Where are you heading? Dynamic Trajectory Prediction with Expert Goal Examples
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal-conditioned approaches recently have been found very useful to human trajectory prediction, when adequate goal estimates are provided. Yet, goal inference is difficult in itself and often incurs extra learning effort. We propose to predict pedestrian trajectories via the guidance of goal expertise, which can be obtained with modest expense through a novel goal-search mechanism on already seen training examples. There are three key contributions in our study. First, we devise a framework that exploits nearest examples for high-quality goal position inquiry. This approach naturally considers multi-modality, physical constraints, compatibility with existing methods and is nonparametric; it therefore does not require additional learning effort typical in goal inference. Second, we present an end-to-end trajectory predictor that can efficiently associate goal retrievals to past motion information and dynamically infer possible future trajectories. Third, with these two novel techniques in hand, we conduct a series of experiments on two broadly explored datasets (SDD and ETH/UCY) and show that our approach surpasses previous state-of-the-art performance by notable margins and reduces the need for additional parameters. Code can be found at our project page <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it