Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 53 references

Driving style is real in the wild only if you measure it after vehicle, route, and condition shortcuts are controlled.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 11:16 UTC pith:GD3RHFQD

load-bearing objection Solid confound-first driving-style benchmark and multi-vehicle corpus; the matched-condition CAN number is real but still partly route-entangled, so read “style” carefully. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23822 v1 pith:GD3RHFQD submitted 2026-07-26 cs.LG

DriveDNA: A Large-Scale Multimodal Naturalistic Driving Dataset and Benchmark for Driving Style Identification

Yuhang Wang , Lingyao Li , Hao Zhou This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords naturalistic drivingdriving-style modelingbehavior predictiondriver re-identificationmultimodal time seriesshortcut learningpersonalized drivingcondition-matched evaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

DriveDNA argues that driver-specific style exists in everyday driving but is easy to fake with vehicle, road, and traffic regularities. The authors release a large community naturalistic corpus—465 drivers, 115 vehicle models, 975 hours of human-controlled driving with synchronized signals and forward video—and define style as stable patterns in how the vehicle actually moves under similar conditions. They test that definition with three tasks: few-shot re-identification of unseen drivers, whether a short driver support set improves future motion prediction, and same-driver checks on windows matched for vehicle model, scenario, speed, and headway. Learned motion embeddings beat classical descriptors, keep useful driver signal under matching, and help prediction mainly by reshaping predicted distributions rather than point errors; video-only recognition looks equally strong but mostly leaks route and place. The practical claim is methodological: any serious style claim must report both behavioral utility and leakage under these controls.

Core claim

On this multi-driver, multi-vehicle naturalistic corpus, learned representations of realized vehicle motion carry a stable driver-specific signal that survives condition matching (AUROC about 0.81 on matched pairs versus near-chance for classical descriptors), substantially outperforms descriptors on unmatched few-shot re-identification of unseen drivers (about 0.935 versus 0.707), and yields consistent though modest personalization gains—especially in likelihood and distribution metrics—while video-only recognition, despite comparable raw accuracy, is largely driven by route and context shortcuts rather than behavior.

What carries the argument

The three-task DriveDNA benchmark: few-shot driver re-identification, personalized future-motion prediction, and condition-matched same-driver comparison, plus explicit vehicle/route/condition leakage probes that force style claims to separate driver behavior from confounds.

Load-bearing premise

That leftover same-driver patterns in realized vehicle motion after rule-based scenario bins and same-model (not same-car) matching are truly driving style, not leftover car-instance, device, micro-route, or who-chose-to-install-the-logger effects.

What would settle it

If, on larger cross-vehicle and same-physical-car matched sets, learned motion embeddings fall to chance on condition-matched same-driver verification while still scoring high unmatched—or if personalization gains disappear once evaluation splits and scenario mix are fully frozen—then the claimed residual style signal is not driver style under the paper’s own definition.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Style papers must report matched alongside unmatched recognition and leakage alongside utility, not re-ID accuracy alone.
  • Video is safer treated as scene context for prediction and explanation than as a pure style channel, because place recognition can masquerade as driver identity.
  • Personalization should be judged with distributional metrics (likelihood, MMD, Wasserstein), not RMSE alone, because driver information often reshapes uncertainty more than the mean.
  • Choosing vehicle-normalized motion targets (e.g., path curvature over steering angle) can reduce vehicle shortcut more than post-hoc invariance training on this kind of fleet.
  • The released audited maneuver events and frozen splits become a shared testbed for shortcut-aware representation learning beyond driving.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Insurance, fleet, or safety products that score ‘style’ from dashcam or CAN without matched-condition and route-leakage tests risk scoring routines and cars rather than people.
  • The same measurement checklist—utility vs leakage, matched vs unmatched—transfers cleanly to other embodied personalization settings (robot teleop, sports biomechanics, operator monitoring) where identity confounds with equipment and environment.
  • If residual vehicle-instance entanglement is the binding limit, the next decisive experiment is deliberate multi-car rotations of the same drivers at scale, not only more models of single-car owners.
  • Zero-shot foundation models lagging until light task adaptation suggests driver identity lives in fleet-specific dynamics that generic pretraining does not currently surface without supervision.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DriveDNA, a naturalistic driving corpus (465 drivers, 115 vehicle models, 4,121 drives, 975 hours of human-controlled 10 Hz CAN telemetry with forward video) together with a benchmark organized around three questions: does a stable driver signature exist (few-shot re-identification), does it help prediction (personalized future-motion forecasting), and does it survive controls (condition-matched same-driver verification on 14,868 pairs matched on vehicle model, scenario, speed bin, and THW bin). Thirty baselines are evaluated under a fixed protocol (driver-disjoint splits, three training seeds, frozen evaluation manifests). Headline results: learned CAN embeddings reach AUROC .935 on unseen drivers vs .707 for classical descriptors; under condition matching the learned embedding holds at .811 while descriptors fall to .550; video-only re-ID matches CAN (.937) but is shown via leakage probes to be route-driven (347× chance route predictability); personalization gains are small in RMSE but consistent in likelihood. The paper is unusually self-critical: it documents an evaluation-split audit (App. I) in which a seed-dependent split inflated a distributional gain by an order of magnitude, audits its weak labels and maneuver events against human review, and releases splits, code, and a harness.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial contribution on two axes. As a resource, it is the first public multi-driver, multi-vehicle, human-only naturalistic corpus at this scale with persistent driver identities, and the tiered release (public signals/embeddings/splits/code; gated blurred video) is well designed. As methodology, the paper's real contribution is the evaluation discipline: driver-disjoint frozen splits with seed-only training randomness after the App. I audit, within-nameplate and cross-vehicle manifests, condition-matched comparison, and explicit vehicle/route/condition leakage probes reported alongside utility. The demonstration that video-only re-identification is largely place recognition (route leakage 347× chance; within-nameplate video AUROC rising to .962) is a clean, falsifiable shortcut-learning result that the field should internalize. The human audits (93% primitive agreement; individual review of all 36,488 lane-change candidates with hard negatives released) and the public harness make the claims checkable and the benchmark reusable. These are exactly the properties a benchmark paper should be judged on, and DriveDNA has them.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §6.3 (Table 4), §6.5, App. F] The condition-matched task does not control route, and the paper's own numbers show this matters. Matched pairs are keyed on scenario × speed bin × THW bin × consolidated vehicle model (App. F), but §6.5 reports that the CAN representation predicts route at 197× chance. A same-driver positive pair can therefore share recurring home/work road microstructure (surface, curvature sequence, signage, intersection layout) even across different drives and within all matching constraints, while different-driver negatives typically will not. The App. F VLM validation checks road type and traffic density, not route identity, so it cannot exclude this pathway. Consequently the headline .811±.006 in Table 4 is strong evidence that driver-associated information survives coarse condition matching, but it does not yet isolate behavioral style from driver-correlated route context — which is precisely the
