Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 55 references

NEST: A Neuromodulated Small-world Hypergraph Trajectory Prediction Model for Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read NEST claims a small-world hypergraph plus neuromodulation beats prior trajectory predictors on three driving datasets.

desk verdict Genuinely new architecture with plausible results, but the evaluation and the stochastic hypergraph construction need tightening before the SOTA claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11682 v1 pith:O3SKCM72 submitted 2024-12-16 cs.RO cs.AIcs.LG

Chengyue Wang , Haicheng Liao , Bonan Wang , Yanchen Guan , Bin Rao , Ziyuan Pu , Zhiyong Cui , Chengzhong Xu
show 1 more author
Zhenning Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.LG
keywords trajectorypredictionautonomousdrivingsmall-worldnetworkhypergraphneuralneuromodulationinteractionmodelingnuScenesMoCAD
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes NEST, a trajectory prediction model for autonomous driving that combines small-world network structure with hypergraph learning. Its central claim is that this pairing captures both nearby and distant vehicle interactions more efficiently than ordinary graph or attention models, and that a learned neuromodulator adapts the interaction structure to the current traffic scene. On nuScenes, MoCAD, and HighD, NEST reports lower prediction error than published baselines, including a 5-mode minimum average displacement error (minADE5) of 1.18 meters on nuScenes and an inference time of 11.6 ms for 12 agents. The authors argue this makes the model suitable for real-time use while generalizing across urban, roundabout, and highway scenarios.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Neuromodulated Small-world Hypergraph. The Small-world Network module, inspired by the Newman–Watts model, assigns agents to hyperedges using a clustering coefficient threshold $\alpha$ and a connection probability $\beta$; the Neuromodulator computes both from agent features through MLPs with a sigmoid, so the hypergraph structure changes with traffic density and context. Hypergraph Pooling then alternates Vertex-to-Hyperedge aggregation—weighted sums through personality, intention, and willingness encoders with a Gumbel-softmax—and Hyperedge-to-Vertex updates, producing an interaction feature $F_i$ that is combined with lane features by attention and fed to $K$ modal predictors that output Laplace-distributed trajectories.

What would settle it

Run NEST and the strongest listed baselines on the same data splits with the same evaluation code and the same GPU, and check whether NEST still beats them by the reported margins (minADE5 1.18 on nuScenes, 5-second RMSE 2.42 on MoCAD and 0.48 on HighD). If the gaps shrink or vanish, or if setting the random connection step to a fixed deterministic graph leaves performance unchanged, the central advantage would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that representing traffic interactions as a small-world hypergraph—hyperedges that group multiple agents plus latent random connections that reach distant agents—lets a model encode both local and long-range influence, and that a neuromodulator can set the grouping threshold $\alpha$ and connection probability $\beta$ from agent features, making the graph scene-dependent. With this structure, NEST reports state-of-the-art performance on nuScenes (minADE5 1.18, minADE1 2.97, minFDE1 6.87), lower RMSE at longer horizons on MoCAD and HighD, and 11.6 ms inference. The ablation study shows that removing the hypergraph learning or the small-world construction causes the largest drops in accuracy, which the paper takes as evidence that both components carry the performance.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that NEST outperforms existing methods assumes that published baseline numbers are directly comparable to NEST's numbers under identical data splits, metrics, and hardware; no baselines are re-run and no variance or significance is reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NEST reports a 14.5% improvement in minADE5 over the best prior nuScenes baseline, with larger gains when only one mode is evaluated.
  • On MoCAD and HighD, the reported 5-second RMSE is 2.42 and 0.48 respectively, beating the strongest listed baselines and improving most at longer horizons.
  • An inference time of 11.6 ms for 12 agents on an RTX 3090 implies the model can run well above real-time requirements on consumer hardware.
  • Ablation results indicate that the hypergraph learning and the small-world construction are the two components whose removal most degrades accuracy, so the paper's contribution rests on both.
  • The model achieves these results on MoCAD and HighD without HD maps, suggesting the interaction module alone carries much of the predictive signal.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the small-world hypergraph is truly capturing long-range influence, the same construction could transfer to pedestrian and mixed-traffic prediction, where group behavior and distant interactions are also central.
  • Because the neuromodulator derives $\alpha$ and $\beta$ from agent features, a natural extension is online adaptation: re-estimating these parameters at inference time could make the model robust to distribution shift without retraining.
  • The random draw $\eta$ in hyperedge formation introduces stochasticity; replacing it with a learned latent-link predictor might yield a deterministic variant with comparable or better accuracy, which would test whether the random shortcuts themselves are essential.
  • A like-for-like speed comparison on the same GPU and evaluation harness would clarify whether the 11.6 ms advantage over baselines is architectural or partly due to hardware differences.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes NEST, a trajectory prediction model for autonomous driving that combines small-world network topology with hypergraph neural networks. The model constructs an interaction hypergraph via a stochastic edge-formation rule modulated by learned thresholds and connection probabilities (the 'Neuromodulator'), pools vertex and hyperedge features iteratively, fuses context from HD maps, and outputs multiple trajectory modes. The authors evaluate NEST on nuScenes, MoCAD, and HighD, report state-of-the-art minADE/minFDE and RMSE numbers alongside an 11.6 ms inference time, and present ablations over five model components. The central claim is that NEST consistently outperforms existing methods across these datasets and scenarios.

Significance. If the claimed performance is substantiated, the paper would make a useful contribution to interaction-aware trajectory forecasting: the combination of small-world connectivity (to capture long-range mediated interactions) with hypergraph pooling (to model group-wise behavior) is a reasonable and worth-reporting idea, and the inclusion of three real-world datasets plus an inference-time comparison addresses practical concerns. The paper also proposes a learned, context-dependent approach to hyperedge construction, which is more adaptive than the fixed grouping rules used in earlier hypergraph trajectory models. However, the significance is currently undercut by reproducibility and evaluation weaknesses: the hypergraph construction is under-specified and partially self-referential, the test-time behavior of the stochastic edge sampler is not defined, baseline comparisons are taken from other papers without re-running or error bars, and the ablations do not report variance. These issues need to be resolved before the claims can be relied on.

major comments (5)
  1. [Equation (1), Section 'Small-world Network'] Equation (1) defines C_{i,j} = 1 if C_{i,j} >= alpha, 0 otherwise, i.e., the thresholded matrix is specified in terms of itself. No underlying similarity measure, distance, or base clustering coefficient is defined anywhere before this equation. As written, the construction is not implementable; the authors must state what the initial C is (e.g., a function of agent features or relative positions) and clarify that the thresholding is applied to that base quantity rather than to itself.
  2. [Equation (2), Section 'Small-world Network'] The stochastic edge rule E_{i,j} = 1 if C_{i,j} = 1 or (C_{i,j} = 0 and eta <= beta) draws independent eta ~ U[0,1] per vertex-hyperedge pair, making the hyperedge set a random variable for a fixed input. The paper never states whether eta is sampled once and fixed at inference, resampled per forward pass, or marginalized over multiple samples. Since Equations (6)–(9) all depend on the realized hyperedge set, the reported numbers (minADE5 = 1.18, minFDE1 = 6.87) are not well-defined without a specified test-time procedure. The authors must specify the inference-time sampling rule and, ideally, report repeated-seed or repeated-sample statistics.
  3. [Tables 1–4, Section 'Quantitative Results' and 'Inference Time Comparison'] The central claim that NEST 'consistently outperforms existing methods' rests entirely on comparing NEST against baseline numbers cited from other papers, without re-running those baselines under identical data splits, metrics, and hardware. No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any table. For example, Table 1 compares against SeFlow's published minADE5 of 1.38 without evidence that the same nuScenes split and evaluation protocol were used. The inference-time comparison in Table 4 is additionally confounded by using an RTX 3090 for NEST while the cited baselines were measured on an RTX 3090 Ti. The SOTA claim would require either re-running the principal baselines in the same codebase or providing a clear justification that the cited numbers are directly comparable.
  4. [Table 2, Section 'Quantitative Results'] The paper's abstract and text say NEST 'consistently' outperforms existing methods, but Table 2 shows NEST is 0.01 m worse than BAT at the 2 s horizon on MoCAD (0.75 vs. 0.74). This contradicts the 'consistently' wording and is acknowledged in the text only as 'slightly trails'. The claim should be adjusted to reflect that NEST does not uniformly improve all horizons, or the result should be shown to be within noise.
  5. [Tables 5 and 6, Section 'Ablation Studies'] The ablation differences are small in absolute terms (e.g., mADE5 improves from 1.21 to 1.18 and mFDE1 from 6.92 to 6.87 between methods A and F), and no variance or repeated runs are reported. It is impossible to tell whether these differences are statistically meaningful. In addition, Method C (replacing hypergraph learning with a conventional graph) is described as exhibiting 'the poorest performance across most metrics,' but no details of the conventional graph baseline are given. The authors should report standard deviations over multiple seeds and ideally compare each ablated variant against the full model with a significance test.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 'Small-world Network'] The notation in Eq. (1) uses C_{i,j} on both sides, which is not just a typographical issue but also a mathematical self-reference; if the intended quantity is a base similarity, it should be given a different symbol (e.g., S_{i,j}) throughout.
  2. [Section 'Hypergraph Pooling'] In Eq. (7), the Gumbel softmax is introduced with temperature tau, but the paper does not state how tau is annealed during training or whether it is fixed; please provide the schedule or clarify that tau is a constant hyperparameter.
  3. [Table 3] The boldface in Table 3 is inconsistent: the best values are not always bolded across rows (e.g., the 1 s row shows NEST 0.05 in bold but the 2 s row shows 0.11 in bold, while BAT has 0.14 for that row; please check the formatting).
  4. [Section 'Qualitative Results'] The qualitative comparison refers to 'the others model (Chen et al. 2024)' without identifying which model is meant; the reference list contains Q-EANet but the text never names it directly. Please specify the baseline model in the figure caption and text.
  5. [Equation (8)] The term 'if formulated as following' should be 'is formulated as follows' for grammatical correctness.
  6. [General] The paper does not mention whether code or trained models will be released; given the reproducibility concerns about the stochastic hypergraph construction, a code release or detailed pseudo-code would substantially help readers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The hypergraph construction is self-referential: Eq. (1) defines the clustering coefficient matrix C by thresholding C itself, and Eq. (4) makes the threshold α a function of C, so the claimed derivation of hyperedges from agent features is circular as written.

  1. self definitional [Methodology, Hypergraph Forming, Small-world Network Eq. (1) and Neuromodulator Eq. (4)]
    "The clustering coefficient Ci,j for each vertex-hyperedge pair is defined as: Ci,j = 1 if Ci,j ≥ α 0 otherwise (1) ... The final threshold α ∈ [0, 1] is obtained using a sigmoid function: α = Πα(C) (4)"

    Eq. (1) defines the matrix C in terms of itself: the left-hand side Ci,j is the same quantity that appears in the condition Ci,j ≥ α, and no initial similarity, adjacency, or other base measure is supplied. Eq. (4) then sets α = Πα(C), so the threshold used inside Eq. (1) is itself a function of C. Thus α depends on C and C depends on α, forming a closed loop. The hyperedge set E = Ω(V, α, β) in Eq. (3), which drives all downstream Vertex-to-Hyperedge pooling (Eq. 6), intention features (Eq. 7), and Hyperedge-to-Vertex updates (Eq. 9), is therefore not derived from agent features as claimed but is defined self-referentially. As written, the construction is not implementable without an external definition of C; if Eq. (1) is a typo, the intended base quantity must be stated explicitly.

