arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2306.09462

Motion Comfort Optimization for Autonomous Vehicles: Concepts, Methods, and Techniques

Mohammed Aledhari·Mohamed Rahouti·Junaid Qadir·Basheer Qolomany·Mohsen Guizani·Ala Al-Fuqaha
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article outlines the architecture of autonomous driving and related complementary frameworks from the perspective of human comfort. The technical elements for measuring Autonomous Vehicle (AV) user comfort and psychoanalysis are listed here. At the same time, this article introduces the technology related to the structure of automatic driving and the reaction time of automatic driving. We also discuss the technical details related to the automatic driving comfort system, the response time of the AV driver, the comfort level of the AV, motion sickness, and related optimization technologies. The function of the sensor is affected by various factors. Since the sensor of automatic driving mainly senses the environment around a vehicle, including "the weather" which introduces the challenges and limitations of second-hand sensors in autonomous vehicles under different weather conditions. The comfort and safety of autonomous driving are also factors that affect the development of autonomous driving technologies. This article further analyzes the impact of autonomous driving on the user's physical and psychological states and how the comfort factors of autonomous vehicles affect the automotive market. Also, part of our focus is on the benefits and shortcomings of autonomous driving. The goal is to present an exhaustive overview of the most relevant technical matters to help researchers and application developers comprehend the different comfort factors and systems of autonomous driving. Finally, we provide detailed automated driving comfort use cases to illustrate the comfort-related issues of autonomous driving. Then, we provide implications and insights for the future of autonomous driving.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.AIcs.CVcs.LG

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Mohammed Aledhari, Mohamed Rahouti, Junaid Qadir, Basheer Qolomany, Mohsen Guizani, Ala Al-Fuqaha. 2023-06-15. Motion Comfort Optimization for Autonomous Vehicles: Concepts, Methods, and Techniques. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.09462

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