Towards Social Autonomous Vehicles: Understanding Pedestrian-Driver Interactions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative interaction in traffic is vital for resolving a wide range of ambiguities arising from road users' actions. Autonomous vehicles are no exception and require the ability to understand the intention of road users and communicate with them in order to ensure their safety and maintain traffic flow. In this paper, we address the problem of traffic interaction by analyzing a large sample of pedestrians communicating with drivers. We highlight the ways pedestrians communicate and use a logistic regression model to identify what factors influence communication patterns of pedestrians and how. We also discuss practical challenges regarding the recognizing and understanding of pedestrians' intention and how our theoretical findings can help to solve them. Our analysis suggests that pedestrians predominantly rely on implicit communication cues such as stepping onto the road to transmit their intention of crossing. In addition, we found that the presence of traffic signal, street width, and pedestrian group size can influence the frequency and type of pedestrian communication, while factors such as pedestrians' age and gender did not show any significant impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it