Low trust remains a significant barrier to Autonomous Vehicle (AV) adoption. To design trustworthy AVs, we need to better understand the individual traits, attitudes, and experiences that impact people's trust judgements. We use machine learning to understand the most important factors that contribute to young adult trust based on a comprehensive set of personal factors gathered via survey (n = 1457). Factors ranged from psychosocial and cognitive attributes to driving style, experiences, and perceived AV risks and benefits. Using the explainable AI technique SHAP, we found that perceptions of AV risks and benefits, attitudes toward feasibility and usability, institutional trust, prior experience, and a person's mental model are the most important predictors. Surprisingly, psychosocial and many technology- and driving-specific factors were not strong predictors. Results highlight the importance of individual differences for designing trustworthy AVs for diverse groups and lead to key implications for future design and research.

Real-world problems are often comprised of many objectives and require solutions that carefully trade-off between them. Current approaches to many-objective optimization often require challenging assumptions, like knowledge of the importance/difficulty of objectives in a weighted-sum single-objective paradigm, or enormous populations to overcome the curse of dimensionality in multi-objective Pareto optimization. Combining elements from Many-Objective Evolutionary Algorithms and Quality Diversity algorithms like MAP-Elites, we propose Many-objective Optimization via Voting for Elites (MOVE). MOVE maintains a map of elites that perform well on different subsets of the objective functions. On a 14-objective image-neuroevolution problem, we demonstrate that MOVE is viable with a population of as few as 50 elites and outperforms a naive single-objective baseline. We find that the algorithm's performance relies on solutions jumping across bins (for a parent to produce a child that is elite for a different subset of objectives). We suggest that this type of goal-switching is an implicit method to automatic identification of stepping stones or curriculum learning. We comment on the similarities and differences between MOVE and MAP-Elites, hoping to provide insight to aid in the understanding of that approach $\unicode{x2013}$ and suggest future work that may inform this approach's use for many-objective problems in general.