arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.42121

Where ADS Crashes Differ: A Harmonized Comparison Against Human Baselines

Doyeon Jang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Crash-rate comparisons between automated driving systems (ADS) and human drivers require an exposure denominator that only a few operators publish. We instead ask a composition question: given a crash, does the mix of crash types differ between ADS and human-driven vehicles? The question needs no mileage and can therefore cover every ADS operator. We assemble the NHTSA Standing General Order (SGO) ADS incident files across both file generations into 2,450 distinct in-scope incidents (2021-2026), of which 828 fall within the 2021-2024 window covered by the Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS), the national police-reported human comparator. A schema-constrained large language model (LLM) codes each SGO narrative into the CRSS crash-type taxonomy. Because SGO compels reporting far below the police-reporting threshold, we bracket reportability with an objective severity floor and a reasonable-person rubric, and claim a difference only where it survives both. Two composition differences hold under every reportability definition, tow definition and weighting of the human side, and under both definitions of driverless operation: turn-across-path crashes are under-represented among ADS crashes (0.23-0.46x the CRSS share under the primary driverless definition) and so are single-vehicle crashes (0.19-0.56x). In severity-floor rear-end crashes the ADS vehicle is the striking party at a quasi-induced-exposure ratio of 0.121 (95% CI [0.05, 0.23]) against a human baseline of 1.000. If the ADS vehicle is also struck more often than its exposure implies, this ratio overstates the ADS-human difference. We also document three pitfalls in the federal data: an operator-specific coding of driverless operation, a tow-away criterion confounded by fleet recovery practice, and an occupancy confound that accounts for about 42% of the apparent ADS-human severity gap.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Doyeon Jang. 2026-10-30. Where ADS Crashes Differ: A Harmonized Comparison Against Human Baselines. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.42121

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AI Ethics by Design: Implementing Customizable Guardrails for Responsible AI Development

This paper explores the development of an ethical guardrail framework for AI systems, emphasizing the importance of customizable guardrails that align with diverse user values and underlying ethics. We address the challenges of AI ethics by proposing a structure that integrates rules, policies, and AI assistants to ensure responsible AI behavior, while comparing the proposed framework to the existing state-of-the-art guardrails. By focusing on practical mechanisms for implementing ethical standards, we aim to enhance transparency, user autonomy, and continuous improvement in AI systems. Our approach accommodates ethical pluralism, offering a flexible and adaptable solution for the evolving landscape of AI governance. The paper concludes with strategies for resolving conflicts between ethical directives, underscoring the present and future need for robust, nuanced and context-aware AI systems.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Matching with Choice: Menu Design for Patient--Provider Assignment

High-quality matches between patients and primary care providers improve downstream health outcomes, yet provider turnover breaks these matches and forces patients to be reassigned. Health systems facing this problem must decide not only which providers to recommend, but how much choice to offer. Direct assignment avoids competition for scarce provider capacity but relies on noisy estimates of patient preferences; broader choice allows patients to correct these estimates using private information but can create costly coordination failures. We study this tradeoff through the design of fixed, personalized menus from which patients choose providers. We show that constructing the optimal menu is NP-hard and establish an information-theoretic lower bound. We find that offering each patient a single provider matches this bound up to a constant factor, while unrestricted choice can perform arbitrarily poorly. However, we show that additional choice improves on single-provider assignment when the system cannot reliably distinguish among a patient's alternatives. We formalize this tradeoff through two forms of loss: menu loss, which arises when menus offer too few options, and coordination loss, which arises when scarce capacity is exposed to too much choice. Motivated by this decomposition, we develop the Scenario-Averaged Marginals (SAM) algorithm, which tailors menus based on provider shadow prices so choice is offered only when utility exceeds the capacity cost. We identify sufficient conditions which SAM's regret matches the lower bound, namely when patients have valuable alternatives and offered menus don't create competition for scarce capacity. In a semi-synthetic environment calibrated to a provider network using Medicare data, SAM improves total utility by up to 19% over single-provider assignment as preference uncertainty grows, while improving utility for the least-served ZIP codes.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Exploring Student Perception on Gen AI Adoption in Higher Education: A Descriptive Study

The rapid proliferation of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is reshaping pedagogical practices and assessment models in higher education. While institutional and educator perspectives on GenAI integration are increasingly documented, the student perspective remains comparatively underexplored. This study examines how students perceive, use, and evaluate GenAI within their academic practices, focusing on usage patterns, perceived benefits, and expectations for institutional support. Data were collected through a questionnaire administered to 436 postgraduate Computer Science students at the University of Hertfordshire and analysed using descriptive methods. The findings reveal a Confidence-Competence Paradox: although more than 60% of students report high familiarity with tools such as ChatGPT, daily academic use remains limited and confidence in effective application is only moderate. Students primarily employ GenAI for cognitive scaffolding tasks, including concept clarification and brainstorming, rather than fully automated content generation. At the same time, respondents express concerns regarding data privacy, reliability of AI-generated information, and the potential erosion of critical thinking skills. The results also indicate strong student support for integrating AI literacy into curricula and programme Knowledge, Skills, and Behaviours (KSBs). Overall, the study suggests that universities should move beyond a policing approach to GenAI and adopt a pedagogical framework that emphasises AI literacy, ethical guidance, and equitable access to AI tools.

cs.CY↗