Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 61 references

Enhancing System Self-Awareness and Trust of AI: A Case Study in Trajectory Prediction and Planning

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TrustMHE, an online reliability estimate that blends AI trajectory predictions with a constant-velocity fallback in the planner cost, significantly reduces crashes in closed-loop automated-driving simulations.

desk verdict A useful safety-monitor case study whose central causal claim—that the online reliability estimate is what reduces crashes—is not yet isolated by the missing fixed-blend and always-fallback baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18421 v1 pith:E7BTGUPH submitted 2025-04-25 cs.RO

Lars Ullrich , Zurab Mujirishvili , Knut Graichen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords trustmanagementtrajectorypredictionmovinghorizonestimationmodelpredictivepathintegralcontrolreliabilityclosed-loopsimulationautomateddrivingout-of-distributiondetection
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 tries to establish that a black-box AI trajectory predictor can be made safer in closed-loop driving by treating trust as an online, control-side quantity rather than by retraining or explaining the AI. It introduces TrustMHE, which compares the predictor's confidence-weighted multimodal trajectories with measured trajectories over a sliding window of recent time steps, turns the mismatch into a reliability value $\omega$ in $[0,1]$, and uses $\omega$ to blend the AI's contribution to the planner cost with a constant-velocity fallback. In closed-loop simulation across overtaking, junction, and urban scenarios, crash counts drop and crash-free runs rise, and the paper formally rejects the hypothesis that TrustMHE does not improve safety. The paper's own framing is that the test shows improvement, not zero-crash performance. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach is agnostic to the AI's internals, so it can wrap any predictor without retraining it.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reliability estimate $\omega_{t'_{\mathrm{pla}}}$ computed from Eq. (16)-(17): a confidence-weighted average displacement error over a moving horizon $T_{\mathrm{est}}$, mapped to $[0,1]$ by $\gamma := 2\,\mathrm{sig}(\cdot)$ and smoothed by a momentum update with factor $\beta_{\mathrm{est}}$. This relaxes classical moving horizon estimation, an optimization over a sliding window of past data, into a direct online discrepancy computation. The estimate lives in the same cost space as the planner's traffic costs, so it reweights MPPI directly: $l^{\mathrm{TrustMHE}}_{\Pi,t_{\mathrm{pla}}} = \omega_{t'_{\mathrm{pla}}} \, l_{\Pi,t_{\mathrm{pla}}} + (1-\omega_{t'_{\mathrm{pla}}}) \, l_{\zeta,t_{\mathrm{pla}}}$, where $l_\zeta$ is the constant-velocity fallback cost.

What would settle it

Run the same three closed-loop scenarios with $\omega$ frozen at its observed mean value instead of updated online; if the crash reduction disappears, the adaptive signal is doing the work, and if it does not, the mechanism is not the cause. A second check: create a distribution shift in which a vehicle's past motion is regular but its next maneuver, such as a sudden cut-in, is mispredicted; TrustMHE should still trigger a fallback before the crash, and if it does not, the past-error premise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a controller-side reliability estimate can make a data-driven motion predictor safer without modifying the predictor itself. TrustMHE computes, at each planning step, a confidence-weighted average displacement error between the Motion Transformer (MTR) predictor's past multimodal trajectories and the measured trajectories, maps it through a sigmoid to a reliability value $\omega \in [0,1]$, and smooths it with a momentum update. This $\omega$ then weights the MTR-based traffic cost against a constant-velocity fallback cost inside the model predictive path integral (MPPI) planner. In closed-loop simulation of overtaking, junction, and urban scenarios, the paper reports that enabling TrustMHE lowers mean crashes from 1.74 to 1.06 per run, raises the success rate from 36.11% to 50.56%, and does not significantly change progress. It therefore rejects the null hypothesis that TrustMHE does not improve safety and accepts the alternative.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an AI predictor's recent, confidence-weighted prediction errors over the last few seconds are a dependable guide to how much it should be trusted in the next few seconds; if that link breaks, the crash reduction found in simulation may vanish or come from something other than the adaptive blending.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Enabling TrustMHE lowers the mean crash count per run from 1.74 to 1.06 and raises the proportion of crash-free runs from 36.11% to 50.56% in the tested scenarios.
  • The safety gain is not offset by a loss of efficiency: the progress metric shows no statistically significant change.
  • The crash reduction holds across five different TrustMHE horizons (p = 0.744 as reported) and appears in every tested scenario, planner mode, and sampling-noise setting, with the size varying.
  • Because the reliability estimate is computed from the predictor's inputs and outputs rather than its internals, the method can be attached to any trajectory predictor without retraining it.
  • Because the estimate is defined in cost space, it can be added to any cost-based or sampling-based planner that consumes multimodal predictions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: use the same $\omega$ to gate other safety actions such as emergency braking, speed limiting, or driver handover, since the paper demonstrates only the cost-blending path.
  • The paper reports that the minimum-distance metric is not statistically significant and attributes this to the reduced sample of successful runs; a near-miss metric on more runs would test whether safety margins improve along with crash counts.
  • Because the discrepancy signal is computed against measured trajectories, real-world benefit depends on an independent perception and tracking source; injecting tracking noise into the simulation would probe that dependence.
  • The continuous $\omega$ could double as a graded out-of-distribution signal, replacing binary anomaly flags with a planner-compatible trust value; the paper notes the conceptual overlap but does not develop this use.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TrustMHE, a framework that estimates the online reliability ω of an AI-based trajectory predictor from a confidence-weighted displacement error accumulated over a moving horizon (Eqs. 16–17) and uses ω to blend the MPPI traffic-cost term with a constant-velocity fallback cost (Eq. 18). The method is evaluated in closed-loop CarMaker co-simulation with a transfer-learned MTR predictor across three scenarios (overtaking, junction, urban), five estimation horizons Test ∈ {1,3,5,15,30}, two sampling noises, and three planner modes, with 144 "Disabled" and 720 "Enabled" runs. Statistical tests reject H0: crashes per run drop from a mean of 1.74 to 1.06 (Mann–Whitney U, p ≈ 2.8e-5) and the success rate rises from 36.1% to 50.6% (χ² with Yates's correction, p = 0.002), while Progress is unchanged and Min. Dist. (computed on successful runs only) is not significant. The authors conclude that TrustMHE improves safety and enhances system self-awareness.

