Empirically Calibrated Differential Games for Simulating Driver Interactions
Organizations: Marco · Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 USA
Abstract
Game-theoretic models can resolve vehicle interactions without hand-written priority rules, but whether they describe human drivers once calibrated has rarely been tested. This study formulates a general-sum differential game of vehicle interactions at urban intersections, calibrates it to observed driving, and evaluates it on data not used for calibration. Each vehicle minimizes a cost that combines speed tracking, adherence to a map-derived lane route, control effort, gap keeping based on the intelligent driver model, a predictive conflict term, and a contact barrier, while perceiving the other vehicles with a delay. The game is solved with a feedback iterative linear-quadratic algorithm, and ten behavioral parameters per vehicle are calibrated by Bayesian optimization on trajectories recorded at four intersections in Washington, D.C. The calibrated game reproduces the trajectories of 819 vehicles with a mean position error of 1.00 m. When only each vehicle's route is known, as in a simulator, it is the most accurate of the compared models on 96 held-out vehicles (7.42 m), and ten-fold cross-validation shows that it is significantly more accurate than calibrated SUMO (by 3.61 m), an inverse reinforcement learning model (by 0.93 m), and independent and cooperative variants of the same model (by 0.33 and 0.32 m). The solutions, computed in 2.1 s for a typical interaction, are verified approximate equilibria. Finally, the conflict and steering weights, which the data do not identify, can be set from safety and comfort targets; together with a stiffer contact barrier, this removes the collisions that otherwise occur in 43% of tight closed-loop conflicts.
Figures & tables
| Symbol | Meaning | Appears in | Search range / value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calibrated per vehicle | |||
| weight of tracking the reference speed | ( 5 ) | (log scale) | |
| desired cruise speed | ( 6 ) | m/s | |
| weight of lateral acceleration (steering effort) | ( 9 ) | (log scale) | |
| weight of longitudinal acceleration | ( 9 ) | (log scale) | |
| weight of reaching the destination position | ( 3 ) | (log scale) | |
| End point given | End point not given | Interaction measures | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Agents | Not identifiable | Error range (m) | Error range (m) | Clear minimum | Respond | Clear minimum | Assessment (reason) |
| 120 | 0% | 1.92 | 0.96 | 21% | – | – | identifiable | |
| 120 | 37% | 0.29 | 6.65 | 32% | – | – | weak in calibration (the end point fixes the arrival); dominant in prediction | |
| 120 | 50% | 0.15 | 0.12 | 2% | – | – | weak (the lane cost fixes the path); matters in simulation | |
| 120 | 6% | 0.88 | 0.94 | 10% | – | – | identifiable | |
| 120 | 5% | 1.49 | 1.77 | 12% | – | – | identifiable | |
| Value | Collisions | Min. gap (m) | PET (s) | Peak decel. (m/s 2 ) | Peak lat. acc. (m/s 2 ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict weight | |||||
| 10 | 48% | 1.0 | 2.54 | 3.04 | |
| 31.6 | 47% | 1.0 | 2.60 | 3.05 | |
| 100 | 43% | 1.1 | 2.51 | 3.03 | |
| 316 | 28% | 1.2 | 2.29 | 3.06 | |
| 1000 | 12% | 1.3 | 1.86 | 3.13 | |
| Position | Close | ||||||
| Model | Position | Speed | Accel. | Jerk | partner | no partner | appr. |
| (1) End location known, arrival time unknown | |||||||
| Nash (our model) | 4.325 | 1.602 | 0.759 | 0.868 | 4.471 | 4.102 | 1 |
| Independent (our model) | 4.414 | 1.653 | 0.778 | 0.871 | 4.605 | 4.121 | 1 |
| Cooperative (our model) | 4.089 | 1.565 | 0.761 | 0.866 | 4.193 | 3.931 | 0 |
| SMIRL | 4.161 | 1.559 | 0.855 | 1.304 | 4.536 | 3.587 | 4 |
| Model | All (819) | With partner (521) | Without partner (298) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nash (our model) | 7.45 | 7.62 | 7.16 |
| Independent (our model) | 7.78 | 8.09 | 7.23 |
| Cooperative (our model) | 7.77 | 8.04 | 7.31 |
| SMIRL | 8.38 | 8.55 | 8.10 |
| SUMO | 11.06 | 10.68 | 11.72 |
| Nash Independent | [ , ] | [ , ] | [ , ] |
| End point and time given | End point unknown | |||||
| (a) RMS error per vehicle | ||||||
| Parameters | Pos. | Speed | Accel. | Pos. | Speed | Accel. |
| Group mean | 2.47 | 1.02 | 0.68 | 7.43 | 2.04 | 0.74 |
| Correlated draw | 2.68 | 1.14 | 0.79 | 7.04 | 2.15 | 0.89 |
| Mean | SD | Ratio | Mean | SD | Ratio | |
| Recorded | 3.20 | 1.67 | 1 | 3.20 | 1.67 | 1 |
| Computation time | Agents by solver outcome | ||||||
| Model | Mean (s) | Median (s) | 90th pct. (s) | RTF | Conv. | Budget | Stalled |
| (1) End location known, arrival time unknown | |||||||
| Nash (our model) | 12.20 | 7.42 | 30.83 | 0.49 | 68 | 15 | 13 |
| Independent (our model) | 11.69 | 6.25 | 20.75 | 0.42 | 63 | 17 | 16 |
| Cooperative (our model) | 11.92 | 5.61 | 20.05 | 0.37 | 76 | 14 | 6 |
| SMIRL | 7.56 | 5.97 | 14.86 | 0.71 | – | – | – |
Human Behavior Simulation
Human behavior simulation models how individuals and groups decide, interact, move, and adapt in social, economic, educational, and physical settings.
See all 239 papersA Generative Model for Closed-Loop Microsimulation of Signalized Intersections
Enactor: From Traffic Simulators to Surrogate World Models
what-if" conditions. However, the behavior models controlling the actions of the actors are overly simplistic and fails to capture realistic actor-actor interactions. Deep learning-based methods have been applied to model vehicles and pedestrians as agents" responding to their surrounding environment" (including lanes, signals, and neighboring agents). Although effective in learning actor-actor interaction, these approaches fail to generate physically consistent trajectories over long time periods, and they do not explicitly address the complex dynamics that arise at traffic intersections which is a critical location in urban networks. Inspired by the World Model paradigm, we have developed an actor centric generative model using transformer-based architecture that is able to capture the actor-actor interaction, at the same time understanding the geometry to the traffic intersection to generate physically grounded trajectories that are based on learned behavior. Moreover, we test the model in a live simulation-in-the-loop" setting, where we generate the initial conditions of the actors using SUMO and then let the model control the dynamics of the actors. We let the simulation run for 40000 timesteps (4000 seconds), testing the performance of the model on long timerange and evaluating the trajectories on traffic engineering related metrics. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework effectively captures complex actor-actor interactions and generates long-horizon, physically consistent trajectories, while requiring significantly fewer training samples than traditional agent-centric generative approaches. Our model is able to outperform the baseline in traffic related as well as aggregate metrics where our model beats the baseline by more than 10x on the KL-Divergence.