full rationale

The paper's experimental comparison is largely self-contained: NEST is trained end-to-end on nuScenes, MoCAD, and HighD, and the reported minADE, RMSE, and inference-time numbers are empirical outputs rather than quantities derived by construction from the inputs. The repeated citations to the authors' own BAT model are legitimate external baselines, not load-bearing self-citations; the BAT numbers come from a published model and are compared against, not assumed. The stochastic edge rule in Eq. (2) and the unspecified test-time sampling of η are reproducibility concerns, but they do not make the prediction equivalent to a fitted input. However, the hypergraph-formation derivation itself is circular as written: Eq. (1) defines the clustering coefficient matrix C by thresholding C itself, with no base similarity measure, and Eq. (4) computes the threshold α from C, closing a self-referential loop (C depends on α, and α depends on C). Since the hyperedge set E = Ω(V, α, β) in Eq. (3) drives all hypergraph pooling and the final multi-modal predictions, the claimed construction of the interaction hypergraph from agent features is not well-defined without an external definition of C. This is a definitional circularity in the core model component, although it does not by itself force the benchmark results, so the overall score is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the learned threshold and connection probability, which are fitted from data, plus several hand-set hyperparameters. The small-world property of traffic is an unproven domain assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha (threshold) = learned via MLP Π_α, value in [0,1]
    Controls which agents are included in interaction groups; fitted to clustering coefficient matrix C during training.
  • beta (connection probability) = learned via MLP Π_β, value in [0,1]
    Controls random rewiring of hyperedges in dense traffic; fitted to agent feature Fa.
  • number of hyperedges s = predefined, value not specified
    Hyperparameter set by hand; influences graph capacity.
  • number of intention modes K = not specified
    Number of generators in multi-modal predictor; set by hand.
  • Gumbel temperature tau = not specified
    Temperature for intention sampling in Eq. (7); set by hand.
  • number of update iterations H = not specified
    Iterations of vertex-hyperedge updates in Eq. (9); set by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Traffic interactions exhibit small-world property (short interaction chains among agents)
    Stated in Methodology, Small-world Network paragraph; motivates the entire edge-formation design.
  • ad hoc to paper Clustering coefficient matrix C computed from agent features is a valid basis for grouping agents
    No derivation; C is thresholded to form hyperedges, and Eq. (1) uses C on both sides, indicating loose definition.
  • standard math Hypergraph pooling from Xu et al. 2022 captures group interactions
    Borrowed from GroupNet; accepted in prior work.
  • ad hoc to paper Random variable eta in Eq. (2) yields a valid stochastic edge set during training and inference
    The paper does not specify how randomness is handled at inference, yet the final hyperedge set depends on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NEST: A Neuromodulated Small-world Hypergraph Trajectory Prediction Model for Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O3SKCM72

@misc{pith2026241211682,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NEST: A Neuromodulated Small-world Hypergraph Trajectory Prediction Model for Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O3SKCM72}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11682}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate trajectory prediction is essential for the safety and efficiency of autonomous driving. Traditional models often struggle with real-time processing, capturing non-linearity and uncertainty in traffic environments, efficiency in dense traffic, and modeling temporal dynamics of interactions. We introduce NEST (Neuromodulated Small-world Hypergraph Trajectory Prediction), a novel framework that integrates Small-world Networks and hypergraphs for superior interaction modeling and prediction accuracy. This integration enables the capture of both local and extended vehicle interactions, while the Neuromodulator component adapts dynamically to changing traffic conditions. We validate the NEST model on several real-world datasets, including nuScenes, MoCAD, and HighD. The results consistently demonstrate that NEST outperforms existing methods in various traffic scenarios, showcasing its exceptional generalization capability, efficiency, and temporal foresight. Our comprehensive evaluation illustrates that NEST significantly improves the reliability and operational efficiency of autonomous driving systems, making it a robust solution for trajectory prediction in complex traffic environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11682 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of interaction modeling methods. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of the proposed NEST model. Panel (a) illustrates the overall framework of NEST, which takes agent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of our NEST model with various models. Panels (a) and (b) visualize the most probable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alahi, A.; Goel, K.; Ramanathan, V.; Robicquet, A.; Fei-Fei, L.; and Savarese, S. 2016. Social lstm: Human trajectory prediction in crowded spaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 961--971

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    A.; and Li, Z

    Cai, Y.; Wang, Z.; Wang, H.; Chen, L.; Li, Y.; Sotelo, M. A.; and Li, Z. 2021. Environment-attention network for vehicle trajectory prediction. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 70(11): 11216--11227

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Chai, Y.; Sapp, B.; Bansal, M.; and Anguelov, D. 2020. MultiPath: Multiple Probabilistic Anchor Trajectory Hypotheses for Behavior Prediction. In Conference on Robot Learning, 86--99. PMLR

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Chen, J.; Wang, Z.; Wang, J.; and Cai, B. 2024. Q-EANet: Implicit social modeling for trajectory prediction via experience-anchored queries. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 18(6): 1004--1015

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Chen, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, F.; Hu, Y.; Tan, C.; and Yang, J. 2022. Intention-aware vehicle trajectory prediction based on spatial-temporal dynamic attention network for internet of vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(10): 19471--19483

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Cong, P.; Xiao, Y.; Wan, X.; Deng, M.; Li, J.; and Zhang, X. 2023. DACR-AMTP: Adaptive Multi-Modal Vehicle Trajectory Prediction for Dynamic Drivable Areas Based on Collision Risk. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Deo, N.; and Trivedi, M. M. 2018. Convolutional social pooling for vehicle trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 1468--1476

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Deo, N.; and Trivedi, M. M. 2020. Trajectory forecasts in unknown environments conditioned on grid-based plans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.00735

    arXiv 2020

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Deo, N.; Wolff, E.; and Beijbom, O. 2022. Multimodal trajectory prediction conditioned on lane-graph traversals. In Conference on Robot Learning, 203--212. PMLR

    2022

  2. [10]

    Du, Q.; Wang, X.; Yin, S.; Li, L.; and Ning, H. 2024. Social Force Embedded Mixed Graph Convolutional Network for Multi-class Trajectory Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles

    2024

  3. [11]

    Duan, J.; Wang, L.; Long, C.; Zhou, S.; Zheng, F.; Shi, L.; and Hua, G. 2022. Complementary attention gated network for pedestrian trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, 542--550

    2022

  4. [12]

    Gao, K.; Li, X.; Chen, B.; Hu, L.; Liu, J.; Du, R.; and Li, Y. 2023. Dual Transformer Based Prediction for Lane Change Intentions and Trajectories in Mixed Traffic Environment. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems

    2023

  5. [13]

    Gao, Y.; Feng, Y.; Ji, S.; and Ji, R. 2022. HGNN+: General hypergraph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(3): 3181--3199

    2022

  6. [14]

    Gilles, T.; Sabatini, S.; Tsishkou, D.; Stanciulescu, B.; and Moutarde, F. 2022. Gohome: Graph-oriented heatmap output for future motion estimation. In 2022 international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 9107--9114. IEEE

    2022

  7. [15]

    D.; and Cohen, J

    Grossman, C. D.; and Cohen, J. Y. 2022. Neuromodulation and neurophysiology on the timescale of learning and decision-making. Annual review of neuroscience, 45: 317--337

    2022

  8. [16]

    H.; Lee, S.; Khoshimjonov, E.; Kum, D.; Kim, J.; Kim, J

    Kim, B.; Park, S. H.; Lee, S.; Khoshimjonov, E.; Kum, D.; Kim, J.; Kim, J. S.; and Choi, J. W. 2021. Lapred: Lane-aware prediction of multi-modal future trajectories of dynamic agents. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 14636--14645

    2021

  9. [17]

    Lan, Z.; Ren, Y.; Yu, H.; Liu, L.; Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; and Cui, Z. 2024. Hi-SCL: Fighting long-tailed challenges in trajectory prediction with hierarchical wave-semantic contrastive learning. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 165: 104735

    2024

  10. [18]

    Letter, C.; and Elefteriadou, L. 2017. Efficient control of fully automated connected vehicles at freeway merge segments. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 80: 190--205

    2017

  11. [19]

    Liang, Y.; and Zhao, Z. 2021. NetTraj: A network-based vehicle trajectory prediction model with directional representation and spatiotemporal attention mechanisms. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(9): 14470--14481

    2021

  12. [20]