Significance. If the adaptive reliability mechanism were established as the cause of the improvement, TrustMHE would be a useful and portable template for integrating AI reliability estimation into safety-critical planning. The approach is not circular: ω is computed from past predictions and measured trajectories, not from crash outcomes, and the closed-loop CarMaker evaluation with a hypothesis-driven Mann–Whitney/chi-square analysis is methodologically appropriate. Strengths include the honest reporting of non-significant secondary metrics, the horizon sweep, and the consideration of planner modes and sampling noise. The paper's significance is bounded, however, by the absence of ablations isolating the reliability signal and by the lack of evidence that ω tracks prediction quality; the 'self-awareness' contribution—the paper's stated novelty—remains unproven, since the observed crash reduction is consistent with any conservative fallback blending.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.B, Table IV; Eq. (18)] The central claim that adaptive online reliability estimation improves safety is not isolated by the current experimental design. Enabling TrustMHE simultaneously activates both the ω estimator (Eqs. 16–17) and the fallback-cost blending (Eq. 18) for any ω < 1, whereas the 'Disabled' condition uses neither. The observed crash reduction (mean 1.74 → 1.06) is therefore consistent with any conservative cost modification, including a fixed blend or an unconditional fallback, and does not by itself show that ω conveys useful information about predictor reliability. Please add ablations over matched seeds and planner configurations with ω fixed at 0 (pure constant-velocity fallback), ω fixed at an intermediate value (e.g., 0.5), and, as an upper reference, ω driven by ground-truth future error. Without such runs, the conclusion in Section V that TrustMHE 'proves effective in enhancing safety' cannot be attributed to the reliability estimate rather than to the always-present fallback term.
  2. [§III.C (Eqs. 16–17), §IV.B (Fig. 3)] The paper provides no evidence that the estimated ω responds to prediction quality, which is the load-bearing assumption of the 'monitoring and detection' contribution. Figure 3 shows that crash counts are insensitive to the estimation horizon Test (p = 0.743751), which is consistent with the adaptive estimator being unimportant within the tested scenarios. Please report: (i) the distribution of ω over time per scenario, planner mode, and horizon; (ii) whether ω correlates with the realized displacement error of MTR over the subsequent horizon; and (iii) whether ω drops before near-crash events. This analysis would directly test the mechanism, since if ω stays near 1 or is nearly constant across conditions, the safety improvement is attributable to the blending structure rather than to the reliability signal.
  3. [§IV.B, Table IV (Min. Dist.)] The interpretation of the Min. Dist. results is not supported by the reported test. The metric is computed only on the subset of successful test runs, whose selection probabilities differ strongly between conditions (36.1% vs 50.6% success), so the comparison is confounded by post-hoc selection. Moreover, the Mann–Whitney test on this subset is non-significant (p = 0.219), so the statement that 'the results indicate that TrustMHE affects MIN. DIST., as well' is an overstatement. Either analyze minimum distance on all runs with crashes handled explicitly (e.g., assigning a minimum distance of zero at crash times), or remove the claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§IV.A, Table IV] Please clarify whether the Disabled and Enabled runs use matched stochastic seeds and initial conditions, and how the three scenarios (23, 2, and 57 agents; durations 100, 100, and 35 s) are weighted when pooled. Per-scenario and per-horizon breakdowns of the crash counts would strengthen the claim that the effect is general rather than dominated by one scenario.
  2. [Abstract, §V] The phrases 'evaluated and proven' and 'proving that the hypothesis of improving safety could be confirmed' overstate what a three-scenario simulation study can establish; 'supported by simulation evidence' would be more appropriate.
  3. [§II.C, Eq. (9)] The sentence 'The costs build upon boundary and closeness penalties from (13)' should refer to Eq. (8), where the penalty functions are defined; in the same paragraph, the left and right boundary distances are both written as Δb_tpla, which is notationally ambiguous (one presumably needs an overbar or a different subscript).
  4. [§III.C, Eq. (17)] The momentum factor β_est = 0.25 and the mapping γ := 2 sig(·) are free design parameters; no sensitivity analysis is given for β_est, and it should be stated explicitly that the factor 2 in γ keeps ω in [0,1] only because the discrepancy d is nonnegative.
  5. [§III.A] The connection to Subjective Logic is conceptual; the implemented ω is a deterministic sigmoid of a displacement error with no belief/uncertainty decomposition, so the label 'probability-based reliability estimate' may mislead readers. A sentence clarifying the distance between the framework and the implementation would help, and the sentence 'an online reliability estimation method based on Subjective Logic (SL) [51] has recently been proposed by [51], [52]' should be rephrased.
  6. [§III.C, Eq. (16)] The notation d̂_{a|ã,kpre} and the roles of â and ã (measured vs predicted agents) are hard to parse; a cleaner index convention or a short worked example would improve reproducibility.
  7. [Table IV] Report the crash p-value as p < 0.001 rather than p = 0.000028, which implies spurious precision, and label the test statistic for the Mann–Whitney U test consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reliability estimate is computed from measured prediction errors, not from the safety outcome.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The reliability estimate omega in Eq. (17) is computed from the confidence-weighted average displacement error in Eq. (16), which compares measured agent trajectories with past MTR multimodal predictions over a moving horizon; it is not derived from, or fitted to, the crash or success outcome used in the evaluation. Eq. (18) then uses omega only as a convex blend weight between the MPPI traffic cost and the constant-velocity fallback cost. The generic definition in Eq. (15) would be self-referential if the discrepancy function D were evaluated on the blended model fTrustAI, but the implementation avoids this by evaluating the displacement error on the MTR predictions alone in Eq. (16), as the text states that measured trajectories are denoted as hat-a and trajectory predictions generated at time t'-Test as tilde-a. The evaluation compares TrustMHE enabled versus disabled on crash counts, and while the design does not isolate the adaptive omega from a fixed-blend or always-fallback baseline, that is a methodological limitation of experimental control, not a circular derivation. The self-citations, including [8], [12], and [34], supply supporting context and the transfer-learned predictor, but the claimed safety improvement is tested against an independent simulation outcome rather than imported from those references. Therefore, no load-bearing circular step is exhibited.

