pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.00266 · v2 · pith:5GBV5N37new · submitted 2025-10-31 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.RO

X-TRACK: Physics-Aware xLSTM for Realistic Vehicle Trajectory Prediction

Aanchal Rajesh Chugh , Marion Neumeier , Sebastian Dorn This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 07:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.RO
keywords trajectory predictionxLSTMvehicle kinematicshighway drivingautonomous drivingphysics-informed learningLSTM variantssequence modeling
0
0 comments X

The pith

Integrating vehicle kinematics into xLSTM produces more realistic highway trajectory predictions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents X-TRAJ as the first application of xLSTM to vehicle trajectory prediction and introduces X-TRACK as its variant that adds explicit vehicle motion kinematics to the training process. It claims this constraint produces trajectories that remain physically feasible over time while still capturing long-term dependencies and interactions. A sympathetic reader would care because many existing models generate paths that vehicles could never actually follow, limiting their use in autonomous driving. Tests on the highD and NGSIM highway datasets show the constrained model beats standard baselines on highD and stays competitive on NGSIM.

Core claim

X-TRACK integrates vehicle motion kinematics directly into the xLSTM learning process, generating realistic and feasible highway trajectories that outperform state-of-the-art baselines on highD and rank among the state-of-the-art on NGSIM.

What carries the argument

X-TRACK, the physics-aware xLSTM variant that embeds kinematic constraints into model training to enforce physical feasibility of predicted paths.

If this is right

  • Predicted trajectories remain physically possible for real vehicles to execute.
  • The model captures long-term temporal dependencies better than standard LSTMs while respecting motion rules.
  • Performance exceeds prior methods on the highD dataset and reaches top-tier results on NGSIM.
  • Physical constraints can be added to sequence models without needing separate post-processing steps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same constraint technique might transfer to trajectory prediction for other physical agents such as pedestrians or aircraft.
  • Urban datasets with more turning maneuvers would provide a stronger test of whether the kinematic rules remain helpful.
  • Pairing the kinematic layer with explicit modeling of vehicle-to-vehicle interactions could address multi-agent scenarios the current work leaves implicit.

Load-bearing premise

Embedding kinematic constraints into xLSTM training improves trajectory realism without introducing bias or lowering performance on other metrics.

What would settle it

A set of predicted trajectories from X-TRACK that violate basic vehicle kinematics such as minimum turning radius or maximum acceleration, or that show higher error than baselines on standard displacement metrics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.00266 by Aanchal Rajesh Chugh, Marion Neumeier, Sebastian Dorn.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Proposed X-TRACK architecture: The sLSTM block generates an encoded vector for all the vehicles in the traffic scenario. The GAT layers model the vehicle interactions between the target vehicle (shown in red) and the neighboring vehicles based on attention scores. The concatenation of the output from the GAT module and target vehicle encoding is passed through the decoder to predict future motion parameter… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of predicted trajectories on the highD dataset using X [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate trajectory prediction is crucial for safe and reliable autonomous driving systems, requiring models that capture long-term temporal dependencies while accounting for social interactions among neighboring vehicles in highway driving scenarios. While Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) networks have been widely used in the domain of trajectory prediction, they have limitations such as limited memory capacity and scalar cell state. The recently introduced Extended Long Short Term Memory (xLSTM) addresses these limitations of traditional LSTMs by introducing exponential gating and enhanced memory structures, making them better suited for modeling long-term temporal dependencies. Despite their potential, xLSTM-based models remain underexplored in the context of vehicle trajectory prediction. This paper introduces a novel xLSTM-based highway trajectory prediction framework, X-TRAJ, as the first application of xLSTM, and its physics-aware variant, X-TRACK (eXtended LSTM for TRAjectory prediction Constraint by Kinematics), which explicitly integrates vehicle motion kinematics into the model learning process. By introducing physical constraints, the proposed model generates realistic and feasible highway trajectories. A comprehensive evaluation on the publicly available highway datasets, highD and NGSIM, demonstrates that X-TRACK outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on highD and is among the state-of-the-art models on the NGSIM dataset.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces X-TRAJ as the first application of xLSTM to highway vehicle trajectory prediction and its physics-aware extension X-TRACK, which incorporates vehicle motion kinematics constraints during training. The central claim is that these constraints produce more realistic and feasible trajectories than standard xLSTM or prior baselines, with empirical support from evaluations on the highD and NGSIM datasets where X-TRACK outperforms SOTA on highD and ranks among SOTA on NGSIM.

Significance. If the kinematic integration demonstrably improves trajectory feasibility and realism on the reported metrics without hidden bias on unemphasized criteria, the work would provide a concrete example of physics-aware sequence modeling that could inform safer autonomous driving predictors. The use of xLSTM's exponential gating for long-term dependencies is a timely extension of prior LSTM-based trajectory work.

minor comments (4)
  1. The abstract states that X-TRACK 'explicitly integrates vehicle motion kinematics into the model learning process' but provides no detail on the precise mechanism (e.g., whether constraints appear as an auxiliary loss term, a projection layer, or modified cell update). A dedicated methods subsection should clarify this to allow replication.
  2. No mention is made of how the kinematic constraints are balanced against the primary prediction loss or whether any hyperparameter controls the strength of the physics term; this information is needed to assess whether the reported gains are robust.
  3. The claim that trajectories are 'realistic and feasible' would be strengthened by reporting at least one feasibility metric (e.g., collision rate, kinematic violation count, or off-road frequency) in addition to standard ADE/FDE; if such metrics are already computed, they should be added to the results tables.
  4. The abstract asserts outperformance on highD and competitive ranking on NGSIM, yet does not indicate whether statistical significance tests or multiple random seeds were used; error bars or p-values should be included to support the ranking claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of X-TRACK, recognition of its novelty as the first xLSTM application to highway trajectory prediction, and recommendation for minor revision. The significance assessment aligns with our motivation for physics-aware sequence modeling in autonomous driving.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper introduces an empirical xLSTM-based neural model (X-TRAJ) and its kinematics-constrained variant (X-TRACK) for trajectory prediction. It reports training on public datasets (highD, NGSIM) and empirical outperformance versus baselines. No derivation chain, first-principles result, or prediction is presented that reduces by construction to fitted inputs, self-citations, or ansatzes. The abstract and description contain no equations or load-bearing self-references that would trigger any of the enumerated circularity patterns. This is a standard empirical ML contribution whose validity rests on external data and benchmarks rather than internal definitional equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities described. Kinematic constraints are referenced but not formalized.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5758 in / 1028 out tokens · 17980 ms · 2026-05-25T07:35:28.284753+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Vehicle trajectory prediction works, but not everywhere,

    M. Bahari, H. Caesar, N. Navab, and T. F. C. de Campos, “Vehicle trajectory prediction works, but not everywhere,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), (New Orleans, LA, USA), pp. 17102–17112, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Machine learning for autonomous vehicle’s trajectory prediction: A comprehensive survey, challenges, and future research directions,

    V . Bharilya and N. Kumar, “Machine learning for autonomous vehicle’s trajectory prediction: A comprehensive survey, challenges, and future research directions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07527, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,”Neural Computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Convolutional social pooling for vehicle trajectory prediction,

    N. Deo and M. M. Trivedi, “Convolutional social pooling for vehicle trajectory prediction,” inProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 1549–15498, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Attention based vehicle trajectory prediction,

    K. Messaoud, I. Yahiaoui, A. Verroust-Blondet, and F. Nashashibi, “Attention based vehicle trajectory prediction,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, pp. 175–185, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Graph and recurrent neural network- based vehicle trajectory prediction for highway driving,

    X. Mo, Y . Xing, and C. Lv, “Graph and recurrent neural network- based vehicle trajectory prediction for highway driving,” in2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), pp. 1934–1939, IEEE, 2021

    work page 1934

  7. [7]

    Deep kinematic models for kinematically feasible vehicle trajectory predictions,

    H. Cuiet al., “Deep kinematic models for kinematically feasible vehicle trajectory predictions,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), (Paris, France), pp. 10563– 10569, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    xlstm: Extended long short-term memory,

    M. Beck, K. P ¨oppel, M. Spanring, A. Auer, O. Prudnikova, M. Kopp, G. Klambauer, J. Brandstetter, and S. Hochreiter, “xlstm: Extended long short-term memory,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 107547–107603, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    An evaluation of deep learning models for stock market trend prediction,

    G. Gil, P. Duhamel-Sebline, and A. Mccarren, “An evaluation of deep learning models for stock market trend prediction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12408, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    xlstmtime: Long-term time series forecasting with xlstm,

    M. Alharthi and A. Mahmood, “xlstmtime: Long-term time series forecasting with xlstm,”AI, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1482–1495, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    xlstm-mixer: Multivariate time series forecasting by mixing via scalar memories,

    M. Kraus, F. Divo, D. S. Dhami, and K. Kersting, “xlstm-mixer: Multivariate time series forecasting by mixing via scalar memories,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16928, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Tirex: Zero-shot forecasting across long and short horizons with enhanced in-context learning,

    A. Aueret al., “Tirex: Zero-shot forecasting across long and short horizons with enhanced in-context learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23719, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    A survey on trajectory-prediction methods for autonomous driving,

    Y . Huang, J. Du, Z. Yang, Z. Zhou, L. Zhang, and H. Chen, “A survey on trajectory-prediction methods for autonomous driving,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 652–674, 2022

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Interaction- aware prediction of occupancy regions based on a pomdp framework,

    T. Elter, T. Dirndorfer, M. Botsch, and W. Utschick, “Interaction- aware prediction of occupancy regions based on a pomdp framework,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 980–987, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Probabilistic online pomdp decision making for lane changes in fully automated driving,

    S. Ulbrich and M. Maurer, “Probabilistic online pomdp decision making for lane changes in fully automated driving,” inProceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 2063–2067, 2013

    work page 2063

  16. [16]

    Infrastructure-based vehicle maneuver estimation with intersection-specific models,

    C.-E. Framing, F.-J. Heßeler, and D. Abel, “Infrastructure-based vehicle maneuver estimation with intersection-specific models,” inProceedings of the 26th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED), pp. 253–258, 2018

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    A survey on motion prediction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles,

    S. Lef `evre, D. Vasquez, and C. Laugier, “A survey on motion prediction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles,”Robomech Journal, vol. 1, 2014

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    A survey of vehicle trajectory prediction based on deep learning,

    H. Yin, Y . Wen, and J. Li, “A survey of vehicle trajectory prediction based on deep learning,” inProceedings of the 3rd International Confer- ence on Neural Networks, Information and Communication Engineering (NNICE), pp. 140–144, Feb. 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Social lstm: Human trajectory prediction in crowded spaces,

    A. Alahi, K. Goel, V . Ramanathan, A. Robicquet, L. Fei-Fei, and S. Savarese, “Social lstm: Human trajectory prediction in crowded spaces,” inProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 961–971, 2016

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    Graph Attention Networks

    P. Veli ˇckovi´c, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Li`o, and Y . Ben- gio, “Graph attention networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Ra-gat: Repulsion and attraction graph attention for trajectory prediction,

    Z. Ding, Z. Yao, and H. Zhao, “Ra-gat: Repulsion and attraction graph attention for trajectory prediction,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 734–741, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Hsta: A hierarchical spatio-temporal attention model for trajectory prediction,

    Y . Wu, G. Chen, Z. Li, L. Zhang, L. Xiong, Z. Liu, and A. Knoll, “Hsta: A hierarchical spatio-temporal attention model for trajectory prediction,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 70, pp. 11295–11307, 2021

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Reliable trajectory prediction and uncertainty quantification with conditioned diffusion models,

    M. Neumeier, S. Dorn, M. Botsch, and W. Utschick, “Reliable trajectory prediction and uncertainty quantification with conditioned diffusion models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, pp. 3461–3470, June 2024

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Wake: Towards robust and physically feasible trajectory prediction for autonomous vehicles with wavelet and kinematics synergy,

    C. Wang, H. Liao, Z. Li, and C. Xu, “Wake: Towards robust and physically feasible trajectory prediction for autonomous vehicles with wavelet and kinematics synergy,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 47, pp. 3126–3140, Apr. 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Botsch and W

    M. Botsch and W. Utschick,Fahrzeugsicherheit und automatisiertes Fahren: Methoden der Signalverarbeitung und des maschinellen Ler- nens. M ¨unchen: Hanser, 2020

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    The exploration of autonomous vehicle driving styles: Preferred longitudinal, lateral, and vertical accelerations,

    N. M. Yusof, J. Karjanto, J. Terken, F. Delbressine, M. Z. Hassan, and M. Rauterberg, “The exploration of autonomous vehicle driving styles: Preferred longitudinal, lateral, and vertical accelerations,” inProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, pp. 245–252, 2016

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Prediction for future yaw rate values of vehicles using long short-term memory network,

    J. Kontos, B. Kr ´anicz, and ´A. Vathy-Fogarassy, “Prediction for future yaw rate values of vehicles using long short-term memory network,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 12, 2023

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Prediction and interpretation of vehicle trajectories in the graph spectral domain,

    M. Neumeier, S. Dorn, M. Botsch, and W. Utschick, “Prediction and interpretation of vehicle trajectories in the graph spectral domain,” 2023

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    A multidimen- sional graph fourier transformation neural network for vehicle trajectory prediction,

    M. Neumeier, A. Tollk ¨uhn, M. Botsch, and W. Utschick, “A multidimen- sional graph fourier transformation neural network for vehicle trajectory prediction,” inProceedings of the 2022 IEEE 25th International Con- ference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), (Macau, China), pp. 687–694, 2022

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Automatic differentiation in pytorch,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, S. Chintala, G. Chanan, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, Z. Lin, A. Desmaison, L. Antiga, and T. K., “Automatic differentiation in pytorch,” inProceedings of the NIPS Autodiff Workshop: The Future of Gradient-Based Machine Learning Software and Techniques, December 2017

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Fast graph representation learning with PyTorch Geometric,

    M. Fey and J. E. Lenssen, “Fast graph representation learning with PyTorch Geometric,” inICLR Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds, 2019

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,” inProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), May 2015

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Graph-based spatial-temporal attentive network for vehicle trajectory prediction in automated driving,

    D. E. Benrachou, S. Glaser, M. Elhenawy, and A. Rakotonirainy, “Graph-based spatial-temporal attentive network for vehicle trajectory prediction in automated driving,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2025

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    A critical evaluation of the next generation simulation (ngsim) vehicle trajectory dataset,

    B. Coifman and L. Li, “A critical evaluation of the next generation simulation (ngsim) vehicle trajectory dataset,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 105, pp. 362–377, 2017

    work page 2017