Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Control-ITRA: Controlling the Behavior of a Driving Model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Control-ITRA shows that conditioning a human-like driving simulator on waypoints and target speeds yields controllable, realistic, largely infraction-free behavior in known and unseen locations.

desk verdict A useful engineering extension of ITRA for waypoint and speed conditioning, but the 'infraction-free' claim overreaches and the waypoint visibility limitation is under-tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12408 v1 pith:25J6LGAA submitted 2025-01-17 cs.AI cs.LGcs.ROcs.SYeess.SYstat.ML

Vasileios Lioutas , Adam Scibior , Matthew Niedoba , Berend Zwartsenberg , Frank Wood This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LGcs.ROcs.SYeess.SYstat.ML
keywords drivingsimulationbehaviorcontrolwaypointconditioningtargetspeedmulti-agenttrajectorypredictionbirdviewrasterizationconditionalvariationalrecurrentnetworkautonomousscenariogeneration
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

This paper tries to establish that a learned multi-agent driving simulator can be made controllable without losing human-like realism. The authors extend ITRA, a variational recurrent driving model that perceives the world through egocentric birdview images, by conditioning each agent on a sequence of waypoints and on a target speed. They introduce a training scheme that mixes conditioned and unconditioned steps and a waypoint sampler that places goals at variable spatial distances instead of always at the end of the segment. In four-second and eight-second evaluations on the training distribution, conditioned agents reach waypoints and target speeds with high probability (up to 0.99 in the best four-second case) while maintaining near-zero collision rates. In unseen TorchDriveEnv locations, the waypoint-conditioned model reaches more waypoints and earns higher return than four reinforcement-learning baselines, supporting the paper's claim that scenario control and realism can coexist.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the egocentric, ego-rotated birdview raster that ITRA uses as its observation space: waypoints become brown circles placed at their world coordinates in this image, and the agent sees only its currently active waypoint, which lets a single learned vision backbone convert 'reach that point' into steering and acceleration. Target-speed conditioning is carried by FiLM-style blocks that compute per-layer scale and shift from the target speed and the recurrent hidden state, with an unconditional mode obtained by setting scale to 1 and shift to 0. The two training-condition samplers are equally central: Algorithm 2 samples waypoints at random spatial distances along the ground-truth ego track, and Algorithm 3 samples target-speed conditions at random time increments. Together they prevent the model from learning to satisfy conditions only at the end of the training segment, which the paper shows causes unrealistic rushing at longer horizons.

What would settle it

Run Control-ITRA on a route whose first waypoint is placed outside the initial birdview and confirm whether reach rate drops; alternatively, on a long straight road, condition the agent to hold 90 km/h and compare the target-speed reach percentage with the paper's Table 5, which already reports near-zero reach at that speed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that waypoint and target-speed conditioning can be added to a real-data driving model without sacrificing realism or safety. Waypoints are drawn as circles directly in the ego-centric birdview, so the CNN perceives the goal spatially; a waypoint counts as reached when the agent comes within radius $R=2.0$ m. Target speeds are injected through FiLM-style affine transformations computed from the target speed and the recurrent state, and a target speed counts as reached when within $\epsilon_v=1.0$ km/h. The paper shows that a model trained with conditions switched on with probability $p_C$ behaves realistically both with and without conditions, and that the condition sampler matters: using the last ground-truth state as the condition works at the four-second horizon but degrades sharply at eight seconds, while the proposed distance-based sampler preserves realism. The out-of-domain TorchDriveEnv results report higher average return and more waypoints reached for Control-ITRA than SAC, PPO, TD3, and A2C, with lower off-road and collision rates in the multi-agent setting.