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

The central claim rests on a small number of free parameters (beta_est, gamma, T_est, fallback choice) and on the domain assumptions that past prediction error predicts future reliability and that the constant velocity fallback is a safe baseline. The paper does not provide independent evidence for these assumptions beyond the aggregate crash reduction.

free parameters (4)
  • TrustMHE momentum factor beta_est = 0.25
    Introduced in Eq. (17) to smooth the reliability estimate; no sensitivity analysis is provided, and the choice is justified by intuition rather than data.
  • Mapping function gamma = 2*sigmoid(x)
    Chosen in Section III.C to convert the negative displacement error to a reliability value in [0,1]; no justification or calibration is given.
  • TrustMHE horizon T_est = varied over {1,3,5,15,30} steps
    The paper sweeps this parameter and reports no significant effect (p=0.74), but the pooled 'Enabled' group mixes all five settings, so the reported crash reduction is an average across different horizons.
  • Fallback model choice = constant velocity model
    Selected in Section III.C as the AI-free fallback; the paper does not compare against other fallback models or an always-fallback baseline.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The constant velocity model is reliable over short time horizons for the purpose of safe planning.
    Assumed in Section III.C (Q1) without empirical support in this paper.
  • domain assumption Past displacement error of the AI predictor is a valid indicator of its future reliability.
    This is the core assumption behind Eq. (16)-(17); the paper provides no evidence that past error predicts future error in closed-loop settings.
  • domain assumption The closed-loop CarMaker simulation, with stochastic traffic and human driver behavior, is representative of real-world conditions relevant to safety.
    The evaluation in Section IV relies on simulation; the authors themselves note in Section V that generalization to real world needs future work.
  • domain assumption Data-driven statistical AI models are vulnerable to distribution shifts due to the i.i.d. assumption.
    Stated in the introduction and used to motivate TrustMHE; it is a reasonable but not universally quantified premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing System Self-Awareness and Trust of AI: A Case Study in Trajectory Prediction and Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7BTGUPH

@misc{pith2026250418421,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing System Self-Awareness and Trust of AI: A Case Study in Trajectory Prediction and Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7BTGUPH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18421}
}
read the original abstract

In the trajectory planning of automated driving, data-driven statistical artificial intelligence (AI) methods are increasingly established for predicting the emergent behavior of other road users. While these methods achieve exceptional performance in defined datasets, they usually rely on the independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) assumption and thus tend to be vulnerable to distribution shifts that occur in the real world. In addition, these methods lack explainability due to their black box nature, which poses further challenges in terms of the approval process and social trustworthiness. Therefore, in order to use the capabilities of data-driven statistical AI methods in a reliable and trustworthy manner, the concept of TrustMHE is introduced and investigated in this paper. TrustMHE represents a complementary approach, independent of the underlying AI systems, that combines AI-driven out-of-distribution detection with control-driven moving horizon estimation (MHE) to enable not only detection and monitoring, but also intervention. The effectiveness of the proposed TrustMHE is evaluated and proven in three simulation scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18421 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simplified representation of MTR predictor [34]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the closed-loop experimental setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evaluation of TrustMHE across different experimental setting variations. Overall TrustMHE "Disabled" is compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    BEVFormer: Learning Bird’s-Eye-View Representation from Multi- camera Images via Spatiotemporal Transformers,

    Z. Li, W. Wang, H. Li, E. Xie, C. Sima, T. Lu, Y . Qiao, and J. Dai, “BEVFormer: Learning Bird’s-Eye-View Representation from Multi- camera Images via Spatiotemporal Transformers,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ECCV) . Springer, 2022, pp. 1–18

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    End-to-End Object Detection with Transformers,

    N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, “End-to-End Object Detection with Transformers,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ECCV). Springer, 2020, pp. 213–229

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Motion Transformer with Global Intention Localization and Local Movement Refinement,

    S. Shi, L. Jiang, D. Dai, and B. Schiele, “Motion Transformer with Global Intention Localization and Local Movement Refinement,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS) , vol. 35, pp. 6531–6543, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Motionlm: Multi-agent motion forecasting as language modeling,

    A. Seff, B. Cera, D. Chen, M. Ng, A. Zhou, N. Nayakanti, K. S. Refaat, R. Al-Rfou, and B. Sapp, “Motionlm: Multi-agent motion forecasting as language modeling,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 8579–8590

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Domain adap- tation under target and conditional shift,

    K. Zhang, B. Schölkopf, K. Muandet, and Z. Wang, “Domain adap- tation under target and conditional shift,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2013, pp. 819–827

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Domain Generalization: A Survey,

    K. Zhou, Z. Liu, Y . Qiao, T. Xiang, and C. C. Loy, “Domain Generalization: A Survey,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 4396–4415, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Building a Credible Case for Safety: Waymo’s Approach for the Determination of Absence of Unreasonable Risk,

    F. Favaro, L. Fraade-Blanar, S. Schnelle, T. Victor, M. Peña, J. En- gstrom, J. Scanlon, K. Kusano, and D. Smith, “Building a Credible Case for Safety: Waymo’s Approach for the Determination of Absence of Unreasonable Risk,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01917 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Expanding the Classical V-Model for the Development of Complex Systems Incorporating AI,

    L. Ullrich, M. Buchholz, K. Dietmayer, and K. Graichen, “Expanding the Classical V-Model for the Development of Complex Systems Incorporating AI,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh., 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Conditional neural processes,

    M. Garnelo, D. Rosenbaum, C. Maddison, T. Ramalho, D. Saxton, M. Shanahan, Y . W. Teh, D. Rezende, and S. A. Eslami, “Conditional neural processes,” in Proc. 35th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. (ICML) . PMLR, 2018, pp. 1704–1713

    2018

  2. [10]

    Robust meta-learning of vehicle yaw rate dynamics via conditional neural processes,

    L. Ullrich, A. Völz, and K. Graichen, “Robust meta-learning of vehicle yaw rate dynamics via conditional neural processes,” in 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Contro , 2023, pp. 2611–2619

    2023

  3. [11]

    Toward causal representation learning,

    B. Schölkopf, F. Locatello, S. Bauer, N. R. Ke, N. Kalchbrenner, A. Goyal, and Y . Bengio, “Toward causal representation learning,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 612–634, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    AI Safety Assurance for Intelligent Vehicles: A Survey on Research, Standard- ization, Regulation,

    L. Ullrich, M. Buchholz, K. Dietmayer, and K. Graichen, “AI Safety Assurance for Intelligent Vehicles: A Survey on Research, Standard- ization, Regulation,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh., 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    A survey of deep learning techniques for autonomous driving,

    S. Grigorescu, B. Trasnea, T. Cocias, and G. Macesanu, “A survey of deep learning techniques for autonomous driving,” J. Field Robot., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 362–386, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    End-to- end Autonomous Driving: Challenges and Frontiers,

    L. Chen, P. Wu, K. Chitta, B. Jaeger, A. Geiger, and H. Li, “End-to- end Autonomous Driving: Challenges and Frontiers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16927, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks,

    D. Hendrycks and K. Gimpel, “A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02136, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Energy-based out-of- distribution detection,

    W. Liu, X. Wang, J. Owens, and Y . Li, “Energy-based out-of- distribution detection,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 21 464–21 475, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Benchmark- ing safety monitors for image classifiers with machine learning,

    R. S. Ferreira, J. Arlat, J. Guiochet, and H. Waeselynck, “Benchmark- ing safety monitors for image classifiers with machine learning,” in 2021 IEEE 26th Pacific Rim International Symposium on Dependable Computing (PRDC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 7–16

    2021

  10. [18]

    Unifying Evaluation of Machine Learning Safety Monitors,

    J. Guerin, R. S. Ferreira, K. Delmas, and J. Guiochet, “Unifying Evaluation of Machine Learning Safety Monitors,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Softw. Reliab. Eng. (ISSRE) , 2022, pp. 414–422

    2022

  11. [19]

    Enhancing The Reliability of Out- of-distribution Image Detection in Neural Networks,

    S. Liang, Y . Li, and R. Srikant, “Enhancing The Reliability of Out- of-distribution Image Detection in Neural Networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02690, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Corrigendum to the European Parliament’s position on the Artificial Intelligence Act (P9_TA(2024)0138),

