## 5 Driver Acceptance Evaluation Model
### Modeling of Driver Acceptance
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Statistical Significance \(p\)-Value**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Acceptance Sensitivity \(\left(S_{Acceptance}\right)\)**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Parameters \(\left(\mathbf{x}\right)\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Coefficients \(\left(\mathbf{\beta}\right)\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Parameters \(\left(\mathbf{x}\right)\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Coefficients \(\left(\mathbf{\beta}\right)\)**} \\ \hline \(x_{1}\) & \(\min[Vx]\) & \(\beta_{1}\) & \(-0.206\) & \(x_{1}\) & \(\min[TPS]\) & \(\beta_{1}\) & \(-0.013\) \\ \hline \(x_{2}\) & \(\max[Vx]\) & \(\beta_{2}\) & \(-0.839\) & \(x_{2}\) & \(\min\left[\hat{\delta}\right]\) & \(\beta_{2}\) & \(-669.777\) \\ \hline \(x_{3}\) & \(\mathrm{median}[Vx]\) & \(\beta_{3}\) & \(-3.960\) & \(x_{3}\) & \(\mathrm{median}\left[\hat{\delta}\right]\) & \(\beta_{3}\) & \(-2.214\) \\ \hline \(x_{4}\) & \(\mathrm{mean}[Vx]\) & \(\beta_{4}\) & \(5.243\) & \(x_{4}\) & \(\max\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{4}\) & \(-1.374\) \\ \hline \(x_{5}\) & \(\min\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{5}\) & \(-7.263\) & \(x_{5}\) & \(\mathrm{median}\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{5}\) & \(14.199\) \\ \hline \(x_{6}\) & \(\max\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{6}\) & \(5.274\) & \(x_{6}\) & \(\mathrm{mean}\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{6}\) & \(-3.881\) \\ \hline \(x_{7}\) & \(\mathrm{median}\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{7}\) & \(5.189\) & \(x_{7}\) & \(\mathrm{SD}\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{7}\) & \(-20.073\) \\ \hline \(x_{8}\) & \(\mathrm{mean}\left[Vx\right]\) & \(\beta_{8}\) & \(0.233\) & \(x_{8}\) & \(\min\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{8}\) & \(0.148\) \\ \hline \(x_{9}\) & \(\mathrm{SD}\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{9}\) & \(-19.741\) & \(x_{9}\) & \(\max\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{9}\) & \(5.142\) \\ \hline \(x_{10}\) & \(\mathrm{SD}[TTCyA]\) & \(\beta_{10}\) & \(0.103\) & \(x_{10}\) & \(\mathrm{median}\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{10}\) & \(30.755\) \\ \hline \(x_{11}\) & \(\mathrm{mean}[relVxA]\) & \(\beta_{11}\) & \(-0.142\) & \(x_{11}\) & \(\mathrm{mean}\left[\hat{V}x\right]\) & \(\beta_{11}\) & \(-26.580\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Modeling results of the driver acceptance models using the two different parameter selection methods, the statistical significance test and the acceptance sensitivity analysis, for a specific data set classified as experts/commanded/with traffic. The performances of the two different models are compared in Figure 5, and the performance comparisons are summarized in several aforementioned indexes, as shown in Table 6. As seen in Figure 5a, the driver acceptance model using the acceptance sensitivity precisely estimated the driver's acceptance. Considering the ROC curves in Figure 5b, the classification performance for the driver acceptance model using the suggested method showed a much better classification performance than that of the other driver acceptance model using the conventional method; the areas under the curves were 0.848 for the model using the statistical significance test method and 0.998 for the model using the acceptance sensitivity analysis method.