O. Siebinga
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
13 records found
1
Conference paper
(2026)
-
Wilbert Tabone, Benedetta Lusi, Alessandro Ianniello, J. Micah Prendergast, Deborah Forster, Olger Siebinga, Dave Murray-Rust, Marco C. Rozendaal, David Abbink, More Authors
Building on two previous workshops on transdisciplinary practices for shaping worker-robot relations, this half-day workshop introduces participants to worldbuilding, a design-driven technique used to co-create and explore richly detailed futures, as a way to empower workers and scholars in reimagining plausible and preferable future worker-robot relations (WRRs). WRRs describe the interactions, collaborations, and shared practices between workers and robotic systems in organisational contexts. The workshop begins with an introduction to WRRs, and a keynote by a worldbuilding expert that will outline the method and its value for envisioning future WRRs. Groups of workshop participants will then investigate concrete case studies that demonstrate how robotic systems can support workers in their practice, with a focus on enhancing wellbeing. Through interactive activities in this workshop, participants will co-create imagined worlds of work, which will be analyzed systemically across multiple levels of complexity, from the individual worker and their immediate context to broader societal implications. The workshop ultimately aims to build a community committed to shaping sustainable futures of robot-assisted work.
...
Building on two previous workshops on transdisciplinary practices for shaping worker-robot relations, this half-day workshop introduces participants to worldbuilding, a design-driven technique used to co-create and explore richly detailed futures, as a way to empower workers and scholars in reimagining plausible and preferable future worker-robot relations (WRRs). WRRs describe the interactions, collaborations, and shared practices between workers and robotic systems in organisational contexts. The workshop begins with an introduction to WRRs, and a keynote by a worldbuilding expert that will outline the method and its value for envisioning future WRRs. Groups of workshop participants will then investigate concrete case studies that demonstrate how robotic systems can support workers in their practice, with a focus on enhancing wellbeing. Through interactive activities in this workshop, participants will co-create imagined worlds of work, which will be analyzed systemically across multiple levels of complexity, from the individual worker and their immediate context to broader societal implications. The workshop ultimately aims to build a community committed to shaping sustainable futures of robot-assisted work.
Understanding how human drivers handle inter-actions with each other can aid the development of automated vehicles capable of operating in mixed traffic. Interactions between human drivers are often complex, so driver behavior models are needed to better understand them. However, existing models mostly focus on the behavior of one driver, which limits their ability to explain complex reciprocal interactions between multiple drivers. At the same time, the prior research that does focus on interactive behaviors of two or more drivers is typically limited to describing drivers' tactical decisions, limiting the understanding of how these decisions are related to operational aspects of behavior (safety margins and control inputs). In this work, we address this gap, focusing specif-ically on highway merging interactions. We build upon the Communication-Enabled Interactions (CEI) framework - a previously proposed holistic approach to interaction modeling. We develop a CEI-based model of highway merging that captures both tactical and operational aspects of the behavior of two drivers interacting in a highway merging scenario. Our model exhibits human-like behavior aligned with empirical observations of high-level decisions (i.e., who goes first?), safety margins (headways), and position and velocity profiles. Based on our model, we identify key mechanisms regarding drivers' beliefs, velocity perception, and planning, which can potentially generalize beyond highway merging to other interactive human driving behaviors. Our findings highlight the potential of the CEI framework in modeling reciprocal traffic interactions in realistic traffic scenarios, and contribute to understanding the complexities of interactions between human drivers.
...
