Human Inspired Autonomous Intersection Handling Using Game Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Left turning for autonomous vehicles at intersections is challenging due to the various driving behaviors from different human drivers and the strong interaction between the autonomous vehicle and human traffic participants. This paper proposes a planning and decision making framework for intersection left-turning which considers the interaction between autonomous vehicles and human drivers as well as pedestrians to address this issue. The proposed framework considers interactions mathematically by formulating the problem as a linear quadratic differential game. Through solving the Nash equilibrium of the game, the autonomous vehicle is able to properly interact with surrounding traffic participants. Under the differential game framework, the accuracy of the interaction formulation is closely related to the behavior model of human drivers. Therefore, real-world human behavior is extracted and evaluated from naturalistic driving dataset to help establish more realistic modeling and estimation of various kinds of traffic participants, including aggressive, neutral and conservative traffic participants. The simulation results show that the autonomous vehicle is able to properly estimate the types of traffic participants by observing their behavior using the proposed technique. Then the autonomous vehicle behave according to the types of those traffic participants to enable interactive and human-like planning and decision making at intersections.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".