2013 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Systems Management. Rabat: IEEE, 2013. 1–8Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Katrakazas C, Quddus M, Chen W H, et al. Real-time motion planning methods for autonomous on-road driving: State-of-the-art and future research directions. Transpat Res Part C-Emerg Technol, 2015, 60: 416–442Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Gonzalez D, Perez J, Milanes V, et al. A review of motion planning techniques for automated vehicles. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2016, 17: 1135–1145Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Veres S M, Molnar L, Lincoln N K, et al. Autonomous vehicle control systems: A review of decision making. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part I-J Syst Control Eng, 2011, 225: 155–195Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Lefèvre S, Vasquez D, Laugier C. A survey on motion prediction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles. Robomech J, 2014, 1: 1Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Bila C, Sivrikaya F, Khan M A, et al. Vehicles of the future: A survey of research on safety issues. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2017, 18: 1046–1065Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Eichenbaum H. A cortical-hippocampal system for declarative memory. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2000, 1: 41Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Cohen M D, Bacdayan P. Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organ Sci, 1994, 5: 554–568Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Weng J. Artificial intelligence: Autonomous mental development by robots and animals. Science, 2001, 291: 599–600Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Mitchell T M. Machine Learning. Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw Hill, 1997. 870–877zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Samuel A L. Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM J Res Dev, 1959, 3: 210–229MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Rosenblatt F. The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychological Rev, 1958, 65: 386–408Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Ackley D, Hinton G, Sejnowski T. A learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines. Cogn Sci, 1985, 9: 147–169Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Lecun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature, 2015, 521: 436–444Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton G E. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: PereIra F, Burges C J C, Bottou L, et al, Eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012. 1097–1105Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Everingham M, Eslami S M A, Van Gool L, et al. The pascal visual object classes challenge: A retrospective. Int J Comput Vis, 2015, 111: 98–136Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Silver D, Huang A, Maddison C J, et al. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 2016, 529: 484–489Google Scholar
  173. 173.
    Pacejka H. Tire and Vehicle Dynamics. 3rd Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2012Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Moravec H. Sensor Fusion in Certainty Grids for Mobile Robots. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 1989. 61–74Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Hoskins S R, Tefend M F. Steering angle sensor. USA Patent, US8164327, 2012Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Santana E, Hotz G. Learning a driving simulator. arXiv:1608.01230, 2016Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Bojarski M, Yeres P, Choromanska A, et al. Explaining how a deep neural network trained with end-to-end learning steers a car. arXiv:1704.07911, 2017Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Chen C, Seff A, Kornhauser A, et al. Deep driving: Learning affordance for direct perception in autonomous driving. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. Santiago, 2015. 2722–2730Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    Liu W, Li Z, Li L, et al. Parking like a human: A direct trajectory planning solution. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2017, 99: 1–10Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Yang S, Wang W, Liu C, et al. Feature analysis and selection for training an end-to-end autonomous vehicle controller using the deep learning approach. In: 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). Los Angeles, CA: 2017. 1033–1038Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    Kisacanin B. Deep learning for autonomous vehicles. In: IEEE International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logic. San Francisco, 2017. 142Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Shapiro D. Accelerating the race to autonomous cars. In: ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Novi Sad, 2016. 415Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    Friedman N, Geiger D, Goldszmidt M. Goldszmidt. Bayesian network classifiers. Mach Learn, 1997, 29: 131–163zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Ontañón S, Montaña J L, Gonzalez A J. A dynamic bayesian network framework for learning from observation. In: Bielza C, Eds. Advances in Artificial Intelligence. CAEPIA 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 8109. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2013. 373–382Google Scholar
  185. 185.
    Forbes J, Huang T, Kanazawa K, et al. The Batmobile: Towards a Bayesian automated taxi. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Montreal, 1995. 1878–1885Google Scholar
  186. 186.
    Dan N V, Kameyama M. Bayesian-networks-based motion estimation for a highly-safe intelligent vehicle. In: 2006 SICE-ICASE International Joint Conference. Busan, 2007. 6023–6026Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Hamlet A J, Crane C D. Joint belief and intent prediction for collision avoidance in autonomous vehicles. arXiv:1504.00060, 2015Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    Eilers M, Möbus C. Learning of a bayesian autonomous driver mixture-of-behaviors (BAD MoB) model. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Boca Raton, 2011. 436–445Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    Möbus C, Eilers M. Further steps towards driver modeling according to the bayesian programming approach. In: Duffy V G, Ed. Digital Human Modeling. ICDHM 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 5620. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2009. 413–422Google Scholar
  190. 190.
    Eilers M, Möbus C, Tango F, et al. The learning of longitudinal human driving behavior and driver assistance strategies. Transpation Res Part F-Traffic Psychology Behaviour, 2013, 21: 295–314Google Scholar
  191. 191.
    Sutton R S, Barto A G. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005Google Scholar
  192. 192.