    European Parliament, “Corrigendum to the European Parliament’s position on the Artificial Intelligence Act (P9_TA(2024)0138),” (COM(2021)0206 – C9-0146/2021 – 2021/0106(COD)), Brussels, April 19 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ doceo/document/TA-9-202...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Occupancy Flow Fields for Motion Forecasting in Autonomous Driving,

    R. Mahjourian, J. Kim, Y . Chai, M. Tan, B. Sapp, and D. Anguelov, “Occupancy Flow Fields for Motion Forecasting in Autonomous Driving,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5639–5646, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Scene as Occupancy,

    W. Tong, C. Sima, T. Wang, L. Chen, S. Wu, H. Deng, Y . Gu, L. Lu, P. Luo, D. Lin et al., “Scene as Occupancy,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV) , 2023, pp. 8406–8415

    2023

  15. [23]

    Multi-Modal Interaction-Aware Motion Prediction at Unsignalized Intersections,

    V . Trentin, A. Artuñedo, J. Godoy, and J. Villagra, “Multi-Modal Interaction-Aware Motion Prediction at Unsignalized Intersections,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 3349–3365, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    MTR++: Multi-Agent Motion Prediction with Symmetric Scene Modeling and Guided Intention Querying,

    S. Shi, L. Jiang, D. Dai, and B. Schiele, “MTR++: Multi-Agent Motion Prediction with Symmetric Scene Modeling and Guided Intention Querying,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. (T-PAMI) , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    MGTR: Multi-Granular Transformer for Motion Prediction with LiDAR,

    Y . Gan, H. Xiao, Y . Zhao, E. Zhang, Z. Huang, X. Ye, and L. Ge, “MGTR: Multi-Granular Transformer for Motion Prediction with LiDAR,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02409 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Large Scale Interactive Motion Forecasting for Autonomous Driving: The Waymo Open Motion Dataset,

    S. Ettinger, S. Cheng, B. Caine, C. Liu, H. Zhao, S. Pradhan, Y . Chai, B. Sapp, C. R. Qi, Y . Zhou et al. , “Large Scale Interactive Motion Forecasting for Autonomous Driving: The Waymo Open Motion Dataset,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV) , 2021, pp. 9710–9719

    2021

  19. [27]

    Transformer with Group-wise Modal Assignments for Motion Prediction,

    H. Liu, X. Mo, Z. Huang, and C. Lv, “Transformer with Group-wise Modal Assignments for Motion Prediction,” Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Technical Report, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://storage.googleapis.com/waymo-uploads/ files/research/2023%20Technical%20...

    2023

  20. [28]

    IAIR+: 2nd Place Solution for 2023 Waymo Open Dataset Challenge - Motion Prediction,

    M. Kang, L. Shi, J. Dong, Y . Huang, K. Ye, Y . Hu, J. Zhang, Y . Dong, Y . Li, and S. Zhou, “IAIR+: 2nd Place Solution for 2023 Waymo Open Dataset Challenge - Motion Prediction,” National Key Laboratory of Human-Machine Hybrid Augmented, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Technical R...

    2023

  21. [29]

    EDA: Evolving and Distinct Anchors for Multimodal Motion Prediction,

    L. Lin, X. Lin, T. Lin, L. Huang, R. Xiong, and Y . Wang, “EDA: Evolving and Distinct Anchors for Multimodal Motion Prediction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09501 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    MTR v3: 1st Place Solution for 2024 Waymo Open Dataset Challenge - Motion Prediction,

    S. S. Chen Shi and L. Jiang, “MTR v3: 1st Place Solution for 2024 Waymo Open Dataset Challenge - Motion Prediction,” pp. 1–4, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://storage.googleapis.com/waymo-uploads/files/research/2024% 20Technical%20Reports/2024%20WOD%20Motion%20Prediction% 20...

