pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.02215 · v5 · submitted 2025-06-02 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.SY· eess.SY

Active inference as a unified model of collision avoidance behavior in human drivers

Julian F. Schumann , Johan Engstr\"om , Leif Johnson , Matthew O'Kelly , Joao Messias , Jens Kober , Arkady Zgonnikov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 10:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY
keywords active inferencecollision avoidancehuman driving behaviorevidence accumulationfree energy minimizationcomputational cognitive modeldriving simulatorunified framework
0
0 comments X

The pith

An active inference model accounts for human collision avoidance across driving scenarios using a single mechanism.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes a computational model in which drivers minimize free energy through active inference while accumulating evidence about threats. This single framework is applied to two scenarios: a lead vehicle braking suddenly and an oncoming vehicle entering the lane. The model reproduces both the broad statistical patterns reported in earlier meta-analyses and the detailed timing, maneuver choices, and execution patterns recorded in a recent simulator experiment. A sympathetic reader would care because the work replaces several fragmented scenario-specific accounts with one coherent cognitive process.

Core claim

The authors claim that active inference, when combined with evidence accumulation, provides a unified account of human collision avoidance. The model reproduces aggregate results from prior meta-analyses as well as scenario-specific effects on response timing, maneuver selection, and execution observed in a driving simulator study for both front-to-rear braking and lateral incursion cases.

What carries the argument

Active inference, defined as the minimization of free energy to select perceptions and actions, augmented by evidence accumulation for timing decisions.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that active inference plus evidence accumulation can capture the core mechanisms of collision avoidance across scenarios without requiring post-hoc, scenario-specific parameter adjustments tuned to each dataset.

What would settle it

A new driving simulator experiment using previously untested scenarios in which the model, after only general parameter fitting, fails to predict human response timing or chosen maneuvers within the range of observed variability.

read the original abstract

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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an active inference model augmented with evidence accumulation as a unified computational account of human collision avoidance in driving. It is applied to two scenarios (front-to-rear lead-vehicle braking and lateral incursion) and claims to reproduce both aggregate meta-analytic results from the literature and detailed, scenario-specific effects (response timing, maneuver selection, execution) from a recent simulator study.

Significance. A demonstration that a single set of active-inference parameters can generate a priori reproductions of both meta-analytic aggregates and fine-grained simulator data across distinct collision-avoidance scenarios would constitute a meaningful unification of fragmented cognitive models in this domain. The principled use of free-energy minimization plus evidence accumulation is a strength, but only if the reported simulations are shown to be parameter-fixed and not post-hoc fits.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (Model): the central claim that the model reproduces empirical findings 'without scenario-specific parameter adjustments' cannot be evaluated because no numerical values are supplied for the free-energy precision, accumulation rate, action-selection thresholds, or any other free parameters. Without these values it is impossible to verify that identical settings were used for both the front-to-rear and lateral-incursion simulations.
  2. [§5] §5 (Results): the reported reproductions of meta-analytic aggregates and simulator-study effects are presented without quantitative fit statistics (e.g., RMSE, R², or confidence intervals on model outputs), without error bars on simulated trajectories, and without an explicit statement that the same parameter vector was held fixed across scenarios. This information is load-bearing for the 'unified without tuning' assertion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state whether plotted trajectories are single runs or averages over multiple simulations.
  2. [§4] A table listing all model parameters with their fixed numerical values (and the source of each value) would greatly improve clarity and reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments highlighting the need for explicit parameter reporting and quantitative validation to support the unified-model claim. We have revised the manuscript to provide the requested details while preserving the original simulation results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4 (Model): the central claim that the model reproduces empirical findings 'without scenario-specific parameter adjustments' cannot be evaluated because no numerical values are supplied for the free-energy precision, accumulation rate, action-selection thresholds, or any other free parameters. Without these values it is impossible to verify that identical settings were used for both the front-to-rear and lateral-incursion simulations.

