A comparison of pedestrian behavior in interactions with autonomous and human-driven vehicles: An extreme value theory approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous Vehicle (AV) technologies are expected to result in significant safety and mobility benefits to the road system. However, one of the most important issues that autonomous vehicle technology faces is ensuring safe interactions with active road users such as pedestrians who can have unpredictable behavior. Moreover, road user behavior varies considerably across different traffic environments, which might represent a challenge to implementing AVs as they lack the intuition common in human-driven vehicles (HDV). This study proposes an approach to evaluate crash risk in vehicle–pedestrian interactions. An Extreme Value Theory (EVT) Peak Over Threshold (POT) model is used to compare the crash risk of AV-pedestrian and HDV-pedestrian interactions in four different cities, namely Boston, Las Vegas, Pittsburgh, and Singapore. A Bayesian hierarchical structure is used to incorporate the effect of several behavioral covariates, which enables estimating the crash risk of each interaction. Results show that the risk varies considerably depending on the type of interaction and the environment. For example, the impact of behavioral covariates (i.e., minimum distance between road users and maximum pedestrian speed) on the risk of AV-pedestrian interactions is greater when compared to the risk of HDV-pedestrian interactions in Boston, Las Vegas, and Singapore. This might indicate that, in busy and congested environments, road users may not be entirely comfortable with the presence of AVs. In addition, Singapore presented a higher percentage of riskier AV-pedestrian interactions when compared to the other cities. Finally, this study offers significant insights into the challenges of introducing AVs in diverse environments as behavior plays a crucial role in traffic and can influence conflict occurrence.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".