traffic system designers

Abstract: Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have significantly advanced in real-world deployment in recent years, yet safety continues to be a critical barrier to widespread adoption. Traditional functional safety approaches, which primarily verify the reliability, robustness, and adequacy of AV hardware and software systems from a vehicle-centric perspective, do not sufficiently address the AV's broader interactions and behavioral impact on the surrounding traffic environment. To overcome this limitation, we propose a paradigm shift toward behavioral safety, a comprehensive approach focused on evaluating AV responses and interactions within the traffic environment. To systematically assess behavioral safety, we introduce a third-party AV safety assessment framework comprising two complementary evaluation components: the Behavioral Competency Test and the Driving Intelligence Test. The Behavioral Competency Test evaluates the AV's reactive behaviors under controlled scenarios, ensuring basic behavioral competency. In contrast, the Driving Intelligence Test assesses the AV's interactive behaviors within naturalistic traffic conditions, quantifying the frequency of safety-critical events to deliver statistically meaningful safety metrics before large-scale deployment. In Part II of this study, an open-source Level 4 Automated Driving System (ADS) is tested to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Abstract: In decentralised priority coordination, agents announce priority levels and a shared resource serves them in decreasing order, as at an unsignalised intersection; the levels form the decision layer of a hierarchical controller. Such interactions are routinely replaced by a potential game, i.e.\ by a common objective, for analysis and design. This paper determines what that surrogate misses, using the Hodge decomposition of the incentives into a potential component, which a common objective can represent, and a harmonic component, which it cannot. For the linear payoff, both components are obtained in closed form on every conflict graph and for every deterministic tie-breaking protocol: in common units, the harmonic energy is the number of conflicts and the potential energy adds the number of adjacent pairs of conflicts. Consequently, for every rationality parameter, the best common-objective model of the agents' choice log-odds, weighted uniformly over unilateral moves, has a relative squared error of at least $1/(d_{\max}+1)$, where $d_{\max}$ is the largest number of conflicts of one agent; for an eight-vehicle intersection it is exactly one fifth, for any number of priority levels. Invisible to strict-improvement dynamics, the missed component is, under low-rationality log-linear learning with uniform revision and to leading order, the stationary probability current, and its energy sets the entropy-production rate. Payoff design cannot remove it: on the complete conflict graph of $N$ agents, under a total-order protocol and with at least three priority levels, every nonconstant rank-based payoff leaves a relative error of at least $1/N$, with equality exactly for affine payoffs.

Abstract: Aggregate performance in smart mobility systems depends heavily on the emergent behavior of selfish, resource-sharing agents that participate within the systems. As a result, recent work has focused on how a system designer can leverage incentives to influence behavior so that system cost (e.g., traffic congestion) is minimized. These results show that worst-case equilibria can be quite inefficient compared to system-optimal allocations. However, it is unclear to what extent agents are ``satisfied'' with their decisions in these worst-case scenarios. We demonstrate that in any incentivized atomic congestion game, agents' aggregate satisfaction at equilibrium (relative to their actions in an optimal allocation) is correlated with the efficiency of the corresponding system cost, in the sense that if agents are very satisfied with their equilibrium choices, the equilibrium must be relatively efficient. Further, we show that worst-case Nash equilibria are fragile, as every agent is indifferent between their action in a worst-case equilibrium and their action in a system-optimal allocation. In summary, at equilibrium, either agents are highly satisfied with their decisions or their decisions are highly inefficient, but both cannot be true simultaneously. This work adds to recent results for other classes of games which indicate that worst-case equilibrium efficiency guarantees only occur when agents are indifferent about their decisions.