Autonomous Vehicle Visual Signals for Pedestrians: Experiments and Design Recommendations.
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
Autonomous Vehicles (AV) will transform transportation, but also the interaction between vehicles and pedestrians. In the absence of a driver, it is not clear how an AV can communicate its intention to pedestrians. One option is to use visual signals. To advance their design, we conduct four human-participant experiments and evaluate six representative AV visual signals for visibility, intuitiveness, persuasiveness, and usability at pedestrian crossings. Based on the results, we distill twelve practical design recommendations for AV visual signals, with focus on signal pattern design and placement. Moreover, the paper advances the methodology for experimental evaluation of visual signals, including lab, closed-course, and public road tests using an autonomous vehicle. In addition, the paper also reports insights on pedestrian crosswalk behaviours and the impacts of pedestrian trust towards AVs on the behaviors. We hope that this work will constitute valuable input to the ongoing development of international standards for AV lamps, and thus help mature automated driving in general.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it