Pedestrian crossing decisions can be explained by bounded optimal decision-making under noisy visual perception

This paper presents a model of pedestrian crossing decisions, based on the theory of computational rationality. It is assumed that crossing decisions are boundedly optimal, with bounds on optimality arising from human cognitive limitations. While previous models of pedestrian behaviour have been either 'black-box' machine learning models or mechanistic models with explicit assumptions about cognitive factors, we combine both approaches. Specifically, we model mechanistically noisy human visual perception and assumed rewards in crossing, but we use reinforcement learning to learn bounded optimal behaviour policy. The model reproduces a larger number of known empirical phenomena than previous models, in particular: (1) the effect of the time to arrival of an approaching vehicle on whether the pedestrian accepts the gap, the effect of the vehicle's speed on both (2) gap acceptance and (3) pedestrian timing of crossing in front of yielding vehicles, and (4) the effect on this crossing timing of the stopping distance of the yielding vehicle. Notably, our findings suggest that behaviours previously framed as 'biases' in decision-making, such as speed-dependent gap acceptance, might instead be a product of rational adaptation to the constraints of visual perception. Our approach also permits fitting the parameters of cognitive constraints and rewards per individual, to better account for individual differences. To conclude, by leveraging both RL and mechanistic modelling, our model offers novel insights about pedestrian behaviour, and may provide a useful foundation for more accurate and scalable pedestrian models.

Using Models Based on Cognitive Theory to Predict Human Behavior in Traffic: A Case Study

The development of automated vehicles has the potential to revolutionize transportation, but they are currently unable to ensure a safe and time-efficient driving style. Reliable models predicting human behavior are essential for overcoming this issue. While data-driven models are commonly used to this end, they can be vulnerable in safety-critical edge cases. This has led to an interest in models incorporating cognitive theory, but as such models are commonly developed for explanatory purposes, this approach's effectiveness in behavior prediction has remained largely untested so far. In this article, we investigate the usefulness of the \emph{Commotions} model -- a novel cognitively plausible model incorporating the latest theories of human perception, decision-making, and motor control -- for predicting human behavior in gap acceptance scenarios, which entail many important traffic interactions such as lane changes and intersections. We show that this model can compete with or even outperform well-established data-driven prediction models across several naturalistic datasets. These results demonstrate the promise of incorporating cognitive theory in behavior prediction models for automated vehicles.

Modeling human road crossing decisions as reward maximization with visual perception limitations

Understanding the interaction between different road users is critical for road safety and automated vehicles (AVs). Existing mathematical models on this topic have been proposed based mostly on either cognitive or machine learning (ML) approaches. However, current cognitive models are incapable of simulating road user trajectories in general scenarios, and ML models lack a focus on the mechanisms generating the behavior and take a high-level perspective which can cause failures to capture important human-like behaviors. Here, we develop a model of human pedestrian crossing decisions based on computational rationality, an approach using deep reinforcement learning (RL) to learn boundedly optimal behavior policies given human constraints, in our case a model of the limited human visual system. We show that the proposed combined cognitive-RL model captures human-like patterns of gap acceptance and crossing initiation time. Interestingly, our model's decisions are sensitive to not only the time gap, but also the speed of the approaching vehicle, something which has been described as a "bias" in human gap acceptance behavior. However, our results suggest that this is instead a rational adaption to human perceptual limitations. Moreover, we demonstrate an approach to accounting for individual differences in computational rationality models, by conditioning the RL policy on the parameters of the human constraints. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of generating more human-like road user behavior by combining RL with cognitive models.

Beyond RMSE: Do machine-learned models of road user interaction produce human-like behavior?

Autonomous vehicles use a variety of sensors and machine-learned models to predict the behavior of surrounding road users. Most of the machine-learned models in the literature focus on quantitative error metrics like the root mean square error (RMSE) to learn and report their models' capabilities. This focus on quantitative error metrics tends to ignore the more important behavioral aspect of the models, raising the question of whether these models really predict human-like behavior. Thus, we propose to analyze the output of machine-learned models much like we would analyze human data in conventional behavioral research. We introduce quantitative metrics to demonstrate presence of three different behavioral phenomena in a naturalistic highway driving dataset: 1) The kinematics-dependence of who passes a merging point first 2) Lane change by an on-highway vehicle to accommodate an on-ramp vehicle 3) Lane changes by vehicles on the highway to avoid lead vehicle conflicts. Then, we analyze the behavior of three machine-learned models using the same metrics. Even though the models' RMSE value differed, all the models captured the kinematic-dependent merging behavior but struggled at varying degrees to capture the more nuanced courtesy lane change and highway lane change behavior. Additionally, the collision aversion analysis during lane changes showed that the models struggled to capture the physical aspect of human driving: leaving adequate gap between the vehicles. Thus, our analysis highlighted the inadequacy of simple quantitative metrics and the need to take a broader behavioral perspective when analyzing machine-learned models of human driving predictions.

A Utility Maximization Model of Pedestrian and Driver Interactions

Many models account for the traffic flow of road users but few take the details of local interactions into consideration and how they could deteriorate into safety-critical situations. Building on the concept of sensorimotor control, we develop a modeling framework applying the principles of utility maximization, motor primitives, and intermittent action decisions to account for the details of interactive behaviors among road users. The framework connects these principles to the decision theory and is applied to determine whether such an approach can reproduce the following phenomena: When two pedestrians travel on crossing paths, (a) their interaction is sensitive to initial asymmetries, and (b) based on which, they rapidly resolve collision conflict by adapting their behaviors. When a pedestrian crosses the road while facing an approaching car, (c) either road user yields to the other to resolve their conflict, akin to the pedestrian interaction, and (d) the outcome reveals a specific situational kinematics, associated with the nature of vehicle acceleration. We show that these phenomena emerge naturally from our modeling framework when the model can evolve its parameters as a consequence of the situations. We believe that the modeling framework and phenomenon-centered analysis offer promising tools to understand road user interactions. We conclude with a discussion on how the model can be instrumental in studying the safety-critical situations when including other variables in road-user interactions.

Comparing merging behaviors observed in naturalistic data with behaviors generated by a machine learned model

There is quickly growing literature on machine-learned models that predict human driving trajectories in road traffic. These models focus their learning on low-dimensional error metrics, for example average distance between model-generated and observed trajectories. Such metrics permit relative comparison of models, but do not provide clearly interpretable information on how close to human behavior the models actually come, for example in terms of higher-level behavior phenomena that are known to be present in human driving. We study highway driving as an example scenario, and introduce metrics to quantitatively demonstrate the presence, in a naturalistic dataset, of two familiar behavioral phenomena: (1) The kinematics-dependent contest, between on-highway and on-ramp vehicles, of who passes the merging point first. (2) Courtesy lane changes away from the outermost lane, to leave space for a merging vehicle. Applying the exact same metrics to the output of a state-of-the-art machine-learned model, we show that the model is capable of reproducing the former phenomenon, but not the latter. We argue that this type of behavioral analysis provides information that is not available from conventional model-fitting metrics, and that it may be useful to analyze (and possibly fit) models also based on these types of behavioral criteria.