On Trustworthy Decision-Making Process of Human Drivers from the View of Perceptual Uncertainty Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans are experts in making decisions for challenging driving tasks with uncertainties. Many efforts have been made to model the decision-making process of human drivers at the behavior level. However, limited studies explain how human drivers actively make reliable sequential decisions to complete interactive driving tasks in an uncertain environment. This paper argues that human drivers intently search for actions to reduce the uncertainty of their perception of the environment, i.e., perceptual uncertainty, to a low level that allows them to make a trustworthy decision easily. This paper provides a proof of concept framework to empirically reveal that human drivers' perceptual uncertainty decreases when executing interactive tasks with uncertainties. We first introduce an explainable-artificial intelligence approach (i.e., SHapley Additive exPlanation, SHAP) to determine the salient features on which human drivers make decisions. Then, we use entropy-based measures to quantify the drivers' perceptual changes in these ranked salient features across the decision-making process, reflecting the changes in uncertainties. The validation and verification of our proposed method are conducted in the highway on-ramp merging scenario with congested traffic using the INTERACTION dataset. Experimental results support that human drivers intentionally seek information to reduce their perceptual uncertainties in the number and rank of salient features of their perception of environments to make a trustworthy decision.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".