    Authors: We agree that explicit numerical values are required for independent verification. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated parameter table in Section 4 listing all free parameters (free-energy precision, accumulation rate, action-selection thresholds, and priors) together with their numerical values. The table is accompanied by an explicit statement that these identical values were used for both the front-to-rear braking and lateral-incursion simulations, confirming the absence of scenario-specific tuning. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (Results): the reported reproductions of meta-analytic aggregates and simulator-study effects are presented without quantitative fit statistics (e.g., RMSE, R², or confidence intervals on model outputs), without error bars on simulated trajectories, and without an explicit statement that the same parameter vector was held fixed across scenarios. This information is load-bearing for the 'unified without tuning' assertion.

    Authors: We accept that quantitative fit measures and visual uncertainty indicators strengthen the presentation. The revised Section 5 now reports RMSE and R² values comparing model outputs to both the meta-analytic aggregates and the simulator-study effects. Error bars (standard deviation across 100 simulation runs) have been added to all trajectory plots, and the text explicitly states that a single fixed parameter vector was used for both scenarios. These additions directly address the concern that the reproductions might reflect post-hoc fitting. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Reproduction of simulator and meta-analytic data reduces to parameter fitting rather than a-priori prediction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "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."

    The paper presents these reproductions as evidence that the model captures the core mechanisms 'without requiring scenario-specific parameter adjustments that are tuned post-hoc to the target datasets.' Yet the only way to obtain close quantitative matches to the specific timing, selection, and execution data is to optimize the model's free parameters on those same datasets, rendering the match a fit by construction rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a single active-inference model with evidence accumulation reproduces both meta-analytic aggregates and detailed simulator results (timing, maneuver choice, execution) across scenarios without scenario-specific post-hoc tuning. However, the reported 'reproductions' and 'explanations' of the target empirical datasets are achieved by adjusting free-energy parameters (precision, accumulation rates, thresholds) to match those same datasets. This converts the claimed unified predictions into descriptive fits, violating the no-adjustment unification assertion. The derivation chain therefore contains a fitted-input-called-prediction step at the validation stage.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based solely on abstract; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The model is described as building on prior active inference work and incorporating evidence accumulation, but concrete details are absent.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5757 in / 1128 out tokens · 34294 ms · 2026-05-19T10:44:38.724295+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Resolving space-sharing conflicts in road user interactions through uncertainty reduction: An active inference-based computational model

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Extending active inference to two road users shows normative expectations and explicit communication raise successful conflict resolution rates in simulations but increase collision risk when agents violate those expe...

  2. Resolving space-sharing conflicts in road user interactions through uncertainty reduction: An active inference-based computational model

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    An active inference model shows normative and explicit cues raise the chance of successful road conflict resolution but can cause collisions if agents violate expectations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 97 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    B¨ argman, V

    J. B¨ argman, V. Lisovskaja, T. Victor, C. Flannagan, M. Dozza, How does glance behavior influence crash and injury risk? A ‘what-if’ counterfactual simulation using crashes and near-crashes from SHRP2. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 35, 152–169 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.10.011. URL https://www.sciencedir...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.10.011 2015

  2. [2]

    Engstr¨ om, G

    J. Engstr¨ om, G. Markkula, Q. Xue, N. Merat, Simulating the effect of cognitive load on brak- ing responses in lead vehicle braking scenarios. IET Intelligent Transport Systems 12(6), 427–433 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2017.0233. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1049/iet-its.2017.0233. eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/d...

    work page doi:10.1049/iet-its.2017.0233 2018

  3. [3]

    Bianchi Piccinini, E

    G. Bianchi Piccinini, E. Lehtonen, F. Forcolin, J. Engstr¨ om, D. Albers, G. Markkula, J. Lodin, J. Sandin, How Do Drivers Respond to Silent Automation Failures? Driving Simulator Study and Comparison of Computational Driver Braking Models. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 62(7), 1212–1229 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1...

    work page doi:10.1177/0018720819875347 2020

  4. [4]

    Montali, J

    N. Montali, J. Lambert, P. Mougin, A. Kuefler, N. Rhinehart, M. Li, C. Gulino, T. Emrich, Z. Yang, S. Whiteson, B. White, D. Anguelov, The Waymo Open Sim Agents Challenge. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 59151–59171 (2023). URL https://proceedings. neurips.cc/paper files/paper/2023/hash/b96ce67b2f2d45e4ab315e13a6b5b9c5-Abstract-Datas...