    Kaelbling L P, Littman M L, Moore A W. Reinforcement learning: A survey. J Artif Intell Res, 1996, 4: 237–285Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    Koutník J, Schmidhuber J, Gomez F. Online evolution of deep convolutional network for vision-based reinforcement learning. In: International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. Castellón, 2014. 260–269Google Scholar
  194. 194.
    Xia W, Li H, Li B. A control strategy of autonomous vehicles based on deep reinforcement learning. In: International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design. Zhejiang, China, 2017. 198–201Google Scholar
  195. 195.
    Xiong X, Wang J, Zhang F, et al. Combining deep reinforcement learning and safety based control for autonomous driving. ar- Xiv:1612.00147, 2016Google Scholar
  196. 196.
    Chae H, Kang C M, Kim B D, et al. Autonomous braking system via deep reinforcement learning. In: IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems. Yokohama, 2017. 1–6Google Scholar
  197. 197.
    Isele D, Rahimi R, Cosgun A, et al. Navigating occluded intersections with autonomous vehicles using deep reinforcement learning. arXiv:1705.01196, 2018Google Scholar
  198. 198.
    Koenig S, Simmons R G. Xavier: A robot navigation architecture based on partially observable Markov decision process models. In: Artificial Intelligence Based Mobile Robotics: Case Studies of Successful Robot Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998. 91–122Google Scholar
  199. 199.
    Liu W, Kim S W, Pendleton S, et al. Situation-aware decision making for autonomous driving on urban road using online POMDP. In: Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. Seoul, 2015. 1126–1133Google Scholar
  200. 200.
    Agussurja L, Lau H C. A POMDP model for guiding taxi cruising in a congested urban city. In: Batyrshin I, Sidorov G, Eds. Advances in Artificial Intelligence. MICAI 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7094. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2011, 7094. 415–428Google Scholar
  201. 201.
    Brechtel S, Gindele T, Dillmann R. Probabilistic decision-making under uncertainty for autonomous driving using continuous POMDPs. In: IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems. Qingdao, China, 2014. 392–399Google Scholar
  202. 202.
    Amato C, Konidaris G D, Kaelbling L P. Planning with macro-actions in decentralized POMDPs. In: International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. Paris, 2014. 331–333Google Scholar
  203. 203.
    Deng J, Dong W, Socher R, et al. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Miami, 2009. 248–255Google Scholar
  204. 204.
    Griffin G, Holub A, Perona P. Caltech-256 object category dataset. Technical Report 7694. Caltrch: California Institute of Technology, 2007Google Scholar
  205. 205.
    Lin TY, Maire M, Belongie S, et al. Microsoft COCO: Common objects in context. In: Fleet D, Pajdla T, Schiele B, et al, Eds. Computer Vision—ECCV 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8693. Cham: Springer, 2014. 740–755Google Scholar
  206. 206.
    Chen C, Self A, Kornhauser A, et al. Deepdriving: Learning affordance for direct perception in autonomous driving. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. Santiago: IEEE, 2015. 2722–2730Google Scholar
  207. 207.
    Maddern W, Pascoe G, Linegar C, et al. 1 year, 1000 km: The Oxford RobotCar dataset. Int J Robotics Res, 2017, 36: 3–15Google Scholar
  208. 208.
    Geiger A, Lenz P, Urtasun R. Are we ready for autonomous driving? The KITTI vision benchmark suite. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Providence, RI, 2012. 3354–3361Google Scholar
  209. 209.
    Cordts M, Mohamed O, Sebastian R, et al. The cityscapes dataset for semantic urban scene understanding. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Las Vegas, NV: IEEE, 2016. 3213–3223Google Scholar
  210. 210.
    de Charette R, Nashashibi F. Real time visual traffic lights recognition based on Spot Light Detection and adaptive traffic lights templates. In: 2009 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. Xi’an, China: IEEE, 2009. 358–363Google Scholar
  211. 211.
    Wu B, Nevatia R. Cluster boosted tree classifier for multi-view, multi-pose object detection. In: IEEE 11th International Conference on 2007 ICCV. Rio de Janeiro: IEEE, 2007. 1–8Google Scholar
  212. 212.
    Ess A, Leibe B, Schindler K, et al. A mobile vision system for robust multi-person tracking. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2008. Anchorage: IEEE, 2008. 1–8Google Scholar
  213. 213.
    Varaiya P. Smart cars on smart roads: problems of control. IEEE Trans Automat Contr, 1993, 38: 195–207MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  214. 214.
    Wei J, Snider J M, Gu T, et al. A behavioral planning framework for autonomous driving. In: Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings. Dearborn, MI: IEEE, 2014. 458–464Google Scholar
  215. 215.
    Noh S, An K. Decision-making framework for automated driving in highway environments. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2017, 19: 58–71Google Scholar
  216. 216.
