Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 65 references

PatchTraj: Unified Time-Frequency Representation Learning via Dynamic Patches for Trajectory Prediction

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PatchTraj claims that dynamic time-frequency patches improve trajectory prediction across four benchmarks, with the largest reported gain on JRDB.

desk verdict A genuinely new time-frequency patch architecture with clean ablations, but the SOTA claim is internally contradicted on NBA FDE and rests on unverified baseline comparability. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19119 v3 pith:A5XSVDTI submitted 2025-07-25 cs.CV cs.AI

Yanghong Liu , Xingping Dong , Ming Li , Weixing Zhang , Yidong Lou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords trajectorypredictiondynamicpatchmechanismtime-frequencymodelingDiscreteCosineTransformmixture-of-expertsfeaturepyramidnetworkmulti-modalforecastingpedestrianmotion
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

PatchTraj argues that the way a trajectory is cut up matters as much as the model that reads it. It claims that representing observed motion as dynamic, multi-scale patches in both raw time and low-frequency DCT components, then fusing the two streams, improves multi-modal trajectory prediction enough to beat previous methods on ETH-UCY, SDD, NBA, and JRDB. A reader should care because the gains are reported across both third-person and egocentric benchmarks, including a 26.7% relative ADE improvement and a 17.4% FDE improvement over NMRF on JRDB, and because the representation is claimed to work with a plain Transformer decoder rather than a bespoke generative model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dynamic patch mechanism: instead of fixing one segment length, the model partitions a trajectory into non-overlapping patches at several sizes chosen to divide the history length, producing multi-scale tokens that capture fine motion details and coarse structure. Around this sit a mixture-of-experts embedding with scale-specific experts and top-k gating, a feature pyramid network that aggregates the scales, and bidirectional cross-modal attention between the time branch and the DCT frequency branch. The DCT branch retains only the first few coefficients, acting as a low-pass filter, and the final fused embedding feeds a vanilla Transformer encoder-decoder that autoregressively outputs K candidate futures.