Load-bearing premise

The approach assumes that drawing a waypoint as a circle in the agent's limited egocentric birdview is enough to convey the goal, so a waypoint that has not yet entered the field of view gives the model no signal; it also assumes the training data contains enough examples of the target speeds users request, which the paper's own results show is false for high speeds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can build scenarios by placing waypoints anywhere on the map, not only on a lane graph, and the agent will steer toward them while keeping human-like motion.
  • Target speed can act as an indirect aggressiveness dial: lower targets yield cautious driving and higher targets raise collision tendency, so safety-testing scenarios can be generated by speed setting alone.
  • Because the same network is trained with and without conditions, one model can serve both scripted agents and free-running background traffic.
  • Data-driven imitation with condition sampling is a practical alternative to reinforcement learning for controllable agents in this benchmark, producing longer episodes and smoother driving than the tested RL baselines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Long-horizon waypoint control likely needs an explicit memory or planning mechanism, because a waypoint outside the agent's limited birdview is invisible until it enters the view; the current design inherits that blind spot.
  • The near-zero reach rates for 70-110 km/h targets suggest that high-speed controllability is limited more by data sparsity and road geometry than by the conditioning architecture, so augmenting the training set with high-speed traffic is a direct next step.
  • The 'last timestep' artifact, where conditioning on the final state makes the model rush at longer horizons, is a general pitfall for any goal-conditioned trajectory model trained from fixed-length segments; checking reach at multiple horizons should be standard.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Control-ITRA, an extension of the ITRA multi-agent driving behavior model that adds two conditioning mechanisms: waypoint following, implemented by rendering target waypoints as circles in the ego-centric birdview, and target speed conditioning, implemented by FiLM-like affine transformations of intermediate features. Training conditions are sampled from ground-truth trajectories using two procedures (Algorithms 2 and 3). The model is trained on a large multi-country drone-collected dataset and evaluated on in-distribution validation segments and on out-of-domain TorchDriveEnv scenarios. The paper reports condition reach rates and realism/infraction metrics, and compares against standard RL baselines.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to controllable traffic simulation: the waypoint rendering idea is simple and integrates naturally with rasterized birdview models, and the conditional training scheme could be transferred to other goal-conditioned trajectory models. Strengths include the clear algorithmic exposition, the scale of the training data, the out-of-domain evaluation in TorchDriveEnv, and the comparison to RL baselines. The main limitations are that the claims are broader than the evidence: infraction-free behavior is not achieved in the tables, high-speed target control is weak, and waypoint conditioning only works for visible waypoints.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Section 5] The abstract and conclusion claim the method generates 'infraction-free trajectories,' but all evaluation tables report nonzero infraction rates. For example, Table 3 (single-agent, waypoint condition) reports offroad rate 0.20 and traffic light violation rate 0.17; Table 4 (multi-agent) reports collision rate 0.11 and offroad rate 0.02; Table 5 reports collision rates up to 0.41 at high target speeds. The claim should be revised to 'reduced infraction rates' or a formal definition of the infraction-free subset should be given, with the corresponding metrics.
  2. [Section 3.3] Waypoint conditioning is only conveyed by a circle rendered in the ego-centric birdview. As the paper states, 'the limited field of view ... enables the agent to act unconditionally until a waypoint enters its vicinity.' Consequently, a waypoint outside the finite rendering range is not part of the observation and there is no latent goal memory. The evaluation does not cover this regime: Algorithm 2 samples waypoints from the ground-truth future track of the same segment, so conditioned waypoints are on the human's path and typically within view; the TorchDriveEnv experiments do not report waypoint spacing. The claim of controllability for arbitrary user-specified waypoints therefore remains unsubstantiated for sparse or distant waypoints. Please either add a goal-memory mechanism or explicitly scope the contribution to waypoints that enter the birdview.
  3. [Section 4.2 / Table 5] Target speed control degrades sharply at high speeds. With conditioning, target speed reach percentages are 5.0% at 70 km/h and 0.6% at 110 km/h in the single-agent setting, and even lower in the multi-agent setting. Figure 2 shows that high-speed instances are rare in the training data. The paper acknowledges this, but the abstract's claim of 'target speed modulation' as a control mechanism is still too broad. Please specify the speed range over which the mechanism is effective and temper the aggressiveness claim accordingly.
  4. [Section 4.2 / Tables 3 and 4] All reported metrics are point estimates without confidence intervals or significance tests. The comparisons against SAC, PPO, TD3, and A2C are based on 20 traffic initializations per location and 4 sampled rollouts per initialization, but no variance is reported. The statement that Control-ITRA 'outperforms' the RL baselines is not statistically supported. Please add error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, or at least report the standard deviation across initializations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 2] If no timestep tc satisfies the distance constraint (e.g., when dr is very small), the algorithm may loop indefinitely or return a degenerate waypoint; the authors should specify the behavior in that case.
  2. [Section 4.1] The miss rate definition ('distance from prediction to ground truth is higher than 2 meters') does not specify whether this is evaluated per agent, per timestep, or per trajectory; please clarify the aggregation.
  3. [Section 4] The paper does not state whether the Control-ITRA code will be released; providing the implementation or at least the hyperparameters for all experiments would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 1] The waypoint circles are difficult to distinguish in the example birdviews; consider adding a zoomed-in view or higher-contrast markers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Control-ITRA's conditioning mechanisms and evaluations are independent of the quantities they predict.