    Buehler M, Iagnemma K, Singh S. The DARPA Urban Challenge. Tracts in Advanced Robotics. Berlin: Springer, 2010Google Scholar
  217. 217.
    Reeds J, Shepp L. Optimal paths for a car that goes both forwards and backwards. Pac J Math, 1990, 145: 367–393MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  218. 218.
    Fraichard T, Scheuer A. From reeds and shepp’s to continuous-curvature paths. IEEE Trans Robot, 2004, 20: 1025–1035Google Scholar
  219. 219.
    Petrov P, Nashashibi F. Modeling and nonlinear adaptive control for autonomous vehicle overtaking. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst, 2014, 15: 1643–1656Google Scholar
  220. 220.
    Rastelli J P, Lattarulo R, Nashashibi F. Dynamic trajectory generation using continuous-curvature algorithms for door to door assistance vehicles. In: Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings. Dearborn, MI: IEEE, 2014. 510–515Google Scholar
  221. 221.
    Dolgov D, Thrun S, Montemerlo M, et al. Path planning for autonomous vehicles in unknown semi-structured environments. Int J Robotics Res, 2010, 29: 485–501Google Scholar
  222. 222.
    Gu T, Dolan J M. On-road motion planning for autonomous vehicles. In: International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications. Montreal, Quebec: Springer, 2012. 588–597Google Scholar
  223. 223.
    Ziegler J, Bender P, Schreiber M, et al. Making bertha drive-an autonomous journey on a historic route. IEEE Intell Transport Syst Mag, 2014, 6: 8–20Google Scholar
  224. 224.
    Cremean L B, Foote T B, Gillula J H, et al. Alice: An informationrich autonomous vehicle for high-speed desert navigation. In: Buehler M, Iagnemma K, Singh S, Eds. The 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, Vol 36. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2007. 777–810Google Scholar
  225. 225.
    Kogan D, Murray R M. Optimization-based navigation for the DARPA Grand Challenge. In: Conference on Decision & Control. San Diego, CA: IEEE, 2006. 1–6Google Scholar
  226. 226.
    Bohren J, Foote T, Keller J, et al. Little ben: The ben franklin racing team’s entry in the 2007 DARPA urban challenge. In: Buehler M, Iagnemma K, Singh S, Eds. The DARPA Urban Challenge. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, Vol 56. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008. 231–255Google Scholar
  227. 227.
    Chen Y L, Sundareswaran V, Anderson C, et al. TerraMax™: Team Oshkosh urban robot. J Field Robotics, 2008, 25: 841–860Google Scholar
  228. 228.
    Kammel S, Ziegler J, Pitzer B, et al. Team AnnieWAY’s autonomous system for the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge. In: Buehler M, Iagnemma K, Singh S, Eds. The DARPA Urban Challenge. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, Vol 56. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2010. 359–391Google Scholar
  229. 229.
    Ferguson D, Howard T M, Likhachev M. Motion planning in urban environments. J Field Robotics, 2010, 25: 939–960Google Scholar
  230. 230.
    Mcnaughton M, Urmson C, Dolan J M, et al. Motion planning for autonomous driving with a conformal spatiotemporal lattice. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Shanghai, China: IEEE, 2011. 4889–4895Google Scholar
  231. 231.
    Lavalle S. Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning. Research Report. Ames, IA: Computer Science Department, Iowa State University, 1998Google Scholar
  232. 232.
    Kuwata Y, Fiore G A, Teo J, et al. Motion planning for urban driving using RRT. In: 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Nice: IEEE, 2008. 1681–1686Google Scholar
  233. 233.
    Thurston D L. A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes. Res Eng Des, 1991, 3: 105–122Google Scholar
  234. 234.
    Emerson E A. Temporal and modal logic. In: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science (vol. B). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990. 995–1072Google Scholar
  235. 235.
    Kloetzer M, Belta C. A fully automated framework for control of linear systems from temporal logic specifications. IEEE Trans Automat Contr, 2008, 53: 287–297MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  236. 236.
    Artale A, Kontchakov R, Wolter F, et al. Temporal description logic for ontology-based data access. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Beijing, China, 2013. 711–717Google Scholar
  237. 237.
    Liu J, Ozay N. Abstraction, discretization, and robustness in temporal logic control of dynamical systems. In: International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. Berlin, 2014. 293–302Google Scholar
  238. 238.
    Wongpiromsarn T. Formal methods for design and verification of embedded control systems: Application to an autonomous vehicle. Dissertation of Doctrol Degree. Caltrch: California Institute of Technology. 2010Google Scholar
  239. 239.
    Sadigh D, Kim E S, Coogan S, et al. A learning based approach to control synthesis of Markov decision processes for linear temporal logic specifications. In: 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. Los Angeles, CA: IEEE, 2014. 1091–1096Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy, Department of Automotive Engineering, Collaborative Innovation Center of Intelligent New Energy VehicleTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.University of Michigan Transportation Research InstituteAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations