Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2602.22940

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

Leon Tolksdorf·Arturo Tejada·Christian Birkner·Nathan van de Wouw
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.RO

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Leon Tolksdorf, Arturo Tejada, Christian Birkner, Nathan van de Wouw. 2026-02-26. Considering Perspectives for Automated Driving Ethics: Collective Risk in Vehicular Motion Planning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22940

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