What would settle it

Run every compared method on JRDB and NBA under PatchTraj's exact protocol, with the same K, splits, horizons, and input representation, and recompute ADE and FDE; if the 26.7% ADE and 17.4% FDE margins over NMRF shrink or vanish, the central state-of-the-art claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that time-domain and frequency-domain trajectories should be modeled jointly, and that dynamic patch partitioning is the representation that lets a single framework capture both local motion dynamics and long-range dependencies. In the paper's architecture, raw coordinate sequences and truncated DCT coefficients are each split into non-overlapping patches at several scales; a mixture-of-experts layer embeds each scale, a feature pyramid fuses scales, and cross-modal attention lets time and frequency features refine each other. The paper reports that this combined design outperforms all compared prior methods on all four datasets, with the largest margins on JRDB.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains assume that all baseline numbers were produced under exactly the same evaluation protocol—same number of samples, data splits, observation and prediction horizons, and input representations—and for NBA and JRDB the paper does not state whether it re-ran the baselines under its own protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, PatchTraj establishes that patch-based time-frequency representation outperforms point-based and grid-based trajectory representations on four benchmarks, not just on one dataset.
  • The reported JRDB multi-modal results imply an improvement of 26.7% relative in minADE20 and 17.4% in minFDE20 over NMRF, the largest claimed margin in the paper.
  • Ablations imply each designed stage—dual-branch input, dynamic patches, MoE embedding, pyramid fusion, and cross-modal attention—contributes positively, with the full stack improving from a 1.02/1.43 baseline to 0.68/0.94 on NBA.
  • Because the decoder is a vanilla Transformer, the representation itself rather than a specialized generative head is claimed to carry most of the predictive power.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the paper leaves implicit is that dynamic trajectory patching may transfer to other sequence forecasting problems that currently use fixed windows, such as vehicle motion prediction or long-horizon time-series forecasting.
  • A direct probe of the mechanism would swap the DCT for a different spectral transform, or remove the frequency branch entirely; the paper reports only the full dual-branch configuration against single-branch baselines.
  • The patch-size lists are chosen per dataset by hand, so automating scale selection with a learned search could preserve or extend the reported gains without manual tuning.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. PatchTraj is a transformer-based trajectory prediction framework with a dual-branch design: a time-domain branch and a frequency-domain branch obtained via DCT. The paper proposes a dynamic patch mechanism that segments trajectories into multi-scale patches, a mixture-of-experts-based patch embedding (MSPE), a feature-pyramid-network-based multi-scale fusion module (MSFF), and cross-domain attention between the time and frequency branches. The method is evaluated on ETH-UCY, SDD, NBA, and JRDB, reporting minADE/minFDE metrics and claiming state-of-the-art performance, including relative improvements of 26.7% in ADE and 17.4% in FDE over NMRF on the multi-modal JRDB benchmark.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible and the baseline comparisons are protocol-matched, PatchTraj would be a solid empirical contribution: it combines time-frequency modeling with multi-scale patch representations, and the reported gains on JRDB are large. The paper also provides ablation studies across three datasets that support the contribution of each proposed module. However, the central state-of-the-art claim is currently not established: the paper's own Table 1(b) shows that MART achieves lower NBA minFDE than PatchTraj, and the provenance of several baseline numbers on NBA and JRDB is not specified. The dynamic-patch mechanism is also less dynamic than the introduction claims. These issues weaken the central empirical assertion, although they appear correctable within the scope of a revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [NBA, Table 1(b), and Abstract] The paper's own results contradict the unconditional state-of-the-art claim. In Table 1(b), MART reports minFDE20 = 0.90 on NBA while PatchTraj reports 0.94, so PatchTraj does not outperform all compared methods on NBA FDE. The text acknowledges this ('the absence of explicit intention-aware modeling fundamentally limits FDE performance'), but the abstract and introduction claim state-of-the-art performance on all four datasets without qualification. This internal inconsistency must be corrected, either by qualifying the claim or by adding a method variant that also improves FDE.
  2. [Method, DCT formula] The DCT definition is garbled. The formula reads c_i_n = Σ_{t=1}^T √(2/N) x_i_t cos[π(2t−1)(n−1)/(2T)], which mixes the sequence length T with an undefined N, omits the standard DC-term scaling factor, and does not match a standard Type-II DCT. Since this equation defines the frequency branch and the truncation to l coefficients, it is load-bearing for reproducibility. The authors should provide a correct DCT definition with clear indexing (e.g., coefficient index starting at zero and the appropriate normalization).
  3. [Introduction vs. Dynamic Patch Mechanism] The introduction promises that a 'lightweight meta-network learns to group trajectory points into semantically meaningful patches based on motion dynamics,' but the method section describes only a fixed, per-dataset set of patch sizes S={2,4,8} (or {2,5,10}, {1,3,9}) used to split the trajectory into non-overlapping patches. No learned grouping network appears anywhere in the architecture. The mechanism as described is multi-scale static patching, not dynamic, data-dependent patch segmentation. This overclaim affects the core novelty claim and should be reframed or the method should be extended accordingly.
  4. [Experiments, Tables 1(a), 1(b), and 3] The paper does not state whether the baseline numbers were obtained by re-running the baselines under the same evaluation protocol or copied from original papers. This is important because NBA and JRDB have heterogeneous evaluation settings in the literature (different observation/prediction horizons, sample counts K, and deterministic vs. stochastic inference). For example, reporting K=1 numbers for stochastic methods such as Social-GAN, Trajectron++, and LED on JRDB requires an explanation of how those numbers were produced. Without this information, the reported margins, including the 26.7% JRDB ADE improvement over NMRF, could be affected by protocol mismatch rather than genuine gains.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Dynamic Patch Mechanism] There are typos: 'spital-temporal' appears twice and should be 'spatiotemporal'.
  2. [Multi-Scale Feature Fusion, Eqs. (5) and (6)] The notation is inconsistent: the recursion uses p_i, p_n, P_{p_n}, and E_{p_{i+1}} without a clear definition of the relationship between n and i. Please define the pyramid levels explicitly.
  3. [Multi-Scale Patch Embedding, Eqs. (1) and (2)] The dimensions of the gating tensor G ∈ R^{B×N×M} and the indexing in TopK(G_{:,n,m}) are unclear: it is not obvious how the gating over experts and the gating over patch scales are combined. A precise tensor diagram or pseudocode would help.
  4. [Training Constraint, Eq. (10)] The phrase 'Please refer to our proof in supplementary materials' is odd because there is no mathematical theorem being proved; please remove it or clarify what is actually proved.
  5. [Experiments, general] No error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests are reported. Since the abstract uses the word 'significant,' at least repeated-seed results or significance tests for the main JRDB and NBA comparisons should be provided.
  6. [Qualitative Results] The qualitative section describes only one figure; please add more examples, including failure cases, and state how representative the shown trajectories are.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; PatchTraj is an empirical architecture paper whose claims rest on external benchmarks and held-out ablations, not on self-referential definitions or fitted predictions.

full rationale

PatchTraj makes no theoretical derivation that could be circular. The frequency branch uses the standard DCT transform and truncation, not a result derived from the prediction target; the dynamic patch sizes are explicit hyperparameters chosen per dataset, and the trained components (gating, experts, FPN, cross-attention, Transformer) are evaluated on held-out test splits using standard ADE/FDE metrics. The training loss combines the marginal loss of Gupta et al. (2018) and the joint loss of Weng et al. (2023) with a fixed weighting lambda=0.5; this is a modeling choice, not a quantity fitted to the reported ADE/FDE and then renamed as a prediction. The only apparent self-citation by the current authors (Liu et al. 2024b, DifTraj) appears in a Related Work sentence listing diffusion-based trajectory predictors and is not load-bearing for the method or the state-of-the-art claim. The concern that NBA and JRDB baseline numbers may have been copied under different evaluation protocols concerns external validity and benchmark comparability, not circularity: it does not make any equation in the paper reduce to its own input. Even the possible internal contradiction in NBA FDE (MART 0.90 vs Ours 0.94 in Table 1(b)) is a correctness or reporting issue, not a circularity pattern, because it does not show that a prediction was constructed from the result it claims to predict. Since the central contribution is an architecture evaluated against external baselines and internally ablated component by component, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central claim depends on several hand-chosen hyperparameters (DCT truncation, patch sizes, expert count, loss weight) and domain assumptions about DCT suitability and padding, but introduces no new physical or conceptual entities. The free parameters are standard for empirical deep learning papers, yet their values are dataset-specific and not systematically explored, which raises the fitting burden of the method.

free parameters (4)
  • DCT truncation coefficient l = 8 (ETH-UCY/SDD), 10 (NBA), 9 (JRDB)
    Chosen per dataset in Implementation Details to balance information retention and dimensionality.
  • Patch size set S = {2,4,8} (ETH-UCY/SDD), {2,5,10} (NBA), {1,3,9} (JRDB)
    Hand-picked based on history length and divisibility by T, as described in the Dynamic Patch Mechanism section.
  • Number of experts and top-k = 4 experts, top-2 selected
    Set in Implementation Details; no sensitivity analysis provided.
  • Loss weight lambda = 0.5
    Fixed in Implementation Details; no ablation on this value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DCT is an appropriate orthogonal transform for trajectory motion, preserving key spectral components after truncation.
    The frequency branch relies on DCT being a lossy but informative representation; no analysis of reconstruction error or information retention is given beyond a brief statement.
  • domain assumption Padding the observed trajectory with the last timestep to length T for DCT does not harm the learned representation.
    The method pads the past trajectory with the last timestep before DCT, a standard practice in prior work but not validated here.
  • ad hoc to paper The selected patch sizes divide T and capture meaningful motion scales.
    Patch sizes are chosen per dataset purely for divisibility and heuristic alignment with historical length; no evidence links them to semantic motion patterns like strides or pauses.
  • domain assumption The loss L = L_marginal + lambda * L_joint is an effective training objective.
    Taken directly from prior works, Gupta et al. 2018 and Weng et al. 2023, and applied without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PatchTraj: Unified Time-Frequency Representation Learning via Dynamic Patches for Trajectory Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A5XSVDTI