Understanding how human drivers handle inter-actions with each other can aid the development of automated vehicles capable of operating in mixed traffic. Interactions between human drivers are often complex, so driver behavior models are needed to better understand them. However, existing models mostly focus on the behavior of one driver, which limits their ability to explain complex reciprocal interactions between multiple drivers. At the same time, the prior research that does focus on interactive behaviors of two or more drivers is typically limited to describing drivers' tactical decisions, limiting the understanding of how these decisions are related to operational aspects of behavior (safety margins and control inputs). In this work, we address this gap, focusing specif-ically on highway merging interactions. We build upon the Communication-Enabled Interactions (CEI) framework - a previously proposed holistic approach to interaction modeling. We develop a CEI-based model of highway merging that captures both tactical and operational aspects of the behavior of two drivers interacting in a highway merging scenario. Our model exhibits human-like behavior aligned with empirical observations of high-level decisions (i.e., who goes first?), safety margins (headways), and position and velocity profiles. Based on our model, we identify key mechanisms regarding drivers' beliefs, velocity perception, and planning, which can potentially generalize beyond highway merging to other interactive human driving behaviors. Our findings highlight the potential of the CEI framework in modeling reciprocal traffic interactions in realistic traffic scenarios, and contribute to understanding the complexities of interactions between human drivers.
When two pedestrians approach each other on the sidewalk head-on, they sometimes engage in an awkward interaction, both deviating to the same side (repeatedly) to avoid a collision. This phenomenon is known as the sidewalk salsa. Although well known, no existing model describes how this "dance" arises. Such a model must capture the nuances of individual interactions between pedestrians that lead to the sidewalk salsa. Therefore, it could be helpful in the development of mobile robots that frequently participate in such individual interactions, for example, by informing robots in their decision-making. Here, I present a model based on the communication-enabled interaction framework capable of reproducing the sidewalk salsa. The model assumes pedestrians have a deterministic plan for their future movements and a probabilistic belief about the movements of another pedestrian. Combined, the plan and belief result in a perceived risk that pedestrians try to keep below a personal threshold. In simulations of this model, the sidewalk salsa occurs in a symmetrical scenario. At the same time, it shows behavior comparable to observed real-world pedestrian behavior in scenarios with initial position offsets or risk threshold differences. Two other scenarios provide support for a hypothesis from literature stating that cultural norms –in the form of a biased belief about on which side others will pass (i.e. deviating to the left or right)– contribute to the occurrence of the sidewalk salsa. Thereby, the proposed model provides insight into how the sidewalk salsa arises.
...
When two pedestrians approach each other on the sidewalk head-on, they sometimes engage in an awkward interaction, both deviating to the same side (repeatedly) to avoid a collision. This phenomenon is known as the sidewalk salsa. Although well known, no existing model describes how this "dance" arises. Such a model must capture the nuances of individual interactions between pedestrians that lead to the sidewalk salsa. Therefore, it could be helpful in the development of mobile robots that frequently participate in such individual interactions, for example, by informing robots in their decision-making. Here, I present a model based on the communication-enabled interaction framework capable of reproducing the sidewalk salsa. The model assumes pedestrians have a deterministic plan for their future movements and a probabilistic belief about the movements of another pedestrian. Combined, the plan and belief result in a perceived risk that pedestrians try to keep below a personal threshold. In simulations of this model, the sidewalk salsa occurs in a symmetrical scenario. At the same time, it shows behavior comparable to observed real-world pedestrian behavior in scenarios with initial position offsets or risk threshold differences. Two other scenarios provide support for a hypothesis from literature stating that cultural norms –in the form of a biased belief about on which side others will pass (i.e. deviating to the left or right)– contribute to the occurrence of the sidewalk salsa. Thereby, the proposed model provides insight into how the sidewalk salsa arises.
Journal article
(2024)
-
N. Mol, A. Ianniello, O. Siebinga, M.C. Rozendaal, E.S. Verhoef, J.M. Prendergast, L. Peternel, David Abbink
Dit artikel beschrijft de vorderingen in het Brightsky-project, waarin de potentie voor robotondersteuning wordt onderzocht, met en voor vakmensen bij KLM Engine Services die daar reparatiewerk uitvoeren. Door de samenwerking met vakmensen centraal te stellen, wordt er onderzocht hoe robotondersteuning niet alleen fysiek werk kan verlichten, maar ook kan bijdragen aan een betekenisvolle werkervaring. Hiermee wordt gepoogd een brug te slaan tussen de focus van human factors zoals we die kennen als discipline, en een meer holistische benadering die diepe kennis van vakmensen, innovatie-experts, robotici, ontwerpers, psychologen en organisatiewetenschappers aanwendt.
...
Dit artikel beschrijft de vorderingen in het Brightsky-project, waarin de potentie voor robotondersteuning wordt onderzocht, met en voor vakmensen bij KLM Engine Services die daar reparatiewerk uitvoeren. Door de samenwerking met vakmensen centraal te stellen, wordt er onderzocht hoe robotondersteuning niet alleen fysiek werk kan verlichten, maar ook kan bijdragen aan een betekenisvolle werkervaring. Hiermee wordt gepoogd een brug te slaan tussen de focus van human factors zoals we die kennen als discipline, en een meer holistische benadering die diepe kennis van vakmensen, innovatie-experts, robotici, ontwerpers, psychologen en organisatiewetenschappers aanwendt.
Journal article
(2024)
-
T. Driessen, O. Siebinga, T.A.B. de Boer, D. Dodou, Dick de Waard, J.C.F. de Winter
This paper proposes a novel approach to measuring human driving performance by using the AI capabilities of automated driving systems, illustrated through three example scenarios. Traditionally, the assessment of human driving has followed a bottom-up methodology, where raw data are compared to fixed thresholds, yielding indicators such as the number of hard braking events. However, acceleration threshold exceedances are often heavily influenced by the driving context. We propose a top-down context-aware approach to driving assessments, in which recordings of human-driven vehicles are analyzed by an automated driving system. By comparing the human driver’s speed to the AI’s recommended speed, we derive a level of disagreement that can be used to distinguish between hard braking caused by aggressive driving and emergency braking in response to a critical event. The proposed method may serve as an alternative to the metrics currently used by some insurance companies and may serve as a template for future AI-based driver assessment.
...
This paper proposes a novel approach to measuring human driving performance by using the AI capabilities of automated driving systems, illustrated through three example scenarios. Traditionally, the assessment of human driving has followed a bottom-up methodology, where raw data are compared to fixed thresholds, yielding indicators such as the number of hard braking events. However, acceleration threshold exceedances are often heavily influenced by the driving context. We propose a top-down context-aware approach to driving assessments, in which recordings of human-driven vehicles are analyzed by an automated driving system. By comparing the human driver’s speed to the AI’s recommended speed, we derive a level of disagreement that can be used to distinguish between hard braking caused by aggressive driving and emergency braking in response to a critical event. The proposed method may serve as an alternative to the metrics currently used by some insurance companies and may serve as a template for future AI-based driver assessment.
Safe and socially acceptable interactions with human-driven vehicles are a major challenge in automated driving. A good understanding of the underlying principles of such traffic interactions could help address this challenge. Particularly, accurate driver models could be used to inform automated vehicles in interactions. These interactions entail complex dynamic joint behaviors composed of individual driver contributions in terms of high-level decisions, safety margins, and low-level control inputs. Existing driver models typically focus on one of these aspects, limiting our understanding of the underlying principles of traffic interactions. Here, we present a Communication-Enabled Interaction model based on risk perception, that does not assume humans are rational and explicitly accounts for communication between drivers. Our model can explain and reproduce observed human interactions in a simplified merging scenario on all three levels. Thereby improving our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of human traffic interactions and posing a step towards interaction-aware automated driving.
...
Safe and socially acceptable interactions with human-driven vehicles are a major challenge in automated driving. A good understanding of the underlying principles of such traffic interactions could help address this challenge. Particularly, accurate driver models could be used to inform automated vehicles in interactions. These interactions entail complex dynamic joint behaviors composed of individual driver contributions in terms of high-level decisions, safety margins, and low-level control inputs. Existing driver models typically focus on one of these aspects, limiting our understanding of the underlying principles of traffic interactions. Here, we present a Communication-Enabled Interaction model based on risk perception, that does not assume humans are rational and explicitly accounts for communication between drivers. Our model can explain and reproduce observed human interactions in a simplified merging scenario on all three levels. Thereby improving our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of human traffic interactions and posing a step towards interaction-aware automated driving.
Communication-Enabled Interactions in Highway Traffic
A joint driver model for merging
Automated driving technologies offer significant societal benefits but face challenges, particularly in interactions between automated and human-driven vehicles during lane changes and merging on highways. This thesis addresses this issue by focusing on joint driver efforts and proposes a new Communication-Enabled Interaction (CEI) model framework.
Human drivers communicate intent through vehicle kinematics during interactions, making joint decisions and exhibiting joint behaviors. However, current autonomous vehicle (AV) models often lack generalization to real-world behaviors and fail to capture dynamic interactions. AVs typically use models assuming human drivers only respond to AV behavior, leading to over-conservative and sometimes awkward interactions.
To enhance AV-human interactions, the thesis proposes a joint driver model that considers multi-level contributions of drivers. It critiques existing models, highlighting their limitations in capturing dynamic interactions. For instance, many models only consider single drivers and fail to address communication and continuous behavioral adaptation.
The CEI model framework explicitly accounts for driver communication and integrates deterministic future plans with probabilistic beliefs. This framework acknowledges that humans do not continuously optimize behavior but seek satisfactory solutions. The thesis presents a case study where the CEI model accurately describes merging scenarios, generating human-like gap-keeping behavior.
Further, the thesis explores naturalistic driving behaviors using the HighD dataset and develops visualization tools to validate driver models. It extracts and analyzes similar driving scenarios to understand variability in human responses, both operationally and tactically. Controlled experiments in simulators examine driver behaviors during merging conflicts, revealing insights into acceleration control and conflict resolution.
The empirical findings inspire improvements to the CEI model, incorporating intermittent piecewise-constant control observed in human drivers. This updated model accurately reproduces joint driver behaviors and outcomes from experimental scenarios, emphasizing the importance of individual contributions to joint safety margins.
In conclusion, the thesis contributes valuable insights into human lane-changing and merging interactions, proposing a robust model framework for AVs to understand and emulate human driver behaviors. While the study focuses on simplified scenarios, it lays the groundwork for extending the model to more complex real-world situations. The work represents a significant step toward enhancing autonomous vehicles' ability to interact safely and effectively with human drivers on the road. ...
Human drivers communicate intent through vehicle kinematics during interactions, making joint decisions and exhibiting joint behaviors. However, current autonomous vehicle (AV) models often lack generalization to real-world behaviors and fail to capture dynamic interactions. AVs typically use models assuming human drivers only respond to AV behavior, leading to over-conservative and sometimes awkward interactions.
To enhance AV-human interactions, the thesis proposes a joint driver model that considers multi-level contributions of drivers. It critiques existing models, highlighting their limitations in capturing dynamic interactions. For instance, many models only consider single drivers and fail to address communication and continuous behavioral adaptation.
The CEI model framework explicitly accounts for driver communication and integrates deterministic future plans with probabilistic beliefs. This framework acknowledges that humans do not continuously optimize behavior but seek satisfactory solutions. The thesis presents a case study where the CEI model accurately describes merging scenarios, generating human-like gap-keeping behavior.
Further, the thesis explores naturalistic driving behaviors using the HighD dataset and develops visualization tools to validate driver models. It extracts and analyzes similar driving scenarios to understand variability in human responses, both operationally and tactically. Controlled experiments in simulators examine driver behaviors during merging conflicts, revealing insights into acceleration control and conflict resolution.
The empirical findings inspire improvements to the CEI model, incorporating intermittent piecewise-constant control observed in human drivers. This updated model accurately reproduces joint driver behaviors and outcomes from experimental scenarios, emphasizing the importance of individual contributions to joint safety margins.
In conclusion, the thesis contributes valuable insights into human lane-changing and merging interactions, proposing a robust model framework for AVs to understand and emulate human driver behaviors. While the study focuses on simplified scenarios, it lays the groundwork for extending the model to more complex real-world situations. The work represents a significant step toward enhancing autonomous vehicles' ability to interact safely and effectively with human drivers on the road. ...
Automated driving technologies offer significant societal benefits but face challenges, particularly in interactions between automated and human-driven vehicles during lane changes and merging on highways. This thesis addresses this issue by focusing on joint driver efforts and proposes a new Communication-Enabled Interaction (CEI) model framework.
Human drivers communicate intent through vehicle kinematics during interactions, making joint decisions and exhibiting joint behaviors. However, current autonomous vehicle (AV) models often lack generalization to real-world behaviors and fail to capture dynamic interactions. AVs typically use models assuming human drivers only respond to AV behavior, leading to over-conservative and sometimes awkward interactions.
To enhance AV-human interactions, the thesis proposes a joint driver model that considers multi-level contributions of drivers. It critiques existing models, highlighting their limitations in capturing dynamic interactions. For instance, many models only consider single drivers and fail to address communication and continuous behavioral adaptation.
The CEI model framework explicitly accounts for driver communication and integrates deterministic future plans with probabilistic beliefs. This framework acknowledges that humans do not continuously optimize behavior but seek satisfactory solutions. The thesis presents a case study where the CEI model accurately describes merging scenarios, generating human-like gap-keeping behavior.
Further, the thesis explores naturalistic driving behaviors using the HighD dataset and develops visualization tools to validate driver models. It extracts and analyzes similar driving scenarios to understand variability in human responses, both operationally and tactically. Controlled experiments in simulators examine driver behaviors during merging conflicts, revealing insights into acceleration control and conflict resolution.
The empirical findings inspire improvements to the CEI model, incorporating intermittent piecewise-constant control observed in human drivers. This updated model accurately reproduces joint driver behaviors and outcomes from experimental scenarios, emphasizing the importance of individual contributions to joint safety margins.
In conclusion, the thesis contributes valuable insights into human lane-changing and merging interactions, proposing a robust model framework for AVs to understand and emulate human driver behaviors. While the study focuses on simplified scenarios, it lays the groundwork for extending the model to more complex real-world situations. The work represents a significant step toward enhancing autonomous vehicles' ability to interact safely and effectively with human drivers on the road.
Human drivers communicate intent through vehicle kinematics during interactions, making joint decisions and exhibiting joint behaviors. However, current autonomous vehicle (AV) models often lack generalization to real-world behaviors and fail to capture dynamic interactions. AVs typically use models assuming human drivers only respond to AV behavior, leading to over-conservative and sometimes awkward interactions.
To enhance AV-human interactions, the thesis proposes a joint driver model that considers multi-level contributions of drivers. It critiques existing models, highlighting their limitations in capturing dynamic interactions. For instance, many models only consider single drivers and fail to address communication and continuous behavioral adaptation.
The CEI model framework explicitly accounts for driver communication and integrates deterministic future plans with probabilistic beliefs. This framework acknowledges that humans do not continuously optimize behavior but seek satisfactory solutions. The thesis presents a case study where the CEI model accurately describes merging scenarios, generating human-like gap-keeping behavior.
Further, the thesis explores naturalistic driving behaviors using the HighD dataset and develops visualization tools to validate driver models. It extracts and analyzes similar driving scenarios to understand variability in human responses, both operationally and tactically. Controlled experiments in simulators examine driver behaviors during merging conflicts, revealing insights into acceleration control and conflict resolution.
The empirical findings inspire improvements to the CEI model, incorporating intermittent piecewise-constant control observed in human drivers. This updated model accurately reproduces joint driver behaviors and outcomes from experimental scenarios, emphasizing the importance of individual contributions to joint safety margins.
In conclusion, the thesis contributes valuable insights into human lane-changing and merging interactions, proposing a robust model framework for AVs to understand and emulate human driver behaviors. While the study focuses on simplified scenarios, it lays the groundwork for extending the model to more complex real-world situations. The work represents a significant step toward enhancing autonomous vehicles' ability to interact safely and effectively with human drivers on the road.
Human Merging Behavior in a Coupled Driving Simulator
How Do We Resolve Conflicts?
Traffic interactions between merging and highway vehicles are a major topic of research, yielding many empirical studies and models of driver behaviour. Most of these studies on merging use naturalistic data. Although this provides insight into human gap acceptance and traffic flow effects, it obscures the operational inputs of interacting drivers. Besides that, researchers have no control over the vehicle kinematics (i.e., positions and velocities) at the start of the interactions. Therefore the relationship between initial kinematics and the outcome of the interaction is difficult to investigate. To address these gaps, we conducted an experiment in a coupled driving simulator with a simplified, top-down view, merging scenario with two vehicles. We found that kinematics can explain the outcome (i.e., which driver merges first) and the duration of the merging conflict. Furthermore, our results show that drivers use key decision moments combined with constant acceleration inputs (intermittent piecewise-constant control) during merging. This indicates that they do not continuously optimise their expected utility. Therefore, these results advocate the development of interaction models based on intermittent piecewise-constant control. We hope our work can contribute to this development and to the fundamental knowledge of interactive driver behaviour.
...
Traffic interactions between merging and highway vehicles are a major topic of research, yielding many empirical studies and models of driver behaviour. Most of these studies on merging use naturalistic data. Although this provides insight into human gap acceptance and traffic flow effects, it obscures the operational inputs of interacting drivers. Besides that, researchers have no control over the vehicle kinematics (i.e., positions and velocities) at the start of the interactions. Therefore the relationship between initial kinematics and the outcome of the interaction is difficult to investigate. To address these gaps, we conducted an experiment in a coupled driving simulator with a simplified, top-down view, merging scenario with two vehicles. We found that kinematics can explain the outcome (i.e., which driver merges first) and the duration of the merging conflict. Furthermore, our results show that drivers use key decision moments combined with constant acceleration inputs (intermittent piecewise-constant control) during merging. This indicates that they do not continuously optimise their expected utility. Therefore, these results advocate the development of interaction models based on intermittent piecewise-constant control. We hope our work can contribute to this development and to the fundamental knowledge of interactive driver behaviour.
A major challenge for autonomous vehicles is handling interactions with human-driven vehicles—for example, in highway merging. A better understanding and computational modelling of human interactive behaviour could help address this challenge. However, existing modelling approaches predominantly neglect communication between drivers and assume that one modelled driver in the interaction responds to the other, but does not actively influence their behaviour. Here, we argue that addressing these two limitations is crucial for the accurate modelling of interactions. We propose a new computational framework addressing these limitations. Similar to game-theoretic approaches, we model a joint interactive system rather than an isolated driver who only responds to their environment. Contrary to game theory, our framework explicitly incorporates communication between two drivers and bounded rationality in each driver’s behaviours. We demonstrate our model’s potential in a simplified merging scenario of two vehicles, illustrating that it generates plausible interactive behaviour (e.g. aggressive and conservative merging). Furthermore, human-like gap-keeping behaviour emerged in a car-following scenario directly from risk perception without the explicit implementation of time or distance gaps in the model’s decision-making. These results suggest that our framework is a promising approach to interaction modelling that can support the development of interaction-aware autonomous vehicles.
...
A major challenge for autonomous vehicles is handling interactions with human-driven vehicles—for example, in highway merging. A better understanding and computational modelling of human interactive behaviour could help address this challenge. However, existing modelling approaches predominantly neglect communication between drivers and assume that one modelled driver in the interaction responds to the other, but does not actively influence their behaviour. Here, we argue that addressing these two limitations is crucial for the accurate modelling of interactions. We propose a new computational framework addressing these limitations. Similar to game-theoretic approaches, we model a joint interactive system rather than an isolated driver who only responds to their environment. Contrary to game theory, our framework explicitly incorporates communication between two drivers and bounded rationality in each driver’s behaviours. We demonstrate our model’s potential in a simplified merging scenario of two vehicles, illustrating that it generates plausible interactive behaviour (e.g. aggressive and conservative merging). Furthermore, human-like gap-keeping behaviour emerged in a car-following scenario directly from risk perception without the explicit implementation of time or distance gaps in the model’s decision-making. These results suggest that our framework is a promising approach to interaction modelling that can support the development of interaction-aware autonomous vehicles.
Recently, multiple naturalistic traffic datasets of human-driven trajectories have been published (e.g., highD, NGSim, and pNEUMA). These datasets have been used in studies that investigate variability in human driving behavior, for example for scenario-based validation of autonomous vehicle (AV) behavior, modeling driver behavior, or validating driver models. Thus far, these studies focused on the variability on an operational level (e.g., velocity profiles during a lane change), not on a tactical level (i.e., to change lanes or not). Investigating the variability on both levels is necessary to develop driver models and AV s that include multiple tactical behaviors. To expose multi-level variability, the human responses to the same traffic scene could be investigated. However, no method exists to automatically extract similar scenes from datasets. Here, we present a four-step extraction method that uses the Hausdorff distance, a mathematical distance metric for sets. We performed a case study on the highD dataset that showed that the method is practically applicable. The human responses to the selected scenes exposed the variability on both the tactical and operational levels. With this new method, the variability in operational and tactical human behavior can be investigated, without the need for costly and time-consuming driving-simulator experiments.
...
Recently, multiple naturalistic traffic datasets of human-driven trajectories have been published (e.g., highD, NGSim, and pNEUMA). These datasets have been used in studies that investigate variability in human driving behavior, for example for scenario-based validation of autonomous vehicle (AV) behavior, modeling driver behavior, or validating driver models. Thus far, these studies focused on the variability on an operational level (e.g., velocity profiles during a lane change), not on a tactical level (i.e., to change lanes or not). Investigating the variability on both levels is necessary to develop driver models and AV s that include multiple tactical behaviors. To expose multi-level variability, the human responses to the same traffic scene could be investigated. However, no method exists to automatically extract similar scenes from datasets. Here, we present a four-step extraction method that uses the Hausdorff distance, a mathematical distance metric for sets. We performed a case study on the highD dataset that showed that the method is practically applicable. The human responses to the selected scenes exposed the variability on both the tactical and operational levels. With this new method, the variability in operational and tactical human behavior can be investigated, without the need for costly and time-consuming driving-simulator experiments.
A major challenge for autonomous vehicles is interacting with other traffic participants safely and smoothly. A promising approach to handle such traffic interactions is equipping autonomous vehicles with interaction-aware controllers (IACs). These controllers predict how surrounding human drivers will respond to the autonomous vehicle’s actions, based on a driver model. However, the predictive validity of driver models used in IACs is rarely validated, which can limit the interactive capabilities of IACs outside the simple simulated environments in which they are demonstrated. In this paper, we argue that besides evaluating the interactive capabilities of IACs, their underlying driver models should be validated on natural human driving behavior. We propose a workflow for this validation that includes scenario-based data extraction and a two-stage (tactical/operational) evaluation procedure based on human factors literature. We demonstrate this workflow in a case study on an inverse-reinforcement-learning-based driver model replicated from an existing IAC. This model only showed the correct tactical behavior in 40% of the predictions. The model’s operational behavior was inconsistent with observed human behavior. The case study illustrates that a principled evaluation workflow is useful and needed. We believe that our workflow will support the development of appropriate driver models for future automated vehicles.
...
A major challenge for autonomous vehicles is interacting with other traffic participants safely and smoothly. A promising approach to handle such traffic interactions is equipping autonomous vehicles with interaction-aware controllers (IACs). These controllers predict how surrounding human drivers will respond to the autonomous vehicle’s actions, based on a driver model. However, the predictive validity of driver models used in IACs is rarely validated, which can limit the interactive capabilities of IACs outside the simple simulated environments in which they are demonstrated. In this paper, we argue that besides evaluating the interactive capabilities of IACs, their underlying driver models should be validated on natural human driving behavior. We propose a workflow for this validation that includes scenario-based data extraction and a two-stage (tactical/operational) evaluation procedure based on human factors literature. We demonstrate this workflow in a case study on an inverse-reinforcement-learning-based driver model replicated from an existing IAC. This model only showed the correct tactical behavior in 40% of the predictions. The model’s operational behavior was inconsistent with observed human behavior. The case study illustrates that a principled evaluation workflow is useful and needed. We believe that our workflow will support the development of appropriate driver models for future automated vehicles.
Interactive Merging Behavior in a Coupled Driving Simulator
Experimental Framework and Case Study
Human highway-merging behavior is an important aspect when developing autonomous vehicles (AVs) that can safely and successfully interact with other road users. To design safe and acceptable human-AV interactions, the underlying mechanisms in human-human interactive behavior need to be understood. Exposing and understanding these mechanisms can be done using controlled driving simulator experiments. However, until now, such human-factors merging experiments have focused on aspects of the behavior of a single driver (e.g., gap acceptance) instead of on the dynamics of the interaction. Furthermore, existing experimental scenarios and data analysis tools (i.e., concepts like time-to-collision) are insufficient to analyze human-human interactive merging behavior. To help facilitate human-factors research on merging interactions, we propose an experimental framework consisting of a general simplified merging scenario and a set of three analysis tools: (1) a visual representation that captures the combined behavior of two participants and the safety margins they maintain in a single plot; (2) a signal (over time) that describes the level of conflict; and (3) a metric that describes the amount of time that was required to solve the merging conflict, called the conflict resolution time. In a case study with 18 participants, we used the proposed framework and analysis tools in a top-down view driving simulator where two human participants can interact. The results show that the proposed scenario can expose diverse behaviors for different conditions. We demonstrate that our novel visual representation, conflict resolution time, and conflict signal are valuable tools when comparing human behavior between conditions. Therefore, with its simplified merging scenario and analysis tools, the proposed experimental framework can be a valuable asset when developing driver models that describe interactive merging behavior and when designing AVs that interact with humans.
...
Human highway-merging behavior is an important aspect when developing autonomous vehicles (AVs) that can safely and successfully interact with other road users. To design safe and acceptable human-AV interactions, the underlying mechanisms in human-human interactive behavior need to be understood. Exposing and understanding these mechanisms can be done using controlled driving simulator experiments. However, until now, such human-factors merging experiments have focused on aspects of the behavior of a single driver (e.g., gap acceptance) instead of on the dynamics of the interaction. Furthermore, existing experimental scenarios and data analysis tools (i.e., concepts like time-to-collision) are insufficient to analyze human-human interactive merging behavior. To help facilitate human-factors research on merging interactions, we propose an experimental framework consisting of a general simplified merging scenario and a set of three analysis tools: (1) a visual representation that captures the combined behavior of two participants and the safety margins they maintain in a single plot; (2) a signal (over time) that describes the level of conflict; and (3) a metric that describes the amount of time that was required to solve the merging conflict, called the conflict resolution time. In a case study with 18 participants, we used the proposed framework and analysis tools in a top-down view driving simulator where two human participants can interact. The results show that the proposed scenario can expose diverse behaviors for different conditions. We demonstrate that our novel visual representation, conflict resolution time, and conflict signal are valuable tools when comparing human behavior between conditions. Therefore, with its simplified merging scenario and analysis tools, the proposed experimental framework can be a valuable asset when developing driver models that describe interactive merging behavior and when designing AVs that interact with humans.
In recent years, multiple datasets containing traffic recorded in the real world and containing human-driven trajectories have been made available to researchers. Among these datasets are the HighD, pNEUMA, and NGSIM datasets. TraViA, an open-source Traffic data Visualization and Annotation tool was created to provide a single environment for working with data from these three datasets. Combining the data in a single visualization tool enables researchers to easily study data from all sources. TraViA was designed in such a way that it can easily be extended to visualize data from other datasets and that specific needs for research projects are easily implemented.
...
In recent years, multiple datasets containing traffic recorded in the real world and containing human-driven trajectories have been made available to researchers. Among these datasets are the HighD, pNEUMA, and NGSIM datasets. TraViA, an open-source Traffic data Visualization and Annotation tool was created to provide a single environment for working with data from these three datasets. Combining the data in a single visualization tool enables researchers to easily study data from all sources. TraViA was designed in such a way that it can easily be extended to visualize data from other datasets and that specific needs for research projects are easily implemented.