Distracted Walking: Does it impact pedestrian-vehicle interaction behavior?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• The behavioral dynamics of distracted and non-distracted pedestrians are evaluated. • The approach utilized Multi-agent Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning. • Distracted pedestrians were closer to vehicles and moved at reduced speeds. • Non-distracted pedestrians generally executed safer maneuvers and yielded more. • Non-distracted interactions showed a 46.5% decrease in traffic conflict severity. Several studies have developed pedestrian-vehicle interaction models. However, these studies failed to consider pedestrian distraction, which considerably influences the safety of these interactions. Utilizing data from two intersections in Vancouver, Canada, this research uses the Multi-agent Adversarial Inverse Reinforcement Learning (MA-AIRL) framework to make inferences about the behavioral dynamics of distracted and non-distracted pedestrians while interacting with vehicles. Results showed that distracted pedestrians maintained closer proximity to vehicles, moved at reduced speeds, and rarely yielded to oncoming vehicles. In addition, they rarely changed their interaction angles regardless of lateral proximity to vehicles, indicating that they mostly remain unaware of the surrounding environment and have decreased navigational efficiency. Conversely, non-distracted pedestrians executed safer maneuvers, kept greater distances from vehicles, yielded more frequently, and adjusted their speeds accordingly. For example, non-distracted pedestrian-vehicle interactions showed a 46.5% decrease in traffic conflicts severity (as measured by the average Time-to-Collision (TTC) values) and an average 30.2% increase in minimum distances when compared to distracted pedestrian-vehicle interactions. Vehicle drivers also demonstrated different behaviors in response to distracted pedestrians. They often opted to decelerate around distracted pedestrians, indicating recognition of potential risks. Furthermore, the MA-AIRL framework provided different results depending on the type of interactions. The performance of the distracted vehicle–pedestrian model was lower than the non-distracted model, suggesting that predicting non-distracted behavior might be relatively easier. These findings emphasize the importance of refining pedestrian simulation models to include the unique behavioral patterns from pedestrian distractions. This should assist in further examining the safety impacts of pedestrian distraction on the road environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".