@misc{pith2026250719119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PatchTraj: Unified Time-Frequency Representation Learning via Dynamic Patches for Trajectory Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A5XSVDTI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19119}
}
read the original abstract

Pedestrian trajectory prediction is crucial for autonomous driving and robotics. While existing point-based and grid-based methods expose two main limitations: insufficiently modeling human motion dynamics, as they fail to balance local motion details with long-range spatiotemporal dependencies, and the time representations lack interaction with their frequency components in jointly modeling trajectory sequences. To address these challenges, we propose PatchTraj, a dynamic patch-based framework that integrates time-frequency joint modeling for trajectory prediction. Specifically, we decompose the trajectory into raw time sequences and frequency components, and employ dynamic patch partitioning to perform multi-scale segmentation, capturing hierarchical motion patterns. Each patch undergoes adaptive embedding with scale-aware feature extraction, followed by hierarchical feature aggregation to model both fine-grained and long-range dependencies. The outputs of the two branches are further enhanced via cross-modal attention, facilitating complementary fusion of temporal and spectral cues. The resulting enhanced embeddings exhibit strong expressive power, enabling accurate predictions even when using a vanilla Transformer architecture. Extensive experiments on ETH-UCY, SDD, NBA, and JRDB datasets demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance. Notably, on the egocentric JRDB dataset, PatchTraj attains significant relative improvements of 26.7% in ADE and 17.4% in FDE, underscoring its substantial potential in embodied intelligence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19119 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between existing (a) grid-based meth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall architecture of PatchTraj, which is a dual-branch trajectory prediction framework integrating time￾domain and frequency-domain processing. The raw time sequences can be transferred into spectral components via DCT/iDCT. The dynamic patch mechanism is designed to capture multi-granularity motion patterns. Each patch is then processed by MoE￾based embedding layer, and a FPN architecture is utilized to hier… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization results on the ETH-UCY dataset, including heatmaps of the overall distribution of predicted samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * 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 mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    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

    2016

  4. [4]

    Berndt, H.; Emmert, J.; and Dietmayer, K. 2008. Continuous driver intention recognition with hidden markov models. In 2008 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), 1189--1194

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al

    Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J. D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877--1901

    2020

  6. [6]

    Chai, Y.; Sapp, B.; Bansal, M.; and Anguelov, D. 2019. Multipath: Multiple probabilistic anchor trajectory hypotheses for behavior prediction. In Conference on Robot Learning, 86--99

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Chen, J.; Cao, J.; Lin, D.; Kitani, K.; and Pang, J. 2024. Mixed gaussian flow for diverse trajectory prediction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Chen, X.; Zeng, L.; Gao, M.; Ding, C.; and Bian, Y. 2025. DiffWT: Diffusion-Based Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction With Time-Frequency Wavelet Transform. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 12(5): 5109--5121

    work page 2025

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Diao, C.; and Loynd, R. 2022. Relational attention: Generalizing transformers for graph-structured tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.05062

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; et al. 2021. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  3. [11]

    H.; and Lee, G

    Fang, Z.; Hsu, D.; Lee, G. H.; and Lee, G. H. 2025. Neuralized Markov Random Field for Interaction-Aware Stochastic Human Trajectory Prediction. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2025

