B. Arem
Famous AuthorPublications
Linking Behaviour and Perception to Evaluate Meaningful Human Control over Partially Automated Driving
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.
Beyond Conservative Automated Driving in Multi-Agent Scenarios via Coupled Model Predictive Control and Deep Reinforcement Learning
Automated driving at unsignalized intersections is challenging due to complex multi-vehicle interactions and the need to balance safety and efficiency. Model Predictive Control (MPC) offers structured constraint handling through optimization but relies on hand-crafted rules that often produce overly conservative behavior. Deep Reinforcement Learning (RL) learns adaptive behaviors from experience but often struggles with safety assurance and generalization to unseen environments. In this study, we present an integrated MPC-RL framework to improve navigation performance in multi-agent scenarios. Experiments show that MPC-RL outperforms standalone MPC and end-to-end RL across three traffic-density levels. Collectively, MPC-RL reduces the collision rate by 21% and improves the success rate by 6.5% compared to pure MPC. We further evaluate zero-shot transfer to a highway merging scenario without retraining. Both MPC-based methods transfer substantially better than end-to-end PPO, which highlights the role of the MPC backbone in cross-scenario robustness. The framework also shows faster loss stabilization than end-to-end RL during training, which indicates a reduced learning burden. These results suggest that the integrated approach can improve the balance between safety performance and efficiency in multi-agent intersection scenarios, while the MPC component provides a strong foundation for generalization across driving environments. The implementation code is available open-source.
Artificial Intelligence for Modeling and Simulation of Mixed Automated and Human Traffic
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are now operating on public roads, which makes their testing and validation more critical than ever. Simulation offers a safe and controlled environment for evaluating AV performance in varied conditions. However, existing simulation tools mainly focus on graphical realism and rely on simple rule-based models and therefore fail to accurately represent the complexity of driving behaviors and interactions. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown strong potential to address these limitations; however, despite the rapid progress across AI methodologies, a comprehensive survey of their application to mixed autonomy traffic simulation remains lacking. Existing surveys either focus on simulation tools without examining the AI methods behind them, or cover ego-centric decision-making without addressing the broader challenge of modeling surrounding traffic. Moreover, they do not offer a unified taxonomy of AI methods covering individual behavior modeling to full scene simulation. To address these gaps, this survey provides a structured review and synthesis of AI methods for modeling AV and human driving behavior in mixed autonomy traffic simulation. We introduce a taxonomy that organizes methods into three families: agent-level behavior models, environment-level simulation methods, and cognitive and physics-informed methods. The survey analyzes how existing simulation platforms fall short of the needs of mixed autonomy research and outlines directions to narrow this gap. It also provides a chronological overview of AI methods and reviews evaluation protocols and metrics, simulation tools, and datasets. By covering both traffic engineering and computer science perspectives, we aim to bridge the gap between these two communities.
CARE Drive A Framework for Evaluating Reason-Responsiveness of Vision Language Models in Automated Driving
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.