Polar Collision Grids: Effective Interaction Modelling for Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction in Shared Space Using Collision Checks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting pedestrians' trajectories is a crucial capability for autonomous vehicles' safe navigation, especially in spaces shared with pedestrians. Pedestrian motion in shared spaces is influenced by both the presence of vehicles and other pedestrians. Therefore, effectively modelling both pedestrian-pedestrian and pedestrian-vehicle interactions can increase the accuracy of the pedestrian trajectory prediction models. Despite the huge literature on ways to encode the effect of interacting agents on a pedestrian's predicted trajectory using deep-learning models, limited effort has been put into the effective selection of interacting agents. In the majority of cases, the interaction features used are mainly based on relative distances while paying less attention to the effect of the velocity and approaching direction in the interaction formulation. In this paper, we propose a heuristic-based process of selecting the interacting agents based on collision risk calculation. Focusing on interactions of potentially colliding agents with a target pedestrian, we propose the use of time-to-collision and the approach direction angle of two agents for encoding the interaction effect. This is done by introducing a novel polar collision grid map. Our results have shown predicted trajectories closer to the ground truth compared to existing methods (used as a baseline) on the HBS 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".