MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of Early and Late Spatio-Temporal Fusion in LSTM Models for Vehicle Trajectory Prediction

2025· article· W7136550126 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Vora, Sukhjit Singh Sehra, Sumeet Kaur Sehra, Jaiteg Singh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsConestoga CollegeWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrajectorySensor fusionFusionPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vehicle trajectory prediction is crucial for optimizing transportation systems, reducing traffic congestion, minimizing travel time, and enhancing overall safety. Accurately forecasting trajectories in complex traffic remains challenging due to both temporal vehicle dynamics and spatial interactions among neighboring vehicles. In this paper, we present a head-to-head comparison of two long short-term memory (LSTM) architectures that fuse spatio-temporal data at different stages: an early-fusion model that aggregates neighbor features at every time step, and a late-fusion model that encodes target and neighbor sequences separately and merges them only at the final prediction layer. A vanilla LSTM baseline that uses only the target vehicle's own history (no neighbor information) is also included to isolate the fusion benefit. All models are trained and evaluated on the NGSIM US-101 highway dataset using mean squared error (MSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) metrics. The results show that both fusion strategies yield modest error reductions compared to the baseline (vanilla LSTM MSE$\boldsymbol{=} \mathbf{1. 6 5} \boldsymbol{\rightarrow}$early-fusion MSE$\boldsymbol{=} \mathbf{0. 9 8 7 4}$, late-fusion MSE$=0.9910$), with only a slight advantage for early fusion. We provide qualitative analyses of lane-change versus lane-keep scenarios, discuss the limitations of our one-step prediction and simple neighbor pooling, and outline directions for future work, including attention mechanisms and graph-based models. The data and implementation are available at https://github.com/sukhjitsehra/FVTP.

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)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
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