MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384161746 · doi:10.1109/tits.2023.3291196

Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction in Pedestrian-Vehicle Mixed Environments: A Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4384161746 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsPedestrianTrajectoryComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMotion (physics)Data miningTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning an autonomous vehicle’s (AV) path in a space shared with pedestrians requires reasoning about pedestrians’ future trajectories. A practical pedestrian trajectory prediction algorithm for the use of AVs needs to consider the effect of the vehicle’s interactions with the pedestrians on pedestrians’ future motion behaviours. In this regard, this paper systematically reviews different methods proposed in the literature for modelling pedestrian trajectory prediction in presence of vehicles that can be applied for unstructured environments. This paper also investigates specific considerations for pedestrian-vehicle interaction (compared with pedestrian-pedestrian interaction) and reviews how different variables such as prediction uncertainties and behavioural differences are accounted for in the previously proposed prediction models. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Articles that did not consider vehicle and pedestrian interactions or actual trajectories, and articles that only focused on road crossing were excluded. A total of 1260 unique peer-reviewed articles from ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and Scopus databases were identified in the search. 64 articles were included in the final review as they met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. An overview of datasets containing trajectory data of both pedestrians and vehicles used by the reviewed papers has been provided. Research gaps and directions for future work, such as having more effective definition of interacting agents in deep learning methods and the need for gathering more datasets of mixed traffic in unstructured environments are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it