Ethical dilemmas are a common challenge in everyday driving, requiring human drivers to balance competing priorities such as safety, efficiency, and rule compliance. However, much of the existing research in automated vehicles (AVs) has focused on high-stakes "trolley problems," which involve extreme and rare situations. Such scenarios, though rich in ethical implications, are rarely applicable in real-world AV decision-making. In practice, when AVs confront everyday ethical dilemmas, they often appear to prioritise strict adherence to traffic rules. By contrast, human drivers may bend the rules in context-specific situations, using judgement informed by practical concerns such as safety and efficiency. According to the concept of meaningful human control, AVs should respond to human reasons, including those of drivers, vulnerable road users, and policymakers. This work introduces a novel human reasons-based supervision framework that detects when AV behaviour misaligns with expected human reasons to trigger trajectory reconsideration. The framework integrates with motion planning and control systems to support real-time adaptation, enabling decisions that better reflect safety, efficiency, and regulatory considerations. Simulation results demonstrate that this approach could help AVs respond more effectively to ethical challenges in dynamic driving environments by prompting replanning when the current trajectory fails to align with human reasons. These findings suggest that our approach offers a path toward more adaptable, human-centered decision-making in AVs.

Understanding how human drivers handle inter-actions with each other can aid the development of automated vehicles capable of operating in mixed traffic. Interactions between human drivers are often complex, so driver behavior models are needed to better understand them. However, existing models mostly focus on the behavior of one driver, which limits their ability to explain complex reciprocal interactions between multiple drivers. At the same time, the prior research that does focus on interactive behaviors of two or more drivers is typically limited to describing drivers' tactical decisions, limiting the understanding of how these decisions are related to operational aspects of behavior (safety margins and control inputs). In this work, we address this gap, focusing specif-ically on highway merging interactions. We build upon the Communication-Enabled Interactions (CEI) framework - a previously proposed holistic approach to interaction modeling. We develop a CEI-based model of highway merging that captures both tactical and operational aspects of the behavior of two drivers interacting in a highway merging scenario. Our model exhibits human-like behavior aligned with empirical observations of high-level decisions (i.e., who goes first?), safety margins (headways), and position and velocity profiles. Based on our model, we identify key mechanisms regarding drivers' beliefs, velocity perception, and planning, which can potentially generalize beyond highway merging to other interactive human driving behaviors. Our findings highlight the potential of the CEI framework in modeling reciprocal traffic interactions in realistic traffic scenarios, and contribute to understanding the complexities of interactions between human drivers.

Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) plays a crucial role in machine perception for advanced driver assistance systems. Existing LiDARs, however, do not adapt their sensing strategy to complement driver's perception. We demonstrate a novel LiDAR prototype that dynamically adapts its range and resolution over the field of view, according to real-time driver gaze. Our gaze-aware LiDAR emphasizes scanning peripheral zones the driver may overlook, i.e., critical areas during driving. Our demonstration showcases enhanced perception, highlighting the potential of hybrid human-machine sensing for safer driving.

Autonomous vehicles rely on accurate trajectory prediction to inform decision-making processes related to navigation and collision avoidance. However, current trajectory prediction models show signs of overfitting, which may lead to unsafe or suboptimal behavior. To address these challenges, this paper presents a comprehensive framework that categorizes and assesses the definitions and strategies used in the literature on evaluating and improving the robustness of trajectory prediction models. This involves a detailed exploration of various approaches, including data slicing methods, perturbation techniques, model architecture changes, and post-training adjustments. In the literature, we see many promising methods for increasing robustness, which are necessary for safe and reliable autonomous driving.

Predicting the future behavior of human road users is an important aspect for the development of risk-aware autonomous vehicles. While many models have been developed towards this end, effectively capturing and predicting the variability inherent to human behavior still remains an open challenge. This paper proposes TrajFlow—a new approach for probabilistic trajectory prediction based on Normalizing Flows. We reformulate the problem of capturing distributions over trajectories into capturing distributions over abstracted trajectory features using an autoencoder, simplifying the learning task of the Normalizing Flows. TrajFlow outperforms state-of-the-art behavior prediction models in capturing full trajectory distributions in two synthetic benchmarks with known true distributions, and is competitive on the naturalistic datasets ETH/UCY, rounD, and nuScenes. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of TrajFlow in probabilistic prediction of human behavior.

Autonomous vehicles currently suffer from a time-inefficient driving style caused by uncertainty about human behavior, which could be improved by accurate and reliable prediction models enabling more efficient trajectory planning. However, the evaluation of such models is commonly over-simplistic, 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.

