Validating Human Factors-Based Classification Models for Safe and Efficient Mixed-Autonomy Interactions at Intersections Using a Virtual Simulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of autonomous vehicles (AVs) promises significant improvements to road safety and traffic congestion. However, mixed-autonomy traffic remains a major challenge as AVs are ill-suited to cooperate with human drivers in complex scenarios like intersection navigation. Specifically, human drivers use social cooperation and cues to navigate intersections while AVs rely on conservative driving behaviors that can lead to rear-end collisions, frustration from other road users, and inefficient travel. Using a virtual driving simulator, this study investigates the use of a human factors-informed cooperation model to reduce AV reliance on conservative driving behaviors. Four intersection scenarios, each involving a left-turning AV and a human driver proceeding straight, were designed to obfuscate the right-of-way. The classification models were trained to predict the future priority-taking behavior of the human driver. Results indicate that AVs employing the human factors-informed model were able to navigate the mixed-autonomy intersection scenarios significantly more efficiently without affecting safety or rider comfort when compared to a baseline, cautious AV. Overall, this research contributes to improved mixed-autonomy interactions and provides evidence for the importance of cooperation between AVs and human-driven vehicles.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".