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 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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".