Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Composite Safety Potential Field for Highway Driving Risk Assessment

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a composite safety potential field—a subjective proximity field plus an objective collision-probability field—captures both the longitudinal and lateral risks that trigger drivers' maneuvers in highway driving.

desk verdict Practical composite risk field with a plausible S-field/O-field split, but the validation leans on in-sample calibration and the S-field 'likelihood' is not a likelihood; worth refereeing, not worth trusting yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21158 v1 pith:UY77UOTW submitted 2025-04-29 cs.RO stat.AP

Dachuan Zuo , Zilin Bian , Fan Zuo , Kaan Ozbay This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROstat.AP
keywords drivingriskassessmentsafetypotentialfielddriverperceptionsurrogatemeasuresnaturalistictrajectorydatageneralizedGaussiandistributioncollisionprobabilitylateralmaneuvers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a single composite risk indicator, the C-SPF, can explain why highway drivers brake, abandon lane changes, and shift laterally within their lane. The indicator overlays a subjective field, calibrated from the everyday two-dimensional spacings drivers actually keep, with an objective field that computes imminent collision probability from relative motion. The authors argue this matters because existing safety potential fields rely on scarce accident statistics, use arbitrary physical functions, and struggle with lateral risk, whereas C-SPF calibrates from abundant trajectory spacing data and covers both risk dimensions. On the highD naturalistic dataset, the paper reports that C-SPF risk peaks coincide with braking events, lane-change aborts, and in-lane lateral adjustments that TTC-based and unified-field baselines fail to flag or flag late.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-layer composite field assembled from two potentials. The S-field uses a generalized Gaussian form, $r_{s,ij} = \exp(-|\Delta x_{ij}/\gamma_x|^{\beta_x} - |\Delta y_{ij}/\gamma_y|^{\beta_y})$, with one-dimensional analogues for lane markers and road boundaries; its parameters are inferred by maximizing the joint likelihood $L = \prod (1 - r_s)$ over observed two-dimensional spacings, where $\beta$ maximizes the likelihood of the spacing distribution and $\gamma$ marks the distance at which perceived risk starts to escalate sharply. The O-field is $r_{o,ij} = P_{ij}\,T_{ij}$, with $P_{ij} = \exp(-(\hat d_{m,ij}/d^*)^{{\beta_p}})$ decaying in predicted minimum future distance and $T_{ij} = \exp(-(\hat t_{m,ij}/t^*)^{{\beta_t}})$ decaying in the time to that closest approach, both obtained from closed-form formulas under constant-velocity motion. Each field is aggregated over all nearby risk entities, and the two scalar outputs — one reading perceived proximity pressure, one reading physical collision probability — are the indicators compared against the TTCi and RDSI baselines in the case studies.

What would settle it

Calibrate the S-field on highD and test it on an independent naturalistic trajectory dataset from a different country or road type: the central claim fails if S-field risk peaks do not predict braking, lane-change aborts, and in-lane lateral shifts beyond chance levels. A sharper experiment measures felt risk directly, through physiological response or post-drive ratings, at spacings matched to the calibration distribution, because a frequently observed spacing that still reliably triggers avoidance maneuvers or high reported discomfort would refute the frequency-to-tolerance mapping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated for a fair reader, is that driving risk on a highway splits into two largely independent components and that each requires its own field. The subjective S-field equates risk with the rarity of an observed spacing: because the likelihood of a given spacing is defined as one minus that spacing's S-field risk, the calibration makes frequently kept spacings score low risk and rarely kept spacings score high risk, with scale and shape parameters fitted per velocity from the highD trajectory data. The objective O-field scores the product of a spatial proximity factor, which decays exponentially in the predicted minimum future distance $\hat d_{m,ij}$, and a temporal factor, which decays exponentially in the time $\hat t_{m,ij}$ to that closest approach, both computed from current distance and relative-velocity vectors under a constant-velocity assumption. The evidence that the composite works is that O-field peaks precede observed braking and lateral accelerations away from the risk source, S-field peaks coincide with lateral position adjustments and the abandonment of a planned lane change, and the unified RDSI field misses or delays these signals. The load-bearing conclusion is that one pair of scalar risk indicators interprets both longitudinal and lateral safety maneuvers in real highway driving.

