Social behavior for autonomous vehicles

Significance We present a framework that integrates social psychology tools into controller design for autonomous vehicles. Our key insight utilizes Social Value Orientation (SVO), quantifying an agent’s degree of selfishness or altruism, which allows us to better predict driver behavior. We model interactions between human and autonomous agents with game theory and the principle of best response. Our unified algorithm estimates driver SVOs and incorporates their predicted trajectories into the autonomous vehicle’s control while respecting safety constraints. We study common-yet-difficult traffic scenarios: highway merging and unprotected left turns. Incorporating SVO reduces error in predictions by 25%, validated on 92 human driving merges. Furthermore, we find that merging drivers are more competitive than nonmerging drivers. Deployment of autonomous vehicles on public roads promises increased efficiency and safety. It requires understanding the intent of human drivers and adapting to their driving styles. Autonomous vehicles must also behave in safe and predictable ways without requiring explicit communication. We integrate tools from social psychology into autonomous-vehicle decision making to quantify and predict the social behavior of other drivers and to behave in a socially compliant way. A key component is Social Value Orientation (SVO), which quantifies the degree of an agent’s selfishness or altruism, allowing us to better predict how the agent will interact and cooperate with others. We model interactions between agents as a best-response game wherein each agent negotiates to maximize their own utility. We solve the dynamic game by finding the Nash equilibrium, yielding an online method of predicting multiagent interactions given their SVOs. This approach allows autonomous vehicles to observe human drivers, estimate their SVOs, and generate an autonomous control policy in real time. We demonstrate the capabilities and performance of our algorithm in challenging traffic scenarios: merging lanes and unprotected left turns. We validate our results in simulation and on human driving data from the NGSIM dataset. Our results illustrate how the algorithm’s behavior adapts to social preferences of other drivers. By incorporating SVO, we improve autonomous performance and reduce errors in human trajectory predictions by 25%.

[1]  Siddhartha S. Srinivasa,et al.  Planning-based prediction for pedestrians , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[2]  John H. Miller,et al.  NOTES AND COMMENTS GIVING ACCORDING TO GARP: AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE CONSISTENCY OF PREFERENCES FOR ALTRUISM , 2002 .

[3]  Colin Camerer,et al.  When Does "Economic Man" Dominate Social Behavior? , 2006, Science.

[4]  Alexis Garapin,et al.  Does trust mean giving and not risking? Experimental evidence from the trust game , 2015 .

[5]  Maria Pilecka Combined Reformulation of Bilevel Programming Problems , 2012 .

[6]  T. Başar,et al.  Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory , 1982 .

[7]  Anca D. Dragan,et al.  Planning for Autonomous Cars that Leverage Effects on Human Actions , 2016, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[8]  Wolfram Burgard,et al.  Socially compliant mobile robot navigation via inverse reinforcement learning , 2016, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[9]  Ryan O. Murphy,et al.  Measuring Social Value Orientation , 2011, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[10]  Wilko Schwarting,et al.  Recursive conflict resolution for cooperative motion planning in dynamic highway traffic , 2014, 17th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[11]  Ryan O. Murphy,et al.  Social Value Orientation , 2014, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[12]  C. Parks,et al.  Social Value Orientation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[13]  Geoffrey J. Gordon,et al.  A Reduction of Imitation Learning and Structured Prediction to No-Regret Online Learning , 2010, AISTATS.

[14]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  Social Value Orientation and information search in social dilemmas: An eye-tracking analysis , 2013 .

[15]  T. Başar,et al.  Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory, 2nd Edition , 1998 .

[16]  P. V. Lange,et al.  The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. , 1999 .

[17]  Patrick Pascheka,et al.  Cooperative decentralized decision making for conflict resolution among autonomous agents , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications (INISTA) Proceedings.

[18]  C. Rusbult,et al.  Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  Sergey Levine,et al.  Continuous Inverse Optimal Control with Locally Optimal Examples , 2012, ICML.

[20]  Mac Schwager,et al.  Adapting to sensing and actuation variations in multi-robot coverage , 2017, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[21]  Ryan O. Murphy,et al.  Explaining Cooperative Behavior in Public Goods Games: How Preferences and Beliefs Affect Contribution Levels , 2019, Games.

[22]  P. V. Lange,et al.  The impact of social value orientations on negotiator cognition and behavior , 1995 .

[23]  Ryan O. Murphy,et al.  Social preferences, positive expectations, and trust based cooperation , 2015 .

[24]  Anind K. Dey,et al.  Maximum Entropy Inverse Reinforcement Learning , 2008, AAAI.

[25]  Gregory P. Shelley,et al.  7Chapter Nonverbal Communication and Detection of Individual Differences in Social Value Orientation , 2009 .

[26]  Mark Van Vugt,et al.  From Games to Giving: Social Value Orientation Predicts Donations to Noble Causes , 2007 .

[27]  Luke Fletcher,et al.  A perception‐driven autonomous urban vehicle , 2008, J. Field Robotics.

[28]  F. Q. Ribeiro The meta-analysis , 2017, Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology.

[29]  William Whittaker,et al.  Autonomous driving in urban environments: Boss and the Urban Challenge , 2008 .

[30]  Cleotilde Gonzalez,et al.  Not All Prisoner’s Dilemma Games Are Equal: Incentives, Social Preferences, and Cooperation , 2018, Decision.

[31]  Mac Schwager,et al.  A Real-Time Game Theoretic Planner for Autonomous Two-Player Drone Racing , 2018, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[32]  Luke Fletcher,et al.  A perception‐driven autonomous urban vehicle , 2008, J. Field Robotics.

[33]  Cecilia Jakobsson,et al.  Moderating effects of social value orientation on determinants of proenvironmental behavior intention , 2003 .

[34]  Ryan O. Murphy,et al.  Reciprocity as an Individual Difference , 2013, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[35]  Wim B. G. Liebrand,et al.  The ring measure of social values: A computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation , 1988 .

[36]  Scott T. Allison,et al.  Social Value Orientation and Helping Behavior1 , 1989 .

[37]  Jeffrey P. Carpenter,et al.  Is fairness used instrumentally? Evidence from sequential bargaining , 2003 .

[38]  Max H. Bazerman,et al.  Social Decision Making : Social Dilemmas, Social Values, and Ethical Judgments , 2009 .

[39]  Heinrich von Stackelberg Market Structure and Equilibrium , 2010 .

[40]  John Lygeros,et al.  A Noncooperative Game Approach to Autonomous Racing , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology.

[41]  James M. Rehg,et al.  Best Response Model Predictive Control for Agile Interactions Between Autonomous Ground Vehicles , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[42]  Clara Volintiru,et al.  Gender, Social Value Orientation, and Tax Compliance , 2020, CESifo Economic Studies.

[43]  Sven C. Voelpel,et al.  Social Value Orientation, Expectations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta–Analysis , 2018 .