Game Theory-Based Lane Change Decision-Making Considering Vehicle’s Social Value Orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Decision-making of lane-change for autonomous vehicles faces challenges due to the behavioral differences among human drivers in dynamic traffic environments. To enhance the performances of autonomous vehicles, this paper proposes a game theoretic decision-making method that considers the diverse Social Value Orientations (SVO) of drivers. To begin with, trajectory features are extracted from the NGSIM dataset, followed by the application of Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) to determine the reward preferences exhibited by drivers with distinct Social Value Orientation (SVO) during their decision-making process. Subsequently, a reward function is formulated, considering the factors of safety, efficiency, and comfort. To tackle the challenges associated with interaction, a Stackelberg game model is employed. Finally, the effectiveness of this approach is validated in diverse testing scenarios involving obstacle vehicles characterized by different SVO types, namely Altruistic, Prosocial, Egoistic, and Competitive. The simulation results indicate that this approach can address behavioral differences introduced by different drivers in lane change interactions and making more safe and efficient driving decisions at appropriate times.</div></div>
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".