Intend-Wait-Cross: Towards Modeling Realistic Pedestrian Crossing Behavior
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
In this paper, we present a microscopic agent-based pedestrian behavior model Intend-Wait-Cross. The model is comprised of rules representing behaviors of pedestrians as a series of decisions that depend on their individual characteristics (e.g. demographics, walking speed, law obedience) and environmental conditions (e.g. traffic flow, road structure). The model’s main focus is on generating realistic crossing decision-model, which incorporates an improved formulation of time-to-collision (TTC) computation accounting for context, vehicle dynamics, and perceptual noise. Our model generates a diverse population of agents acting in a highly configurable environment. All model components, including individual characteristics of pedestrians, types of decisions they make, and environmental factors, are motivated by studies on pedestrian traffic behavior. Model parameters are calibrated using a combination of naturalistic driving data and estimates from the literature to maximize the realism of the simulated behaviors. A number of experiments validate various aspects of the model, such as pedestrian crossing patterns, and individual characteristics of pedestrians.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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