## 5 Validation of Proposed Method
### Evaluation Metrics  
Evaluation metrics were set in two perspectives. One was to verify whether the method proposed in Section 4.2 meets the requirement of suppressing avoidance behavior for approaching pedestrians tolerated by the passenger, introduced in Section 4.1. The duration of the PMV executing avoidance behavior during autonomous navigation was evaluated from this perspective. The PS invasion ratios of tolerable and intolerable pedestrians were also compared to confirm the suppression for not intolerable but tolerable pedestrians. The other was to verify whether the proposed method can achieve efficient autonomous movement without increasing passenger discomfort. In addition to passenger discomfort estimation, the travel time of autonomous navigation was evaluated from this perspective.  
For the first evaluation perspective, the avoidance duration was defined based on the definition of avoidance behavior in the previous study [12]. The previous study considered deceleration and turning actions as avoidance. Therefore, actions were defined as deceleration when they satisfied Equation (10), indicating a slow speed significantly lower than the maximum speed \(v_{max}\). Similarly, actions were defined as turning when they satisfied Equation (11), indicating either a large steering angle \(\delta\) [degree] for continuous turning or a large angular velocity indicating an attempt to start turning. The time the PMV performed avoidance behavior was defined as the duration that the PMV motion satisfied either Equation (9) or Equation (10).  
\[v\leq 0.9v_{max}\ \wedge\ \frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t}\leq 0 \tag{9}\]  
\[|\delta|\geq 2.0\ \vee\ \left|\frac{\Delta\delta}{\Delta t}\right|\geq 2.5 \tag{10}\]  
The conditions of tolerable and intolerable pedestrian proximity were also defined. Considering that both the predicted passing distance \(h\) and the curvature radius \(R\) of the predicted pedestrian trajectory contribute to passenger tolerance, scenes satisfying the conditions in Equation (9) were considered scenes where the pedestrian's approach is tolerable; otherwise, the approach was deemed intolerable. To determine the calculation method of the predicted passing distance \(h\), the correlation between \(h\), calculated in different conditions where the pedestrian was 5.5-7.0 m ahead of the PMV, and \(q\) were investigated using the dataset in [12]. As a result, the strongest correlation was observed in the condition of 6.7 m, and significant correlations were also confirmed in the surrounding  
Figure 13: Overviews of numerical simulation environment.  
range, as shown in Figure 14. It was therefore presumed that the passengers tended to make \"Projection of the Future Status\" and tolerate some approaching pedestrians around the time when the pedestrians were in this region. Thus, the passing prediction distance \(h\) in Equation (9) was calculated when a pedestrian was 6.7 m ahead of the PMV, which showed the strongest correlation. For the curvature radius \(R\), the minimum value among the range 6.0-7.0 m ahead of the PMV was adopted. The time-averaged PS invasion ratio was then calculated separately for each pedestrian category.  
\[h\geq 0.80\ \wedge\ R\geq 100 \tag{11}\]  
For the second evaluation perspective, passenger discomfort was estimated based on the PS invasion ratio of the surrounding pedestrians that the passenger cannot tolerate. A smaller time-averaged PS invasion ratio of the pedestrian deemed intolerable indicates that the method does not increase the PMV passenger's discomfort. Regarding the metric for efficiency, travel time was defined as the elapsed time from the start to the completion of the PMV's movement.