Game-Theoretic Inverse Reinforcement Learning for Modeling Competitive Human Driving: A Cut-in Prediction Study

Autonomous driving planning systems perform nearly perfectly in routine scenarios using lightweight, rule-based methods but still struggle in dense urban traffic, where lane changes and merges require anticipating and influencing other agents. Modern motion predictors offer highly accurate forecasts, yet their integration into planning is mostly rudimental: discarding unsafe plans. Similarly, end-to-end models offer a one-way integration that avoids the challenges of joint prediction and planning modeling under uncertainty. In contrast, game-theoretic formulations offer a principled alternative but have seen limited adoption in autonomous driving. We present Bayesian Iterative Best Response (BIBeR), a framework that unifies motion prediction and game-theoretic planning into a single interaction-aware process. BIBeR is the first to integrate a state-of-the-art predictor into an Iterative Best Response (IBR) loop, repeatedly refining the strategies of the ego vehicle and surrounding agents. This repeated best-response process approximates a Nash equilibrium, enabling bidirectional adaptation where the ego both reacts to and shapes the behavior of others. In addition, our proposed Bayesian confidence estimation quantifies prediction reliability and modulates update strength, more conservative under low confidence and more decisive under high confidence. BIBeR is compatible with modern predictors and planners, combining the transparency of structured planning with the flexibility of learned models. Experiments show that BIBeR achieves an 11% improvement over state-of-the-art planners on highly interactive interPlan lane-change scenarios, while also outperforming existing approaches on standard nuPlan benchmarks.

Mixed autonomy driving becomes unsafe and inefficient when autonomous vehicles (AVs) and human-driven vehicles (HVs) misread each other's intentions. We study this problem as implicit mutual communication in lane changes. The proposed framework models how the ego vehicle both expresses its intent and probes the other driver's preference under epistemic uncertainty. It combines a level-k Bayesian persuasion game with virtual features for proactive signaling, information-theoretic rewards for mutual communication, and adaptive weights of communication affordances. We further introduce the Pride-Inquiry (P-I) and Pride-Prejudice (P-P) planes to analyze communication intensity and tendency. The model is calibrated with a Communication-Based Multi-Agent Inverse Reinforcement Learning algorithm (C-MIRL) on the naturalistic NGSIM dataset. Compared with the non-communicative baseline, the proposed model reduces the prediction error of mandatory lane changes by up to 20% while maintaining strong generalization. Driver-In-the-Loop questionnaire scores are positively correlated with the calibrated communication variables, supporting the subjective validity of the model. The learned rewards further show that inquiry and listening affordances contribute more than pride and expression alone, and that inquiry preference varies more strongly across drivers. These results support explicit modeling of mutual communication and epistemic uncertainty in interactive driving.

Safety-critical planning in complex environments, particularly at urban intersections, remains a fundamental challenge for autonomous driving. Existing methods, whether rule-based or data-driven, frequently struggle to capture complex scene semantics, infer potential risks, and make reliable decisions in rare, high-risk situations. While vision-language models (VLMs) offer promising approaches for safe decision-making in these environments, most current approaches lack reflective and causal reasoning, thereby limiting their overall robustness. To address this, we propose a counterfactual chain-of-thought (C-CoT) framework that leverages VLMs to decompose driving decisions into five sequential stages: scene description, critical object identification, risk prediction, counterfactual risk reasoning, and final action planning. Within the counterfactual reasoning stage, we introduce a structured meta-action evaluation tree to explicitly assess the potential consequences of alternative action combinations. This self-reflective reasoning establishes causal links between action choices and safety outcomes, improving robustness in long-tail and out-of-distribution scenarios. To validate our approach, we construct the DeepAccident-CCoT dataset based on the DeepAccident benchmark and fine-tune a Qwen2.5-VL (7B) model using low-rank adaptation. Our model achieves a risk prediction recall of 81.9%, reduces the collision rate to 3.52%, and lowers L2 error to 1.98 m. Ablation studies further confirm the critical role of counterfactual reasoning and the meta-action evaluation tree in enhancing safety and interpretability.