Models of Human Decision-Making as Tools for Estimating and Optimizing Impacts of Vehicle Automation

With the development of increasingly automated vehicles (AVs) comes the increasingly difficult challenge of comprehensively validating these for acceptable, and ideally beneficial, impacts on the transport system. There is a growing consensus that virtual testing, where simulated AVs are deployed in simulated traffic, will be key for cost-effective testing and optimization. The least mature model components in such simulations are those generating the behavior of human agents in or around the AVs. In this paper, human models and virtual testing applications are presented for two example scenarios: (i) a human pedestrian deciding whether to cross a street in front of an approaching automated vehicle, with or without external human–machine interface elements, and (ii) an AV handing over control to a human driver in a critical rear-end situation. These scenarios have received much recent research attention, yet simulation-ready human behavior models are lacking. They are discussed here in the context of existing models of perceptual decision-making, situational awareness, and traffic interactions. It is argued that the human behavior in question might be usefully conceptualized as a number of interrelated decision processes, not all of which are necessarily directly associated with externally observable behavior. The results show that models based on this type of framework can reproduce qualitative patterns of behavior reported in the literature for the two addressed scenarios, and it is demonstrated how computer simulations based on the models, once these have been properly validated, could allow prediction and optimization of AV impacts on traffic flow and traffic safety.

[1]  David N. Lee,et al.  A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision , 1976, Perception.

[2]  J. Townsend,et al.  Multialternative Decision Field Theory: A Dynamic Connectionist Model of Decision Making , 2001 .

[3]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.

[4]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A Computational Model of Attention/Situation Awareness , 2002 .

[5]  David B. Kaber,et al.  The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task , 2004 .

[6]  Christian Lebiere,et al.  Cockpit System Situational Awareness Modeling Tool , 2004 .

[7]  Gregor Schöner,et al.  Making Driver Modeling Attractive , 2005, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[8]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. , 2006, Psychological review.

[9]  Dot Hs,et al.  Analyses of Rear-End Crashes and Near-Crashes in the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study to Support Rear-Signaling Countermeasure Development , 2007 .

[10]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Adaptive cruise control design for active congestion avoidance , 2008 .

[11]  Byron J. Pierce,et al.  Modeling the dynamics of recognition-primed decision making , 2009 .

[12]  Richard P. Heitz,et al.  Neurally constrained modeling of perceptual decision making. , 2010, Psychological review.

[13]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Perceptions as Hypotheses: Saccades as Experiments , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[14]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? , 2013 .

[15]  Daniel J. Fagnant,et al.  Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations , 2015 .

[16]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Modeling simple driving tasks with a one-boundary diffusion model , 2013, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[17]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Transition to manual: driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle , 2014 .

[18]  David Hsu,et al.  Intention-aware online POMDP planning for autonomous driving in a crowd , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[19]  Kathrin Zeeb,et al.  What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. , 2015, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[20]  Gang Ren,et al.  A cellular automaton simulation model for pedestrian and vehicle interaction behaviors at unsignalized mid-block crosswalks. , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[21]  Irene Gohl,et al.  Analyzing driver-pedestrian interaction at crosswalks: A contribution to autonomous driving in urban environments , 2016, 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[22]  Nidhi Kalra,et al.  Driving to Safety , 2016 .

[23]  Gustav Markkula,et al.  A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies. , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[24]  Gustav Markkula,et al.  A quantitative driver model of pre-crash brake onset and control , 2017 .

[25]  Michael P. Clamann,et al.  Evaluation of Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Communication Displays for Autonomous Vehicles , 2017 .

[26]  Ding Zhao,et al.  Evaluation of automated vehicles encountering pedestrians at unsignalized crossings , 2017, 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).