  2. [§6.4, App. H, Abstract] The utility claim ('does driver style help prediction') is one of the three headline questions, but the evidence is weak and the framing should be calibrated accordingly. The RMSE personalization gain is +0.8±0.5% at the 5 s horizon; the per-driver NLL gain is positive for only 55% of unseen drivers with a bootstrap CI of [−0.0, 4.7] nats that includes approximately zero (App. H); and the best re-ID embedding used as a conditioner yields no gain (−0.2%). The paper's own reading — personalization changes the predicted distribution for a subset of drivers, not the conditional mean — is the correct one, but the abstract ('does driver style help prediction' answered affirmatively in Fig. 1B and the contributions) currently reads stronger than this. Please state the effect sizes and the 55%-of-drivers result in the main text/abstract, so that 'recognition is not prediction' (which the paper a
  3. [App. G, §6.6] The cross-vehicle transfer claim rests on 7 drivers (110 vehicle pairs), with AUROC .750 and bootstrap CI [.64, .86]. This is the only direct evidence that the driver-associated signal survives a change of physical vehicle, and it supports the §6.6 characterization of the embedding as 'close to vehicle-agnostic.' Seven drivers is a thin basis for that characterization, and the .750 vs .816 same-vehicle gap is within noise at this n. Either temper the vehicle-agnostic language to reflect the indirect nature of the evidence (within-nameplate .887 and the curvature-vs-steering probe are the stronger arguments), or expand the cross-vehicle analysis if more multi-vehicle drivers can be qualified. At minimum, the n=7 population size should appear wherever the .750 number is cited, including §6.6.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 9, App. G] The full-input row of Table 9 reports AUROC .916 (single checkpoint, fixed support draw) against the three-seed .935±.005 reported elsewhere. The footnote explains this, but a reader comparing tables will stumble; consider reporting the same-checkpoint full-input value alongside, or adding the seed spread for the missing-channel rows.
  2. [§6.1] 'Drivers remain identifiable at 4× chance' after residualization has no supporting table or figure reference. Please point to where this number is computed (metric, protocol, and chance level), since it is the load-bearing sentence for the ResidualStyle representation.
  3. [References] Driver2vec appears twice ([43] workshop version, [44] arXiv version). Please consolidate to a single canonical citation.
  4. [§3.3, App. B] The scenario priority rules (stop fraction 0.10, curvature p95 0.01 m⁻¹, THW 3.5 s, speed 25/15 m/s) are reasonable but appear to be set by inspection. A one-line sensitivity statement analogous to the Q75/Q85 primitive check in App. C (e.g., how much Table 4 moves under perturbed scenario thresholds) would close the loop, since condition matching keys on these bins.
  5. [Table 12, App. L] The Qwen2.5-VL-3B (.759) vs Qwen2.5-VL-7B (.607) inversion is flagged as calibration-sensitive single runs; consider moving that caveat from parenthetical into the table note, and clarifying that the LoRA row uses a different anchor count (3,000 vs 2,897).
  6. [Fig. 5, App. O] The t-SNE map is described as qualitative, which is appropriate; however, the 1.8× vs 130× neighbor-agreement statistics in the caption-adjacent text are quantitative claims computed on a 2-D projection of a 128-d space. Please state that these were computed in the embedding space (if so) or in the projection, as the interpretation differs.
  7. [§3, Table 15] The raw corpus lists 1,938 h CAN telemetry and 2,027 h video, but only 975 h of HD is used; a sentence clarifying the automation-engaged vs human-driven split of the raw hours would help readers gauge the extraction yield.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: DriveDNA is an empirical dataset/benchmark paper whose headline metrics are held-out measurements, not quantities forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper operationalizes driving style as stable residual patterns in realized vehicle motion under comparable contexts, then tests whether that signal exists via few-shot re-identification on unseen drivers, personalized prediction gains vs generic counterparts, and condition-matched same-driver verification. None of these results is true by construction: classical descriptors fall to near-chance under matching (AUROC .550) while learned CAN embeddings retain .811, which would be impossible if the matched task merely restated the training objective or the style definition. Weak behavioral primitives are scenario-conditioned percentile labels used for stratification and annotation audit, not supervised targets that force the re-ID numbers. ResidualStyle residualizes against population models conditioned on scenario/vehicle and then measures remaining identifiability—an empirical residual, not a tautology. Personalization gain compares personalized vs non-personalized models of the same architecture on fixed evaluation splits. There is no load-bearing self-citation uniqueness theorem, no fitted constant renamed as a prediction of a near-identical quantity, and no ansatz smuggled in as a derivation. Route-leakage and vehicle-instance confounds (acknowledged in the paper and pressed by the skeptic) are validity/interpretation risks about what the residual signal is, not circular reductions of outputs to inputs. Score 0 is the appropriate honest finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