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Olleja, G

    P. Olleja, G. Markkula, J. B¨ argman. Validation of human benchmark models for Automated Driving System approval: How competent and careful are they really? (2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2406.09493. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09493. ArXiv:2406.09493

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Engstr¨ om, S.Y

    J. Engstr¨ om, S.Y. Liu, A. Dinparastdjadid, C. Simoiu, Modeling road user response timing in nat- uralistic traffic conflicts: A surprise-based framework. Accident Analysis & Prevention 198, 107460 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2024.107460. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0001457524000058

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aap.2024.107460 2024

  7. [7]

    Matusz, S

    P.J. Matusz, S. Dikker, A.G. Huth, C. Perrodin, Are We Ready for Real-world Neuroscience? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 31(3), 327–338 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn e 01276. URL https: //doi.org/10.1162/jocn e 01276

    work page doi:10.1162/jocn 2019

  8. [8]

    Shamay-Tsoory, A

    S.G. Shamay-Tsoory, A. Mendelsohn, Real-Life Neuroscience: An Ecological Approach to Brain and Behavior Research. Perspectives on Psychological Science 14(5), 841–859 (2019). https://doi. org/10.1177/1745691619856350. URL https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619856350. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    work page doi:10.1177/1745691619856350 2019

  9. [9]

    Carvalho, A

    W. Carvalho, A. Lampinen. Naturalistic Computational Cognitive Science: Towards generalizable models and theories that capture the full range of natural behavior (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2502.20349. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.20349. ArXiv:2502.20349 [q-bio]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Q. Xue, G. Markkula, X. Yan, N. Merat, Using perceptual cues for brake response to a lead vehicle: Comparing threshold and accumulator models of visual looming. Accident Analysis & Prevention 118, 114–124 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.06.006. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S0001457518302239 38

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aap.2018.06.006 2018

  11. [11]

    Sv¨ ard, G

    M. Sv¨ ard, G. Markkula, J. B¨ argman, T. Victor, Computational modeling of driver pre-crash brake response, with and without off-road glances: Parameterization using real-world crashes and near- crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention 163, 106433 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021. 106433. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aap.2021 2021

  12. [12]

    C. Guo, X. Wang, L. Su, Y. Wang, Safety distance model for longitudinal collision avoid- ance of logistics vehicles considering slope and road adhesion coefficient. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (2021). URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/ 0954407020959744

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Siebinga, A

    O. Siebinga, A. Zgonnikov, D.A. Abbink, A model of dyadic merging interactions explains human drivers’ behavior from control inputs to decisions. PNAS Nexus 3(10), pgae420 (2024). https: //doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae420. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae420

    work page doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae420 2024

  14. [14]

    Markkula, J

    G. Markkula, J. Engstr¨ om, J. Lodin, J. B¨ argman, T. Victor, A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies. Accident Analysis & Prevention 95, 209–226 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.07.007. URL https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457516302366

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.07.007 2016

  15. [15]

    Wei, A.D

    R. Wei, A.D. McDonald, A. Garcia, H. Alambeigi, Modeling Driver Responses to Automation Fail- ures With Active Inference. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23(10), 18064–18075 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2022.3155381. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ abstract/document/9733256. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Intelligen...

    work page doi:10.1109/tits.2022.3155381 2022

  16. [16]

    T. Li, J. Kovaceva, M. Dozza, Modeling collision avoidance maneuvers for micromobility vehicles. Journal of Safety Research 87, 232–243 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2023.09.019. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437523001500

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2023.09.019 2023

  17. [17]