  4. [12]

    Feichtenhofer, C.; Li, Y.; He, K.; et al. 2022. Masked autoencoders as spatiotemporal learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 35946--35958

    2022

  5. [13]

    Fu, Y.; Yan, Q.; Wang, L.; Li, K.; and Liao, R. 2025. Moflow: One-step flow matching for human trajectory forecasting via implicit maximum likelihood estimation based distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 17282--17293

    2025

  6. [14]

    Gao, J.; Sun, C.; Zhao, H.; Shen, Y.; Anguelov, D.; Li, C.; and Schmid, C. 2020. Vectornet: Encoding hd maps and agent dynamics from vectorized representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 11525--11533

    2020

  7. [15]

    Gu, T.; Chen, G.; Li, J.; Lin, C.; Rao, Y.; Zhou, J.; and Lu, J. 2022. Stochastic trajectory prediction via motion indeterminacy diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 17113--17122

    2022

  8. [16]

    Guo, K.; Liu, W.; and Pan, J. 2022. End-to-end trajectory distribution prediction based on occupancy grid maps. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2242--2251

    2022

  9. [17]

    Gupta, A.; Johnson, J.; Fei-Fei, L.; Savarese, S.; and Alahi, A. 2018. Social gan: Socially acceptable trajectories with generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2255--2264

    2018

  10. [18]

    Hochreiter, S.; and Schmidhuber, J. 1997. Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Computation, 9(8): 1735--1780

    1997

  11. [19]

    Huang, Y.; Bi, H.; Li, Z.; Mao, T.; and Wang, Z. 2019. Stgat: Modeling spatial-temporal interactions for human trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 6272--6281

    2019

  12. [20]

    A.; Jordan, M

    Jacobs, R. A.; Jordan, M. I.; Nowlan, S. J.; and Hinton, G. E. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1): 79--87

    1991

  13. [21]

    Jiang, C.; Cornman, A.; Park, C.; Sapp, B.; Zhou, Y.; Anguelov, D.; et al. 2023. Motiondiffuser: Controllable multi-agent motion prediction using diffusion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 9644--9653

    2023

  14. [22]

    Karnan, H.; Nair, A.; Xiao, X.; Warnell, G.; Pirk, S.; Toshev, A.; Hart, J.; Biswas, J.; and Stone, P. 2022. Socially compliant navigation dataset (scand): A large-scale dataset of demonstrations for social navigation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(4): 11807--11814

    2022

  15. [23]

    Lee, S.; Lee, J.; Yu, Y.; Kim, T.; and Lee, K. 2024. MART: MultiscAle Relational Transformer Networks for Multi-agent Trajectory Prediction. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 89--107

    2024

  16. [24]

    Liu, S.; Zhu, Y.; Yao, P.; Mao, T.; and Wang, Z. 2024 a . SpectrumNet: Spectrum-Based Trajectory Encode Neural Network for Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 7075--7079

    2024

  17. [25]

    Liu, Y.; Dong, X.; Lin, Y.; and Ye, M. 2024 b . DifTraj: Diffusion Inspired by Intrinsic Intention and Extrinsic Interaction for Multi-Modal Trajectory Prediction. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1128--1136

    2024

  18. [26]

    Liu, Z.; Lin, Y.; Cao, Y.; Hu, H.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Lin, S.; and Guo, B. 2021. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 10012--10022

    2021

  19. [27]

    Loshchilov, I.; and Hutter, F. 2019. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  20. [28]

    Mangalam, K.; Girase, H.; Agarwal, S.; Lee, K.-H.; Adeli, E.; Malik, J.; and Gaidon, A. 2020. It is Not the Journey but the Destination: Endpoint Conditioned Trajectory Prediction. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 759--776

    2020

  21. [29]

    Mao, W.; Liu, M.; Salzmann, M.; and Li, H. 2019. Learning trajectory dependencies for human motion prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 9489--9497

    2019

  22. [30]

    Mao, W.; Xu, C.; Zhu, Q.; Chen, S.; and Wang, Y. 2023. Leapfrog diffusion model for stochastic trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 5517--5526

    2023

  23. [31]

    Martin-Martin, R.; Patel, M.; Rezatofighi, H.; Shenoi, A.; Gwak, J.; Frankel, E.; Sadeghian, A.; and Savarese, S. 2021. Jrdb: A dataset and benchmark of egocentric robot visual perception of humans in built environments. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intell...