Load-bearing premise

The subjective half of the model rests entirely on reading 'how often drivers happen to keep a given spacing' as 'how much discomfort the driver feels at that spacing,' and the same spacing frequencies that calibrate the field also serve as the evidence that the lateral maneuvers it explains are risk responses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single C-SPF risk indicator can serve both longitudinal and lateral hazard detection, covering braking events, lane-change aborts, and in-lane shifts without scenario-specific retuning.
  • Because the S-field calibrates from everyday spacing data rather than crash statistics, the model can be re-estimated for any highway segment that has trajectory data, including segments with no recorded accidents.
  • The fitted S-field parameters reproduce the known widening of drivers' safety space with speed, so the model's human-like scaling adjusts automatically as velocity changes.
  • Keeping proximity perception and collision probability in separate layers lets C-SPF flag a comfort-threatening lateral proximity even when no collision is kinematically possible, precisely the situations the case studies show TTCi and RDSI miss.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The frequency-to-tolerance calibration could be conditioned on factors the paper sets aside, such as road curvature, ramps, vehicle class, and lighting, by estimating spacing distributions within each factor bin; the paper lists these as future work rather than testing them.
  • A direct out-of-sample test would use the highD-calibrated S-field to predict lateral offset decisions one second ahead in an independent naturalistic dataset, and clear predictive gains over TTC-based features would confirm the interpretative claim.
  • If the tolerance-as-frequency assumption is sound, the same S-field construction should also reproduce speed-dependent car-following spacings, tying this risk metric to standard car-following calibration — a connection the paper does not draw.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Composite Safety Potential Field (C-SPF) for highway driving risk assessment, combining a subjective S-field calibrated from vehicle spacing data in the highD dataset and an objective O-field based on predicted minimum distance and time-to-closest approach. The authors calibrate S-field parameters using a joint 'likelihood' constructed as one minus the S-field risk, select gamma via a curvature rule, and set O-field parameters from physical reasoning and dataset quantiles. Validation consists of conditional distributions of braking and lateral kinematics after threshold exceedance, three illustrative case studies, and visual comparisons against TTCi and RDSI. The manuscript claims that C-SPF captures both longitudinal and lateral risks that trigger drivers' safety maneuvers and outperforms existing risk indicators.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would offer a practically useful decomposition of driving risk into a proximity-perception component and an imminent-collision component, and it would demonstrate calibration from abundant spacing data rather than scarce crash data. The O-field formulation is transparent and has a clear kinematic motivation. However, the S-field calibration is not a proper statistical likelihood procedure, the aggregated O-field risk formula is mathematically inconsistent, and the behavioral validation is largely in-sample and anecdotal. As a result, the paper's headline claims about human-like risk perception and superiority over existing measures are not currently supported by the evidence presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1.3, Eqs. (6)-(9)] The quantity L in Eq. (6) is not a likelihood for the generalized Gaussian distribution introduced in Eq. (1). The GGD density is proportional to exp(-(|Delta|/gamma)^beta), not to 1 - exp(-(|Delta|/gamma)^beta). Moreover, for any fixed beta and |Delta|>0, the factor 1 - exp(-(|Delta|/gamma)^beta) tends to 1 as gamma tends to 0+, so ln L tends to 0 and the maximization in Eq. (8) does not identify gamma. The curvature rule in Eq. (9) is an additional, unproven identifying assumption. Because every S-field parameter is estimated through this procedure, the S-field is not statistically identified as presented. The authors should either replace Eq. (6) with a proper density-based likelihood or provide a rigorous derivation and validation of the curvature-based estimator.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.3, Eq. (20)] Eq. (20) defines the aggregated O-field risk as 1 - sum_i (1 - r_o,ij). With two surrounding vehicles each posing r_o = 0.5, this expression evaluates to 0, and with more vehicles it can fall outside [0,1]. The complement of the probability that no collision occurs with any surrounding vehicle should be 1 - product_i (1 - r_o,ij) if the events are treated as independent; otherwise the aggregation requires an explicitly stated dependence model. As written, the aggregated O-field risk is not a probability and can be negative, which undermines any quantitative interpretation of the composite risk.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Figs. 6-8] The validation in Section 4.3 shows kinematic distributions only for frames that follow a risk-threshold exceedance, with no baseline or control distributions, no confidence intervals, no effect sizes, and no statistical tests. The e^{-1} threshold is also used to define 'risky' and is later justified in Section 4.4.1 by Figure 6, which was constructed using that same threshold, making the argument circular. These analyses do not quantitatively establish that O-field or S-field risks trigger braking or lateral maneuvers; they show only that certain conditional distributions differ from zero in the expected direction.
  4. [Sec. 4.4 and Sec. 3.1.3] The case studies are three hand-selected trajectories from the same dataset used to calibrate the S-field. The S-field parameters are estimated on the full highD set, including the vehicles analyzed in Section 4.4.3, and the S-field risk is by construction high exactly where spacings are empirically rare. Observing that a driver adjusts lateral position as a neighbor enters a rare-spacing contour is therefore partly a restatement of the calibration rather than independent evidence of human-like proximity-risk perception. The claim that C-SPF 'outperforms' RDSI in lateral scenarios is based on visual inspection of three cases without quantitative comparison metrics, out-of-sample evaluation, or matched-case analysis. The authors should provide out-of-sample validation, baseline comparisons, and quantitative performance measures.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2.2 vs. Eqs. (12) and (15)] The parameter names are inconsistent: the text specifies beta_d, gamma_d, and gamma_t, while Eqs. (12) and (15) use beta_p, d*, and t*. Please unify the notation throughout.
  2. [Figure 11 caption] The caption for Figure 11 describes vehicles No. 948 and No. 944, but the text and Figure 12 are about vehicles No. 2368 and No. 2363; the caption appears to be a copy-paste error.
  3. [Throughout] Several typos and grammatical issues remain, such as 'vheicle' in Section 4.4.1 and 'the likelihood escalated transitions' in Section 3.1.3; the manuscript would benefit from a careful proofread.
  4. [Secs. 4.3-4.4] The choice of the e^{-1} risk threshold is not justified independently of the figures; a sensitivity analysis over the threshold would help establish that the reported behavioral associations are not artifacts of this specific cutoff.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The S-field defines risk as one minus the fitted likelihood of observed spacings, so its lateral-behavior 'explanations' partly restate the calibration fit; the kinematic O-field remains independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1.3, Eqs. (2)-(3), (6)-(7); Section 4.2.1; Section 4.4.3]
    "The likelihood of the observed spacing, based on the definition of proximity risk, can be expressed as one minus the corresponding S-field risk value. ... This approach assumes that more frequent proximity in the distribution under similar conditions of vehicle kinematics is generally more tolerable to drivers and, therefore, poses a lower S-field risk."