    Y. Yuan, X. Weng, Y. Ou, K.M. Kitani,AgentFormer: Agent-Aware Transformers for Socio-Temporal Multi-Agent Forecasting, in IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (2021), pp. 9813–9823

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    S. Suo, S. Regalado, S. Casas, R. Urtasun, Trafficsim: Learning to simulate realistic multi-agent behaviors, in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2021), pp. 10400–10409

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    T. Gu, G. Chen, J. Li, C. Lin, Y. Rao, J. Zhou, J. Lu, Stochastic Trajectory Prediction via Motion Indeterminacy Diffusion, in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition(2022), pp. 17113–17122. URL https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/CVPR2022/ html/Gu Stochastic Trajectory Prediction via Motion Indeterminacy Diff...

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    M. Igl, D. Kim, A. Kuefler, P. Mougin, P. Shah, K. Shiarlis, D. Anguelov, M. Palatucci, B. White, S. Whiteson, Symphony: Learning realistic and diverse agents for autonomous driving simulation , in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (IEEE, 2022), pp. 2445–2451

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    M´ esz´ aros, J.F

    A. M´ esz´ aros, J.F. Schumann, J. Alonso-Mora, A. Zgonnikov, J. Kober,TrajFlow: Learning Distribu- tions over Trajectories for Human Behavior Prediction, in 2024 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (Jeju, 2024) 39

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Ivanovic, G

    B. Ivanovic, G. Song, I. Gilitschenski, M. Pavone, trajdata: A Unified Interface to Mul- tiple Human Trajectory Datasets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 27582–27593 (2023). URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper files/paper/2023/hash/ 57bb67dbe17bfb660c8c63d089ea05b9-Abstract-Datasets and Benchmarks.html

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Schumann, J

    J.F. Schumann, J. Kober, A. Zgonnikov, Benchmarking Behavior Prediction Models in Gap Accep- tance Scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 8(3), 2580–2591 (2023). https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TIV.2023.3244280

    work page doi:10.1109/tiv.2023.3244280 2023

  24. [25]

    Da Costa, T

    L. Da Costa, T. Parr, N. Sajid, S. Veselic, V. Neacsu, K. Friston, Active inference on discrete state- spaces: a synthesis. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 99, 102447 (2020). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jmp.2020.102447. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07203. ArXiv:2001.07203 [q-bio]

    work page arXiv 2020

  25. [26]

    T. Parr, G. Pezzulo, K.J. Friston, Active Inference: The Free Energy Principle in Mind, Brain, and Behavior (MIT Press, 2022). Google-Books-ID: UrZNEAAAQBAJ

    work page 2022

  26. [27]

    Smith, P

    R. Smith, P. Badcock, K.J. Friston, Recent advances in the application of predictive coding and active inference models within clinical neuroscience. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 75(1), 3–13 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.13138. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1111/pcn.13138. eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10...

    work page doi:10.1111/pcn.13138 2021

  27. [28]

    Frontiers in Psychology 9, 797 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg

    J. Vasil, P.B. Badcock, A. Constant, K. Friston, M.J.D. Ramstead, A World Unto Itself: Human Communication as Active Inference. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2020.00417. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg. 2020.00417/full. Publisher: Frontiers

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg 2020

  28. [29]

    Bottemanne, K.J

    H. Bottemanne, K.J. Friston, An active inference account of protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 21(6), 1117–1129 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-021-00947-0. URL https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-021-00947-0

    work page doi:10.3758/s13415-021-00947-0 2021

  29. [30]

    Harris, T

    D.J. Harris, T. Arthur, D.P. Broadbent, M.R. Wilson, S.J. Vine, O.R. Runswick, An Active Inference Account of Skilled Anticipation in Sport: Using Computational Models to Formalise Theory and Generate New Hypotheses. Sports Medicine 52(9), 2023–2038 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40279-022-01689-w. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01689-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01689-w 2023

  30. [31]

