# Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Safe Autonomous Driving Under Pedestrian Behavioral Uncertainty

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20255 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.20255/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Cooperative and V2X driving, one of 9 directions in End-to-end autonomous driving.
- Builds on 15 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 May 2026.

## Placed in

- End-to-end autonomous driving / [Cooperative and V2X driving](https://mlsanity.com/driving/cooperative-and-v2x-driving/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [CARLA: An Open Urban Driving Simulator](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.03938/) (2017)
- [What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.04977/) (2017)
- [High-Dimensional Continuous Control Using Generalized Advantage Estimation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.02438/) (2015)
- [Multi-Agent Actor-Critic for Mixed Cooperative-Competitive Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.02275/) (2017)
- [The Surprising Effectiveness of PPO in Cooperative, Multi-Agent Games](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.01955/) (2021)
- [Counterfactual Multi-Agent Policy Gradients](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.08926/) (2017)
- [Monotonic Value Function Factorisation for Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.08839/) (2020)
- [Is Independent Learning All You Need in the StarCraft Multi-Agent Challenge?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.09533/) (2020)
- [JaxMARL: Multi-Agent RL Environments and Algorithms in JAX](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.10090/) (2023)
- [Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Driving: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.09675/) (2024)
- [Tactical Decision-Making in Autonomous Driving by Reinforcement Learning with Uncertainty Estimation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.10439/) (2020)
- [How does Simulation-based Testing for Self-driving Cars match Human Perception?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14736/) (2024)
- [Modeling Pedestrian Crossing Behavior: A Reinforcement Learning Approach with Sensory Motor Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.14522/) (2024)
- [Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning-based Cooperative Autonomous Driving in Smart Intersections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.04231/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Simulation-based testing of self-driving cars (SDCs) typically relies on scripted pedestrian models that do not capture the heterogeneity and uncertainty of real crossing behavior, limiting the realism of safety assessments, especially for jaywalking, which is governed by latent personality traits the vehicle cannot observe. We hypothesize that jointly training pedestrians and the SDC with multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) yields more realistic interaction scenarios than training against fixed pedestrian policies, and that the behavior gap between predictable and unpredictable crossings can be measured directly from trajectories. We co-train an SDC and 12 pedestrians using Multi-Agent Proximal Policy Optimization (MAPPO): pedestrian locomotion follows scripted Dijkstra pathfinding while an RL policy controls high-level go/wait decisions, and jaywalking probability depends on a per-pedestrian trait sampled at episode start and hidden from the SDC. In 500-episode evaluations, the co-trained SDC reached 78% of goals with a 14% collision rate, versus 35%/33% for the best rule-based baseline. A speed differential metric shows the SDC traveled 2.65 m/s faster near jaywalkers than near crosswalk users at close range (0-3 m), indicating jaywalking encounters were not anticipated. Jaywalking was 13% of crossing events but 62% of collisions, and co-training reduced collisions by 30% relative to single-agent RL as pedestrians learned to wait when the SDC approached at speed.