汽车安全与节能学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (2): 202-211.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2023.02.007
收稿日期:2022-09-14
修回日期:2022-11-21
出版日期:2023-04-30
发布日期:2023-04-27
作者简介:韩玲(1984—),女(汉),吉林,副教授。E-mail:hanling@ccut.edu.cn。
基金资助:
HAN Ling(
), ZHANG Hui, FANG Ruoyu, LIU Guopeng, ZHU Changsheng, CHI Ruifeng
Received:2022-09-14
Revised:2022-11-21
Online:2023-04-30
Published:2023-04-27
摘要:
为了解决模型过度依赖与过度估计的问题,提出一种基于传统深度强化学习(DRL)的抑制过度估计深度Q网络 (SQDQN)算法,来建立全局路径规划策略。该SQDQN算法,结合深度Q网络(DQN)算法与信息熵,来抑制过度估计;借助信息熵,实时评估更新过程,来抑制DQN策略算法过度地估计损害性能;借助SQDQN算法与环境模型的交互作用,建立了获取全局路径规划策略的环境模型。结果表明:与DQN算法相比,SQDQN算法在20次实验中3次选择为更优策略;与Dijkstra传统路径规划方法相比,SQDQN算法所规划路程通行时间减少11.32%;本文的全局路径规划策略,减少了由于DQN对动作预期过高所导致的输出错误动作。
中图分类号:
韩玲, 张晖, 方若愚, 刘国鹏, 朱长盛, 迟瑞丰. 基于改进深度强化学习的全局路径规划策略[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2023, 14(2): 202-211.
HAN Ling, ZHANG Hui, FANG Ruoyu, LIU Guopeng, ZHU Changsheng, CHI Ruifeng. Global path planning strategy based on an improved deep reinforcement learning[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2023, 14(2): 202-211.
| 场景 | 通行距离 / km | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DQN | SQDQN | Dijkstra | |
| 1 | 4.879 | 4.879 | 4.879 |
| 2 | 5.760 | 5.760 | 5.760 |
| 3 | 6.320 | 6.320 | 6.320 |
| 4 | 3.850 | 3.850 | 3.850 |
| 5 | 4.329 | 4.329 | 4.329 |
| 6 | 6.783 | 6.415 | 6.415 |
| 7 | 3.987 | 3.987 | 3.987 |
| 8 | 5.310 | 5.310 | 5.310 |
| 9 | 4.982 | 4.982 | 4.982 |
| 10 | 5.567 | 5.567 | 5.567 |
| 11 | 6.587 | 6.587 | 6.587 |
| 12 | 4.872 | 4.872 | 4.872 |
| 13 | 6.606 | 6.350 | 6.350 |
| 14 | 5.876 | 5.876 | 5.876 |
| 15 | 4.469 | 4.469 | 4.469 |
| 16 | 5.524 | 5.310 | 5.310 |
| 17 | 4.860 | 4.860 | 4.860 |
| 18 | 4.187 | 4.187 | 4.187 |
| 19 | 4.621 | 4.621 | 4.621 |
| 20 | 4.897 | 4.897 | 4.897 |
| 场景 | 通行距离 / km | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DQN | SQDQN | Dijkstra | |
| 1 | 4.879 | 4.879 | 4.879 |
| 2 | 5.760 | 5.760 | 5.760 |
| 3 | 6.320 | 6.320 | 6.320 |
| 4 | 3.850 | 3.850 | 3.850 |
| 5 | 4.329 | 4.329 | 4.329 |
| 6 | 6.783 | 6.415 | 6.415 |
| 7 | 3.987 | 3.987 | 3.987 |
| 8 | 5.310 | 5.310 | 5.310 |
| 9 | 4.982 | 4.982 | 4.982 |
| 10 | 5.567 | 5.567 | 5.567 |
| 11 | 6.587 | 6.587 | 6.587 |
| 12 | 4.872 | 4.872 | 4.872 |
| 13 | 6.606 | 6.350 | 6.350 |
| 14 | 5.876 | 5.876 | 5.876 |
| 15 | 4.469 | 4.469 | 4.469 |
| 16 | 5.524 | 5.310 | 5.310 |
| 17 | 4.860 | 4.860 | 4.860 |
| 18 | 4.187 | 4.187 | 4.187 |
| 19 | 4.621 | 4.621 | 4.621 |
| 20 | 4.897 | 4.897 | 4.897 |
| 场景 | 通行距离 / km | 平均Q值 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DQN | SQDQN | Dijkstra | DQN | SQDQN | ||
| 1 | 4.962 | 4.962 | 4.879 | 17.09 | 15.59 | |
| 2 | 5.837 | 5.837 | 5.760 | 18.68 | 15.30 | |
| 3 | 6.423 | 6.423 | 6.320 | 17.40 | 15.67 | |
| 4 | 3.933 | 3.933 | 3.850 | 16.96 | 15.15 | |
| 5 | 4.419 | 4.419 | 4.329 | 17.96 | 15.06 | |
| 6 | 5.420 | 5.420 | 4.469 | 20.79 | 18.03 | |
| 7 | 4.072 | 4.072 | 3.987 | 16.45 | 15.54 | |
| 8 | 5.403 | 5.403 | 5.310 | 18.50 | 15.71 | |
| 9 | 5.651 | 5.387 | 5.310 | 22.85 | 15.48 | |
| 10 | 5.657 | 5.657 | 5.567 | 18.83 | 16.00 | |
| 11 | 6.673 | 6.673 | 6.587 | 17.14 | 15.79 | |
| 12 | 4.965 | 4.965 | 4.872 | 18.61 | 15.49 | |
| 13 | 6.705 | 6.420 | 6.350 | 21.97 | 16.12 | |
| 14 | 5.978 | 5.978 | 5.876 | 18.98 | 16.01 | |
| 15 | 6.903 | 6.492 | 6.415 | 20.24 | 15.58 | |
| 16 | 5.074 | 5.074 | 4.982 | 17.49 | 15.18 | |
| 17 | 4.952 | 4.952 | 4.860 | 18.26 | 15.39 | |
| 18 | 4.320 | 4.320 | 4.187 | 17.53 | 15.69 | |
| 19 | 4.701 | 4.701 | 4.621 | 18.14 | 15.38 | |
| 20 | 5.008 | 5.008 | 4.897 | 17.50 | 14.92 | |
| 场景 | 通行距离 / km | 平均Q值 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DQN | SQDQN | Dijkstra | DQN | SQDQN | ||
| 1 | 4.962 | 4.962 | 4.879 | 17.09 | 15.59 | |
| 2 | 5.837 | 5.837 | 5.760 | 18.68 | 15.30 | |
| 3 | 6.423 | 6.423 | 6.320 | 17.40 | 15.67 | |
| 4 | 3.933 | 3.933 | 3.850 | 16.96 | 15.15 | |
| 5 | 4.419 | 4.419 | 4.329 | 17.96 | 15.06 | |
| 6 | 5.420 | 5.420 | 4.469 | 20.79 | 18.03 | |
| 7 | 4.072 | 4.072 | 3.987 | 16.45 | 15.54 | |
| 8 | 5.403 | 5.403 | 5.310 | 18.50 | 15.71 | |
| 9 | 5.651 | 5.387 | 5.310 | 22.85 | 15.48 | |
| 10 | 5.657 | 5.657 | 5.567 | 18.83 | 16.00 | |
| 11 | 6.673 | 6.673 | 6.587 | 17.14 | 15.79 | |
| 12 | 4.965 | 4.965 | 4.872 | 18.61 | 15.49 | |
| 13 | 6.705 | 6.420 | 6.350 | 21.97 | 16.12 | |
| 14 | 5.978 | 5.978 | 5.876 | 18.98 | 16.01 | |
| 15 | 6.903 | 6.492 | 6.415 | 20.24 | 15.58 | |
| 16 | 5.074 | 5.074 | 4.982 | 17.49 | 15.18 | |
| 17 | 4.952 | 4.952 | 4.860 | 18.26 | 15.39 | |
| 18 | 4.320 | 4.320 | 4.187 | 17.53 | 15.69 | |
| 19 | 4.701 | 4.701 | 4.621 | 18.14 | 15.38 | |
| 20 | 5.008 | 5.008 | 4.897 | 17.50 | 14.92 | |
| [1] | Ibarra-Rojas O J, Delgado F. Planning, operation, and control of bus transport systems: a literature review[J]. Transp Res Part B:Methodolog, 2015, 77: 38-75. |
| [2] | KE Li, RAO Xuan, PANG Xiaobing, et al. Route Search and Planning: a survey[J]. Big Data Res, 2021, 26: 1-11. |
| [3] |
Dudeja C, Kumar P. An improved weighted sum-fuzzy Dijkstra’s algorithm for shortest path problem[J]. Soft Comput, 2022, 26(7): 3217-3226.
doi: 10.1007/s00500-022-06871-w |
| [4] |
Senbiswas R, Pal A, Werho T, et al. A graph theoretic approach to power system vulnerability identification[J]. IEEE Trans Power Syst, 2021, 36(2): 923-935.
doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.59 URL |
| [5] |
CHEN Yijing. Application of Improved dijkstra algorithm in coastal tourism route planning[J]. J Coastal Res, 2020, 106: 251-254.
doi: 10.2112/SI106-059.1 URL |
| [6] | XU Minghua, Liu Yuqing, HUANG Qilin, et al. An improved dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm for sparse network[J]. Appl Math Compu, 2007, 185(1): 247-254. |
| [7] | ZHANG Yan, LI Lingling, LIN Xiongzheng, et al. Development of path planning approach using improved a-star algorithm in agv system[J]. J Internet Tech, 2019, 20(3): 915-924. |
| [8] | 杜茂, 杨林. 基于交通时空特征的车辆全局路径规划算法[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2021, 12(1): 52-61. |
| DU Mao, YANG Lin. Vehicle global path planning algorithm based on traffic space-time characteristics[J]. J Auto Safe Energ, 2021, 12(1): 52-61. (in Chinese) | |
| [9] |
SONG Rui, LIU Yuanchang, Bucknall R. Smoothed A* algorithm for practical unmanned surface vehicle path planning[J]. Appl Ocean Res, 2019, 83: 9-20.
doi: 10.1016/j.apor.2018.12.001 URL |
| [10] | Pereira F, Brasil P, Cuadros M, et al. Analysis of local trajectory planners for mobile robot with robot operating system[J]. IEEE Latin Ame Trans, 2022, 20(1): 92-99. |
| [11] | QIAN Xiaohui, ZHONG Xiaopeng. Optimal individualized multimedia tourism route planning based on ant colony algorithms and large data hidden mining[J]. Multimed Tools, 2019, 78(15): 22099-22108. |
| [12] | LI Changgeng, HUANG Xia, DING Jun, et al. Global path planning based on a bidirectional alternating search A* algorithm for mobile robots[J]. Compu Indu Eng, 2022, 168: 1-17. |
| [13] | 张瑞鑫, 王伟, 田泽, 等. 基于模型约束A*算法的无人机三维航迹规划[J]. 国外电子测量技术, 2022, 41(9): 163-169. |
| ZHANG Ruixin, WANG Wei, TIAN Ze, et al. Three dimensional path planning of uav based on model constrained A * algorithm[J]. Fore Electro Meas Tech, 2022, 41(9): 163-169. (in Chinese) | |
| [14] | JIANG Chunyan, Fu Jingfang, LIU Weiyan. Research on vehicle routing planning based on adaptive ant colony and particle swarm optimization algorithm[J]. Int’l J Intell Transp Syst Res, 2021, 19(1): 83-91. |
| [15] | 肖金壮, 余雪乐, 周刚, 等. 一种面向室内AGV路径规划的改进蚁群算法[J]. 仪器仪表学报, 2022, 43(3): 277-285. |
| XIAO Jinzhuang, YU Xuele, ZHOU Gang, et al. An improved ant colony algorithm for indoor agv path planning[J]. J Instru, 2022, 43(3): 277-285. (in Chinese) | |
| [16] | 杨立炜, 付丽霞, 王倩, 等. 多层优化蚁群算法的移动机器人路径规划研究[J]. 电子测量与仪器学报, 2021, 35(9): 10-18. |
| YANG Liwei, FU Lixia, WANG Qian, et al. Research on path planning of mobile robot based on multi-level optimization ant colony algorithm[J]. J Electro Meas Instr, 2021, 35(9): 10-18. (in Chinese) | |
| [17] | LI Xiaojing, YU Dongman. Study on an optimal path planning for a robot based on an improved ant colony algorithm[J]. Automatic Contr Compu Sci, 2019, 53(3): 236-243. |
| [18] | LOU Ping, XU Kun, JIANG Xuemei, et al. Path planning in an unknown environment based on deep reinforcement learning with prior knowledge[J]. J Intell Fuzzy Syst, 2021, 41(6): 5773-5789. |
| [19] | PAN Jie, WANG Xuesong, CHENG Yuhu, et al. Multisource transfer double dqn based on actor learning[J]. IEEE Trans Neur Networks Learn Syst, 2018 29(6): 2227-2238. |
| [20] | 李文礼, 张友松. 基于深度强化学习的车辆自主避撞决策控制模型[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2021, 12(2): 201-209. |
| LI Wenli, ZHANG Yousong. Vehicle autonomous collision avoidance decision control model based on deep reinforcement learning[J]. J Auto Safe Energy 2021, 12(2): 201-209. (in Chinese) | |
| [21] |
LI Jianxin, CHEN Yiting, ZHAO Xiuniao, et al. An improved DQN path planning algorithm[J]. J Supercomput, 2022, 78(1): 616-639.
doi: 10.1007/s11227-021-03878-2 |
| [22] |
PENG Ningyezi, XI Yuliang, RAO Jinmeng. Urban multiple route planning model using dynamic programming in reinforcement learning[J]. IEEE Trans Intel Transp Syst, 2021, 23(7): 8037-8047.
doi: 10.1109/TITS.2021.3075221 URL |
| [23] | Watkins C J C H. Learning from delayed rewards[D]. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1989. |
| [24] | Van Hasselt H. Double Q¬learning[C]// 23rd Adv Neur Info Proc Syst (NeurIPS). Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, 2010: 1-19. |
| [25] | Martin M L, Carro B, Esguevillas A. Application of deep reinforcement learning to intrusion detection for supervised problems[J]. Expert Syst Appl, 2020, 141: 1-15. |
| [26] | 黄琰, 张锦. 基于深度强化学习的车辆路径问题求解方法[J]. 交通运输工程与信息学报, 2022, 20(3): 114-127. |
| HUANG Yan, ZHANG Jin. Vehicle routing problem solving method based on deep reinforce-ment learning[J]. J Transp Eng Info, 2022, 20(3): 114-127. (in Chinese) |
| [1] | 王越, 段宏伟, 钟薇, 杨路, 何雷, 柴福来, 石晓杨. 融合GoT-SAC的领航—跟随式多车编队路径规划方法[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2026, 17(1): 122-129. |
| [2] | 杨宗儒, 胡韫泽, 刘士琪, 关阳, 吴伟, 刘畅. 停车占位状态估计的分布式主动感知的路径规划[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2026, 17(1): 140-148. |
| [3] | 张炳力, 张智森, 张羊阳, 刘安, 许永华. 基于GA优化与路径扩展启发式采样的BI-RRT*路径规划方法[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2025, 16(6): 923-933. |
| [4] | 程泽阳, 段奕阳, 杨蒙蒙, 冯忠祥, 王鹤, 朱晓俊, 保丽霞. 基于混合神经网络的交织区危险驾驶与风格的识别[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2025, 16(5): 688-697. |
| [5] | 彭千龙, 金别树, 王建强, 王广玮. 考虑车道约束的骨架引导分层自主代客泊车路径规划方法[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2025, 16(5): 784-792. |
| [6] | 李舜酩, 王昌荣, 史文贝. 光储充移动式充电机器人研发综述[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2025, 16(4): 505-520. |
| [7] | 陈晓峰, 王兰文, 马果, 张垒, 鲍家定, 景晖. 考虑能耗及稳定性的无人驾驶车辆越野环境路径规划[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2025, 16(3): 496-503. |
| [8] | 匡兴红, 沈佳成. 改进北方苍鹰算法及其在智能汽车路径规划中的应用[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2025, 16(1): 148-158. |
| [9] | 秦雅琴, 董帅, 谢济铭, 陈亮, 刘拥华, 郭淼. 基于行车风险场的高速公路交织区车辆轨迹预测方法[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2024, 15(6): 952-961. |
| [10] | 刘洋, 占佳豪, 李深, 李小鹏, 陈峻. 自动驾驶技术的未来:单车智能和智能车路协同[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2024, 15(5): 611-633. |
| [11] | 黄郑, 王红星, 杜彪, 高嵩, 高峰. 基于固定机巢的输变配无人机智能巡检方法[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2024, 15(5): 670-679. |
| [12] | 石丽英, 周国峰, 李泽星, 曹莉凌. 基于3DSSD的差异路口自适应联邦学习算法[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2024, 15(5): 732-741. |
| [13] | 黄晨, 贾丁鹏, 孙晓强, 许庆. 基于周边车辆轨迹预测的智能汽车路径规划[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2024, 15(5): 753-762. |
| [14] | 李玉龙, 谢辉, 宋康. 无人驾驶公交车基于循迹误差观测和目标测量误差观测的避障路径规划算法[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2024, 15(4): 579-590. |
| [15] | 孟庆京, 司俊德, 张新钰, 孙弘麟, 王小宇, 荣松松. 基于图搜索的陆空两栖平台3D路径规划算法[J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2024, 15(2): 253-260. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||