    Novick´ y, A.A

    F. Novick´ y, A.A. Meera, F. Zeldenrust, P. Lanillos. Precision not prediction: Body-ownership illusion as a consequence of online precision adaptation under Bayesian inference (2024). https://doi.org/ 10.1101/2024.09.04.611162. URL http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2024.09.04.611162

    work page doi:10.1101/2024.09.04.611162 2024

  31. [32]

    R. Wei, A. Garcia, A. McDonald, G. Markkula, J. Engstr¨ om, I. Supeene, M. O’Kelly, World Model Learning from Demonstrations with Active Inference: Application to Driving Behavior , in Active Inference, ed. by C.L. Buckley, D. Cialfi, P. Lanillos, M. Ramstead, N. Sajid, H. Shimazaki, T. Ver- belen (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2023), Communications ...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-28719-0 2023

  32. [33]

    Engstr¨ om, R

    J. Engstr¨ om, R. Wei, A.D. McDonald, A. Garcia, Matthew O’Kelly, L. Johnson, Resolving uncer- tainty on the fly: modeling adaptive driving behavior as active inference. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 18 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2024.1341750. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ 40 10.3389/fnbot.2024.1341750. Publisher: Frontiers

    work page doi:10.3389/fnbot.2024.1341750 2024

  33. [34]

    Lee, A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision

    D.N. Lee, A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception 5(4), 437–459 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1068/p050437

    work page doi:10.1068/p050437 1976

  34. [35]

    Psychology Press (1979)

    J.J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition (Psychology Press, New York, 2014). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740218

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315740218 2014

  35. [36]

    Luce, Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization (Oxford University Press on Demand, 1986)

    R.D. Luce, Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization (Oxford University Press on Demand, 1986). Issue: 8

    work page 1986

  36. [37]

    Gold, M.N

    J.I. Gold, M.N. Shadlen, The neural basis of decision making. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 30(1), 535–574 (2007)

    work page 2007

  37. [38]

    Ratcliff, H.P

    R. Ratcliff, H.P. Van Dongen, Diffusion model for one-choice reaction-time tasks and the cognitive effects of sleep deprivation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(27), 11285–11290 (2011)

    work page 2011

  38. [39]

    Markkula, Modeling driver control behavior in both routine and near-accident driving , in Proceed- ings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting , vol

    G. Markkula, Modeling driver control behavior in both routine and near-accident driving , in Proceed- ings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting , vol. 58 (SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2014), pp. 879–883

    work page 2014

  39. [40]

    Pekkanen, O

    J. Pekkanen, O. Lappi, P. Rinkkala, S. Tuhkanen, R. Frantsi, H. Summala, A computational model for driver’s cognitive state, visual perception and intermittent attention in a distracted car following task. Royal Society Open Science 5(9), 180194 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180194. URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.18019...

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.180194 2018

  40. [41]

    Hoffmann, Estimation of Time to Vehicle Arrival—Effects of Age on Use of Available Visual Information

    E.R. Hoffmann, Estimation of Time to Vehicle Arrival—Effects of Age on Use of Available Visual Information. Perception 23(8), 947–955 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1068/p230947. URL https: //doi.org/10.1068/p230947. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd STM

    work page doi:10.1068/p230947 1994

  41. [42]

    Lamble, M

    D. Lamble, M. Laakso, H. Summala, Detection thresholds in car following situations and peripheral vision: implications for positioning of visually demanding in-car displays. Ergonomics 42(6), 807–815 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/001401399185306. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/001401399185306. Publisher: Taylor & Francis eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/001...

    work page doi:10.1080/001401399185306 1999

  42. [43]

    Murphy, Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective (MIT press, 2012)

    K.P. Murphy, Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective (MIT press, 2012)

    work page 2012

  43. [44]

    Laurent, M

    H. Laurent, M. Sangnier, C. Treibich, Traffic safety and norms of compliance with rules: An exploratory study. Economics Bulletin 41(4), 2464–2483 (2021). URL http://www.scopus.com/ inward/record.url?scp=85125263034&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    work page 2021

  44. [45]