full rationale

The paper's contribution is empirical rather than formal, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction. Waypoint conditioning is implemented by rendering waypoint circles into ITRA's ego-centric birdview (Section 3.3), and target-speed conditioning by FiLM modulation (Section 3.4); neither mechanism is defined in terms of the reported reach rates. Training waypoints are sampled along ground-truth ego tracks (Algorithm 2), but the in-distribution experiments (Tables 1 and 2) measure whether the model reaches externally given conditions: the condition is an input, not a predicted output, so high reach rates are a controllability measurement rather than a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The out-of-domain TorchDriveEnv evaluations (Tables 3-5) use externally supplied waypoints and target speeds, providing independent support for the central claim. Self-citations to ITRA (Scibior et al., 2021) and TorchDriveEnv (Lavington et al., 2024) involve overlapping authors, but both are prior published artifacts used as base model and benchmark, not as a uniqueness theorem or as a way to forbid alternatives. The paper also honestly reports limitations, such as poor high-speed reach in Table 5 and Figure 2, which indicates the evaluation is not constructed to force the claimed result. No equation in the paper equates a prediction with a training condition by construction, and the waypoint field-of-view limitation is a scope issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The training recipe rests on several hand-set constants (R, epsilon_v, pC, sampling ranges) and on domain assumptions about birdview representation and data coverage. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Waypoint reach radius R = 2.0
    Defines when a waypoint condition is considered reached (Equation 9) and is used both in training and in the reported waypoint reach rate.
  • Target speed tolerance epsilon_v = 1.0
    Defines when a target speed condition is considered reached (Equation 12) and directly determines the target speed reach percentage.
  • Conditioning probability pC = not reported
    Algorithm 1 enables conditioning with probability pC, but the paper does not state its value, so the exact training recipe is underspecified.
  • Waypoint sampling range dmin, dmax and maximum count N = not reported
    Algorithm 2 uses these to choose spatial waypoint density during training; their values are not given, and they likely affect generalization to user-specified waypoints.
  • Target speed sampling time increments delta_tmin, delta_tmax = not reported
    Algorithm 3 uses these to choose temporal spacing of speed conditions during training; the paper does not report them.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The standard ELBO and variational inference objective is a valid training target for the conditional model.
    Section 3.1 reuses the ITRA ELBO without new proof; the paper does not introduce a new bound.
  • domain assumption Rasterized egocentric birdview images with waypoint circles are a sufficient representation for conveying spatial goals to the policy.
    Section 3.3 renders waypoints into the birdview and conditions the policy on that raster, assuming the goal is learnable from the image features.
  • domain assumption The proprietary multi-country dataset is representative enough for conditional driving behavior, including rare high speeds.
    Figure 2 shows high-speed examples are scarce, and Table 5 shows high-speed target reach is low, so this assumption is only partially satisfied.
  • ad hoc to paper Waypoints that cannot be reached safely may be ignored.
    Section 3.3 explicitly permits ignoring unsafe waypoints, meaning controllability is not guaranteed for all possible user inputs.
  • ad hoc to paper Target speed is a valid indirect proxy for driving aggressiveness.
    Section 3.4 motivates target speed as an indirect aggressiveness control but provides no direct validation that aggressiveness changes beyond speed itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Control-ITRA: Controlling the Behavior of a Driving Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/25J6LGAA

