Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2501.06918

Driver Age and Its Effect on Key Driving Metrics: Insights from Dynamic Vehicle Data

Aparna Joshi·Kojo Adugyamfi·Jennifer Merickel·Pujitha Gunaratne·Anuj Sharma
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

By 2030, the senior population aged 65 and older is expected to increase by over 50%, significantly raising the number of older drivers on the road. Drivers over 70 face higher crash death rates compared to those in their forties and fifties, underscoring the importance of developing more effective safety interventions for this demographic. Although the impact of aging on driving behavior has been studied, there is limited research on how these behaviors translate into real-world driving scenarios. This study addresses this need by leveraging Naturalistic Driving Data (NDD) to analyze driving performance measures - specifically, speed limit adherence on interstates and deceleration at stop intersections, both of which may be influenced by age-related declines. Using NDD, we developed Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) to establish benchmarks for key driving behaviors among senior and young drivers. Our analysis, which included anomaly detection, benchmark comparisons, and accuracy evaluations, revealed significant differences in driving patterns primarily related to speed limit adherence at 75mph. While our approach shows promising potential for enhancing Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) by providing tailored interventions based on age-specific adherence to speed limit driving patterns, we recognize the need for additional data to refine and validate metrics for other driving behaviors. By establishing precise benchmarks for various driving performance metrics, ADAS can effectively identify anomalies, such as abrupt deceleration, which may indicate impaired driving or other safety concerns. This study lays a strong foundation for future research aimed at improving safety interventions through detailed driving behavior analysis.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEcs.CV

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Aparna Joshi, Kojo Adugyamfi, Jennifer Merickel, Pujitha Gunaratne, Anuj Sharma. 2025-01-12. Driver Age and Its Effect on Key Driving Metrics: Insights from Dynamic Vehicle Data. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06918

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