The Interacting Multiple Model Smooth Variable Structure Filter for Trajectory Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An autonomous vehicle would benefit from being able to predict trajectories of other vehicles in its vicinity for improved safety. In order for the self-driving car to plan safe trajectories, paths of nearby vehicles are required to be predicted for risk assessment, decision making, and motion planning. In this study, a trajectory prediction algorithm based on the Interacting Multiple Model (IMM) estimation strategy is proposed to predict paths involving lane-changing, lane-keeping, and turning motion. More specifically, the Interacting Multiple Model estimation technique is used with models defined in curvi-linear coordinates to predict a vehicle’s trajectory based on prior behavioral maneuvers. The road geometry is used to help facilitate behavior identification and prediction. Moreover, the combination of a more recently developed estimation technique known as the Generalized Variable Boundary Layer-Smooth Variable Structure Filter and the Interacting Multiple Model Estimator is applied to track, identify behaviors, and predict trajectories of a vehicle. The performance of this technique is compared with a Kalman Filter based formulation using synthetic and experimental data. This model-based strategy is also compared with machine learning-based strategies for trajectory prediction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".