Andrew Cinar

dblp:357/1822 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Systems, architecture and hardware · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Mathematical optimization · 77% Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 23%
Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Motion planning and robot control · 56% Autonomous driving · 44%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Mathematical optimization
bilevel optimization
1.722025
Polyhedral Collision Detection via Vertex Enumeration · ICRA 2025
Does Bilevel Optimization Result in More Competitive Racing Behavior? · ICRA 2025
Robotics › Autonomous driving › autonomous ground vehicle
autonomous racing
0.912025
Does Bilevel Optimization Result in More Competitive Racing Behavior? · ICRA 2025
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
collision detection
0.912025
Polyhedral Collision Detection via Vertex Enumeration · ICRA 2025
Mathematical optimization › continuous optimization
convex optimization
0.912025
Polyhedral Collision Detection via Vertex Enumeration · ICRA 2025
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
equilibrium computation
0.912025
Does Bilevel Optimization Result in More Competitive Racing Behavior? · ICRA 2025
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
collision avoidance
0.312025
Does Bilevel Optimization Result in More Competitive Racing Behavior? · ICRA 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

vertex enumeration · 1.7nash equilibrium · 1.7leader-follower game · 1.7convex optimization · 1.7bilevel optimization · 1.7bi-level optimization · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Does Bilevel Optimization Result in More Competitive Racing Behavior?
abstract
Two-vehicle racing is natural example of a competitive dynamic game. As with most dynamic games, there are many ways in which the underlying solution concept can be structured, resulting in different equilibrium concepts. The assumed solution concept influences the behaviors of two interacting players in racing. For example, blocking behavior emerges naturally in leader-follower play, but to achieve this in Nash play the costs would have to be chosen specifically to trigger this behavior. In this work, we develop a novel model for competitive two-player vehicle racing, represented as an equilibrium problem, complete with simplified aerodynamic drag and drafting effects, as well as position-dependent collisionavoidance responsibility. We use our model to explore how different solution concepts affect competitiveness. We develop a solution for bilevel optimization problems, enabling a largescale empirical study comparing bilevel strategies (either as leader or follower), Nash equilibrium strategy and a singleplayer constant velocity baseline. We find the choice of strategies significantly affects competitive performance and safety.
Andrew Cinar, Forrest Laine
ICRA1
2025 Polyhedral Collision Detection via Vertex Enumeration
abstract
Collision detection is a critical functionality for robotics. The degree to which objects collide cannot be represented as a continuously differentiable function for any shapes other than spheres. This paper proposes a framework for handling collision detection between polyhedral shapes. We frame the signed distance between two polyhedral bodies as the optimal value of a convex optimization, and consider constraining the signed distance in a bilevel optimization problem. To avoid relying on specialized bilevel solvers, our method exploits the fact that the signed distance is the minimal point of a convex region related to the two bodies. Our method enumerates the values obtained at all extreme points of this region and lists them as constraints in the higher-level problem. We compare our formulation to existing methods in terms of reliability and speed when solved using the same mixed complementarity problem solver. We demonstrate that our approach more reliably solves difficult collision detection problems with multiple obstacles than other methods, and is faster than existing methods in some cases.
Andrew Cinar, Forrest Laine
ICRA1