Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

AV-Occupant Perceived Risk Model for Cut-In Scenarios with Empirical Evaluation (2403.15171v1)

Published 22 Mar 2024 in cs.RO

Abstract: Advancements in autonomous vehicle (AV) technologies necessitate precise estimation of perceived risk to enhance user comfort, acceptance and trust. This paper introduces a novel AV-Occupant Risk (AVOR) model designed for perceived risk estimation during AV cut-in scenarios. An empirical study is conducted with 18 participants with realistic cut-in scenarios. Two factors were investigated: scenario risk and scene population. 76% of subjective risk responses indicate an increase in perceived risk at cut-in initiation. The existing perceived risk model did not capture this critical phenomenon. Our AVOR model demonstrated a significant improvement in estimating perceived risk during the early stages of cut-ins, especially for the high-risk scenario, enhancing modelling accuracy by up to 54%. The concept of the AVOR model can quantify perceived risk in other diverse driving contexts characterized by dynamic uncertainties, enhancing the reliability and human-centred focus of AV systems.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (24)
  1. Lane change/merge crashes: Problem size assessment and statistical description. U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 12, 1994.
  2. Challenges in autonomous vehicle testing and validation. Safety of the Intended Functionality, pages 125–142, 2020.
  3. ISO 2631. Mechanical vibration and shock – evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration, standard. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, 2001.
  4. What’s the risk? a comparison of actual and perceived driving risk. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 25:50–64, 2014.
  5. Standards for passenger comfort in automated vehicles: Acceleration and jerk. Applied Ergonomics, 106, 09 2022.
  6. Predicting perceived risk of traffic scenes using computer vision. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 93:235–247, 2023.
  7. Enrico del Re and Cristina Olaverri-Monreal. Implementation of road safety perception in autonomous vehicles in a lane change scenario. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES), pages 1–6, 2022.
  8. ERTRAC Working Group. Connected automated driving roadmap. Connectivity and Automated Driving, 2019.
  9. Can driving condition prompt systems improve passenger comfort of intelligent vehicles? a driving simulator study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 81:240–250, 2021.
  10. Modelling perceived risk and trust in driving automation reacting to merging and braking vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 86:178–195, 2022.
  11. Individual motion perception parameters and motion sickness frequency sensitivity in fore-aft motion. Experimental Brain Research, 6:1727–1745, 9 2021.
  12. ISO. 26262: 2018: Road vehicles—functional safety. British Standards Institute, 12, 2018.
  13. Testing autonomous vehicle software in the virtual prototyping environment. IEEE Embedded Systems Letters, 9(1):5–8, 2017.
  14. Human-like driving behaviour emerges from a risk-based driver model. Nature Communications, 11, 2020.
  15. A risk field-based metric correlates with driver’s perceived risk in manual and automated driving: A test-track study. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 133:103428, 2021.
  16. Identification of visual cues and quantification of drivers’ perception of proximity risk to the lead vehicle in car-following situations. Journal of Mechanical Systems for Transportation and Logistics, 1:170–180, 04 2008.
  17. Threat assessment techniques in intelligent vehicles: A comparative survey. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 13(4):71–91, 2021.
  18. Enhancing passenger comfort in autonomous vehicles through vehicle handling analysis and optimization. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 13(3):156–173, 2021.
  19. Perceived safety and attributed value as predictors of the intention to use autonomous vehicles: A national study with spanish drivers. Safety Science, 120:865–876, 2019.
  20. Road user hazard perception tests: A systematic review of current methodologies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 129:309–333, 2019.
  21. Probabilistic field approach for motorway driving risk assessment. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 118:102716, 2020.
  22. Evaluating perceived safety of autonomous vehicle: The influence of privacy and cybersecurity to cognitive and emotional safety. IATSS Research, 47(2):160–170, 2023.
  23. Rcms: Risk-aware crash mitigation system for autonomous vehicles. In 2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2023.
  24. What drives people to accept automated vehicles? findings from a field experiment. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 95:320–334, 2018.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.