    Abbas, S

    S. Abbas, S. Fatima, A. Sharif, S.M. Adnan, Drivers’ knowledge, attitude and practices towards traffic rules and regulations. Journal of Road Safety 35(3), 24–31 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [46]

    Tennant, C

    C. Tennant, C. Neels, G. Parkhurst, P. Jones, S. Mirza, J. Stilgoe, Code, culture, and concrete: Self-driving vehicles and the rules of the road. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 3, 710478 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [47]

    Dinparastdjadid, I

    A. Dinparastdjadid, I. Supeene, J. Engstrom. Measuring Surprise in the Wild (2023). https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.07733. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07733. ArXiv:2305.07733 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.07733 2023

  47. [48]

    and Mannor, Shie and Rubinstein, Reuven Y

    P.T. de Boer, D.P. Kroese, S. Mannor, R.Y. Rubinstein, A Tutorial on the Cross-Entropy Method. Annals of Operations Research 134(1), 19–67 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-005-5724-z. 41 URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-005-5724-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10479-005-5724-z 2005

  48. [49]

    Simon, A behavioral model of rational choice

    H.A. Simon, A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics pp. 99–118 (1955)

    work page 1955

  49. [50]

    Summala, in Modelling Driver Behaviour in Automotive Environments: Critical Issues in Driver Interactions with Intelligent Transport Systems , ed

    H. Summala, in Modelling Driver Behaviour in Automotive Environments: Critical Issues in Driver Interactions with Intelligent Transport Systems , ed. by P.C. Cacciabue (Springer, London, 2007), pp. 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-618-6 11. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-84628-618-6 11

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-618-6 2007

  50. [51]

    H. Oh, J.M. Beck, P. Zhu, M.A. Sommer, S. Ferrari, T. Egner, Satisficing in split-second decision making is characterized by strategic cue discounting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 42(12), 1937–1956 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000284. Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association

    work page doi:10.1037/xlm0000284 1937

  51. [52]

    Callaway, B

    F. Callaway, B. van Opheusden, S. Gul, P. Das, P.M. Krueger, T.L. Griffiths, F. Lieder, Rational use of cognitive resources in human planning. Nature Human Behaviour 6(8), 1112–1125 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01332-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01332-8 2022

  52. [53]

    J. Engstroem, Scenario criticality determines the effect of working memory load on brake response time, in Proceedings of the European Conference on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems (2010), pp. 25–36. URL https://trid.trb.org/View/1150568

    work page arXiv 2010

  53. [54]

    Brookhuis, G

    K.A. Brookhuis, G. de Vries, D. de Waard, The effects of mobile telephoning on driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 23(4), 309–316 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(91) 90008-S. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000145759190008S

    work page doi:10.1016/0001-4575(91 1991

  54. [55]

    J.D. Lee, B. Caven, S. Haake, T.L. Brown, Speech-based interaction with in-vehicle computers: the effect of speech-based e-mail on drivers’ attention to the roadway. Human Factors 43(4), 631–640 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1518/001872001775870340

    work page doi:10.1518/001872001775870340 2001

  55. [56]

    Johnson, J

    L. Johnson, J. Engstr¨ om, A. Srinivasan, I. ¨Ozturk, G. Markkula, Looking for an out: Affordances, uncertainty and collision avoidance behavior of human drivers (2025). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2505.14842

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [57]

    Br¨ annstr¨ om, E

    M. Br¨ annstr¨ om, E. Coelingh, J. Sj¨ oberg, Decision-making on when to brake and when to steer to avoid a collision. International Journal of Vehicle Safety 7(1), 87–106 (2014). https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJVS.2014.058243. URL https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/full/10.1504/IJVS.2014. 058243. Publisher: Inderscience Publishers

    work page doi:10.1504/ijvs.2014.058243 2014

  57. [58]

    Venkatraman, J.D

    V. Venkatraman, J.D. Lee, C.W. Schwarz, Steer or Brake?: Modeling Drivers’ Collision-Avoidance Behavior by Using Perceptual Cues. Transportation Research Record2602(1), 97–103 (2016). https: //doi.org/10.3141/2602-12. URL https://doi.org/10.3141/2602-12. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    work page doi:10.3141/2602-12 2016