The use of partially automated driving systems raises concerns about potential responsibility issues, posing risk to the system safety, acceptance, and adoption of these technologies. The concept of meaningful human control has emerged in response to the responsibility gap problem, requiring the fulfillment of two conditions, tracking and tracing. While this concept has provided important philosophical and design insights on automated driving systems, there is currently little knowledge on how meaningful human control relates to subjective experiences of actual users of these systems. To address this gap, our study aimed to investigate the alignment between the degree of meaningful human control and drivers’ perceptions of safety and trust in a real-world partially automated driving system. We utilized previously collected data from interviews with Tesla "Full Self-Driving" (FSD) Beta users, investigating the alignment between the user perception and how well the system was tracking the users’ reasons. We found that tracking of users’ reasons for driving tasks (such as safe maneuvers) correlated with perceived safety and trust, albeit with notable exceptions. Surprisingly, failure to track lane changing and braking reasons was not necessarily associated with negative perceptions of safety. However, the failure of the system to track expected maneuvers in dangerous situations always resulted in low trust and perceived lack of safety. Overall, our analyses highlight alignment points but also possible discrepancies between perceived safety and trust on the one hand, and meaningful human control on the other hand. Our results can help the developers of automated driving technology to design systems under meaningful human control and are perceived as safe and trustworthy.

Unprecedented possibilities of quadruped robots have driven much research on the technical aspects of these robots. However, the social perception and acceptability of quadruped robots so far remain poorly understood. This work investigates whether the way we design quadruped robots’ behaviours can affect people’s perception of safety in interactions with these robots. We designed and tested a dominant and submissive personality for the quadruped robot (Boston Dynamics Spot). These were tested in two different walking scenarios (head-on and crossing interactions) in a 2x2 within-subjects study. We collected both behavioural data and subjective reports on participants’ perception of the interaction. The results highlight that participants perceived the submissive robot as safer compared to the dominant one. The behavioural dynamics of interactions did not change depending on the robot’s appearance. Participants’ previous in-person experience with the robot was associated with lower subjective safety ratings but did not correlate with the interaction dynamics. Our findings have implications for the design of quadruped robots and contribute to the body of knowledge on the social perception of non-humanoid robots. We call for a stronger standing of felt experiences in human-robot interaction research.

Understanding behavior of human drivers in interactions with automated vehicles (AV) can aid the development of future AVs. Existing investigations of such behavior have predominantly focused on situations in which an AV a priori needs to take action because the human has the right of way. However, future AVs might need to proactively manage interactions even if they have the right of way over humans, e.g., a human driver taking a left turn in front of the approaching AV. Yet it remains unclear how AVs could behave in such interactions and how humans would react to them. To address this issue, here we investigated behavior of human drivers (N=19) when interacting with an oncoming AV during unprotected left turns in a driving simulator experiment. We measured the outcomes (Go or Stay) and timing of participants’ decisions when interacting with an AV which performed subtle longitudinal nudging maneuvers, e.g. briefly decelerating and then accelerating back to its original speed. We found that participants’ behavior was sensitive to deceleration nudges but not acceleration nudges. We compared the obtained data to predictions of several variants of a drift-diffusion model of human decision making. The most parsimonious model that captured the data hypothesized noisy integration of dynamic information on time-to-arrival and distance to a fixed decision boundary, with an initial accumulation bias towards the Go decision. Our model not only accounts for the observed behavior but can also flexibly generate predictions of human responses to arbitrary longitudinal AV maneuvers, and can be used for both informing future studies of human behavior and incorporating insights from such studies into computational frameworks for AV interaction planning.

Traffic jams occurring on highways cause increased travel time as well as increased fuel consumption and collisions. So-calledphantom traffic jamsare traffic jams that do not have a clear cause, such as a merging on-ramp or an accident. Phantom traffic jams make up 50% of all traffic jams and result from instabilities in the traffic flow that are caused by human driving behavior. Automating the longitudinal vehicle motion of only 5% of all cars in the flow can dissipate phantom traffic jams. However, driving automation introduces safety issues when human drivers need to take over the control from the automation. We investigated whether phantom traffic jams can be dissolved using haptic shared control. This keeps humans in the loop and thus bypasses the problem of humans' limited capacity to take over control, while benefiting from most advantages of automation. In an experiment with 24 participants in a driving simulator, we tested the effect of haptic shared control on the dynamics of traffic flow and compared it with manual control and full automation. We also investigated the effect of two control types on participants' behavior during simulated silent automation failures. Results show that haptic shared control can help dissipating phantom traffic jams better than fully manual control but worse than full automation. We also found that haptic shared control reduces the occurrence of unsafe situations caused by silent automation failures compared to full automation. Our results suggest that haptic shared control can dissipate phantom traffic jams while preventing safety risks associated with full automation.

