Arkady Zgonnikov

Floor Bontje, Felix van Waveren, Leendert van Maanen et al.

Evidence accumulation models provide a formal framework for studying decision making as a dynamic process unfolding over time. While these models have been extensively developed and reviewed in laboratory paradigms, their structured application in complex, ecologically valid domains has received comparatively little attention. Road traffic is a particularly relevant context for studying sustained, embodied perception action behavior, where decisions unfold under time pressure and involve continuous control and ongoing perception-action coupling. Examining how EAMs have been applied in this domain may therefore offer insights beyond discrete laboratory tasks toward decision making in real-world behavior. This semi-systematic review synthesizes 28 studies (2014-2026) applying EAMs to traffic-related behavior. We organize the literature along two dimensions: 1) modelling level, distinguishing models at the level of discrete decision-making and models at the level of continuous action control, and 2) model architecture, distinguishing evidence accumulation as either a stand-alone decision model or an embedded component within broader perception-action or interaction frameworks. These distinctions are associated with systematic differences in model architecture, parameterization, data usage, and validation strategies, reflecting task specific demands. By providing a structured overview of these patterns, this review clarifies how EAMs are currently instantiated in traffic contexts and highlights methodological challenges and future directions both in traffic modelling and in modelling of decision-making more broadly. Promising directions include laboratory work on evidence accumulation in sustained and time-varying tasks, interactive multi-individual decision-making, and the use of neurophysiological measures to identify the perceptual evidence underlying complex perception-action behavior.

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 Frederik Schumann, Jens Kober, Arkady Zgonnikov

Autonomous vehicles currently suffer from a time-inefficient driving style caused by uncertainty about human behavior in traffic interactions. Accurate and reliable prediction models enabling more efficient trajectory planning could make autonomous vehicles more assertive in such interactions. However, the evaluation of such models is commonly oversimplistic, ignoring the asymmetric importance of prediction errors and the heterogeneity of the datasets used for testing. We examine the potential of recasting interactions between vehicles as gap acceptance scenarios and evaluating models in this structured environment. To that end, we develop a framework aiming to facilitate the evaluation of any model, by any metric, and in any scenario. We then apply this framework to state-of-the-art prediction models, which all show themselves to be unreliable in the most safety-critical situations.

Lucas Elbert Suryana, Farah Bierenga, Sanne van Buuren et al.

Foundation models, including vision language models, are increasingly used in automated driving to interpret scenes, recommend actions, and generate natural language explanations. However, existing evaluation methods primarily assess outcome based performance, such as safety and trajectory accuracy, without determining whether model decisions reflect human relevant considerations. As a result, it remains unclear whether explanations produced by such models correspond to genuine reason responsive decision making or merely post hoc rationalizations. This limitation is especially significant in safety critical domains because it can create false confidence. To address this gap, we propose CARE Drive, Context Aware Reasons Evaluation for Driving, a model agnostic framework for evaluating reason responsiveness in vision language models applied to automated driving. CARE Drive compares baseline and reason augmented model decisions under controlled contextual variation to assess whether human reasons causally influence decision behavior. The framework employs a two stage evaluation process. Prompt calibration ensures stable outputs. Systematic contextual perturbation then measures decision sensitivity to human reasons such as safety margins, social pressure, and efficiency constraints. We demonstrate CARE Drive in a cyclist overtaking scenario involving competing normative considerations. Results show that explicit human reasons significantly influence model decisions, improving alignment with expert recommended behavior. However, responsiveness varies across contextual factors, indicating uneven sensitivity to different types of reasons. These findings provide empirical evidence that reason responsiveness in foundation models can be systematically evaluated without modifying model parameters.

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.

Olger Siebinga, Arkady Zgonnikov, David Abbink

Recently, multiple naturalistic traffic datasets of human-driven trajectories have been published (e.g., highD, NGSim, and pNEUMA). These datasets have been used in studies that investigate variability in human driving behavior, for example for scenario-based validation of autonomous vehicle (AV) behavior, modeling driver behavior, or validating driver models. Thus far, these studies focused on the variability on an operational level (e.g., velocity profiles during a lane change), not on a tactical level (i.e., to change lanes or not). Investigating the variability on both levels is necessary to develop driver models and AVs that include multiple tactical behaviors. To expose multi-level variability, the human responses to the same traffic scene could be investigated. However, no method exists to automatically extract similar scenes from datasets. Here, we present a four-step extraction method that uses the Hausdorff distance, a mathematical distance metric for sets. We performed a case study on the highD dataset that showed that the method is practically applicable. The human responses to the selected scenes exposed the variability on both the tactical and operational levels. With this new method, the variability in operational and tactical human behavior can be investigated, without the need for costly and time-consuming driving-simulator experiments.

Samir H. A. Mohammad, Wouter Mooi, Arkady Zgonnikov

Human behavior models are essential as behavior references and for simulating human agents in virtual safety assessment of automated vehicles (AVs), yet current models face a trade-off between interpretability and flexibility. General-purpose large language models (LLMs) offer a promising alternative: a single model potentially deployable without parameter fitting across diverse scenarios. However, what LLMs can and cannot capture about human driving behavior remains poorly understood. We address this gap by embedding two general-purpose LLMs (OpenAI o3 and Google Gemini 2.5 Pro) as standalone, closed-loop driver agents in a simplified one-dimensional merging scenario and comparing their behavior against human data using quantitative and qualitative analyses. Both models reproduce human-like intermittent operational control and tactical dependencies on spatial cues. However, neither consistently captures the human response to dynamic velocity cues, and safety performance diverges sharply between models. A systematic prompt ablation study reveals that prompt components act as model-specific inductive biases that do not transfer across LLMs. These findings suggest that general-purpose LLMs could potentially serve as standalone, ready-to-use human behavior models in AV evaluation pipelines, but future research is needed to better understand their failure modes and ensure their validity as models of human driving behavior.

Julian F. Schumann, Eduardo Figueiredo, Frederik Baymler Mathiesen et al.

Accurate and robust trajectory prediction is essential for safe and efficient autonomous driving, yet recent work has shown that even state-of-the-art prediction models are highly vulnerable to inputs being mildly perturbed by adversarial attacks. Although model vulnerabilities to such attacks have been studied, work on effective countermeasures remains limited. In this work, we develop and evaluate a new defense mechanism for trajectory prediction models based on randomized smoothing -- an approach previously applied successfully in other domains. We evaluate its ability to improve model robustness through a series of experiments that test different strategies of randomized smoothing. We show that our approach can consistently improve prediction robustness of multiple base trajectory prediction models in various datasets without compromising accuracy in non-adversarial settings. Our results demonstrate that randomized smoothing offers a simple and computationally inexpensive technique for mitigating adversarial attacks in trajectory prediction.

Ashwin George, Lucas Elbert Suryana, Lorenzo Flipse et al.

Partial driving automation creates a tension: drivers remain legally responsible for vehicle behaviour, yet their active control is significantly reduced. This reduction undermines the engagement and sense of agency needed to intervene safely. Meaningful human control (MHC) has been proposed as a normative framework to address this tension. However, empirical methods for evaluating whether existing systems actually provide MHC remain underdeveloped. In this study, we investigated the extent to which drivers experience MHC when interacting with partially automated driving systems. Twenty-four drivers completed a simulator study involving silent automation failures under two modes - haptic shared control (HSC) and traded control (TC). We derived behavioural metrics from telemetry data, subjective perception scores from post-trial surveys and used them to test hypothesised relations between them derived from the properties of systems under MHC. The confirmatory analysis showed a significant negative correlation between the perception of the automated vehicle (AV) understanding the driver and conflict in steering torques. An exploratory analysis also revealed a surprising positive correlation between reaction times and the perception of sufficient control. Qualitative feedback from open-ended post-experiment questionnaires revealed that mismatches in intentions between the driver and automation, lack of safety, and resistance to driver inputs contribute to the reduction of perceived MHC, while subtle haptic guidance aligned with driver intent had a positive effect. These findings suggest that future designs should prioritise effortless driver interventions, transparent communication of automation intent, and context-sensitive authority allocation to strengthen meaningful human control in partially automated driving.

Julian F. Schumann, Jeroen Hagenus, Frederik Baymler Mathiesen et al.

Trajectory prediction is a key element of autonomous vehicle systems, enabling them to anticipate and react to the movements of other road users. Evaluating the robustness of prediction models against adversarial attacks is essential to ensure their reliability in real-world traffic. However, current approaches tend to focus on perturbing the past positions of surrounding agents, which can generate unrealistic scenarios and overlook critical vulnerabilities. This limitation may result in overly optimistic assessments of model performance in real-world conditions. In this work, we demonstrate that perturbing not just past but also future states of adversarial agents can uncover previously undetected weaknesses and thereby provide a more rigorous evaluation of model robustness. Our novel approach incorporates dynamic constraints and preserves tactical behaviors, enabling more effective and realistic adversarial attacks. We introduce new performance measures to assess the realism and impact of these adversarial trajectories. Testing our method on a state-of-the-art prediction model revealed significant increases in prediction errors and collision rates under adversarial conditions. Qualitative analysis further showed that our attacks can expose critical weaknesses, such as the inability of the model to detect potential collisions in what appear to be safe predictions. These results underscore the need for more comprehensive adversarial testing to better evaluate and improve the reliability of trajectory prediction models for autonomous vehicles.

