MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400645859 · doi:10.1109/iv55156.2024.10588846

SSL-Interactions: Pretext Tasks for Interactive Trajectory Prediction

2024· article· en· W4400645859 on OpenAlexaff
Prarthana Bhattacharyya, Chengjie Huang, Krzysztof Czarnecki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPretextComputer scienceTrajectoryHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses motion forecasting in multi-agent environments, pivotal for ensuring safety of autonomous vehicles. Traditional and recent data-driven marginal trajectory prediction methods struggle to properly learn non-linear agent-to-agent interactions. We present SSL-Interactions that proposes pretext tasks to enhance interaction modeling for trajectory prediction. We introduce four interaction-aware pretext tasks to encapsulate various aspects of agent interactions: range gap prediction, closest distance prediction, direction of movement prediction, and type of interaction prediction. We further propose an approach to curate interaction-heavy scenarios from datasets. This curated data has two advantages: it provides a stronger learning signal to the interaction model, and facilitates generation of pseudo-labels for interaction-centric pretext tasks. We also propose three new metrics specifically designed to evaluate predictions in interactive scenes. Our empirical evaluations indicate SSL-Interactions outperforms state-of-the-art motion forecasting methods quantitatively with up to 8% improvement, and qualitatively, for interaction-heavy scenarios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207