skip to main content
10.1145/2909824.3020250acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Do You Want Your Autonomous Car To Drive Like You?

Published:06 March 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

With progress in enabling autonomous cars to drive safely on the road, it is time to start asking how they should be driving. A common answer is that they should be adopting their users' driving style. This makes the assumption that users want their autonomous cars to drive like they drive - aggressive drivers want aggressive cars, defensive drivers want defensive cars. In this paper, we put that assumption to the test. We find that users tend to prefer a significantly more defensive driving style than their own. Interestingly, they prefer the style they think is their own, even though their actual driving style tends to be more aggressive. We also find that preferences do depend on the specific driving scenario, opening the door for new ways of learning driving style preference.

References

  1. P. Abbeel and A. Y. Ng. Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning, page 1. ACM, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. ASHRAE. Standard 55 - thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. N. Banovic, T. Buzali, F. Chevalier, J. Mankoff, and A. K. Dey. Modeling and understanding human routine behavior. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 248--260. ACM, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Brackstone and M. McDonald. Car-following: a historical review. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2(4):181--196, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. M. Elhenawy, A. Jahangiri, H. A. Rakha, and I. El-Shawarby. Modeling driver stop/run behavior at the onset of a yellow indication considering driver run tendency and roadway surface conditions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 83:90--100, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. HERE360. How to humanize the autonomous car. http://360.here.com/2015/04/23/humanized-driving/, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J.-H. Hong, B. Margines, and A. K. Dey. A smartphone-based sensing platform to model aggressive driving behaviors. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 4047--4056. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. S. Horswill and F. P. McKenna. The effect of perceived control on risk taking1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(2):377--391, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. M. Kuderer, S. Gulati, and W. Burgard. Learning driving styles for autonomous vehicles from demonstration. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2641--2646. IEEE, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. C.-P. Lam, A. Y. Yang, and S. S. Sastry. An efficient algorithm for discrete-time hidden mode stochastic hybrid systems. In Control Conference (ECC), 2015 European, pages 1212--1218. IEEE, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. S. E. Lee, E. C. Olsen, and W. W. Wierwille. A comprehensive examination of naturalistic lane-changes. Technical report, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. H. M. Mandalia and M. D. D. Salvucci. Using support vector machines for lane-change detection. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, volume 49, pages 1965--1969. SAGE Publications, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. OpenDS. Welcome to opends 4.0! https://www.opends.eu/home, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. D. Sadigh, S. S. Sastry, S. A. Seshia, and A. Dragan. Information gathering actions over human internal state. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pages 66--73. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. D. D. Salvucci. Inferring driver intent: A case study in lane-change detection. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, volume 48, pages 2228--2231. SAGE Publications, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. S. Scherer, A. Dettmann, F. Hartwich, T. Pech, A. C. Bullinger, J. F. Krems, and G. Wanielik. How the driver wants to be driven-modelling driving styles in highly automated driving. Tagungsband, 7:2015--26, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. D. Silver, J. A. Bagnell, and A. Stentz. Learning from demonstration for autonomous navigation in complex unstructured terrain. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. O. Taubman-Ben-Ari, M. Mikulincer, and O. Gillath. The multidimensional driving style inventory--scale construct and validation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(3):323--332, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. C. Tomasi and R. Manduchi. Bilateral filtering for gray and color images. In Computer Vision, 1998. Sixth International Conference on, pages 839--846. IEEE, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. H. H. van Huysduynen, J. Terken, J.-B. Martens, and B. Eggen. Measuring driving styles: a validation of the multidimensional driving style inventory. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, pages 257--264. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. L. Xu, J. Hu, H. Jiang, and W. Meng. Establishing style-oriented driver models by imitating human driving behaviors. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16(5):2522--2530, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. N. M. Yusof and J. Karjanto. Comfort determination in autonomous driving style. In 3rd Workshop on User Experience of Autonomous Vehicles at AutoUI'15, pages 257--264. ACM, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. B. D. Ziebart, A. L. Maas, A. K. Dey, and J. A. Bagnell. Navigate like a cabbie: Probabilistic reasoning from observed context-aware behavior. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, pages 322--331. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Do You Want Your Autonomous Car To Drive Like You?

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                HRI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
                March 2017
                510 pages
                ISBN:9781450343367
                DOI:10.1145/2909824

                Copyright © 2017 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 6 March 2017

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

                Acceptance Rates

                HRI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate51of211submissions,24%Overall Acceptance Rate242of1,000submissions,24%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader