Multiagent modeling of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts using Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a need for a better understanding of the collision avoidance behavior of road users in near misses. Recently, several models of road user behavior in near misses have been proposed. However, despite the multiagent nature of road user interactions, most of these studies modeled their behavior using a single-agent approach. However, this approach is unrealistic and can limit the models’ accuracy. Therefore, this study proposes the Markov-Game (MG) framework for modeling pedestrian-vehicle interactions and their collision avoidance mechanisms. Pedestrian-vehicle conflicts in a mixed traffic environment in China are extracted using computer-vision algorithms. Pedestrian and vehicle reward functions are recovered via the Multiagent Adversarial Inverse-Reinforcement-Learning approach. Road user optimal policies and collision avoidance mechanisms are predicted using multiagent Actor-Critic deep-reinforcement-learning. The results demonstrate the superiority of the multiagent modeling approach in predicting road user behavior, their collision avoidance mechanisms, and the Post-Encroachment-Time (PET) compared to a baseline single-agent model.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".