    Liao, H.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Kong, H.; Wang, C.; Wang, B.; Guan, Y.; Tam, K.; and Li, Z. 2024 a . CDSTraj: Characterized Diffusion and Spatial-Temporal Interaction Network for Trajectory Prediction in Autonomous Driving. In IJCAI

    2024

  13. [21]

    E.; and Xu, C

    Liao, H.; Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, C.; Cui, Z.; Li, S. E.; and Xu, C. 2024 b . A Cognitive-Based Trajectory Prediction Approach for Autonomous Driving. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles

    2024

  14. [22]

    Liao, H.; Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, C.; Li, G.; Tian, C.; Bian, Z.; Zhu, K.; Cui, Z.; and Hu, J. 2024 c . Less is More: Efficient Brain-Inspired Learning for Autonomous Driving Trajectory Prediction. In ECAI 2024, 4361--4368. IOS Press

    2024

  15. [23]

    Liao, H.; Li, Z.; Shen, H.; Zeng, W.; Liao, D.; Li, G.; and Xu, C. 2024 d . Bat: Behavior-aware human-like trajectory prediction for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 10332--10340

    2024

  16. [24]

    Liao, H.; Li, Z.; Wang, C.; Shen, H.; Wang, B.; Liao, D.; Li, G.; and Xu, C. 2024 e . MFTraj: Map-Free, Behavior-Driven Trajectory Prediction for Autonomous Driving. International Joint Conference On Artificial Intelligence

    2024

  17. [25]

    Liao, H.; Li, Z.; Wang, C.; Wang, B.; Kong, H.; Guan, Y.; Li, G.; Cui, Z.; and Xu, C. 2024 f . A Cognitive-Driven Trajectory Prediction Model for Autonomous Driving in Mixed Autonomy Environment. International Joint Conference On Artificial Intelligence

    2024

  18. [26]

    E.; and Xu, C

    Liao, H.; Liu, S.; Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, C.; Li, Y.; Li, S. E.; and Xu, C. 2024 g . Human observation-inspired trajectory prediction for autonomous driving in mixed-autonomy traffic environments. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 14212--1...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Liao, H.; Wang, C.; Li, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, B.; Li, G.; and Xu, C. 2024 h . Physics-Informed Trajectory Prediction for Autonomous Driving under Missing Observation. International Joint Conference On Artificial Intelligence

    2024

  20. [28]

    Liu, M.; Cheng, H.; Chen, L.; Broszio, H.; Li, J.; Zhao, R.; Sester, M.; and Yang, M. Y. 2024. Laformer: Trajectory prediction for autonomous driving with lane-aware scene constraints. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2039--2049

    2024

  21. [29]

    Liu, X.; Shen, D.; Lai, L.; and Le Vine, S. 2020. Optimizing the safety-efficiency balancing of automated vehicle car-following. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 136: 105435

    2020

  22. [30]

    Lv, P.; Wang, W.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, M.; and Xu, C. 2023. SSAGCN: social soft attention graph convolution network for pedestrian trajectory prediction. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems

    2023

  23. [31]

    J.; Inala, J

    Ma, Y. J.; Inala, J. P.; Jayaraman, D.; and Bastani, O. 2021. Likelihood-Based Diverse Sampling for Trajectory Forecasting. arXiv:2011.15084

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Messaoud, K.; Yahiaoui, I.; Verroust-Blondet, A.; and Nashashibi, F. 2019. Non-local social pooling for vehicle trajectory prediction. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 975--980. IEEE

    2019

  25. [33]

    Messaoud, K.; Yahiaoui, I.; Verroust-Blondet, A.; and Nashashibi, F. 2021. Attention Based Vehicle Trajectory Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 6(1): 175--185

    2021

  26. [34]

    Moon, S.; Woo, H.; Park, H.; Jung, H.; Mahjourian, R.; Chi, H.-g.; Lim, H.; Kim, S.; and Kim, J. 2024. VisionTrap: Vision-Augmented Trajectory Prediction Guided by Textual Descriptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12345

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    E.; and Watts, D

    Newman, M. E.; and Watts, D. J. 1999. Renormalization group analysis of the small-world network model. Physics Letters A, 263(4-6): 341--346