Heye Huang, Zheng Li, Hao Cheng et al.

Ensuring safe interactions between autonomous vehicles (AVs) and human drivers in mixed traffic systems remains a major challenge, particularly in complex, high-risk scenarios. This paper presents a cognition-decision framework that integrates individual variability and commonalities in driver behavior to quantify risk cognition and model dynamic decision-making. First, a risk sensitivity model based on a multivariate Gaussian distribution is developed to characterize individual differences in risk cognition. Then, a cognitive decision-making model based on the drift diffusion model (DDM) is introduced to capture common decision-making mechanisms in high-risk environments. The DDM dynamically adjusts decision thresholds by integrating initial bias, drift rate, and boundary parameters, adapting to variations in speed, relative distance, and risk sensitivity to reflect diverse driving styles and risk preferences. By simulating high-risk scenarios with lateral, longitudinal, and multidimensional risk sources in a driving simulator, the proposed model accurately predicts cognitive responses and decision behaviors during emergency maneuvers. Specifically, by incorporating driver-specific risk sensitivity, the model enables dynamic adjustments of key DDM parameters, allowing for personalized decision-making representations in diverse scenarios. Comparative analysis with IDM, Gipps, and MOBIL demonstrates that DDM more precisely captures human cognitive processes and adaptive decision-making in high-risk scenarios. These findings provide a theoretical basis for modeling human driving behavior and offer critical insights for enhancing AV-human interaction in real-world traffic environments.

Yongxi Cao, Julian F. Schumann, Jens Kober et al.

Deep generative models such as conditional variational autoencoders (CVAEs) have shown great promise for predicting trajectories of surrounding agents in autonomous vehicle planning. State-of-the-art models have achieved remarkable accuracy in such prediction tasks. Besides accuracy, diversity is also crucial for safe planning because human behaviors are inherently uncertain and multimodal. However, existing methods generally lack a scheme to generate controllably diverse trajectories, which is arguably more useful than randomly diversified trajectories, to the end of safe planning. To address this, we propose PrefCVAE, an augmented CVAE framework that uses weakly labeled preference pairs to imbue latent variables with semantic attributes. Using average velocity as an example attribute, we demonstrate that PrefCVAE enables controllable, semantically meaningful predictions without degrading baseline accuracy. Our results show the effectiveness of preference supervision as a cost-effective way to enhance sampling-based generative models.

Julian F. Schumann, Anna Mészáros, Jens Kober et al.

While trajectory prediction plays a critical role in enabling safe and effective path-planning in automated vehicles, standardized practices for evaluating such models remain underdeveloped. Recent efforts have aimed to unify dataset formats and model interfaces for easier comparisons, yet existing frameworks often fall short in supporting heterogeneous traffic scenarios, joint prediction models, or user documentation. In this work, we introduce STEP -- a new benchmarking framework that addresses these limitations by providing a unified interface for multiple datasets, enforcing consistent training and evaluation conditions, and supporting a wide range of prediction models. We demonstrate the capabilities of STEP in a number of experiments which reveal 1) the limitations of widely-used testing procedures, 2) the importance of joint modeling of agents for better predictions of interactions, and 3) the vulnerability of current state-of-the-art models against both distribution shifts and targeted attacks by adversarial agents. With STEP, we aim to shift the focus from the ``leaderboard'' approach to deeper insights about model behavior and generalization in complex multi-agent settings.

Amir Hossein Kalantari, Eleonora Papadimitriou, Arkady Zgonnikov et al.

