MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400649796 · doi:10.1109/iv55156.2024.10588635

TrACT: A Training Dynamics Aware Contrastive Learning Framework for Long-Tail Trajectory Prediction

2024· article· en· W4400649796 on OpenAlexaff
Junrui Zhang, Mozhgan Pourkeshavarz, Amir Rasouli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic Prediction and Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrajectoryComputer scienceTraining (meteorology)Dynamics (music)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a safety critical task, autonomous driving requires accurate predictions of road users’ future trajectories for safe motion planning, particularly under challenging conditions. Yet, many recent deep learning methods suffer from a degraded performance on the challenging scenarios, mainly because these scenarios appear less frequently in the training data. To address such a long-tail issue, existing methods force challenging scenarios closer together in the feature space during training to trigger information sharing among them for more robust learning. These methods, however, primarily rely on the motion patterns to characterize scenarios, omitting more informative contextual information, such as interactions and scene layout. We argue that exploiting such information not only improves prediction accuracy but also scene compliance of the generated trajectories. In this paper, we propose to incorporate richer training dynamics information into a prototypical contrastive learning framework. More specifically, we propose a two-stage process. First, we generate rich contextual features using a baseline encoder-decoder framework. These features are split into clusters based on the model’s output errors, using the training dynamics information, and a prototype is computed within each cluster. Second, we retrain the model using the prototypes in a contrastive learning framework. We conduct empirical evaluations of our approach using two large-scale naturalistic datasets and show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance by improving accuracy and scene compliance on the long-tail samples. Furthermore, we perform experiments on a subset of the clusters to highlight the additional benefit of our approach in reducing training bias.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTraffic Prediction and Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207