Solution Concepts in Hierarchical Games Under Bounded Rationality With Applications to Autonomous Driving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With autonomous vehicles (AV) set to integrate further into regular human traffic, there is an increasing consensus of treating AV motion planning as a multi-agent problem. However, the traditional game theoretic assumption of complete rationality is too strong for the purpose of human driving, and there is a need for understanding human driving as a bounded rational activity through a behavioral game theoretic lens. To that end, we adapt three metamodels of bounded rational behavior; two based on Quantal level-k and one based on Nash equilibria with quantal errors. We formalize the different solution concepts that can be applied in the context of hierarchical games, a framework used in multi-agent motion planning, for the purpose of creating game theoretic models of driving behavior. Furthermore, based on a contributed dataset of human driving at a busy urban intersection with a total of ~4k agents and ~44k decision points, we evaluate the behavior models on the basis of model fit to naturalistic data, as well as their predictive capacity. Our results suggest that among the behavior models evaluated, modeling driving behavior as pure strategy Nash equilibria with quantal errors at the level of maneuvers with bounds sampling of actions at the level of trajectories provides the best fit to naturalistic driving behavior, and there is a significant impact of situational factors on the performance of behavior models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".