Reliable risk identification based on driver behavior data underpins real-time safety feedback, fleet risk management, and evaluation of driver-assist systems. While naturalistic driving studies have become foundational for providing real-world driver behavior data, the existing frameworks for identifying risk based on such data have two fundamental limitations: (i) they rely on predefined time windows and fixed thresholds to disentangle risky and normal driving behavior, and (ii) they assume behavior is stationary across drivers and time, ignoring heterogeneity and temporal drift. In practice, these limitations can lead to timing errors and miscalibration in alerts, weak generalization to new drivers/routes/conditions, and higher false-alarm and miss rates, undermining driver trust and reducing safety intervention effectiveness. To address this gap, we propose a unified, context-aware framework that adapts labels and models over time and across drivers via rolling windows, joint optimization, dynamic calibration, and model fusion, tailored for time-stamped kinematic data. The framework is tested using two safety indicators, speed-weighted headway and harsh driving events, and three models: Random Forest, XGBoost, and Deep Neural Network (DNN). Speed-weighted headway yielded more stable and context-sensitive classifications than harsh-event counts. XGBoost maintained consistent performance under changing thresholds, whereas DNN achieved higher recall at lower thresholds but with greater variability across trials. The ensemble aggregated signals from multiple models into a single risk decision, balancing responsiveness to risky behavior with control of false alerts. Overall, the framework shows promise for adaptive, context-aware risk detection that can enhance real-time safety feedback and support driver-focused interventions in intelligent transportation systems.

Anna Mészáros, Julian F. Schumann, Javier Alonso-Mora et al.

The estimation of probability density functions is a fundamental problem in science and engineering. However, common methods such as kernel density estimation (KDE) have been demonstrated to lack robustness, while more complex methods have not been evaluated in multi-modal estimation problems. In this paper, we present ROME (RObust Multi-modal Estimator), a non-parametric approach for density estimation which addresses the challenge of estimating multi-modal, non-normal, and highly correlated distributions. ROME utilizes clustering to segment a multi-modal set of samples into multiple uni-modal ones and then combines simple KDE estimates obtained for individual clusters in a single multi-modal estimate. We compared our approach to state-of-the-art methods for density estimation as well as ablations of ROME, showing that it not only outperforms established methods but is also more robust to a variety of distributions. Our results demonstrate that ROME can overcome the issues of over-fitting and over-smoothing exhibited by other estimators.

Yongqi Dong, Lanxin Zhang, Haneen Farah et al.

Detecting abnormal driving behavior is critical for road traffic safety and the evaluation of drivers' behavior. With the advancement of machine learning (ML) algorithms and the accumulation of naturalistic driving data, many ML models have been adopted for abnormal driving behavior detection (also referred to in this paper as "anomalies"). Most existing ML-based detectors rely on (fully) supervised ML methods, which require substantial labeled data. However, ground truth labels are not always available in the real world, and labeling large amounts of data is tedious. Thus, there is a need to explore unsupervised or semi-supervised methods to make the anomaly detection process more feasible and efficient. To fill this research gap, this study analyzes large-scale real-world data revealing several abnormal driving behaviors (e.g., sudden acceleration, rapid lane-changing) and develops a hierarchical extreme learning machine (HELM)-based semi-supervised ML method using partly labeled data to detect the identified abnormal driving behaviors. Moreover, previous ML-based approaches predominantly utilized basic vehicle motion features (such as velocity and acceleration) to label and detect abnormal driving behaviors, while this study seeks to introduce event-level safety indicators as input features for ML models to improve detection performance. Results from extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed semi-supervised ML model with the introduced safety indicators serving as important features. The proposed semi-supervised ML method outperforms other baseline semi-supervised or unsupervised methods: for example, it delivers the best accuracy at 99.58% and the best F1-score at 0.9913. The ablation study further highlights the significance of safety indicators for advancing the detection performance of abnormal driving behaviors.

Frederik S. B. Westerhout, Julian F. Schumann, Arkady Zgonnikov

Understanding traffic participants' behaviour is crucial for predicting their future trajectories, aiding in developing safe and reliable planning systems for autonomous vehicles. Integrating cognitive processes and machine learning models has shown promise in other domains but is lacking in the trajectory forecasting of multiple traffic agents in large-scale autonomous driving datasets. This work investigates the state-of-the-art trajectory forecasting model Trajectron++ which we enhance by incorporating a smoothing term in its attention module. This attention mechanism mimics human attention inspired by cognitive science research indicating limits to attention switching. We evaluate the performance of the resulting Smooth-Trajectron++ model and compare it to the original model on various benchmarks, revealing the potential of incorporating insights from human cognition into trajectory prediction models.

Julian F. Schumann, Aravinda Ramakrishnan Srinivasan, Jens Kober et al.

The development of automated vehicles has the potential to revolutionize transportation, but they are currently unable to ensure a safe and time-efficient driving style. Reliable models predicting human behavior are essential for overcoming this issue. While data-driven models are commonly used to this end, they can be vulnerable in safety-critical edge cases. This has led to an interest in models incorporating cognitive theory, but as such models are commonly developed for explanatory purposes, this approach's effectiveness in behavior prediction has remained largely untested so far. In this article, we investigate the usefulness of the \emph{Commotions} model -- a novel cognitively plausible model incorporating the latest theories of human perception, decision-making, and motor control -- for predicting human behavior in gap acceptance scenarios, which entail many important traffic interactions such as lane changes and intersections. We show that this model can compete with or even outperform well-established data-driven prediction models across several naturalistic datasets. These results demonstrate the promise of incorporating cognitive theory in behavior prediction models for automated vehicles.