    Eqs. (2)-(3) define the S-field risk as exp(-(|Δx|/γ_x)^β_x - (|Δy|/γ_y)^β_y), and Eq. (6) defines the likelihood of any observed spacing as 1 minus that risk. Hence, by construction, the S-field is a decreasing transform of empirical spacing frequency: rare spacings are labeled high-risk because likelihood is defined as 1 - r_s. The parameters are then calibrated on the full highD spacing distribution (Sec. 4.2.1), which includes the Section 4.4.3 vehicles. When the paper explains vehicle No. 948's lateral shift by the neighbor intruding into the e^{-1} S-field contour, it is restating that the lateral configuration was infrequent in the calibration data.

full rationale

The kinematic O-field and its braking/lane-change-abortion case studies are not definitional: they compare the field against TTCi and RDSI using motion equations and observed accelerations, so those parts are independent. The circularity is concentrated in the S-field component: Eq. (6) makes the fitted spacing likelihood equal to 1 - r_s, so any subsequent claim that the S-field 'captures' lateral proximity risk that triggers maneuvers is an in-sample description of the same spacing distribution used for calibration. The paper also calls Eq. (2) a GGD-based risk while dropping the GGD normalizing constant and using 1 - r as the 'likelihood,' which reinforces that the S-field is an inverse-frequency fit rather than a tested probabilistic model. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present; Jiao et al. [2023] is an external reference. Because the O-field and the longitudinal case studies are self-contained, a score of 6 (partial circularity) is appropriate rather than 8-10.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several fitted parameters and domain assumptions. The free parameters are the S-field shape and scale parameters fitted to highD spacing data, plus hand-selected or data-derived O-field thresholds. No new physical entity, particle, force, dimension, or conserved quantity is posited. The key domain assumptions are that spacing frequency proxies subjective risk tolerance and that collision risk separates into spatial and temporal factors.

