On Social Interactions of Merging Behaviors at Highway On-Ramps in Congested Traffic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Merging at highway on-ramps while interacting with other human-driven vehicles is challenging for autonomous vehicles (AVs). An efficient route to this challenge requires exploring and exploiting knowledge of the interaction process from demonstrations by humans. However, it is unclear what information (or environmental states) is utilized by the human driver to guide their behavior throughout the whole merging process. This paper provides quantitative analysis and evaluation of the merging behavior at highway on-ramps with congested traffic in a volume of time and space. Two types of social interaction scenarios are considered based on the social preferences of surrounding vehicles:courteousandrude. The significant levels of environmental states for characterizing the interactive merging process are empirically analyzed based on the real-world INTERACTION dataset. Experimental results reveal two fundamental mechanisms in the merging process: 1) Human drivers select different states to make sequential decisions at different moments of task execution; and 2) the social preference of surrounding vehicles can impact variable selection for making decisions. It implies that efficient decision-making design should filter out irrelevant information while considering social preference to achieve comparable human-level performance. These essential findings shed light on developing new decision-making approaches for AVs.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".