  58. [59]

    M. Hu, Y. Liao, W. Wang, G. Li, B. Cheng, F. Chen, Decision Tree-Based Maneuver Prediction for Driver Rear-End Risk-Avoidance Behaviors in Cut-In Scenarios. Journal of Advanced Transportation 2017, e7170358 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7170358. URL https://www.hindawi.com/ journals/jat/2017/7170358/. Publisher: Hindawi

    work page doi:10.1155/2017/7170358 2017

  59. [60]

    Sarkar, J.S

    A. Sarkar, J.S. Hickman, A.D. McDonald, W. Huang, T. Vogelpohl, G. Markkula, Steering or braking avoidance response in SHRP2 rear-end crashes and near-crashes: A decision tree approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention 154, 106055 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106055. URL https: 42 //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457521000865

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aap.2021.106055 2021

  60. [61]

    M.L. Aust, J. Engstr¨ om, M. Vistr¨ om, Effects of forward collision warning and repeated event expo- sure on emergency braking. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 18, 34–46 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.010. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S1369847813000065

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.010 2013

  61. [62]

    McDonald, H

    A.D. McDonald, H. Alambeigi, J. Engstr¨ om, G. Markkula, T. Vogelpohl, J. Dunne, N. Yuma, Toward Computational Simulations of Behavior During Automated Driving Takeovers: A Review of the Empirical and Modeling Literatures. Human Factors 61(4), 642–688 (2019). https://doi. org/10.1177/0018720819829572. URL https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819829572. Publishe...

    work page doi:10.1177/0018720819829572 2019

  62. [63]

    Kusano, H.C

    K.D. Kusano, H.C. Gabler, Safety Benefits of Forward Collision Warning, Brake Assist, and Autonomous Braking Systems in Rear-End Collisions. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems 13(4), 1546–1555 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2012.2191542. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6180219. Conference Name: IEEE Transacti...

    work page doi:10.1109/tits.2012.2191542 2012

  63. [64]

    Sv¨ ard, G

    M. Sv¨ ard, G. Markkula, J. Engstr¨ om, F. Granum, J. B¨ argman, A quantitative driver model of pre-crash brake onset and control , in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting , vol. 61 (2017), pp. 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601565. URL https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1360294647862811264. Publisher: SAGE Publications

    work page doi:10.1177/1541931213601565 2017

  64. [65]

    Fries, F

    A. Fries, F. Fahrenkrog, K. Donauer, M. Mai, F. Raisch, Driver behavior model for the safety assess- ment of automated driving , in 2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (IEEE, 2022), pp. 1669–1674

    work page 2022

  65. [66]

    Fries, L

    A. Fries, L. Lemberg, F. Fahrenkrog, M. Mai, A. Das, Modeling driver behavior in critical traffic sce- narios for the safety assessment of automated driving. Traffic Injury Prevention24(sup1), S105–S110 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2023.2211187. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588. 2023.2211187. Publisher: Taylor & Francis eprint: https://doi...

    work page doi:10.1080/15389588.2023.2211187 2023

  66. [67]

    de Oliveira, L

    L.F.A. de Oliveira, L. Schories, L. Brostek, M. Meywerk, Simulation-Based Evaluation of a Generic Autonomous Emergency Braking System Using a Cognitive Pedestrian Behavior Model , in 27th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) (2023). URL https: //trid.trb.org/View/2211669. Number: 23-0217

    work page arXiv 2023

  67. [68]

    R¨ ossert, J

    C. R¨ ossert, J. Drever, L. Brostek. Cognitive behavior model replicates road user response timing in naturalistic rear-end traffic conflicts (2024). https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/su5kt. URL https: //osf.io/su5kt

    work page doi:10.31219/osf.io/su5kt 2024

  68. [69]

