arXiv subjects

Simeon Craig Calvert

Publications and source records attributed to Simeon Craig Calvert.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Linking Behaviour and Perception to Evaluate Meaningful Human Control over Partially Automated Driving

Partial driving automation creates a tension: drivers remain legally responsible for vehicle behaviour, yet their active control is significantly reduced. This reduction undermines the engagement and sense of agency needed to intervene safely. Meaningful human control (MHC) has been proposed as a normative framework to address this tension. However, empirical methods for evaluating whether existing systems actually provide MHC remain underdeveloped. In this study, we investigated the extent to which drivers experience MHC when interacting with partially automated driving systems. Twenty-four drivers completed a simulator study involving silent automation failures under two modes - haptic shared control (HSC) and traded control (TC). We derived behavioural metrics from telemetry data, subjective perception scores from post-trial surveys and used them to test hypothesised relations between them derived from the properties of systems under MHC. The confirmatory analysis showed a significant negative correlation between the perception of the automated vehicle (AV) understanding the driver and conflict in steering torques. An exploratory analysis also revealed a surprising positive correlation between reaction times and the perception of sufficient control. Qualitative feedback from open-ended post-experiment questionnaires revealed that mismatches in intentions between the driver and automation, lack of safety, and resistance to driver inputs contribute to the reduction of perceived MHC, while subtle haptic guidance aligned with driver intent had a positive effect. These findings suggest that future designs should prioritise effortless driver interventions, transparent communication of automation intent, and context-sensitive authority allocation to strengthen meaningful human control in partially automated driving.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Conservative Automated Driving in Multi-Agent Scenarios via Coupled Model Predictive Control and Deep Reinforcement Learning

Automated driving at unsignalized intersections is challenging due to complex multi-vehicle interactions and the need to balance safety and efficiency. Model Predictive Control (MPC) offers structured constraint handling through optimization but relies on hand-crafted rules that often produce overly conservative behavior. Deep Reinforcement Learning (RL) learns adaptive behaviors from experience but often struggles with safety assurance and generalization to unseen environments. In this study, we present an integrated MPC-RL framework to improve navigation performance in multi-agent scenarios. Experiments show that MPC-RL outperforms standalone MPC and end-to-end RL across three traffic-density levels. Collectively, MPC-RL reduces the collision rate by 21% and improves the success rate by 6.5% compared to pure MPC. We further evaluate zero-shot transfer to a highway merging scenario without retraining. Both MPC-based methods transfer substantially better than end-to-end PPO, which highlights the role of the MPC backbone in cross-scenario robustness. The framework also shows faster loss stabilization than end-to-end RL during training, which indicates a reduced learning burden. These results suggest that the integrated approach can improve the balance between safety performance and efficiency in multi-agent intersection scenarios, while the MPC component provides a strong foundation for generalization across driving environments. The implementation code is available open-source.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2025

A Framework for Ethical Decision-Making in Automated Vehicles through Human Reasons-based Supervision

Ethical dilemmas are a common challenge in everyday driving, requiring human drivers to balance competing priorities such as safety, efficiency, and rule compliance. However, much of the existing research in automated vehicles (AVs) has focused on high-stakes "trolley problems," which involve extreme and rare situations. Such scenarios, though rich in ethical implications, are rarely applicable in real-world AV decision-making. In practice, when AVs confront everyday ethical dilemmas, they often appear to prioritise strict adherence to traffic rules. By contrast, human drivers may bend the rules in context-specific situations, using judgement informed by practical concerns such as safety and efficiency. According to the concept of meaningful human control, AVs should respond to human reasons, including those of drivers, vulnerable road users, and policymakers. This work introduces a novel human reasons-based supervision framework that detects when AV behaviour misaligns with expected human reasons to trigger trajectory reconsideration. The framework integrates with motion planning and control systems to support real-time adaptation, enabling decisions that better reflect safety, efficiency, and regulatory considerations. Simulation results demonstrate that this approach could help AVs respond more effectively to ethical challenges in dynamic driving environments by prompting replanning when the current trajectory fails to align with human reasons. These findings suggest that our approach offers a path toward more adaptable, human-centered decision-making in AVs.

eess.SY↗

arXiv2025

A Framework for Human-Reason-Aligned Trajectory Evaluation in Automated Vehicles

One major challenge for the adoption and acceptance of automated vehicles (AVs) is ensuring that they can make sound decisions in everyday situations that involve ethical tension. Much attention has focused on rare, high-stakes dilemmas such as trolley problems. Yet similar conflicts arise in routine driving when human considerations, such as legality, efficiency, and comfort, come into conflict. Current AV planning systems typically rely on rigid rules, which struggle to balance these competing considerations and often lead to behaviour that misaligns with human expectations. This paper introduces a reasons-based trajectory evaluation framework that operationalises the tracking condition of Meaningful Human Control (MHC). The framework represents human agents reasons (e.g., regulatory compliance) as quantifiable functions and evaluates how well candidate trajectories align with them. It assigns adjustable weights to agent priorities and includes a balance function to discourage excluding any agent. To demonstrate the approach, we use a real-world-inspired overtaking scenario, which highlights tensions between compliance, efficiency, and comfort. Our results show that different trajectories emerge as preferable depending on how agents reasons are weighted, and small shifts in priorities can lead to discrete changes in the selected action. This demonstrates that everyday ethical decisions in AV driving are highly sensitive to the weights assigned to the reasons of different human agents.

cs.RO↗