Load-bearing content is mostly domain operationalization and dataset construction choices, not free physical constants. The central empirical claims rest on defining style as residual realized-motion regularity, on rule-based context labels and matching cells, and on treating community openpilot logs after automation removal as human driving. Baseline hyperparameters are secondary; they affect numbers but not the existence of the benchmark finding pattern.

free parameters (5)
  • Scenario priority thresholds (stop fraction 0.10, curvature p95 0.01 m^-1, THW 3.5 s, speed 25/15 m/s) = As listed in Appendix B
    Deterministic rules that assign every 60 s window a context label used for stratification and matching; hand-chosen cutoffs.
  • Behavioral primitive percentile cuts Q80/Q20 (sensitivity Q75/Q85) = Q80/Q20 primary
    Define high/low weak behavior labels within scenario; paper reports stability but cuts are chosen, not derived.
  • Windowing and enrollment settings (60 s / 30 s stride; k in {1,3,5,10} min; 5 s history; 1/3/5 s horizons) = Primary horizon 3 s; main re-ID table at 5 min
    Benchmark geometry that shapes all metrics; conventional but free design choices.
  • Condition-matching bins (speed and THW bins; ≤8 positives per driver per cell) = speed <10,10–20,20–30,≥30 m/s; THW <1.2,1.2–2,>2 s
    Construct the 14,868 pairs; bin edges and sampling caps are design parameters.
  • Encoder/training hyperparameters (patch sizes, dims, SupCon P×K, temp 0.1, lr 3e-4, etc.) = App. K defaults
    Affect absolute AUROC/PG of learned baselines; multi-seed but still fitted/selected configuration.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Driving style is a stable driver-specific pattern in realized vehicle motion under comparable contexts during human-controlled driving, not raw pedal/steer commands or latent personality labels.
    Stated in Abstract/Intro/Section 1; shapes all tasks and excludes inconsistent cross-vehicle actuation as primary space.
  • domain assumption After removing automation-active intervals via vehicle logs, remaining segments are human-controlled driving suitable for style measurement.
    Section 3.1 HD extraction; errors in automation flags would contaminate the corpus.
  • domain assumption Path curvature (vs steering-wheel angle) is the appropriate primary lateral variable for cross-vehicle comparison.
    Section 3.1 and Section 6.1 vehicle-probe contrast; standard vehicle-dynamics motivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Matching on consolidated vehicle model, scenario type, speed bin, and THW bin sufficiently controls driving condition for same-driver tests in naturalistic data.
    Core of Task 3 / App. F; paper validates with VLM attributes but still model- not instance-level.
  • standard math Driver-disjoint fixed manifests plus three training seeds yield stable estimates of representation quality and personalization gain.
    Section 4.4 and App. I evaluation audit; standard ML experimental assumption once splits are frozen.
  • domain assumption Community openpilot/comma loggers produce research-usable synchronized video and CAN-derived signals after uniform 10 Hz decode.
    Section 3 collection stack; format confound fixed in App. A.
invented entities (3)
  • DriveDNA benchmark task suite (re-ID + personalized prediction + condition-matched comparison with leakage probes) independent evidence
    purpose: Make driver style measurable under naturalistic confounds rather than closed-set accuracy alone.
    Not a physical entity; a new evaluation construct. Independent use is possible once data/harness are public.
  • ResidualStyle representation (driver as residual vs population model conditioned on state/context/vehicle) independent evidence
    purpose: Isolate driver-specific signal after explaining condition/vehicle variance.
    Methodological construct in baseline suite; falsifiable via re-ID/leakage metrics on held-out drivers.
  • Rule-generated six-class maneuver-event layer (276,248 events) with audited lane-change hard negatives independent evidence
    purpose: Provide corpus-level behavior statistics and optional forecasting/explanation evaluation.
    Annotation product of hand-tuned rules + human audit; external check is the reported precision tables.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 27651 in / 4199 out tokens · 85509 ms · 2026-07-30T11:16:45.145452+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Driving style captures stable, driver-specific patterns in how a vehicle is driven. In naturalistic data, however, this signal is hard to isolate because drivers are observed in different vehicles, on different roads, and under different conditions, so models may mistake vehicle- or situation-specific regularities for driver-specific style. We introduce DriveDNA, a large-scale naturalistic dataset and benchmark for personalized driving-style modeling, comprising 4,121 drives from 465 drivers across 115 vehicle models and totaling 975 hours of human-controlled driving at 10 Hz with forward video, collected from community drivers in everyday use. DriveDNA defines driving style as a consistent, driver-specific behavioral pattern in how a vehicle moves under similar conditions. The benchmark evaluates this signal through three core tasks: few-shot driver re-identification, personalized behavior prediction, and condition-matched comparison, and provides behavioral annotations plus 276,248 rule-generated maneuver events across six classes with large-scale human auditing. We evaluate baselines spanning classical descriptors, supervised and self-supervised time-series encoders, multimodal fusion, probabilistic prediction, and zero-shot foundation models under a fixed multi-seed protocol. Learned representations substantially outperform classical descriptors on unseen drivers (AUROC .935 vs. .707) and retain driver-specific information under matched driving conditions, while descriptor performance approaches chance. Video-only models achieve comparable re-identification accuracy but exhibit severe route leakage, showing that strong recognition may arise from contextual shortcuts rather than driving behavior. These findings show that reliable driving-style evaluation must assess both the behavioral value of learned representations and their robustness to vehicle, drive, and condition confounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23822 by Hao Zhou, Lingyao Li, Yuhang Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: DriveDNA tests the identifiability of driver-specific behavioral patterns across vehicle models and traffic conditions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: DriveDNA data collection. A windshield-mounted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: DriveDNA distribution. (a) Geographic coverage of drives with GPS from March 2023 to July 2026. (b) Driver contribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: DriveDNA is driver-disjoint, with evaluations: (1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: t-SNE map of the learned driver-style embedding space (frozen SupCon encoder; at most 60 windows per driver). (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mido Assran, Adrien Bardes, David Fan, Quentin Garrido, Russell Howes, Matthew Muckley, Ammar Rizvi, Claire Roberts, Koustuv Sinha, Artem Zho- lus, et al. 2025. V-jepa 2: Self-supervised video models enable understanding, prediction and planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09985(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, and Zesen Cheng. 2025. Qwen3-VL Technical Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Lang, Sourabh Vora, Venice Erin Liong, and Qiang Xu

    Holger Caesar, Varun Bankiti, Alex H. Lang, Sourabh Vora, Venice Erin Liong, and Qiang Xu. 2019. nuScenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.11027(2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Kashyap Chitta, Aditya Prakash, Bernhard Jaeger, Zehao Yu, Katrin Renz, and Andreas Geiger. 2022. TransFuser: Imitation with Transformer-Based Sensor Fusion for Autonomous Driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15997(2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Hongqing Chu, Hejian Zhuang, Wenshuo Wang, Xiaoxiang Na, Lulu Guo, Jia Zhang, Bingzhao Gao, and Hong Chen. 2023. A Review of Driving Style Recogni- tion Methods From Short-Term and Long-Term Perspectives.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles8, 11 (2023), 4599–4612

    2023

  6. [6]

    comma.ai. 2024. openpilot: an open source advanced driver assistance system. https://github.com/commaai/openpilot

    2024

  7. [7]

    comma.ai. 2026. comma: In-Vehicle Devices for Running openpilot. https:// comma.ai/. Accessed: 2026-07-25

    2026

  8. [8]

    Jiankang Deng, Jia Guo, Jing Yang, Niannan Xue, Irene Kotsia, and Stefanos Zafeiriou. 2018. ArcFace: Additive Angular Margin Loss for Deep Face Recogni- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07698(2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Xiaoru Dong, Ruiqin Li, Xiao Han, Zhenxuan Wu, Jiamin Wang, Jian Chen, Qi Jiang, SM Yiu, Xinge Zhu, and Yuexin Ma. 2026. Driving with A Thousand Faces: A Benchmark for Closed-Loop Personalized End-to-End Autonomous Driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.18757(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Miro Enev, Alex Takakuwa, Karl Koscher, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2016. Automobile driver fingerprinting.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies(2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    Yaroslav Ganin, Evgeniya Ustinova, Hana Ajakan, Pascal Germain, Hugo Larochelle, and François Laviolette. 2015. Domain-Adversarial Training of Neural Networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.07818(2015)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumé Iii, and Kate Crawford. 2021. Datasheets for datasets. Commun. ACM64, 12 (2021), 86–92

    2021

  13. [13]

    Wichmann

    Robert Geirhos, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, Claudio Michaelis, Richard Zemel, Wieland Brendel, Matthias Bethge, and Felix A. Wichmann. 2020. Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networks.Nature Machine Intelligence2, 11 (2020), 665–673

    2020

  14. [14]

    Mononito Goswami, Konrad Szafer, Arjun Choudhry, Yifu Cai, Shuo Li, and Artur Dubrawski. 2024. MOMENT: A Family of Open Time-series Foundation Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03885(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Ruiyang Hao, Bowen Jing, Haibao Yu, and Zaiqing Nie. 2025. StyleDrive: Towards Driving-Style Aware Benchmarking of End-To-End Autonomous Driving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23982(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Georg Heigold, Ignacio Moreno, Samy Bengio, and Noam Shazeer. 2016. End-to- End Text-Dependent Speaker Verification. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). 5115–5119

    2016

  17. [17]

    Jaesung Huh, Joon Son Chung, Arsha Nagrani, Andrew Brown, Jee weon Jung, Daniel Garcia-Romero, and Andrew Zisserman. 2024. The VoxCeleb Speaker Recognition Challenge: A Retrospective.IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing(2024). doi:10.1109/TASLP.2024.3444456

    arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Itkonen, Esko Lehtonen, and Selpi

    Teemu H. Itkonen, Esko Lehtonen, and Selpi. 2020. Characterisation of Motorway Driving Style Using Naturalistic Driving Data.Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour69 (2020), 72–79. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2020.01.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trf.2020.01.003 2020

  19. [19]

    Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, and Phillip Isola. 2020. Supervised Contrastive Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.11362(2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Robert Krajewski, Julian Bock, Laurent Kloeker, and Lutz Eckstein. 2018. The highD Dataset: A Drone Dataset of Naturalistic Vehicle Trajectories on German Highways for Validation of Highly Automated Driving Systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.05642(2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Bencheng Liao, Shaoyu Chen, Haoran Yin, Bo Jiang, Cheng Wang, Sixu Yan, Xinbang Zhang, Xiangyu Li, Ying Zhang, Qian Zhang, and Xinggang Wang

  22. [22]

    Barth, and Guoyuan Wu

    Xishun Liao, Xuanpeng Zhao, Ziran Wang, Zhouqiao Zhao, Kyungtae Han, Rohit Gupta, Matthew J. Barth, and Guoyuan Wu. 2023. Driver Digital Twin for Online Prediction of Personalized Lane-Change Behavior.IEEE Internet of Things Journal 10, 15 (2023), 13235–13246. doi:10.1109/JIOT.2023.3262484

    arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Barth, Amr Abdelraouf, Rohit Gupta, Kyungtae Han, Jiaqi Ma, and Guoyuan Wu