    2024

  23. [31]

    VectorNet: Encoding HD Maps and Agent Dynamics From Vector- ized Representation,

    J. Gao, C. Sun, H. Zhao, Y . Shen, D. Anguelov, C. Li, and C. Schmid, “VectorNet: Encoding HD Maps and Agent Dynamics From Vector- ized Representation,” in Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), 2020, pp. 11 525–11 533

    2020

  24. [32]

    Tnt: Target-driven trajectory prediction,

    H. Zhao, J. Gao, T. Lan, C. Sun, B. Sapp, B. Varadarajan, Y . Shen, Y . Shen, Y . Chai, C. Schmid et al. , “Tnt: Target-driven trajectory prediction,” in Proc. 4th Conf. on Rob. Learn. (CoRL) . PMLR, 2021, pp. 895–904

    2021

  25. [33]

    Attention is All you Need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is All you Need,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (NeurIPS) , vol. 30, pp. 5998–6008, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Transfer Learning Study of Motion Transformer-based Trajectory Predictions,

    L. Ullrich, A. McMaster, and K. Graichen, “Transfer Learning Study of Motion Transformer-based Trajectory Predictions,” in IEEE Intell. Veh. Symp. Proc. (IV) , 2024, pp. 110–117

    2024

  27. [35]

    A Review of Deep Learning-Based Vehicle Motion Prediction for Autonomous Driving,

    R. Huang, G. Zhuo, L. Xiong, S. Lu, and W. Tian, “A Review of Deep Learning-Based Vehicle Motion Prediction for Autonomous Driving,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 20, p. 14716, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Deep Learning-based Motion Prediction Leveraging Autonomous Driving Datasets: State-of-the- Art,

    F. A. Barrios, A. Biswas, and A. Emadi, “Deep Learning-based Motion Prediction Leveraging Autonomous Driving Datasets: State-of-the- Art,” IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Intro- duction to model predictive control,

    E. F. Camacho, C. Bordons, E. F. Camacho, and C. Bordons, “Intro- duction to model predictive control,” Model Predictive Control , pp. 1–11, 2007

    2007

  30. [38]

    Simultaneous Trajectory Planning and Tracking Using an MPC Method for Cyber- Physical Systems: A Case Study of Obstacle Avoidance for an Intelligent Vehicle,

    H. Guo, C. Shen, H. Zhang, H. Chen, and R. Jia, “Simultaneous Trajectory Planning and Tracking Using an MPC Method for Cyber- Physical Systems: A Case Study of Obstacle Avoidance for an Intelligent Vehicle,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh., vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 4273– 4283, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    MPC- Based Cooperative Control Strategy of Path Planning and Trajectory Tracking for Intelligent Vehicles,

    Z. Zuo, X. Yang, Z. Li, Y . Wang, Q. Han, L. Wang, and X. Luo, “MPC- Based Cooperative Control Strategy of Path Planning and Trajectory Tracking for Intelligent Vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 513–522, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Trajectory Planning for Autonomous High-Speed Overtaking in Structured Environments Using Robust MPC,

    S. Dixit, U. Montanaro, M. Dianati, D. Oxtoby, T. Mizutani, A. Mouzakitis, and S. Fallah, “Trajectory Planning for Autonomous High-Speed Overtaking in Structured Environments Using Robust MPC,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 2310– 2323, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning using closed-loop prediction,

    O. Arslan, K. Berntorp, and P. Tsiotras, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning using closed-loop prediction,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom.(ICRA) , 2017, pp. 4991–4996

    2017

  34. [42]

    Aggressive driving with model predictive path integral control,

    G. Williams, P. Drews, B. Goldfain, J. M. Rehg, and E. A. Theodorou, “Aggressive driving with model predictive path integral control,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom.(ICRA) , 2016, pp. 1433–1440

    2016

  35. [43]

    Sampling- Based Motion Planning with Online Racing Line Generation for Autonomous Driving on Three-Dimensional Race Tracks,

    L. Ögretmen, M. Rowold, A. Langmann, and B. Lohmann, “Sampling- Based Motion Planning with Online Racing Line Generation for Autonomous Driving on Three-Dimensional Race Tracks,” in Proc. IEEE Intell. Veh. Symp. (IV) , 2024, pp. 811–818

    2024

  36. [44]

    Model predictive path integral control: From theory to parallel computation,

    G. Williams, A. Aldrich, and E. A. Theodorou, “Model predictive path integral control: From theory to parallel computation,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 344–357, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Information-Theoretic Model Predictive Control: Theory and Appli- cations to Autonomous Driving,

    G. Williams, P. Drews, B. Goldfain, J. M. Rehg, and E. A. Theodorou, “Information-Theoretic Model Predictive Control: Theory and Appli- cations to Autonomous Driving,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1603–1622, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    CommonRoad: Compos- able benchmarks for motion planning on roads,