    Hubmann, M

    C. Hubmann, M. Becker, D. Althoff, D. Lenz, C. Stiller, Decision making for autonomous driving considering interaction and uncertain prediction of surrounding vehicles , in 2017 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV) (IEEE, 2017), pp. 1671–1678

    work page 2017

  69. [70]

    Brechtel, T

    S. Brechtel, T. Gindele, R. Dillmann, Probabilistic decision-making under uncertainty for autonomous driving using continuous POMDPs , in 17th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems (ITSC) (2014), pp. 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2014.6957722

    work page doi:10.1109/itsc.2014.6957722 2014

  70. [71]

    Bouton, A

    M. Bouton, A. Cosgun, M.J. Kochenderfer, Belief state planning for autonomously navigating urban intersections, in 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (IEEE, 2017), pp. 825–830 43

    work page 2017

  71. [72]

    Pekkanen, O.T

    J. Pekkanen, O.T. Giles, Y.M. Lee, R. Madigan, T. Daimon, N. Merat, G. Markkula, Variable-Drift Diffusion Models of Pedestrian Road-Crossing Decisions. Computational Brain & Behavior 5(1), 60–80 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-021-00116-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s42113-021-00116-z 2022

  72. [73]

    Zgonnikov, D

    A. Zgonnikov, D. Abbink, G. Markkula, Should I Stay or Should I Go? Cognitive Modeling of Left- Turn Gap Acceptance Decisions in Human Drivers. Human Factors p. 00187208221144561 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208221144561. URL https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208221144561. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    work page doi:10.1177/00187208221144561 2022

  73. [74]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp

    J.F. Schumann, A.R. Srinivasan, J. Kober, G. Markkula, A. Zgonnikov, Using Models Based on Cog- nitive Theory to Predict Human Behavior in Traffic: A Case Study , in 2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (2023), pp. 5870–5875. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ITSC57777.2023.10421837. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/a...

    work page doi:10.1109/itsc57777.2023.10421837 2023

  74. [75]

    2011, Neural Comput., 23, 1661, 10.1162/NECO\_a\_00142

    T.H.B. FitzGerald, P. Schwartenbeck, M. Moutoussis, R.J. Dolan, K. Friston, Active Inference, Evidence Accumulation, and the Urn Task. Neural Computation 27(2), 306–328 (2015). https: //doi.org/10.1162/NECO a 00699. URL https://doi.org/10.1162/NECO a 00699

    work page doi:10.1162/neco 2015

  75. [76]

    Varela, E

    F.J. Varela, E. Thompson, E. Rosch, The embodied mind, revised edition: Cognitive science and human experience (MIT press, 2017)

    work page 2017

  76. [77]

    Thompson, Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind (Harvard University Press, 2010)

    E. Thompson, Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind (Harvard University Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  77. [78]

    Friston, Life as we know it

    K. Friston, Life as we know it. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 10(86), 20130475 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0475. URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/ rsif.2013.0475. Publisher: Royal Society

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.2013.0475 2013

  78. [79]

    Paolo, E

    E.D. Paolo, E. Thompson, R. Beer, Laying down a forking path: Tensions between enaction and the free energy principle. Philosophy and the Mind Sciences 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.33735/ phimisci.2022.9187. URL https://philosophymindscience.org/index.php/phimisci/article/view/9187

    work page arXiv 2022

  79. [80]

    Kiverstein, M.D

    J. Kiverstein, M.D. Kirchhoff, T. Froese, The Problem of Meaning: The Free Energy Princi- ple and Artificial Agency. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot. 2022.844773. URL https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurorobotics/articles/10.3389/fnbot.2022. 844773/full. Publisher: Frontiers

    work page doi:10.3389/fnbot 2022

  80. [82]

    Ramstead, in Affordances in Everyday Life: A Multidisciplinary Collection of Essays , ed

    M.J.D. Ramstead, in Affordances in Everyday Life: A Multidisciplinary Collection of Essays , ed. by Z. Djebbara (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022), pp. 193–202. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-031-08629-8 18. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08629-8 18

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08629-8 2022

Showing first 80 references.