FJMP: Factorized Joint Multi-Agent Motion Prediction over Learned Directed Acyclic Interaction Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting the future motion of road agents is a critical task in an autonomous driving pipeline. In this work, we address the problem of generating a set of scene-level, or joint, future trajectory predictions in multi-agent driving scenarios. To this end, we propose FJMP, a Factorized Joint Motion Prediction framework for multi-agent interactive driving scenarios. FJMP models the future scene interaction dynamics as a sparse directed interaction graph, where edges denote explicit interactions between agents. We then prune the graph into a directed acyclic graph (DAG) and decompose the joint prediction task into a sequence of marginal and conditional predictions according to the partial ordering of the DAG, where joint future trajectories are decoded using a directed acyclic graph neural network (DAGNN). We conduct experiments on the INTERACTION and Argoverse 2 datasets and demonstrate that FJMP produces more accurate and scene-consistent joint trajectory predictions than non-factorized approaches, especially on the most interactive and kinematically interesting agents. FJMP ranks 1st on the multi-agent test leaderboard of the INTERACTION dataset.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".