    Xishun Liao, Zhouqiao Zhao, Matthew J. Barth, Amr Abdelraouf, Rohit Gupta, Kyungtae Han, Jiaqi Ma, and Guoyuan Wu. 2025. A Review of Personalization in Driving Behavior: Dataset, Modeling, and Validation.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles10, 2 (2025), 1241–1262. doi:10.1109/TIV.2024.3425647

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Yong Liu, Tengge Hu, Haoran Zhang, Haixu Wu, Shiyu Wang, and Lintao Ma. 2023. iTransformer: Inverted Transformers Are Effective for Time Series Forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06625(2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Nengchao Lyu, Yugang Wang, Chaozhong Wu, Lingfeng Peng, and Alieu Freddie Thomas. 2022. Using Naturalistic Driving Data to Identify Driving Style Based on Longitudinal Driving Operation Conditions.Journal of Intelligent and Connected Vehicles5, 1 (2022), 17–35. doi:10.1108/JICV-07-2021-0008

    work page doi:10.1108/jicv-07-2021-0008 2022

  26. [26]

    Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam

    Yuqi Nie, Nam H. Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam. 2022. A Time Series is Worth 64 Words: Long-term Forecasting with Transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14730(2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Maxime Oquab, Timothée Darcet, Théo Moutakanni, Huy Vo, Marc Szafraniec, and Vasil Khalidov. 2023. DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervision.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193(2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Ethan Perez, Florian Strub, Harm de Vries, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron Courville. 2017. FiLM: Visual Reasoning with a General Conditioning Layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.07871(2017)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    Xiaoyun Qiu, Jingtao He, Yijie Chen, Yusong Huang, Haotian Wang, Yixuan Wang, and Xinhu Zheng. 2026. PLAN-S: Bridging Planning with Latent Style Dynamics for Autonomous Driving World Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.06014(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Vasili Ramanishka, Yi-Ting Chen, Teruhisa Misu, and Kate Saenko. 2018. Toward Driving Scene Understanding: A Dataset for Learning Driver Behavior and Causal Reasoning. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 7699–7707. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2018.00803

    arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Mina Remeli, Szilvia Lestyan, Gergely Acs, and Gergely Biczok. 2019. Au- tomatic Driver Identification from In-Vehicle Network Logs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.09508(2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Bianchi Piccinini, and Johan Engström

    Fridulv Sagberg, Selpi, Giulio F. Bianchi Piccinini, and Johan Engström. 2015. A Review of Research on Driving Styles and Road Safety.Human Factors57, 7 (2015), 1248–1275. doi:10.1177/0018720815591313

    work page doi:10.1177/0018720815591313 2015

  33. [33]

    Harald Schafer, Eder Santana, Andrew Haden, and Riccardo Biasini. 2018. A Commute in Data: The comma2k19 Dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05752 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Vo, Maximilian Seitzer, Federico Baldassarre, Maxime Oquab, and Cijo Jose

    Oriane Siméoni, Huy V. Vo, Maximilian Seitzer, Federico Baldassarre, Maxime Oquab, and Cijo Jose. 2025. DINOv3.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10104(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard S. Zemel. 2017. Prototypical Networks for Few-shot Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.05175(2017)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Pei Sun, Henrik Kretzschmar, Xerxes Dotiwalla, Aurelien Chouard, Vijaysai Patnaik, Paul Tsui, James Guo, Yin Zhou, Yuning Chai, Benjamin Caine, et al

  37. [37]

    Michael Tschannen, Alexey Gritsenko, Xiao Wang, Muhammad Ferjad Naeem, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, and Nikhil Parthasarathy. 2025. SigLIP 2: Multilingual Vision-Language Encoders with Improved Semantic Understanding, Localization, and Dense Features.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14786(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Tselentis and Eleonora Papadimitriou

