MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Robust Vehicle Trajectory Prediction via Counterfactual Intervention for Autonomous Driving

2025· article· en· W4412567958 on OpenAlexaff
Ang Duan, Shiming Fu, Zhi Li, Ce Zhang, Duo Chen, Ke Song

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersChongqing Municipal Education CommissionNatural Science Foundation of ChongqingChongqing University
KeywordsCounterfactual thinkingTrajectoryComputer scienceIntervention (counseling)Artificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trajectory prediction module of autonomous driving navigation systems is required to correctly forecast the future trajectories of other agents and make correct driving decisions to guarantee the safety of self-driving vehicles. However, the trajectory prediction module is susceptible to adversarial attacks, which can lead to wrong driving decisions. Here, we propose RVTP, a robust prediction method against adversarial attacks for trajectory prediction, which is grounded in causal inference. RVTP employs counterfactual intervention to remove the influence of adversarial perturbations on observed history trajectories. Firstly, we present four evaluation metrics to measure directed attacks from four directions under adversarial attacks. Secondly, we establish the causal graph in attack scenarios and study the causal relationships of various elements under attack. Thirdly, we implement the counterfactual intervention based on the causal graph to calculate the causal effect for mitigating the influence of adversarial attacks. Compared with other trajectory prediction methods under attack, extensive experiments demonstrate that RVTP achieves enhanced performance under attacks at the cost of a minimal performance decrease in no attack scenario.

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 score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207