    2021

  24. [32]

    Mehran, R.; Oyama, A.; and Shah, M. 2009. Abnormal crowd behavior detection using social force model. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 935--942

    2009

  25. [33]

    Mohamed, A.; Qian, K.; Elhoseiny, M.; and Claudel, C. 2020. Social-stgcnn: A social spatio-temporal graph convolutional neural network for human trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 14424--14432

    2020

  26. [34]

    T.; and Trivedi, M

    Morris, B. T.; and Trivedi, M. M. 2011. Trajectory learning for activity understanding: Unsupervised, multilevel, and long-term adaptive approach. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 33(11): 2287--2301

    2011

  27. [35]

    H.; Sinthong, P.; and Kalagnanam, J

    Nie, Y.; Nguyen, N. H.; Sinthong, P.; and Kalagnanam, J. 2023. A Time Series is Worth 64 Words: Long-term Forecasting with Transformers. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  28. [36]

    Park, D.; Jeong, J.; and Yoon, K.-J. 2024. Improving transferability for cross-domain trajectory prediction via neural stochastic differential equation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 10145--10154

    2024

  29. [37]

    Paszke, A.; Gross, S.; Massa, F.; Lerer, A.; Bradbury, J.; Chanan, G.; Killeen, T.; Lin, Z.; Gimelshein, N.; Antiga, L.; et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32

    2019

  30. [38]

    Pellegrini, S.; Ess, A.; and Gool, L. V. 2010. Improving Data Association by Joint Modeling of Pedestrian Trajectories and Groupings. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 452--465

    2010

  31. [39]

    Pellegrini, S.; Ess, A.; Schindler, K.; and Van Gool, L. 2009. You'll never walk alone: Modeling social behavior for multi-target tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 261--268

    2009

  32. [40]

    C.; Boulton, F

    Phan-Minh, T.; Grigore, E. C.; Boulton, F. A.; Beijbom, O.; and Wolff, E. M. 2020. Covernet: Multimodal behavior prediction using trajectory sets. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 14074--14083

    2020

  33. [41]

    Robicquet, A.; Sadeghian, A.; Alahi, A.; and Savarese, S. 2016. Learning Social Etiquette: Human Trajectory Understanding In Crowded Scenes. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 549--565

    2016

  34. [42]

    Ronneberger, O.; Fischer, P.; and Brox, T. 2015. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention--MICCAI 2015, 234--241

    2015

  35. [43]

    Saadatnejad, S.; Gao, Y.; Messaoud, K.; and Alahi, A. 2024. Social-Transmotion: Promptable Human Trajectory Prediction. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  36. [44]

    Sadeghian, A.; Kosaraju, V.; Sadeghian, A.; Hirose, N.; Rezatofighi, H.; and Savarese, S. 2019. Sophie: An attentive gan for predicting paths compliant to social and physical constraints. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1349--1358

    2019

  37. [45]

    Salzmann, T.; Ivanovic, B.; Chakravarty, P.; and Pavone, M. 2020. Trajectron++: Dynamically-feasible trajectory forecasting with heterogeneous data. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 683--700

    2020

  38. [46]

    Taketsugu, H.; Oba, T.; Maeda, T.; Nobuhara, S.; and Ukita, N. 2025. Physical Plausibility-aware Trajectory Prediction via Locomotion Embodiment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2025

