MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411154120 · doi:10.3390/vehicles7020057

Navigating Uncertainty: Advanced Techniques in Pedestrian Intention Prediction for Autonomous Vehicles—A Comprehensive Review

2025· article· en· W4411154120 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueVehicles · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedestrianComputer scienceData scienceArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Health Organization reports approximately 1.35 million fatalities annually due to road traffic accidents, with pedestrians constituting 23% of these deaths. This highlights the critical need to enhance pedestrian safety, especially given the significant role human error plays in road accidents. Autonomous vehicles present a promising solution to mitigate these fatalities by improving road safety through advanced prediction of pedestrian behavior. With the autonomous vehicle market projected to grow substantially and offer various economic benefits, including reduced driving costs and enhanced safety, understanding and predicting pedestrian actions and intentions is essential for integrating autonomous vehicles into traffic systems effectively. Despite significant advancements, replicating human social understanding in autonomous vehicles remains challenging, particularly in predicting the complex and unpredictable behavior of vulnerable road users like pedestrians. Moreover, the inherent uncertainty in pedestrian behavior adds another layer of complexity, requiring robust methods to quantify and manage this uncertainty effectively. This review provides a structured and in-depth analysis of pedestrian intention prediction techniques, with a unique focus on how uncertainty is modeled and managed. We categorize existing approaches based on prediction duration, feature type, and model architecture, and critically examine benchmark datasets and performance metrics. Furthermore, we explore the implications of uncertainty types—epistemic and aleatoric—and discuss their integration into autonomous vehicle systems. By synthesizing recent developments and highlighting the limitations of current methodologies, this paper aims to advance the understanding of Pedestrian intention Prediction and contribute to safer and more reliable autonomous vehicle deployment.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.267 · 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