    1999

  28. [36]

    Pourkeshavarz, M.; Sabokrou, M.; and Rasouli, A. 2024. Adversarial Backdoor Attack by Naturalistic Data Poisoning on Trajectory Prediction in Autonomous Driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 14885--14894

    2024

  29. [37]

    Ramezani, M.; Haddad, J.; and Geroliminis, N. 2015. Dynamics of heterogeneity in urban networks: aggregated traffic modeling and hierarchical control. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 74: 1--19

    2015

  30. [38]

    Ren, Y.; Lan, Z.; Liu, L.; and Yu, H. 2024. EMSIN: Enhanced Multi-Stream Interaction Network for Vehicle Trajectory Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems

    2024

  31. [39]

    Salzmann, T.; Ivanovic, B.; Chakravarty, P.; and Pavone, M. 2020. Trajectron++: Dynamically-feasible trajectory forecasting with heterogeneous data. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XVIII 16, 683--700....

    2020

  32. [40]

    Vecoven, N.; Ernst, D.; Wehenkel, A.; and Drion, G. 2020. Introducing neuromodulation in deep neural networks to learn adaptive behaviours. PloS one, 15(1): e0227922

    2020

  33. [41]

    Wang, R.; Wang, S.; Yan, H.; and Wang, X. 2023. WSiP: wave superposition inspired pooling for dynamic interactions-aware trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 4685--4692

    2023

  34. [42]

    Wang, W.; Wang, L.; Zhang, C.; Liu, C.; Sun, L.; et al. 2022. Social interactions for autonomous driving: A review and perspectives. Foundations and Trends in Robotics , 10(3-4): 198--376

    2022

  35. [43]

    J.; and Strogatz, S

    Watts, D. J.; and Strogatz, S. H. 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks. nature, 393(6684): 440--442

    1998

  36. [44]

    Westny, T.; Oskarsson, J.; Olofsson, B.; and Frisk, E. 2023. Mtp-go: Graph-based probabilistic multi-agent trajectory prediction with neural odes. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles

    2023

  37. [45]

    Wong, C.; Xia, B.; Zou, Z.; Wang, Y.; and You, X. 2024. SocialCircle: Learning the Angle-based Social Interaction Representation for Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 19005--19015

    2024

  38. [46]

    N.; and Zhu, S.-C

    Xie, X.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, Y.; Wu, Y. N.; and Zhu, S.-C. 2021. Congestion-aware multi-agent trajectory prediction for collision avoidance. In ICRA

    2021

  39. [47]

    Xu, C.; Li, M.; Ni, Z.; Zhang, Y.; and Chen, S. 2022. Groupnet: Multiscale hypergraph neural networks for trajectory prediction with relational reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6498--6507

    2022

  40. [48]

    Xu, D.; Shang, X.; Peng, H.; and Li, H. 2023. MVHGN: Multi-view adaptive hierarchical spatial graph convolution network based trajectory prediction for heterogeneous traffic-agents. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems

    2023

  41. [49]

    Xu, P.; Hayet, J.-B.; and Karamouzas, I. 2023. Context-aware timewise vaes for real-time vehicle trajectory prediction. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    2023

  42. [50]

    Yuan, Y.; and Kitani, K. 2020. DLow: Diversifying Latent Flows for Diverse Human Motion Prediction. arXiv:2003.08386

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Yuan, Y.; Weng, X.; Ou, Y.; and Kitani, K. 2021. AgentFormer: Agent-Aware Transformers for Socio-Temporal Multi-Agent Forecasting. arXiv:2103.14023

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zhang, Q.; Yang, Y.; Li, P.; Andersson, O.; and Jensfelt, P. 2024. SeFlow: A Self-Supervised Scene Flow Method in Autonomous Driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01702

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Zhong, Z.; Luo, Y.; and Liang, W. 2022. STGM: Vehicle trajectory prediction based on generative model for spatial-temporal features. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(10): 18785--18793

    2022

  46. [54]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  47. [55]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.