  39. [47]

    Tang, P.; and Zhang, W. 2025. Unlocking the Power of Patch: Patch-Based MLP for Long-Term Time Series Forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, 12640--12648

    2025

  40. [48]

    N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30

    2017

  41. [49]

    Vemula, A.; Muelling, K.; and Oh, J. 2018. Social attention: Modeling attention in human crowds. In 2018 IEEE international Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 4601--4607

    2018

  42. [50]

    Weng, E.; Hoshino, H.; Ramanan, D.; and Kitani, K. 2023. Joint metrics matter: A better standard for trajectory forecasting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 20315--20326

    2023

  43. [51]

    Wong, C.; Xia, B.; Hong, Z.; Peng, Q.; Yuan, W.; Cao, Q.; Yang, Y.; and You, X. 2022. View vertically: A hierarchical network for trajectory prediction via fourier spectrums. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 682--700

    2022

  44. [52]

    Wong, C.; Xia, B.; Peng, Q.; and You, X. 2023. Another vertical view: A hierarchical network for heterogeneous trajectory prediction via spectrums. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05106

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    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

  46. [54]

    Wu, H.; Hu, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, H.; Wang, J.; and Long, M. 2023. TimesNet: Temporal 2D-Variation Modeling for General Time Series Analysis. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  47. [55]

    Xu, C.; Li, M.; Ni, Z.; Zhang, Y.; and Chen, S. 2022 a . 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

  48. [56]

    Xu, C.; Mao, W.; Zhang, W.; and Chen, S. 2022 b . Remember intentions: Retrospective-memory-based trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6488--6497

    2022

  49. [57]

    T.; Tan, Y.; Chen, S.; Wang, Y

    Xu, C.; Tan, R. T.; Tan, Y.; Chen, S.; Wang, Y. G.; Wang, X.; and Wang, Y. 2023. Eqmotion: Equivariant multi-agent motion prediction with invariant interaction reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 1410--1420

    2023

  50. [58]

    Yu, C.; Ma, X.; Ren, J.; Zhao, H.; and Yi, S. 2020. Spatio-temporal graph transformer networks for pedestrian trajectory prediction. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XII 16, 507--523

    2020

  51. [59]

    Yuan, Y.; Weng, X.; Ou, Y.; and Kitani, K. M. 2021. Agentformer: Agent-aware transformers for socio-temporal multi-agent forecasting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 9813--9823

    2021

  52. [60]

    Yue, Y.; Lucey, P.; Carr, P.; Bialkowski, A.; and Matthews, I. 2014. Learning Fine-Grained Spatial Models for Dynamic Sports Play Prediction. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, 670--679

    2014

  53. [61]

    Zhang, Z.; Guo, D.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, J.; and Lin, Y. 2023. Flight trajectory prediction enabled by time-frequency wavelet transform. Nature Communications, 14(1): 5258

    2023

  54. [62]

    Zhou, H.; Zhang, S.; Peng, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, J.; Xiong, H.; and Zhang, W. 2021. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, 11106--11115

    2021

  55. [63]

    Zhou, T.; Ma, Z.; Wen, Q.; Sun, L.; Yao, T.; Yin, W.; Jin, R.; et al. 2022 a . Film: Frequency improved legendre memory model for long-term time series forecasting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 12677--12690

    2022

  56. [64]

    Zhou, T.; Ma, Z.; Wen, Q.; Wang, X.; Sun, L.; and Jin, R. 2022 b . Fedformer: Frequency enhanced decomposed transformer for long-term series forecasting. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 27268--27286

    2022

  57. [65]

    M.; Brito, B.; and Alonso-Mora, J

    Zhu, H.; Claramunt, F. M.; Brito, B.; and Alonso-Mora, J. 2021. Learning interaction-aware trajectory predictions for decentralized multi-robot motion planning in dynamic environments. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2): 2256--2263

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.