Social Interactions for Autonomous Driving: A Review and Perspectives
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
No human drives a car in a vacuum; she/he must negotiate with other road users to achieve their goals in social traffic scenes. A rational human driver can interact with other road users in a socially-compatible way through implicit communications to complete their driving tasks smoothly in interaction-intensive, safety-critical environments. This monograph aims to review the existing approaches and theories to help understand and rethink the interactions among human drivers toward social autonomous driving. We take this survey to seek the answers to a series of fundamental questions: 1) What is social interaction in road traffic scenes? 2) How to measure and evaluate social interaction? 3) How to model and reveal the process of social interaction? 4) How do human drivers reach an implicit agreement and negotiate smoothly in social interaction? This monograph reviews various approaches to modeling and learning the social interactions between human drivers, ranging from optimization theory, deep learning, and graphical models to social force theory and behavioral and cognitive science. We also highlight some new directions, critical challenges, and opening questions for future research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.009 | 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