free parameters (6)
  • gamma_x(v) cubic coefficients = 5.1053e-4, -3.7051e-2, 1.0621, 1.2925
    Cubic fit of longitudinal S-field scale gamma_x to vehicle speed v_j in Eq. (21), determining the critical longitudinal safety distance in Eq. (3).
  • beta_x(v) cubic coefficients = 2.2214e-5, -1.4834e-3, 9.6673e-3, 3.2589
    Cubic fit of longitudinal S-field shape beta_x to vehicle speed in Eq. (22).
  • gamma_y and beta_y = gamma_y=1.4310, beta_y=4.9956
    Mean lateral S-field scale and shape across velocity divisions, fitted to highD lateral spacing data in Section 4.2.1.
  • gamma_l, beta_l, gamma_b, beta_b = gamma_l=1.18, beta_l=2.46, gamma_b=1.64, beta_b=5.17
    S-field parameters for lane markers and road boundaries in Eqs. (4)-(5), fitted to highD data in Section 4.2.1.
  • kappa_l and kappa_b = not reported
    Balancing coefficients in Eq. (10), bounded between 0 and 1, but no numerical values or fitting procedure are provided.
  • O-field beta_p, beta_t, t*, d* = beta_p=10, beta_t=2, t*=7.5 s, d*=0.5(wi+wj)
    Hand-selected or data-derived parameters for collision probability in Eqs. (12) and (15); t* is the 5th percentile positive TTC in highD, Section 4.2.2.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper The likelihood of an observed spacing is 1 minus the S-field risk, so S-field risk is a transform of the fitted spacing distribution.
    Introduced in Eq. (6) and Section 3.1.3; this identification turns empirical frequency into subjective risk and is the basis of the S-field.
  • domain assumption More frequent proximity in trajectory data reflects higher driver tolerance and lower perceived risk.
    Section 3.1.3 states this explicitly; it is the core mapping from spacing statistics to risk perception and is not externally validated.
  • domain assumption Each driver maintains a proactive safety space, and intrusion into it compels a spacing adjustment.
    Section 3.1 opens with this behavioral postulate; it motivates the entire S-field construction.
  • domain assumption Vehicles maintain constant velocity and direction over the short prediction horizon.
    Section 3.2.2, Eq. (16); the paper acknowledges this simplification in the limitations.
  • domain assumption Collision risk separates into a spatial proximity factor times a temporal proximity factor.
    Eq. (11) defines O-field risk as Pij*Tij; no derivation is given for this multiplicative separability.
  • domain assumption Risks from distinct entities combine independently as 1 minus the product of survival probabilities.
    Eqs. (10) and (20) aggregate S-field and O-field risks using independence; no justification for conditional independence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Composite Safety Potential Field for Highway Driving Risk Assessment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UY77UOTW

@misc{pith2026250421158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Composite Safety Potential Field for Highway Driving Risk Assessment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UY77UOTW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21158}
}
read the original abstract

In the era of rapid advancements in vehicle safety technologies, driving risk assessment has become a focal point of attention. Technologies such as collision warning systems, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), and autonomous driving require driving risks to be evaluated proactively and in real time. To be effective, driving risk assessment metrics must not only accurately identify potential collisions but also exhibit human-like reasoning to enable safe and seamless interactions between vehicles. Existing safety potential field models assess driving risks by considering both objective and subjective safety factors. However, their practical applicability in real-world risk assessment tasks is limited. These models are often challenging to calibrate due to the arbitrary nature of their structures, and calibration can be inefficient because of the scarcity of accident statistics. Additionally, they struggle to generalize across both longitudinal and lateral risks. To address these challenges, we propose a composite safety potential field framework, namely C-SPF, involving a subjective field to capture drivers' risk perception about spatial proximity and an objective field to quantify the imminent collision probability, to comprehensively evaluate driving risks. The C-SPF is calibrated using abundant two-dimensional spacing data from trajectory datasets, enabling it to effectively capture drivers' proximity risk perception and provide a more realistic explanation of driving behaviors. Analysis of a naturalistic driving dataset demonstrates that the C-SPF can capture both longitudinal and lateral risks that trigger drivers' safety maneuvers. Further case studies highlight the C-SPF's ability to explain lateral driver behaviors, such as abandoning lane changes or adjusting lateral position relative to adjacent vehicles, which are capabilities that existing models fail to achieve.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21158 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. One-dimensional proximity risk distribution based on GGD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of velocity and steering angle of highD vehicles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. S-field vehicle proximity risk parameter inference results with bootstrapping sampling. The filling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of S-field with parameters calibrated with highD data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of O-field with different inter-vehicle motions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Following vehicle acceleration distribution 1 second after leading vehicle O-field risk peaking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of vehicle lateral acceleration within 1 second after the lateral O-field risk exceeds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of vehicle lateral velocity within 1 second after the lateral S-field risk exceeds a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of car-following case. Vehicle No.1011 (red) is the ego vehicle which is the following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the change of C-SPF and baseline risks experienced by the following vehicle in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of a scenario where Vehicle No. 948 adjusted its lateral position in response to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the change of C-SPF and baseline risks experienced by ego vehicle No. 2368 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visualization of a scenario where Vehicle No. 948 adjusted its lateral position in response to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the change of C-SPF and baseline risks experienced by ego vehicle No. 948 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A systematic mapping review of surrogate safety assessment using traffic conflict techniques