Modelling causal responsibility in multi-agent spatial interactions is crucial for safety and efficiency of interactions of humans with autonomous agents. However, current formal metrics and models of responsibility either lack grounding in ethical and philosophical concepts of responsibility, or cannot be applied to spatial interactions. In this work we propose a metric of causal responsibility which is tailored to multi-agent spatial interactions, for instance interactions in traffic. In such interactions, a given agent can, by reducing another agent’s feasible action space, influence the latter. Therefore, we propose feasible action space reduction (FeAR) as a metric of causal responsibility among agents. Specifically, we look at ex-post causal responsibility for simultaneous actions. We propose the use of Moves de Rigueur (MdR) — a consistent set of prescribed actions for agents — to model the effect of norms on responsibility allocation. We apply the metric in a grid world simulation for spatial interactions and show how the actions, contexts, and norms affect the causal responsibility ascribed to agents. Finally, we demonstrate the application of this metric in complex multi-agent interactions. We argue that the FeAR metric is a step towards an interdisciplinary framework for quantifying responsibility that is needed to ensure safety and meaningful human control in human-AI systems.

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 AV s 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.

This interdisciplinary workshop aims to break boundaries between the researchers who develop human models (e.g., from the fields of human factors, cognitive psychology, and computational neuroscience) and roboticists who use human models in different human-robot interaction (HRI) contexts. The keynote talks, contributed submissions, and interactive discussions will focus on the questions such as: How can modeling humans help us understand and design human-robot interactions? What kinds of models are useful for which HRI contexts (physical/cognitive interactions) and purposes (behavior prediction/personalization/theory -of- mind/etc.)? What common lessons can be learned from human behavior modeling in HRI across different application domains? How can modeling humans in HRI tasks help us to better understand human cognition/behavior? By stimulating an interdisciplinary conver-sation around these questions, we aim to raise awareness of the benefits of modeling and expose the wider HRI community to a variety of different modeling approaches, and facilitate the HRI researchers who already engage in modeling to exchange views on methodology of modeling and best nractices from diverse fields.

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 article, 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.

Decisions are occasionally accompanied by changes-of-mind. While considered a hallmark of cognitive flexibility, the mechanisms underlying changes-of-mind remain elusive. Previous studies on perceptual decision making have focused on changes-of-mind that are primarily driven by the accumulation of additional noisy sensory evidence after the initial decision. In a motion discrimination task, we demonstrate that changes-of-mind can occur even in the absence of additional evidence after the initial decision. Unlike previous studies of changes-of-mind, the majority of changes-of-mind in our experiment occurred in trials with prolonged initial response times. This suggests a distinct mechanism underlying such changes. Using a neural circuit model of decision uncertainty and change-of-mind behaviour, we demonstrate that this phenomenon is associated with top-down signals mediated by an uncertainty-monitoring neural population. Such a mechanism is consistent with recent neurophysiological evidence showing a link between changes-of-mind and elevated top-down neural activity. Our model explains the long response times associated with changes-of-mind through high decision uncertainty levels in such trials, and accounts for the observed motor response trajectories. Overall, our work provides a computational framework that explains changes-of-mind in the absence of new post-decision evidence.

Human operators often employ intermittent, discontinuous control strategies in a variety of tasks. A typical intermittent controller monitors control error and generates corrective action when the deviation of the controlled system from the desired state becomes too large to ignore. Most contemporary models of human intermittent control employ simple, threshold-based trigger mechanism to model the process of control activation. However, recent experimental studies demonstrate that the control activation patterns produced by human operators do not support threshold-based models, and provide evidence for more complex activation mechanisms. In this paper, we investigate whether intermittent control activation in humans can be modeled as a decision-making process. We utilize an established drift-diffusion model, which treats decision making as an evidence accumulation process, and study it in simple numerical simulations. We demonstrate that this model robustly replicates the control activation patterns (distributions of control error at movement onset) produced by human operators in previously conducted experiments on virtual inverted pendulum balancing. Our results provide support to the hypothesis that intermittent control activation in human operators can be treated as an evidence accumulation process.

Maintaining vertical position of an inverted pendulum is a simple balancing task, which is widely used to study human control behavior. Yet, much about this behavior remains poorly understood even in the context of simple virtual tasks. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the control behavior of human operators depends on the type of visual feedback from the controlled system. We analyze the experimental data on human stick balancing on a computer screen. The previous studies reported detailed analysis of the task performance of human operators observing only the angular deviation of the stick from the vertical. In this study we augmented the information supplied to the operator by linear displacement of the upper tip of the stick from the reference point. This additional information was suggested to improve the performance of the operators. Surprisingly, the subjects not only exhibited better performance, but also supposedly employed structurally different control mechanisms in the linear displacement condition. The found results may have potential implications both for fundamental research aimed at investigating the basic properties of human control, and applied research on human factors.

We propose the dynamical model describing the effect of boredom in the human learning process. It is shown numerically that the instability may appear in the dynamics of the system corresponding to the simple case of the single agent performing repeated choice between two alternatives. The discovered patterns of the periodic preference oscillations confirm that the model under consideration could capture such interesting phenomenon of human behavior as the boredom effect.