@misc{pith2026250112408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Control-ITRA: Controlling the Behavior of a Driving Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/25J6LGAA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12408}
}
read the original abstract

Simulating realistic driving behavior is crucial for developing and testing autonomous systems in complex traffic environments. Equally important is the ability to control the behavior of simulated agents to tailor scenarios to specific research needs and safety considerations. This paper extends the general-purpose multi-agent driving behavior model ITRA (Scibior et al., 2021), by introducing a method called Control-ITRA to influence agent behavior through waypoint assignment and target speed modulation. By conditioning agents on these two aspects, we provide a mechanism for them to adhere to specific trajectories and indirectly adjust their aggressiveness. We compare different approaches for integrating these conditions during training and demonstrate that our method can generate controllable, infraction-free trajectories while preserving realism in both seen and unseen locations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12408 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example ego-centric and ego-rotated birdview representations from various locations in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of speed values in the collected human-traffic training dataset compared to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Mirror Learning

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning a video diffusion model to perform cross-view perspective transfer, then labeling the generated first-person videos with an inverse dynamics model, yields behavior-cloning data that improves driving policies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Comparison of markov chain abstraction and monte carlo simulation for the safety assessment of autonomous cars

    Matthias Althoff and Alexander Mergel. Comparison of markov chain abstraction and monte carlo simulation for the safety assessment of autonomous cars. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 12 0 (4): 0 1237--1247, 2011. doi:10.1109/TITS.2011.2157342

    work page arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Real time trajectory prediction for collision risk estimation between vehicles

    Samer Ammoun and Fawzi Nashashibi. Real time trajectory prediction for collision risk estimation between vehicles. In 2009 IEEE 5th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing, pp.\ 417--422, 2009. doi:10.1109/ICCP.2009.5284727

    work page arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    A set of control points conditioned pedestrian trajectory prediction

    Inhwan Bae and Hae-Gon Jeon. A set of control points conditioned pedestrian trajectory prediction. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 37 0 (5): 0 6155--6165, Jun. 2023. doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i5.25759. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/25759

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i5.25759 2023

  4. [4]

    Model-based threat assessment for avoiding arbitrary vehicle collisions

    Mattias Brännström, Erik Coelingh, and Jonas Sjöberg. Model-based threat assessment for avoiding arbitrary vehicle collisions. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 11 0 (3): 0 658--669, 2010. doi:10.1109/TITS.2010.2048314

    work page arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Implicit latent variable model for scene-consistent motion forecasting

    Sergio Casas, Cole Gulino, Simon Suo, Katie Luo, Renjie Liao, and Raquel Urtasun. Implicit latent variable model for scene-consistent motion forecasting. In Andrea Vedaldi, Horst Bischof, Thomas Brox, and Jan-Michael Frahm (eds.), Computer Vision -- ECCV 2020, pp.\ 624--641, Cham, 2020. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-030-58592-1

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Multipath: Multiple probabilistic anchor trajectory hypotheses for behavior prediction

    Yuning Chai, Benjamin Sapp, Mayank Bansal, and Dragomir Anguelov. Multipath: Multiple probabilistic anchor trajectory hypotheses for behavior prediction. In Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Danica Kragic, and Komei Sugiura (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning, volume 100 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp.\ 86--99. PMLR, 30 Oct--01 N...

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Editing driver character: Socially-controllable behavior generation for interactive traffic simulation

    Wei-Jer Chang, Chen Tang, Chenran Li, Yeping Hu, Masayoshi Tomizuka, and Wei Zhan. Editing driver character: Socially-controllable behavior generation for interactive traffic simulation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8 0 (9): 0 5432--5439, 2023. doi:10.1109/LRA.2023.3291897

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    SAFE-SIM: Safety-Critical Closed-Loop Traffic Simulation with Diffusion-Controllable Adversaries, pp.\ 242–258

    Wei-Jer Chang, Francesco Pittaluga, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Wei Zhan, and Manmohan Chandraker. SAFE-SIM: Safety-Critical Closed-Loop Traffic Simulation with Diffusion-Controllable Adversaries, pp.\ 242–258. Springer Nature Switzerland, October 2024. ISBN 9783031726644. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72664-4_14. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72664-4_14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72664-4_14 2024

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Courville, and Yoshua Bengio

    Junyoung Chung, Kyle Kastner, Laurent Dinh, Kratarth Goel, Aaron C. Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. A recurrent latent variable model for sequential data. In Neural Information Processing Systems, 2015. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1594370

    2015

  2. [10]

    Multimodal trajectory predictions for autonomous driving using deep convolutional networks

    Henggang Cui, Vladan Radosavljevic, Fang-Chieh Chou, Tsung-Han Lin, Thi Nguyen, Tzu-Kuo Huang, Jeff Schneider, and Nemanja Djuric. Multimodal trajectory predictions for autonomous driving using deep convolutional networks. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Autom...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Modeling anger and aggressive driving behavior in a dynamic choice–latent variable model

    Mazen Danaf, Maya Abou-Zeid, and Isam Kaysi. Modeling anger and aggressive driving behavior in a dynamic choice–latent variable model. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 75: 0 105--118, 2015. ISSN 0001-4575. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.11.012. URL https://www.science...

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Uncertainty-aware short-term motion prediction of traffic actors for autonomous driving

    Nemanja Djuric, Vladan Radosavljevic, Henggang Cui, Thi Nguyen, Fang-Chieh Chou, Tsung-Han Lin, NITIN SINGH, and Jeff Schneider. Uncertainty-aware short-term motion prediction of traffic actors for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applica...

    2020

  5. [13]

    CARLA : An open urban driving simulator

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, German Ros, Felipe Codevilla, Antonio Lopez, and Vladlen Koltun. CARLA : An open urban driving simulator. In Sergey Levine, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Ken Goldberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Robot Learning, volume 78 of Proceedings of M...

    2017

  6. [14]

    Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods

    Scott Fujimoto, Herke van Hoof, and David Meger. Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods. In Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Resear...

    2018

  7. [15]

    Vista: A generalizable driving world model with high fidelity and versatile controllability

    Shenyuan Gao, Jiazhi Yang, Li Chen, Kashyap Chitta, Yihang Qiu, Andreas Geiger, Jun Zhang, and Hongyang Li. Vista: A generalizable driving world model with high fidelity and versatile controllability. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Densetnt: End-to-end trajectory prediction from dense goal sets

    Junru Gu, Chen Sun, and Hang Zhao. Densetnt: End-to-end trajectory prediction from dense goal sets. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp.\ 15303--15312, October 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Waymax: An accelerated, data-driven simulator for large-scale autonomous driving research

    Cole Gulino, Justin Fu, Wenjie Luo, George Tucker, Eli Bronstein, Yiren Lu, Jean Harb, Xinlei Pan, Yan Wang, Xiangyu Chen, John D Co-Reyes, Rishabh Agarwal, Rebecca Roelofs, Yao Lu, Nico Montali, Paul Mougin, Zoey Zeyu Yang, Brandyn White, Aleksandra Faust, Rowan Thomas McAlli...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Soft actor-critic algorithms and applications

    Tuomas Haarnoja, Aurick Zhou, Kristian Hartikainen, George Tucker, Sehoon Ha, Jie Tan, Vikash Kumar, Henry Zhu, Abhishek Gupta, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Soft actor-critic algorithms and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05905, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Multi-modal motion prediction with transformer-based neural network for autonomous driving

    Zhiyu Huang, Xiaoyu Mo, and Chen Lv. Multi-modal motion prediction with transformer-based neural network for autonomous driving. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp.\ 2605--2611, 2022. doi:10.1109/ICRA46639.2022.9812060

    2022

  12. [20]

    Scenediffuser: Efficient and controllable driving simulation initialization and rollout

    Chiyu Max Jiang, Yijing Bai, Andre Cornman, Christopher Davis, Xiukun Huang, Hong Jeon, Sakshum Kulshrestha, John Wheatley Lambert, Shuangyu Li, Xuanyu Zhou, Carlos Fuertes, Chang Yuan, Mingxing Tan, Yin Zhou, and Dragomir Anguelov. Scenediffuser: Efficient and controllable dr...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Switched kalman filter-interacting multiple model algorithm based on optimal autoregressive model for manoeuvring target tracking

    Biao Jin, Bo Jiu, Tao Su, Hongwei Liu, and Gaofeng Liu. Switched kalman filter-interacting multiple model algorithm based on optimal autoregressive model for manoeuvring target tracking. IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation, 9 0 (2): 0 199--209, 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-...

    2015

  14. [22]

    Torchdriveenv: A reinforcement learning benchmark for autonomous driving with reactive, realistic, and diverse non-playable characters

    Jonathan Wilder Lavington, Ke Zhang, Vasileios Lioutas, Matthew Niedoba, Yunpeng Liu, Dylan Green, Saeid Naderiparizi, Xiaoxuan Liang, Setareh Dabiri, Adam Ścibior, Berend Zwartsenberg, and Frank Wood. Torchdriveenv: A reinforcement learning benchmark for autonomous driving wi...

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Sohn, Seonghyeon Moon, Sejong Yoon, Mubbasir Kapadia, and Vladimir Pavlovic

    Mihee Lee, Samuel S. Sohn, Seonghyeon Moon, Sejong Yoon, Mubbasir Kapadia, and Vladimir Pavlovic. Muse-vae: Multi-scale vae for environment-aware long term trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp.\ ...

    2022

  16. [24]

    Zeilinger

    Vasileios Lefkopoulos, Marcel Menner, Alexander Domahidi, and Melanie N. Zeilinger. Interaction-aware motion prediction for autonomous driving: A multiple model kalman filtering scheme. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6 0 (1): 0 80--87, 2021. doi:10.1109/LRA.2020.3032079

    2021

  17. [25]

    Chiu-Feng Lin and A.G. Ulsoy. Vehicle dynamics and external disturbance estimation for future vehicle path prediction. In Proceedings of 1995 American Control Conference - ACC'95, volume 1, pp.\ 155--159 vol.1, 1995. doi:10.1109/ACC.1995.529227

    1995

  18. [26]

    TITRATED : Learned human driving behavior without infractions via amortized inference

    Vasileios Lioutas, Adam Scibior, and Frank Wood. TITRATED : Learned human driving behavior without infractions via amortized inference. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=M8D5iZsnrO

    2022

  19. [27]

    Multimodal motion prediction with stacked transformers

    Yicheng Liu, Jinghuai Zhang, Liangji Fang, Qinhong Jiang, and Bolei Zhou. Multimodal motion prediction with stacked transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp.\ 7577--7586, June 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Cooperative path prediction in vehicular environments

    Panagiotis Lytrivis, George Thomaidis, and Angelos Amditis. Cooperative path prediction in vehicular environments. In 2008 11th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp.\ 803--808, 2008. doi:10.1109/ITSC.2008.4732629

    2008

  21. [29]

    It is not the journey but the destination: Endpoint conditioned trajectory prediction

    Karttikeya Mangalam, Harshayu Girase, Shreyas Agarwal, Kuan-Hui Lee, Ehsan Adeli, Jitendra Malik, and Adrien Gaidon. It is not the journey but the destination: Endpoint conditioned trajectory prediction. In Andrea Vedaldi, Horst Bischof, Thomas Brox, and Jan-Michael Frahm (eds...

    2020

  22. [30]

    From goals, waypoints & paths to long term human trajectory forecasting

    Karttikeya Mangalam, Yang An, Harshayu Girase, and Jitendra Malik. From goals, waypoints & paths to long term human trajectory forecasting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp.\ 15233--15242, October 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning

    Volodymyr Mnih, Adria Puigdomenech Badia, Mehdi Mirza, Alex Graves, Timothy Lillicrap, Tim Harley, David Silver, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning. In Maria Florina Balcan and Kilian Q. Weinberger (eds.), Proceedings of The 33rd Intern...

    1928

  24. [33]

    A diffusion-model of joint interactive navigation

    Matthew Niedoba, Jonathan Lavington, Yunpeng Liu, Vasileios Lioutas, Justice Sefas, Xiaoxuan Liang, Dylan Green, Setareh Dabiri, Berend Zwartsenberg, Adam Scibior, and Frank Wood. A diffusion-model of joint interactive navigation. In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko,...

    2023

  25. [34]

    Driver intention-based vehicle threat assessment using random forests and particle filtering

    Kazuhide Okamoto, Karl Berntorp, and Stefano Di Cairano . Driver intention-based vehicle threat assessment using random forests and particle filtering. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50 0 (1): 0 13860--13865, 2017. ISSN 2405-8963. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.2231. URL htt...

    2017 doi

  26. [35]

    Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles

    On-Road Automated Driving (ORAD) Committee . Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. Technical report, SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA, United States, 2021

    2021

  27. [36]

    Courville

    Ethan Perez, Florian Strub, Harm de Vries, Vincent Dumoulin, and Aaron C. Courville. Film: Visual reasoning with a general conditioning layer. In AAAI, 2018

    2018

  28. [37]

    Lateral Vehicle Dynamics

    Rajesh Rajamani. Lateral Vehicle Dynamics . In Rajesh Rajamani (ed.), Vehicle Dynamics and Control , Mechanical Engineering Series , pp.\ 15--46. Springer US, Boston, MA, 2012. ISBN 978-1-4614-1433-9. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1433-9_2. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1433-9_2

    2012 doi

  29. [38]

    Precog: Prediction conditioned on goals in visual multi-agent settings

    Nicholas Rhinehart, Rowan McAllister, Kris Kitani, and Sergey Levine. Precog: Prediction conditioned on goals in visual multi-agent settings. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), October 2019

    2019

  30. [39]

    Ct RL -sim: Reactive and controllable driving agents with offline reinforcement learning

    Luke Rowe, Roger Girgis, Anthony Gosselin, Bruno Carrez, Florian Golemo, Felix Heide, Liam Paull, and Christopher Pal. Ct RL -sim: Reactive and controllable driving agents with offline reinforcement learning. In 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2024. URL https://openre...

    2024

  31. [40]

    Madras : Multi agent driving simulator

    Anirban Santara, Sohan Rudra, Sree Aditya Buridi, Meha Kaushik, Abhishek Naik, Bharat Kaul, and Balaraman Ravindran. Madras : Multi agent driving simulator. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 70: 0 1517–1555, April 2021. ISSN 1076-9757. doi:10.1613/jair.1.12531. URL ...

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Imagining The Road Ahead: Multi-Agent Trajectory Prediction via Differentiable Simulation

    Adam \'Scibior, Vasileios Lioutas, Daniele Reda, Peyman Bateni, and Frank Wood. Imagining The Road Ahead: Multi-Agent Trajectory Prediction via Differentiable Simulation . In 2021 IEEE 24rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2021

    2021

  34. [43]

    Refaat, Rami Al-Rfou, and Benjamin Sapp

    Ari Seff, Brian Cera, Dian Chen, Mason Ng, Aurick Zhou, Nigamaa Nayakanti, Khaled S. Refaat, Rami Al-Rfou, and Benjamin Sapp. Motionlm: Multi-agent motion forecasting as language modeling. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). IEEE, October 2023....

    2023

  35. [44]

    Trafficsim: Learning to simulate realistic multi-agent behaviors

    Simon Suo, Sebastian Regalado, Sergio Casas, and Raquel Urtasun. Trafficsim: Learning to simulate realistic multi-agent behaviors. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, June 2021. doi:10.1109/cvpr46437.2021.01026. URL http://dx.do...

    2021

  36. [45]

    Mixsim: A hierarchical framework for mixed reality traffic simulation

    Simon Suo, Kelvin Wong, Justin Xu, James Tu, Alexander Cui, Sergio Casas, and Raquel Urtasun. Mixsim: A hierarchical framework for mixed reality traffic simulation. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023

    2023

  37. [46]

    Multiple futures prediction

    Charlie Tang and Russ R Salakhutdinov. Multiple futures prediction. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d Alch\' e -Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. URL https://proceed...

    2019

  38. [47]

    Trajectory planning and safety assessment of autonomous vehicles based on motion prediction and model predictive control

    Yijing Wang, Zhengxuan Liu, Zhiqiang Zuo, Zheng Li, Li Wang, and Xiaoyuan Luo. Trajectory planning and safety assessment of autonomous vehicles based on motion prediction and model predictive control. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 68 0 (9): 0 8546--8556, 2019. doi...

    2019

  39. [48]

    Smart: Scalable multi-agent real-time simulation via next-token prediction

    Wei Wu, Xiaoxin Feng, Ziyan Gao, and Yuheng Kan. Smart: Scalable multi-agent real-time simulation via next-token prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15677, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Goal-lbp: Goal-based local behavior guided trajectory prediction for autonomous driving

    Zhen Yao, Xin Li, Bo Lang, and Mooi Choo Chuah. Goal-lbp: Goal-based local behavior guided trajectory prediction for autonomous driving. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 25 0 (7): 0 6770--6779, 2024. doi:10.1109/TITS.2023.3342706

    2024

  41. [50]

    S-cvae: Stacked cvae for trajectory prediction with incremental greedy region

    Yuzhen Zhang, Junning Su, Hang Guo, Chaochao Li, Pei Lv, and Mingliang Xu. S-cvae: Stacked cvae for trajectory prediction with incremental greedy region. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp.\ 1--13, 2024. doi:10.1109/TITS.2024.3465836

    2024

  42. [51]

    A survey of autonomous driving frameworks and simulators

    Hui Zhao, Min Meng, Xiuxian Li, Jia Xu, Li Li, and Stephane Galland. A survey of autonomous driving frameworks and simulators. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 62: 0 102850, 2024. ISSN 1474-0346. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2024.102850. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com...

    2024

  43. [52]

    Language-guided traffic simulation via scene-level diffusion

    Ziyuan Zhong, Davis Rempe, Yuxiao Chen, Boris Ivanovic, Yulong Cao, Danfei Xu, Marco Pavone, and Baishakhi Ray. Language-guided traffic simulation via scene-level diffusion. In Jie Tan, Marc Toussaint, and Kourosh Darvish (eds.), Proceedings of The 7th Conference on Robot Lear...

    2023

  44. [53]

    Guided conditional diffusion for controllable traffic simulation

    Ziyuan Zhong, Davis Rempe, Danfei Xu, Yuxiao Chen, Sushant Veer, Tong Che, Baishakhi Ray, and Marco Pavone. Guided conditional diffusion for controllable traffic simulation. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp.\ 3560--3566, 2023 b . doi:...

    2023

  45. [54]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.