SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2407.17518

Driving pattern interpretation based on action phases clustering

Abstract

Current approaches to identifying driving heterogeneity face challenges in comprehending fundamental patterns from the perspective of underlying driving behavior mechanisms. The concept of Action phases was proposed in our previous work, capturing the diversity of driving characteristics with physical meanings. This study presents a novel framework to further interpret driving patterns by classifying Action phases in an unsupervised manner. In this framework, a Resampling and Downsampling Method (RDM) is first applied to standardize the length of Action phases. Then the clustering calibration procedure including ''Feature Selection'', ''Clustering Analysis'', ''Difference/Similarity Evaluation'', and ''Action phases Re-extraction'' is iteratively applied until all differences among clusters and similarities within clusters reach the pre-determined criteria. Application of the framework using real-world datasets revealed six driving patterns in the I80 dataset, labeled as ''Catch up'', ''Keep away'', and ''Maintain distance'', with both ''Stable'' and ''Unstable'' states. Notably, Unstable patterns are more numerous than Stable ones. ''Maintain distance'' is the most common among Stable patterns. These observations align with the dynamic nature of driving. Two patterns ''Stable keep away'' and ''Unstable catch up'' are missing in the US101 dataset, which is in line with our expectations as this dataset was previously shown to have less heterogeneity. This demonstrates the potential of driving patterns in describing driving heterogeneity. The proposed framework promises advantages in addressing label scarcity in supervised learning and enhancing tasks such as driving behavior modeling and driving trajectory prediction.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Xue Yao, Simeon C. Calvert, Serge P. Hoogendoorn. 2024-07-17. Driving pattern interpretation based on action phases clustering. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17518

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI