Driver process models play a central role in the testing, verification, and development of automated and autonomous vehicle technologies. Prior models developed from control theory and physics-based rules are limited in automated vehicle applications due to their restricted behavioral repertoire. Data-driven machine learning models are more capable than rule-based models but are limited by the need for large training datasets and their lack of interpretability, i.e., an understandable link between input data and output behaviors. We propose a novel car following modeling approach using active inference, which has comparable behavioral flexibility to data-driven models while maintaining interpretability. We assessed the proposed model, the Active Inference Driving Agent (AIDA), through a benchmark analysis against the rule-based Intelligent Driver Model, and two neural network Behavior Cloning models. The models were trained and tested on a real-world driving dataset using a consistent process. The testing results showed that the AIDA predicted driving controls significantly better than the rule-based Intelligent Driver Model and had similar accuracy to the data-driven neural network models in three out of four evaluations. Subsequent interpretability analyses illustrated that the AIDA's learned distributions were consistent with driver behavior theory and that visualizations of the distributions could be used to directly comprehend the model's decision making process and correct model errors attributable to limited training data. The results indicate that the AIDA is a promising alternative to black-box data-driven models and suggest a need for further research focused on modeling driving style and model training with more diverse datasets.

ML-based motion planning is a promising approach to produce agents that exhibit complex behaviors, and automatically adapt to novel environments. In the context of autonomous driving, it is common to treat all available training data equally. However, this approach produces agents that do not perform robustly in safety-critical settings, an issue that cannot be addressed by simply adding more data to the training set - we show that an agent trained using only a 10% subset of the data performs just as well as an agent trained on the entire dataset. We present a method to predict the inherent difficulty of a driving situation given data collected from a fleet of autonomous vehicles deployed on public roads. We then demonstrate that this difficulty score can be used in a zero-shot transfer to generate curricula for an imitation-learning based planning agent. Compared to training on the entire unbiased training dataset, we show that prioritizing difficult driving scenarios both reduces collisions by 15% and increases route adherence by 14% in closed-loop evaluation, all while using only 10% of the training data.

Learning-based methodologies increasingly find applications in safety-critical domains like autonomous driving and medical robotics. Due to the rare nature of dangerous events, real-world testing is prohibitively expensive and unscalable. In this work, we employ a probabilistic approach to safety evaluation in simulation, where we are concerned with computing the probability of dangerous events. We develop a novel rare-event simulation method that combines exploration, exploitation, and optimization techniques to find failure modes and estimate their rate of occurrence. We provide rigorous guarantees for the performance of our method in terms of both statistical and computational efficiency. Finally, we demonstrate the efficacy of our approach on a variety of scenarios, illustrating its usefulness as a tool for rapid sensitivity analysis and model comparison that are essential to developing and testing safety-critical autonomous systems.

Modern treatments for Type 1 diabetes (T1D) use devices known as artificial pancreata (APs), which combine an insulin pump with a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) operating in a closed-loop manner to control blood glucose levels. In practice, poor performance of APs (frequent hyper- or hypoglycemic events) is common enough at a population level that many T1D patients modify the algorithms on existing AP systems with unregulated open-source software. Anecdotally, the patients in this group have shown superior outcomes compared with standard of care, yet we do not understand how safe any AP system is since adverse outcomes are rare. In this paper, we construct generative models of individual patients' physiological characteristics and eating behaviors. We then couple these models with a T1D simulator approved for pre-clinical trials by the FDA. Given the ability to simulate patient outcomes in-silico, we utilize techniques from rare-event simulation theory in order to efficiently quantify the performance of a device with respect to a particular patient. We show a 72,000$\times$ speedup in simulation speed over real-time and up to 2-10 times increase in the frequency which we are able to sample adverse conditions relative to standard Monte Carlo sampling. In practice our toolchain enables estimates of the likelihood of hypoglycemic events with approximately an order of magnitude fewer simulations.

Recent breakthroughs in deep learning have accelerated the development of autonomous vehicles (AVs); many research prototypes now operate on real roads alongside human drivers. While advances in computer-vision techniques have made human-level performance possible on narrow perception tasks such as object recognition, several fatal accidents involving AVs underscore the importance of testing whether the perception and control pipeline--when considered as a whole system--can safely interact with humans. Unfortunately, testing AVs in real environments, the most straightforward validation framework for system-level input-output behavior, requires prohibitive amounts of time due to the rare nature of serious accidents [49]. Concretely, a recent study [29] argues that AVs need to drive "hundreds of millions of miles and, under some scenarios, hundreds of billions of miles to create enough data to clearly demonstrate their safety." Alteratively, formally verifying an AV algorithm's "correctness" [34, 2, 47, 37] is difficult since all driving policies are subject to crashes caused by other drivers [49]. It is unreasonable to ask that the policy be safe under all scenarios. Unfortunately, ruling out scenarios where the AV should not be blamed is a task subject to logical inconsistency, combinatorial growth in specification complexity, and subjective assignment of fault. Motivated by the challenges underlying real-world testing and formal verification, we consider a probabilistic paradigm--which we call a risk-based framework--where our goal is to evaluate the probability of an accident under a base distribution representing standard traffic behavior.