Simulation Results
The ego vehicle navigates through an occluded intersection while maintaining its original lane under dense traffic conditions
Performance Comparison
Method | Task Duration (s) | Avg. Velocity (m/s) | Min. Velocity (m/s) | (Avg./Max./Min.) Comp. Time (ms) | Collision |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OACP (Ours) | 12.50 | 4.68 | 1.64 | 23.83/44.75/0.56 | No |
ST-RHC | 17.90 | 3.11 | 0.00 | 42.90/227.06/5.21 | No |
Control-Tree | 16.40 | 3.53 | 0.00251 | 260.86/270.75/240.25 | No |
Occlusion-Ignorant | - | - | - | - | Yes |
Our method achieves 30.17% faster traversal than ST-RHC and 23.78% faster than Control-Tree
Ablation Study: Occlusion-Aware vs Ignorant
Third-person View
Our method: Safe navigation through occluded intersection
Occlusion-ignorant: Collision with phantom vehicle
Top-Down View
Our method: Efficient trajectory planning
Occlusion-ignorant: Failure to account for hidden risks
Comparative Analysis
Our Method vs Control-Tree
Third-person View
OACP: Proactive adaptation
Control-Tree: Conservative behaviors
Top-Down View
OACP: Efficient trajectory
Control-Tree: Conservative behaviors
Our Method vs ST-RHC
Third-person View
OACP: Dynamic velocity adjustment
ST-RHC: Conservative behaviors
Top-Down View
OACP: Efficient Navigation
ST-RHC: Conservative behaviors