Markus Peschl, Arkady Zgonnikov, Frans A. Oliehoek et al.

Inferring reward functions from demonstrations and pairwise preferences are auspicious approaches for aligning Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents with human intentions. However, state-of-the art methods typically focus on learning a single reward model, thus rendering it difficult to trade off different reward functions from multiple experts. We propose Multi-Objective Reinforced Active Learning (MORAL), a novel method for combining diverse demonstrations of social norms into a Pareto-optimal policy. Through maintaining a distribution over scalarization weights, our approach is able to interactively tune a deep RL agent towards a variety of preferences, while eliminating the need for computing multiple policies. We empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of MORAL in two scenarios, which model a delivery and an emergency task that require an agent to act in the presence of normative conflicts. Overall, we consider our research a step towards multi-objective RL with learned rewards, bridging the gap between current reward learning and machine ethics literature.

Luciano Cavalcante Siebert, Maria Luce Lupetti, Evgeni Aizenberg et al.

How can humans remain in control of artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems designed to perform tasks autonomously? Such systems are increasingly ubiquitous, creating benefits - but also undesirable situations where moral responsibility for their actions cannot be properly attributed to any particular person or group. The concept of meaningful human control has been proposed to address responsibility gaps and mitigate them by establishing conditions that enable a proper attribution of responsibility for humans; however, clear requirements for researchers, designers, and engineers are yet inexistent, making the development of AI-based systems that remain under meaningful human control challenging. In this paper, we address the gap between philosophical theory and engineering practice by identifying, through an iterative process of abductive thinking, four actionable properties for AI-based systems under meaningful human control, which we discuss making use of two applications scenarios: automated vehicles and AI-based hiring. First, a system in which humans and AI algorithms interact should have an explicitly defined domain of morally loaded situations within which the system ought to operate. Second, humans and AI agents within the system should have appropriate and mutually compatible representations. Third, responsibility attributed to a human should be commensurate with that human's ability and authority to control the system. Fourth, there should be explicit links between the actions of the AI agents and actions of humans who are aware of their moral responsibility. We argue that these four properties will support practically-minded professionals to take concrete steps toward designing and engineering for AI systems that facilitate meaningful human control.

Olger Siebinga, Arkady Zgonnikov, David Abbink

A major challenge for autonomous vehicles is interacting with other traffic participants safely and smoothly. A promising approach to handle such traffic interactions is equipping autonomous vehicles with interaction-aware controllers (IACs). These controllers predict how surrounding human drivers will respond to the autonomous vehicle's actions, based on a driver model. However, the predictive validity of driver models used in IACs is rarely validated, which can limit the interactive capabilities of IACs outside the simple simulated environments in which they are demonstrated. In this paper, we argue that besides evaluating the interactive capabilities of IACs, their underlying driver models should be validated on natural human driving behavior. We propose a workflow for this validation that includes scenario-based data extraction and a two-stage (tactical/operational) evaluation procedure based on human factors literature. We demonstrate this workflow in a case study on an inverse-reinforcement-learning-based driver model replicated from an existing IAC. This model only showed the correct tactical behavior in 40% of the predictions. The model's operational behavior was inconsistent with observed human behavior. The case study illustrates that a principled evaluation workflow is useful and needed. We believe that our workflow will support the development of appropriate driver models for future automated vehicles.

W. Paul Boyce, Tony Lindsay, Arkady Zgonnikov et al.

Multimodal integration is an important process in perceptual decision-making. In humans, this process has often been shown to be statistically optimal, or near optimal: sensory information is combined in a fashion that minimises the average error in perceptual representation of stimuli. However, sometimes there are costs that come with the optimization, manifesting as illusory percepts. We review audio-visual facilitations and illusions that are products of multisensory integration, and the computational models that account for these phenomena. In particular, the same optimal computational model can lead to illusory percepts, and we suggest that more studies should be needed to detect and mitigate these illusions, as artefacts in artificial cognitive systems. We provide cautionary considerations when designing artificial cognitive systems with the view of avoiding such artefacts. Finally, we suggest avenues of research towards solutions to potential pitfalls in system design. We conclude that detailed understanding of multisensory integration and the mechanisms behind audio-visual illusions can benefit the design of artificial cognitive systems.