    Ashutosh Arun, Md Mazharul Haque, Ashish Bhaskar, Simon Washington, and Tarek Sayed. A systematic mapping review of surrogate safety assessment using traffic conflict techniques. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 153: 0 106016, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    A physics-informed road user safety field theory for traffic safety assessments applying artificial intelligence-based video analytics

    Ashutosh Arun, Md Mazharul Haque, Simon Washington, and Fred Mannering. A physics-informed road user safety field theory for traffic safety assessments applying artificial intelligence-based video analytics. Analytic methods in accident research, 37: 0 100252, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Personalized subjective driving risk: Analysis and prediction

    Naren Bao, Alexander Carballo, Chiyomi Miyajima, Eijiro Takeuchi, and Kazuya Takeda. Personalized subjective driving risk: Analysis and prediction. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics, 32 0 (3): 0 503--519, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Modeling a car-following model with comprehensive safety field in freeway tunnels

    Zheng Chen and Huiying Wen. Modeling a car-following model with comprehensive safety field in freeway tunnels. Journal of transportation engineering, Part A: Systems, 148 0 (7): 0 04022040, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Force-based models of pedestrian dynamics

    Mohcine Chraibi, Armel Ulrich Kemloh Wagoum, Andreas Schadschneider, and Armin Seyfried. Force-based models of pedestrian dynamics. Networks Heterog. Media, 6 0 (3): 0 425--442, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    post encroachment time

    PJ Cooper. Experience with traffic conflicts in canada with emphasis on “post encroachment time” techniques. In International calibration study of traffic conflict techniques, pages 75--96. Springer, 1984

    work page 1984

  7. [7]

    Research on vehicle trajectory deviation characteristics on freeways using natural driving trajectory data

    Zhenhua Dai, Cunshu Pan, Wenlei Xiong, Rui Ding, Heshan Zhang, and Jin Xu. Research on vehicle trajectory deviation characteristics on freeways using natural driving trajectory data. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19 0 (22): 0 14695, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Characteristics of lateral vehicle interaction

    R Delpiano, JC Herrera M, and JE Coeymans A. Characteristics of lateral vehicle interaction. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 11 0 (7): 0 636--647, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    An introduction to the bootstrap

    Bradley Efron and Robert J Tibshirani. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1994

    1994

  2. [10]

    Safe driving using mobile phones

    Mohamed Fazeen, Brandon Gozick, Ram Dantu, Moiz Bhukhiya, and Marta C Gonz \'a lez. Safe driving using mobile phones. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 13 0 (3): 0 1462--1468, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Comparison of threshold determination methods for the deceleration rate to avoid a crash (drac)-based crash estimation

    Chuanyun Fu and Tarek Sayed. Comparison of threshold determination methods for the deceleration rate to avoid a crash (drac)-based crash estimation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 153: 0 106051, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Ship path planning based on safety potential field in inland rivers

    Langxiong Gan, Zhixue Yan, Lei Zhang, Kezhong Liu, Yuanzhou Zheng, Chunhui Zhou, and Yaqing Shu. Ship path planning based on safety potential field in inland rivers. Ocean Engineering, 260: 0 111928, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Social force model for pedestrian dynamics

    Dirk Helbing and Peter Molnar. Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Physical review E, 51 0 (5): 0 4282, 1995

