MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402754005 · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01409

CaDeT: A Causal Disentanglement Approach for Robust Trajectory Prediction in Autonomous Driving

2024· article· en· W4402754005 on OpenAlexaff
Mozhgan Pourkeshavarz, Junrui Zhang, Amir Rasouli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadetTrajectoryComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceControl theory (sociology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For safe motion planning in real-world, autonomous vehicles require behavior prediction models that are reliable and robust to distribution shifts. The recent studies suggest that the existing learning-based trajectory prediction models do not posses such characteristics and are susceptible to small perturbations that are not present in the training data, largely due to overfitting to spurious correlations while learning. In this paper, we propose a causal disentanglement representation learning approach aiming to separate invariant (causal) and variant (spurious) features for more robust learning. Our method benefits from a novel intervention mechanism in the latent space that estimates potential distribution shifts resulted from spurious correlations using uncertain feature statistics, hence, maintaining the realism of interventions. To facilitate learning, we propose a novel invariance objective based on the variances of the distributions over uncertain statistics to induce the model to focus on invariant representations during training. We conduct extensive experiments on two large-scale autonomous driving datasets and show that besides achieving state-of-the-art performance, our method can significantly improve prediction robustness to various distribution shifts in driving scenes. We further conduct ablative studies to evaluate the design choices in our proposed framework.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207