    M. Althoff, M. Koschi, and S. Manzinger, “CommonRoad: Compos- able benchmarks for motion planning on roads,” in Proc. IEEE Intell. Veh. Symp. (IV), 2017, pp. 719–726

    2017

  39. [47]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Parting with Misconceptions about Learning-based Vehicle Motion Planning,

    D. Dauner, M. Hallgarten, A. Geiger, and K. Chitta, “Parting with Misconceptions about Learning-based Vehicle Motion Planning,” in Proc. Conf. Rob. Learn. (CoRL) . PMLR, 2023, pp. 1268–1281

    2023

  41. [49]

    NuPlan: A closed-loop ML- based planning benchmark for autonomous vehicles,

    H. Caesar, J. Kabzan, K. S. Tan, W. K. Fong, E. Wolff, A. Lang, L. Fletcher, O. Beijbom, and S. Omari, “NuPlan: A closed-loop ML- based planning benchmark for autonomous vehicles,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11810, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    AUTOtech.agil: Architecture and Technologies for Orchestrating Au- tomotive Agility,

    R. van Kempen, B. Lampe, M. Leuffen, L. Wirtz, F. Thomsen, G. Bilkei-Gorzo, J.-P. Busch, I. Feger, C. Geller, C. Kehl et al. , “AUTOtech.agil: Architecture and Technologies for Orchestrating Au- tomotive Agility,” in Proc. of 32nd Aachen Colloquium Sustainable Mobility. RWTH A...

    2023

  43. [51]

    Jøsang, Subjective Logic

    A. Jøsang, Subjective Logic. Springer, 2016, vol. 3

    2016

  44. [52]

    A Subjective-Logic-based Reliability Estimation Mechanism for Cooperative Information with Application to IV’s Safety,

    J. Müller, M. Gabb, and M. Buchholz, “A Subjective-Logic-based Reliability Estimation Mechanism for Cooperative Information with Application to IV’s Safety,” in Proc. IEEE Intell. Veh. Symp. (IV) , 2019, pp. 1940–1946

    2019

  45. [53]

    Kalman Filter Meets Subjective Logic: A Self-Assessing Kalman Filter Using Subjective Logic,

    T. Griebel, J. Müller, M. Buchholz, and K. Dietmayer, “Kalman Filter Meets Subjective Logic: A Self-Assessing Kalman Filter Using Subjective Logic,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Inf. Fusion (FUSION) , 2020, pp. 1–8

    2020

  46. [54]

    Input validation for neural networks via runtime local robustness verification,

    J. Liu, L. Chen, A. Mine, and J. Wang, “Input validation for neural networks via runtime local robustness verification,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.03339, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Adversarially learned one-class classifier for novelty detection,

    M. Sabokrou, M. Khalooei, M. Fathy, and E. Adeli, “Adversarially learned one-class classifier for novelty detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 3379–3388

    2018

  48. [56]

    Runtime monitoring neuron activation patterns,

    C.-H. Cheng, G. Nührenberg, and H. Yasuoka, “Runtime monitoring neuron activation patterns,” in 2019 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 2019, pp. 300–303

    2019

  49. [57]

    Outside the box: Abstraction-based monitoring of neural networks,

    T. A. Henzinger, A. Lukina, and C. Schilling, “Outside the box: Abstraction-based monitoring of neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.09032, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Safe and Trustful AI for Closed-Loop Control Systems,

    J. Schöning and H.-J. Pfisterer, “Safe and Trustful AI for Closed-Loop Control Systems,” Electronics, vol. 12, no. 16, p. 3489, 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    Moving Horizon State Estimation of Discrete Time Systems,

    P. K. Findeisen, “Moving Horizon State Estimation of Discrete Time Systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1997

    1997

  52. [60]

    Moving Horizon Estimation,

    D. A. Allan and J. B. Rawlings, “Moving Horizon Estimation,” Handbook of Model Predictive Control , pp. 99–124, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Unfreezing the robot: Navigation in dense, interacting crowds,

    P. Trautman and A. Krause, “Unfreezing the robot: Navigation in dense, interacting crowds,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., 2010, pp. 797–803

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.