Distracted Walking: Does it impact pedestrian-vehicle interaction behavior?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
• The behavioral dynamics of distracted and non-distracted pedestrians are evaluated. • The approach utilized Multi-agent Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning. • Distracted pedestrians were closer to vehicles and moved at reduced speeds. • Non-distracted pedestrians generally executed safer maneuvers and yielded more. • Non-distracted interactions showed a 46.5% decrease in traffic conflict severity. Several studies have developed pedestrian-vehicle interaction models. However, these studies failed to consider pedestrian distraction, which considerably influences the safety of these interactions. Utilizing data from two intersections in Vancouver, Canada, this research uses the Multi-agent Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning (MA-AIRL) framework to make inferences about the behavioral dynamics of distracted and non-distracted pedestrians while interacting with vehicles. Results showed that distracted pedestrians maintained closer proximity to vehicles, moved at reduced speeds, and rarely yielded to oncoming vehicles. In addition, they rarely changed their interaction angles regardless of lateral proximity to vehicles, indicating that they mostly remain unaware of the surrounding environment and have decreased navigational efficiency. Conversely, non-distracted pedestrians executed safer maneuvers, kept greater distances from vehicles, yielded more frequently, and adjusted their speeds accordingly. For example, non-distracted pedestrian-vehicle interactions showed a 46.5% decrease in traffic conflicts severity (as measured by the average Time-to-Collision (TTC) values) and an average 30.2% increase in minimum distances when compared to distracted pedestrian-vehicle interactions. Vehicle drivers also demonstrated different behaviors in response to distracted pedestrians. They often opted to decelerate around distracted pedestrians, indicating recognition of potential risks. Furthermore, the MA-AIRL framework provided different results depending on the type of interactions. The performance of the distracted vehicle–pedestrian model was lower than the non-distracted model, suggesting that predicting non-distracted behavior might be relatively easier. These findings emphasize the importance of refining pedestrian simulation models to include the unique behavioral patterns from pedestrian distractions. This should assist in further examining the safety impacts of pedestrian distraction on the road environment.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».