Vehicle Collision Avoidance Planning in Constricted Passing Areas

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current prediction techniques for autonomous vehicles fail to adapt to space constrictions in environments, leading to the inability of vehicles to pass each other without colliding.

Innovation Solution

A collision avoidance algorithm that utilizes geometric and machine learning models to predict collision probabilities and adjust vehicle trajectories by simulating 'stepping backward' and 'stepping forward' to avoid collisions, allowing the vehicle to slow down or stop without requiring lane changes.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If current prediction techniques are used, then computational simplicity is maintained, but the ability to adapt to space constrictions and avoid collisions is insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecollision avoidance capabilityVSAvoidprediction technique complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The prediction technique is segmented into multiple independent trajectory hypotheses, each representing a possible future state of the other vehicle. This allows the system to evaluate multiple scenarios separately and combine results, improving collision detection reliability while maintaining computational manageability through modular processing

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary prediction of multiple trajectories before making final collision determination. By pre-calculating possible paths and their intersection probabilities, the system prepares collision avoidance decisions in advance, improving response reliability without requiring complex real-time computation during critical moments

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Reliability

If the vehicle slows down or stops to avoid collision, then safety is improved, but traffic flow efficiency deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesafety outcomeVSAvoidtraffic flow efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts vehicle trajectory based on real-time collision probability assessments. Rather than static slow-down protocols, the vehicle continuously adapts its path using predicted trajectories of other vehicles, improving safety outcomes while minimizing unnecessary stops that would reduce traffic flow efficiency

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes key trajectory parameters (position, velocity, acceleration) based on predicted intersections with other vehicles. By adjusting these parameters dynamically according to collision risk assessment, the system achieves safer outcomes while maintaining optimal traffic flow through precise, minimal interventions rather than blanket speed reductions

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Measurement precision

If geometric models and machine learning models are used together, then collision prediction accuracy is improved, but computational complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecollision probability prediction accuracyVSAvoidmodel processing requirements
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The computational system is segmented into distinct geometric modeling and machine learning components that operate independently. The geometric model handles trajectory intersection calculations while the machine learning model predicts other vehicle behavior patterns. This segmentation improves prediction accuracy through specialized processing while managing complexity by avoiding integrated monolithic architecture

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses predicted trajectories as an intermediary between geometric collision detection and machine learning behavior prediction. This intermediary layer allows both models to contribute to collision probability assessment without requiring direct complex interaction between them, improving overall prediction accuracy while maintaining manageable computational complexity through modular information flow

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentEP4237300B1Collision avoidance planning system
Publication Date: 2025.12.31 ZOOX INC
  • EP4237300B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4237300B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4237300B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Techniques for controlling a vehicle based on a collision avoidance algorithm are discussed herein. The vehicle receives sensor data and can determine that the sensor data represents an object in an environment through which the vehicle is travelling. A computing device associated with the vehicle determines a collision probability between the vehicle and the object at predicted locations of the vehicle and object at a first time. Updated locations of the vehicle and object can be determined, and a second collision probability can be determined. The vehicle is controlled based at least in part on the collision probabilities.