Johan Engström

Julian F. Schumann, Johan Engström, Leif Johnson et al.

Collision avoidance -- involving a rapid threat detection and quick execution of the appropriate evasive maneuver -- is a critical aspect of driving. However, existing models of human collision avoidance behavior are fragmented, focusing on specific scenarios or only describing certain aspects of the avoidance behavior, such as response times. This paper addresses these gaps by proposing a novel computational cognitive model of human collision avoidance behavior based on active inference. Active inference provides a unified approach to modeling human behavior: the minimization of free energy. Building on prior active inference work, our model incorporates established cognitive mechanisms such as evidence accumulation to simulate human responses in two distinct collision avoidance scenarios: front-to-rear lead vehicle braking and lateral incursion by an oncoming vehicle. We demonstrate that our model explains a wide range of previous empirical findings on human collision avoidance behavior. Specifically, the model closely reproduces both aggregate results from meta-analyses previously reported in the literature and detailed, scenario-specific effects observed in a recent driving simulator study, including response timing, maneuver selection, and execution. Our results highlight the potential of active inference as a unified framework for understanding and modeling human behavior in complex real-life driving tasks.

Julian F. Schumann, Johan Engström, Ran Wei et al.

Understanding how road users resolve space-sharing conflicts is important both for traffic safety and the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles. While existing models have captured specific aspects of such interactions (e.g., explicit communication), a theoretically-grounded computational framework has been lacking. In this paper, we extend a previously developed active inference-based driver behavior model to simulate interactive behavior of two agents. Our model captures three complementary mechanisms for uncertainty reduction in interaction: (i) implicit communication via direct behavioral coupling, (ii) reliance on normative expectations (stop signs, priority rules, etc.), and (iii) explicit communication. In a simplified intersection scenario, we show that normative and explicit communication cues can increase the likelihood of a successful conflict resolution. However, this relies on agents acting as expected. In situations where another agent (intentionally or unintentionally) violates normative expectations or communicates misleading information, reliance on these cues may induce collisions. These findings illustrate how active inference can provide a novel framework for modeling road user interactions which is also applicable in other fields.

Johan Engström, Ran Wei, Anthony McDonald et al.

Understanding adaptive human driving behavior, in particular how drivers manage uncertainty, is of key importance for developing simulated human driver models that can be used in the evaluation and development of autonomous vehicles. However, existing traffic psychology models of adaptive driving behavior either lack computational rigor or only address specific scenarios and/or behavioral phenomena. While models developed in the fields of machine learning and robotics can effectively learn adaptive driving behavior from data, due to their black box nature, they offer little or no explanation of the mechanisms underlying the adaptive behavior. Thus, a generalizable, interpretable, computational model of adaptive human driving behavior is still lacking. This paper proposes such a model based on active inference, a behavioral modeling framework originating in computational neuroscience. The model offers a principled solution to how humans trade progress against caution through policy selection based on the single mandate to minimize expected free energy. This casts goal-seeking and information-seeking (uncertainty-resolving) behavior under a single objective function, allowing the model to seamlessly resolve uncertainty as a means to obtain its goals. We apply the model in two apparently disparate driving scenarios that require managing uncertainty, (1) driving past an occluding object and (2) visual time sharing between driving and a secondary task, and show how human-like adaptive driving behavior emerges from the single principle of expected free energy minimization.

Leif Johnson, Trent Victor, Johan Engström

We present the Field of Safe Motion (FSM), a quantitative safety model for determining whether a driver maintains a collision-free escape route, or "out," at any given moment by accounting for that driver's physical capabilities and the foreseeable actions of other road users. The Field of Safe Travel (FST) provides a framework for representing the types of sensory information and actions available to drivers. However, the FST has remained conceptual in nature since its initial publication almost 90 years ago -- and a concrete computational operationalization is still lacking. At the same time, reachability analysis provides a quantitative basis for assessing the possible actions available to road users, using interpretable kinematic models, but reachability models have so far remained confined largely to the engineering and robotics literature. Bringing these two approaches together provides for an interpretable, quantitative tool for assessing driving behavior across a wide range of driving scenarios. Beyond being interpretable, our approach relies on a relatively small set of basic assumptions that are easy to enumerate and reason about. Furthermore, an interpretable reachability model paired with kinematic assumptions provides a way to bound uncertainty about road users' reasonably foreseeable future locations. We demonstrate the applicability of the FSM to different driving scenarios and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the model.