Characterizing Structured Versus Unstructured Environments Based on Pedestrians' and Vehicles' Motion Trajectories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trajectory behaviours of pedestrians and vehicles operating close to each other can be different in unstructured compared to structured environments. These differences in the motion behaviour are valuable to be considered in the trajectory prediction algorithm of an autonomous vehicle. However, the available datasets on pedestrians' and vehicles' trajectories that are commonly used as benchmarks for trajectory prediction have not been classified based on the nature of their environment. On the other hand, the definitions provided for unstructured and structured environments are rather qualitative and hard to be used for justifying the type of a given environment. In this paper, we have compared different existing datasets based on a couple of extracted trajectory features, such as mean speed and trajectory variability. Through K-means clustering and generalized linear models, we propose more quantitative measures for distinguishing the two different types of environments. Our results show that features such as trajectory variability, stop fraction and density of pedestrians are different among the two environmental types and can be used to classify the existing datasets.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".