Considering Perspectives for Automated Driving Ethics: Collective Risk in Vehicular Motion Planning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22940v1
• Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 12:30:44 GMT
• Title: Considering Perspectives for Automated Driving Ethics: Collective Risk in Vehicular Motion Planning
• Abstract summary: We propose an AV motion planning strategy that supports switching risk minimization strategies between all road user perspectives.<n>We find that the risk from the perspective of other road users can generally be considered different to the risk from the AV's perspective.<n>We conclude that to facilitate ethicality in road traffic that includes AVs, the risk-perspective of each road user must be considered.
• Score: 1.005962747372551
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent automated vehicle (AV) motion planning strategies evolve around minimizing risk in road traffic. However, they exclusively consider risk from the AV's perspective and, as such, do not address the ethicality of its decisions for other road users. We argue that this does not reduce the risk of each road user, as risk may be different from the perspective of each road user. Indeed, minimizing the risk from the AV's perspective may not imply that the risk from the perspective of other road users is also being minimized; in fact, it may even increase. To test this hypothesis, we propose an AV motion planning strategy that supports switching risk minimization strategies between all road user perspectives. We find that the risk from the perspective of other road users can generally be considered different to the risk from the AV's perspective. Taking a collective risk perspective, i.e., balancing the risks of all road users, we observe an AV that minimizes overall traffic risk the best, while putting itself at slightly higher risk for the benefit of others, which is consistent with human driving behavior. In addition, adopting a collective risk minimization strategy can also be beneficial to the AV's travel efficiency by acting assertively when other road users maintain a low risk estimate of the AV. Yet, the AV drives conservatively when its planned actions are less predictable to other road users, i.e., associated with high risk. We argue that such behavior is a form of self-reflection and a natural prerequisite for socially acceptable AV behavior. We conclude that to facilitate ethicality in road traffic that includes AVs, the risk-perspective of each road user must be considered in the decision-making of AVs.

Related papers

• ADV-0: Closed-Loop Min-Max Adversarial Training for Long-Tail Robustness in Autonomous Driving [63.980630608984605]
  This paper presents ADV-0, a closed-loop min-max optimization framework that treats the interaction between driving policy (defender) and adversarial agent (attacker) as a zero-sum Markov game.<n>To make this tractable, we cast dynamic adversary evolution as iterative preference learning, efficiently approximating this optimum and offering an algorithm-agnostic solution to the game.<n> Experiments indicate that it effectively exposes diverse safety-critical failures and greatly enhances the generalizability of both learned policies and motion planners against unseen long-tail risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T12:58:31Z)
• RACER: Epistemic Risk-Sensitive RL Enables Fast Driving with Fewer Crashes [57.319845580050924]
  We propose a reinforcement learning framework that combines risk-sensitive control with an adaptive action space curriculum. We show that our algorithm is capable of learning high-speed policies for a real-world off-road driving task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T23:32:36Z)
• Risk-anticipatory autonomous driving strategies considering vehicles' weights, based on hierarchical deep reinforcement learning [12.014977175887767]
  This study develops an autonomous driving strategy based on risk anticipation, considering the weights of surrounding vehicles. A risk indicator integrating surrounding vehicles weights, based on the risk field theory, is proposed and incorporated into autonomous driving decisions. An indicator, potential collision energy in conflicts, is newly proposed to evaluate the performance of the developed AV driving strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-27T06:03:34Z)
• A Counterfactual Safety Margin Perspective on the Scoring of Autonomous Vehicles' Riskiness [52.27309191283943]
  This paper presents a data-driven framework for assessing the risk of different AVs' behaviors. We propose the notion of counterfactual safety margin, which represents the minimum deviation from nominal behavior that could cause a collision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-02T09:48:08Z)
• RCP-RF: A Comprehensive Road-car-pedestrian Risk Management Framework based on Driving Risk Potential Field [1.625213292350038]
  We propose a comprehensive driving risk management framework named RCP-RF based on potential field theory under Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAV) environment. Different from existing algorithms, the motion tendency between ego and obstacle cars and the pedestrian factor are legitimately considered in the proposed framework. Empirical studies validate the superiority of our proposed framework against state-of-the-art methods on real-world dataset NGSIM and real AV platform.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-04T01:54:37Z)
• Watch Out for the Safety-Threatening Actors: Proactively Mitigating Safety Hazards [5.898210877584262]
  We propose a safety threat indicator (STI) using counterfactual reasoning to estimate the importance of each actor on the road with respect to its influence on the AV's safety. Our approach reduces the accident rate for the state-of-the-art AV agent(s) in rare hazardous scenarios by more than 70%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-02T05:56:25Z)
• The risk ethics of autonomous vehicles: a continuous trolley problem in regular road traffic [0.0]
  We argue that autonomous vehicles (AVs) distribute risks between road users in regular traffic situations, either explicitly or implicitly. Using an interactive, graphical representation of different traffic situations, we measured participants' preferences on driving maneuvers of AVs. Our participants were willing to take risks themselves for the benefit of other road users suggesting that the social dilemma of AVs may lessen in a context of risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T20:49:28Z)
• Efficient Risk-Averse Reinforcement Learning [79.61412643761034]
  In risk-averse reinforcement learning (RL), the goal is to optimize some risk measure of the returns. We prove that under certain conditions this inevitably leads to a local-optimum barrier, and propose a soft risk mechanism to bypass it. We demonstrate improved risk aversion in maze navigation, autonomous driving, and resource allocation benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-10T19:40:52Z)
• Can Autonomous Vehicles Identify, Recover From, and Adapt to Distribution Shifts? [104.04999499189402]
  Out-of-training-distribution (OOD) scenarios are a common challenge of learning agents at deployment. We propose an uncertainty-aware planning method, called emphrobust imitative planning (RIP) Our method can detect and recover from some distribution shifts, reducing the overconfident and catastrophic extrapolations in OOD scenes. We introduce an autonomous car novel-scene benchmark, textttCARNOVEL, to evaluate the robustness of driving agents to a suite of tasks with distribution shifts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-26T11:07:32Z)
• Mean-Variance Policy Iteration for Risk-Averse Reinforcement Learning [75.17074235764757]
  We present a framework for risk-averse control in a discounted infinite horizon MDP. MVPI enjoys great flexibility in that any policy evaluation method and risk-neutral control method can be dropped in for risk-averse control off the shelf. This flexibility reduces the gap between risk-neutral control and risk-averse control and is achieved by working on a novel augmented MDP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-22T22:23:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.