    Dimitrios I. Tselentis and Eleonora Papadimitriou. 2023. Driver Profile and Driving Pattern Recognition for Road Safety Assessment: Main Challenges and Future Directions.IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems4 (2023), 83–100. doi:10.1109/OJITS.2023.3237177

    arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. 2025. SHRP2 Naturalistic Driving Study Data Access. Online database. Accessed 2026-07-21. https://insight.shrp2nds.us/

    2025

  40. [40]

    Chuheng Wei, Ziye Qin, Siyan Li, and Ziyan Zhang. 2025. PDB: Not All Drivers Are the Same – A Personalized Dataset for Understanding Driving Behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06477(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Xiao Wen, Zhiyong Cui, and Sisi Jian. 2022. Characterizing Car-Following Behav- iors of Human Drivers When Following Automated Vehicles Using the Real-World Dataset.Accident Analysis & Prevention172 (2022), 106689. doi:10.1016/j.aap. 2022.106689

    arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Junda Wu. 2025. PDB-Eval: An Evaluation of Large Multimodal Models for Description and Explanation of Personalized Driving Behavior.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18447(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Jingbo Yang, Ruge Zhao, Meixian Zhu, David Hallac, Jaka Sodnik, and Jure Leskovec. 2020. Driver2vec: Driver Identification from Automotive Data. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Mining and Learning from Time Series (MiLeTS 2020), Co-located with KDD 2020. San Diego, California, USA

    2020

  44. [44]

    Jingbo Yang, Ruge Zhao, Meixian Zhu, David Hallac, Jaka Sodnik, and Jure Leskovec. 2021. Driver2vec: Driver Identification from Automotive Data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.05234(2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Fisher Yu, Haofeng Chen, Xin Wang, Wenqi Xian, Yingying Chen, and Fangchen Liu. 2018. BDD100K: A Diverse Driving Dataset for Heterogeneous Multitask Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04687(2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Zhihan Yue, Yujing Wang, Juanyong Duan, Tianmeng Yang, Congrui Huang, and Yunhai Tong. 2021. TS2Vec: Towards Universal Representation of Time Series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10466(2021). KDD ’27, August 2027, TBD Yuhang Wang, Lingyao Li, and Hao Zhou Appendix A Decoding and the Log-Tier Confound The fleet uploads two log tiers: a compact tier present on...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [49]

    Representation learning Time-series encoders PatchTST (joint/CI), iTransformer, SupCon/ArcFace, ProtoNet; MOMENT-1 zero-shot Modern encoders and a time-series foundation model Label-free pretraining Masked-TS SSL; JEPA-style latent-predictive SSL Value of unlabeled pretraining

  48. [50]

    Shortcut robustness Leakage control ResidualStyle, DANN, utility–leakage Pareto; video-only probe Vehicle, route, and driving-condition shortcuts

  49. [51]

    Personalization Driver conditioning FiLM few-shot ladder; query-injection variant Ways of injecting driver information

  50. [52]

    V-JEPA 2 (temporal); CLIP-style alignment; VLM attributes Appearance, motion, and semantic scene features

    Multimodal modeling Video scene information DINOv2/DINOv3/SigLIP2 (per-frame) vs. V-JEPA 2 (temporal); CLIP-style alignment; VLM attributes Appearance, motion, and semantic scene features

  51. [53]

    will a hard-braking or sharp-steering event begin within 5 s?

    Distributional prediction Probabilistic heads MDN, CVAE Uncertainty and multiple behavior modes Table 11: Every evaluated baseline and where its results ap- pear. Related variants are grouped to keep the index compact. Baseline(s) Task Reported in Representations Descriptors (anchor) re-ID, matched Tab. 3; Sec. 6.3 PatchTST, PatchTST-CI, iTransformer, Arc...

    2027

  52. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2446–2454

  53. [2025]

    InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    DiffusionDrive: Truncated Diffusion Model for End-to-End Autonomous Driving. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 12037–12047. doi:10.1109/CVPR52734.2025.01124

    arXiv 2025