首页> 外文会议>Annual conference on towards autonomous robotic systems >Autonomous Vehicle Decision-Making: Should We Be Bio-inspired?
【24h】

Autonomous Vehicle Decision-Making: Should We Be Bio-inspired?

机译:自主车辆决策:我们应该受到生物启发吗?

获取原文

摘要

On our crowded roads, drivers must compete for space but cooperate to avoid occupying the same space at the same time. Decision-making is strategic and requires mutual understanding of other's choices. Fully autonomous vehicles (AVs) will need risk management software to make these types strategic decisions without human arbitration. Accidents will occur, and what constitutes rational and 'safe' decisions will be scrutinized by the legal system. It is far from clear how AV-Human and AV-AV interactions should be managed. Game Theory provides a framework for analyzing mutual 'games' with 2 or more players. It assumes that players mutually optimize their outcomes according to Nash equilibria (NE), but do humans follow Nash equilibria in Human-Human interactions? We implemented simple two-player competitive games to see whether people played rationally according to Nash equilibria. On each of 100 trials, each player was instructed to maximise their reward by pressing one of three buttons labelled "4", "6", and "12", without knowing the other players choice. If players pressed different buttons, they received a reward of 4, 6, or 12 points accordingly. If players pressed the same button, the reward was reduced depending on the game type. Results showed that players did not follow NE, but played a probabilistic game that included the "4" button, even though pressing this button is always suboptimal. We suggest that this may be an evolutionary strategy, but it clearly shows that people do not follow the 'rational' Nash strategy. It seems that AV-human interactions will be probabilistic. In AV-AV interactions, software may be playing itself, and may also require probabilistic optimal evolutionary-type strategies. We doubt that the full implications of autonomous decision-making have been fully worked out. Whether probabilistic decisions will tolerated legally and actuarially is doubtful. One way to avoid them would be to allow regulated AV-AV communications, and force software decisions to be deterministic according to some protocol. However, AV-Human interactions seem likely to remain problematic.
机译:在我们拥挤的道路上,驾驶员必须争夺空间,但要共同努力避免同时占据相同的空间。决策是战略性的,需要相互理解他人的选择。全自动驾驶汽车(AV)将需要风险管理软件来做出这些类型的战略决策,而无需人工仲裁。将会发生事故,法律制度将对构成合理和“安全”决定的内容进行审查。尚不清楚应如何管理人机交互和人机交互。博弈论提供了一个框架,用于分析与2个或更多玩家的相互“博弈”。它假设参与者根据纳什均衡(NE)相互优化自己的结果,但是人类在人与人之间的互动中是否遵循纳什均衡?我们实施了简单的两人竞争游戏,以查看人们是否按照纳什均衡合理地进行游戏。在100个试验中的每个试验中,指示每个玩家通过按标记为“ 4”,“ 6”和“ 12”的三个按钮之一来最大化其奖励,而无需知道其他玩家的选择。如果玩家按下不同的按钮,他们将相应地获得4、6或12点的奖励。如果玩家按下相同的按钮,则奖励会根据游戏类型而减少。结果表明,玩家没有遵循NE,而是玩了一个概率游戏,其中包括“ 4”按钮,即使按此按钮始终不是最佳选择。我们建议这可能是一种进化策略,但它清楚地表明人们不遵循“理性的”纳什策略。视音频与人的交互似乎是概率性的。在AV-AV交互中,软件可能会自己玩,并且还可能需要概率最优的进化类型策略。我们怀疑自主决策的全部含义是否已得到充分解决。概率决定是否会在法律和精算上被容忍是值得怀疑的。避免它们的一种方法是允许规范的AV-AV通信,并根据某些协议强制确定软件的决策。但是,视听-人机交互似乎仍然存在问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号