    1995

  6. [14]

    New algorithms for computing the time-to-collision in freeway traffic simulation models

    Jia Hou, George F List, and Xiucheng Guo. New algorithms for computing the time-to-collision in freeway traffic simulation models. Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2014: 0 57--57, 2015

    2014

  7. [15]

    Inferring vehicle spacing in urban traffic from trajectory data

    Yiru Jiao, Simeon C Calvert, Sander Van Cranenburgh, and Hans van Lint. Inferring vehicle spacing in urban traffic from trajectory data. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 155: 0 104289, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots

    Oussama Khatib. Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots. The international journal of robotics research, 5 0 (1): 0 90--98, 1986

    1986

  9. [17]

    The highd dataset: A drone dataset of naturalistic vehicle trajectories on german highways for validation of highly automated driving systems

    Robert Krajewski, Julian Bock, Laurent Kloeker, and Lutz Eckstein. The highd dataset: A drone dataset of naturalistic vehicle trajectories on german highways for validation of highly automated driving systems. In 2018 21st international conference on intelligent transportation...

    2018

  10. [18]

    A review analysis of optimal velocity models

    Hajar Lazar, Khadija Rhoulami, and Driss Rahmani. A review analysis of optimal velocity models. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, 44 0 (2): 0 123--131, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Dynamic driving risk potential field model under the connected and automated vehicles environment and its application in car-following modeling

    Linheng Li, Jing Gan, Xinkai Ji, Xu Qu, and Bin Ran. Dynamic driving risk potential field model under the connected and automated vehicles environment and its application in car-following modeling. IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems, 23 0 (1): 0 122--141, 2020 a

    2020

  12. [20]

    Risk perception and the warning strategy based on safety potential field theory

    Linheng Li, Jing Gan, Ziwei Yi, Xu Qu, and Bin Ran. Risk perception and the warning strategy based on safety potential field theory. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 148: 0 105805, 2020 b

    2020

  13. [21]

    Time-to-line crossing and vehicle dynamics for lane departure avoidance

    Sa \" d Mammar, S \'e bastien Glaser, Mariana Netto, and J-M Blosseville. Time-to-line crossing and vehicle dynamics for lane departure avoidance. In Proceedings. The 7th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (IEEE Cat. No. 04TH8749), pages 618--6...

    2004

  14. [22]

    Extended time-to-collision measures for road traffic safety assessment

    Michiel M Minderhoud and Piet HL Bovy. Extended time-to-collision measures for road traffic safety assessment. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 33 0 (1): 0 89--97, 2001

    2001

  15. [23]

    Probabilistic field approach for motorway driving risk assessment

    Freddy A Mullakkal-Babu, Meng Wang, Xiaolin He, Bart van Arem, and Riender Happee. Probabilistic field approach for motorway driving risk assessment. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 118: 0 102716, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    A complex generalized gaussian distribution—characterization, generation, and estimation

    Mike Novey, T \"u lay Adali, and Anindya Roy. A complex generalized gaussian distribution—characterization, generation, and estimation. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 58 0 (3): 0 1427--1433, 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

    Derivation and validation of new simulation-based surrogate safety measure

    Kaan Ozbay, Hong Yang, Bekir Bartin, and Sandeep Mudigonda. Derivation and validation of new simulation-based surrogate safety measure. Transportation research record, 2083 0 (1): 0 105--113, 2008

    2008

  18. [26]

    Risk assessment by a passenger of an autonomous vehicle among pedestrians: relationship between subjective and physiological measures

    Jeffery Petit, Camilo Charron, and Franck Mars. Risk assessment by a passenger of an autonomous vehicle among pedestrians: relationship between subjective and physiological measures. Frontiers in neuroergonomics, 2: 0 682119, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    The 100 car naturalistic driving study

    I Phase. The 100 car naturalistic driving study. 2006

    2006

  20. [28]

    Investigating rear-end collision avoidance behavior under varied foggy weather conditions: A study using advanced driving simulator and survival analysis

    Qiangqiang Shangguan, Ting Fu, and Shuo Liu. Investigating rear-end collision avoidance behavior under varied foggy weather conditions: A study using advanced driving simulator and survival analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 139: 0 105499, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Harmonic potential field method for autonomous ship navigation

    Chaojian Shi, Mingming Zhang, and Jing Peng. Harmonic potential field method for autonomous ship navigation. In 2007 7th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications, pages 1--6. IEEE, 2007

    2007

  22. [30]

    Subjective driving risk prediction based on spatiotemporal distribution features of human driver’s cognitive risk

    Dongjian Song, Jian Zhao, Bing Zhu, Jiayi Han, and Shizheng Jia. Subjective driving risk prediction based on spatiotemporal distribution features of human driver’s cognitive risk. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    A dynamic bayesian network model for real-time risk propagation of secondary rear-end collision accident using driving risk field

    Xianmin Song, Yaqian Sun, and Pengfei Tao. A dynamic bayesian network model for real-time risk propagation of secondary rear-end collision accident using driving risk field. IEEE Access, 10: 0 72429--72443, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Vehicle manoeuvers as surrogate safety measures: Extracting data from the gps-enabled smartphones of regular drivers

    Joshua Stipancic, Luis Miranda-Moreno, and Nicolas Saunier. Vehicle manoeuvers as surrogate safety measures: Extracting data from the gps-enabled smartphones of regular drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 115: 0 160--169, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Risk field model of driving and its application in modeling car-following behavior

    Haitian Tan, Guangquan Lu, and Miaomiao Liu. Risk field model of driving and its application in modeling car-following behavior. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23 0 (8): 0 11605--11620, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Rcp-rf: A comprehensive road-car-pedestrian risk management framework based on driving risk potential field

    Shuhang Tan, Zhiling Wang, and Yan Zhong. Rcp-rf: A comprehensive road-car-pedestrian risk management framework based on driving risk potential field. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02493, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Algorithms to convert basic safety messages into traffic measures

    Meenakshy Vasudevan, James O'Hara, Haley Townsend, Sampson Asare, Syihan Muhammad, Kaan Ozbay, Di Yang, Jingqin Gao, Abdullah Kurkcu, and Fan Zuo. Algorithms to convert basic safety messages into traffic measures. Number NCHRP Project 03-137. 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Toward safer highway work zones: an empirical analysis of crash risks using improved safety potential field and machine learning techniques

    Bo Wang, Tianyi Chen, Chi Zhang, Yiik Diew Wong, Hong Zhang, and Yunhao Zhou. Toward safer highway work zones: an empirical analysis of crash risks using improved safety potential field and machine learning techniques. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 194: 0 107361, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    A modified floor field model combined with risk field for pedestrian simulation

    Chao Wang, Jian Wang, et al. A modified floor field model combined with risk field for pedestrian simulation. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2016, 2016 a

    2016

  30. [38]

    A review of surrogate safety measures and their applications in connected and automated vehicles safety modeling

    Chen Wang, Yuanchang Xie, Helai Huang, and Pan Liu. A review of surrogate safety measures and their applications in connected and automated vehicles safety modeling. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 157: 0 106157, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    The driving safety field based on driver--vehicle--road interactions

    Jianqiang Wang, Jian Wu, and Yang Li. The driving safety field based on driver--vehicle--road interactions. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16 0 (4): 0 2203--2214, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Driving safety field theory modeling and its application in pre-collision warning system

    Jianqiang Wang, Jian Wu, Xunjia Zheng, Daiheng Ni, and Keqiang Li. Driving safety field theory modeling and its application in pre-collision warning system. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 72: 0 306--324, 2016 b

    2016

  33. [41]

    Modified driving safety field based on trajectory prediction model for pedestrian--vehicle collision

    Renfei Wu, Xunjia Zheng, Yongneng Xu, Wei Wu, Guopeng Li, Qing Xu, and Zhuming Nie. Modified driving safety field based on trajectory prediction model for pedestrian--vehicle collision. Sustainability, 11 0 (22): 0 6254, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Pedestrian emergency evacuation model based on risk field under attack event

    Hang Yu, Xintong Li, Weiguo Song, Jun Zhang, Xudong Li, Han Xu, and Kechun Jiang. Pedestrian emergency evacuation model based on risk field under attack event. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 606: 0 128111, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    A real-time collision risk assessment method at tunnel entrance based on safety field theory

    Zhou Zhang, Zhuoyan Wei, Zheng Chen, and Mingyang Pei. A real-time collision risk assessment method at tunnel entrance based on safety field theory. Multimodal Transportation, 3 0 (3): 0 100139, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.