Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Int2Planner: An Intention-based Multi-modal Motion Planner for Integrated Prediction and Planning

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 Int2Planner claims that route-sampled intention points, rather than static clustered anchors, improve multi-modal planning in an integrated prediction-and-planning model, and reports top nuPlan scores plus hundreds of urban driving…

desk verdict Route intention points are a sensible, well-ablated inductive bias for integrated planning, but the SOTA claim is too broad and the 4 m query-grid coverage is never validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12799 v1 pith:GOQC747V submitted 2025-01-22 cs.RO

Xiaolei Chen , Junchi Yan , Wenlong Liao , Tao He , Pai Peng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords autonomousdrivingmotionplanningintegratedpredictionandrouteintentionpointsmulti-modaltransformerdecodernuPlanbenchmarkreal-worlddeployment
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

Int2Planner's central claim is that the uncertainty in ego motion planning is best constrained by intention points sampled from the route path, not by static or clustered anchor points. The paper argues that because the ego vehicle always follows a route to a destination, its possible short-term goals lie on that route, so sampling candidate goals every 4 meters along primary and secondary routes yields a more useful multi-modal planning space. In an integrated prediction-and-planning transformer, each route intention point initializes a query that produces one candidate trajectory with a confidence score. On the private dataset and the nuPlan Val14 and Test14-hard benchmarks, the route-intention design outperforms clustered intentions and reaches state-of-the-art planning scores, and a real-vehicle deployment drove hundreds of kilometers in urban areas. A sympathetic reader would care because route-conditioned goal sampling is a simple, cheap inductive bias that could apply to any route-following planner.

What carries the argument

The central object is the route intention point set $G_{EA}$, containing $N_q$ points sampled at equal distance intervals along primary and secondary route polylines. Each intention point is embedded by an MLP into a planning intention query, used as position embedding in a transformer decoder that performs self-attention and cross-attention over context and route embeddings. The decoder's output is concatenated with route content and mapped by an MLP into a planning trajectory and confidence score per intention point, with K iterative refinements. This machinery lets route information enter twice: as route embedding through a Route Attention module and as goal queries that anchor multi-modal trajectory proposals.

What would settle it

In the released validation set, compute for every ground-truth ego trajectory endpoint the distance to the nearest sampled route intention point; a substantial share of endpoints farther than $4$ m from all intention points would show that the fixed sampling grid cannot cover the trajectories the planner is asked to produce.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that replacing static or clustered intention anchors with route intention points improves multi-modal motion planning in a joint prediction-and-planning model. The ego vehicle's route provides stable short-term destinations, so intention points are sampled from primary and secondary route polylines at a fixed distance interval $d_r = 4$ m with $N_q = 64$, rather than computed by K-means on ground-truth endpoints. Each point initializes a planning intention query in a transformer decoder; the decoder refines trajectories over K iterations and outputs a candidate trajectory and confidence per intention point. The paper's experiments show that route intention points beat cluster intention points on both planning and prediction metrics, that including secondary routes adds useful alternatives when the primary route is blocked, and that the full model achieves the best overall score among purely learning-based planners on nuPlan Test14-hard.

Load-bearing premise

The route intention points, sampled every 4 meters from the route, are assumed to lie close enough to every reasonable ego path that the model can still represent and select the right trajectory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Route-conditioned goal sampling can replace K-means cluster anchors in transformer-based planners without losing multi-modal coverage, while removing irrelevant targets.
  • Sampling from secondary as well as primary routes gives the planner explicit alternatives for blocked or congested primary-route maneuvers.
  • Jointly training prediction and planning in one decoder improves planning metrics compared with planning-only training, because surrounding-agent predictions inform ego trajectory selection.
  • Adding light rule-based post-processing to the learned multi-modal outputs further lifts closed-loop scores, so the learned planner and classical safety checks are complementary.
  • The planner can be deployed in real vehicles using the highest-confidence trajectory as the control reference, with the caveat the authors state that top confidence is not always optimal in complex scenes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same route-intention idea could carry over to predicting other agents whose routes are known, such as vehicles with active navigation, shrinking the prediction query set to route-relevant goals rather than scene-wide clusters.
  • Editorial inference: the fixed 4-meter sampling could be made adaptive by spacing intention points according to local curvature, traffic-light positions, or reachable-area boundaries, potentially reducing $N_q$ while keeping coverage.
  • Editorial inference: the confidence distribution over route intention points is itself a compact explainable signal, because where the mass concentrates tells a human operator which route-level behavior the planner is committing to, and it could be exposed in a monitoring interface.
  • Editorial inference: because the authors acknowledge that the highest-confidence trajectory is not always optimal, a natural testable extension is a second-stage selector that scores candidate trajectories by interaction-aware metrics rather than learned confidence alone.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Int2Planner, a transformer-based integrated motion prediction and planning model for autonomous driving. For the ego vehicle, a set of 'route intention points' is sampled at a fixed interval along the primary and secondary route polylines; these points initialize query embeddings in a multi-modal trajectory decoder that outputs one planning trajectory per intention point, along with confidence scores. The same decoder is shared for multi-agent trajectory prediction. The method is evaluated on the closed-loop nuPlan benchmark (Val14 and Test14-hard) and on a large private dataset, with ablations comparing route intention points against K-means-derived cluster intention points and isolating the effect of integrated prediction. The authors also report real-vehicle tests covering hundreds of kilometers in urban areas.

Significance. The paper makes a credible case that route-constrained intention points are a better inductive bias for ego planning than static, globally clustered anchors, which is of practical relevance for learning-based planners. The planned release of a large private dataset and code is a positive step for reproducibility. However, the empirical evidence as presented is not yet sufficient to support the strongest claims: the sampling-grid coverage is unexamined, the open-loop planning metrics are under-specified, the ablation for intention-point type is confounded by scene-conditioning, and the claimed state-of-the-art results require qualification. The manuscript would benefit from targeted additional experiments and clarifications.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3, Eq. (4); §4 Implementation Details] The route intention points are sampled at a fixed interval dr = 4 m with Nq = 64, but the paper never reports how far ground-truth planning endpoints are from the nearest sampled intention point on the validation set, nor does it ablate dr or Nq. Since the loss assigns the positive mode as the intention point closest to the GT endpoint (Loss Function paragraph), any GT endpoint that is far from every grid point is assigned to a poorly conditioned mode and the decoder is forced to extrapolate beyond its query. The closed-loop and real-vehicle deployment then selects the highest-confidence trajectory (Section 5), so an uncovered endpoint can directly cause a poor commitment. Please report the GT-to-nearest-intention-point distance distribution on the validation set and include ablations over dr (e.g., 2, 4, 8 m) and Nq (e.g., 32, 64, 128) to establish that the reported gains are not an artifact of the specific grid.
  2. [§4 Datasets and Metrics; Tables 2 and A2] The planning ADE/FDE metrics are not defined. It is unclear whether they are measured on the highest-confidence mode, the best-of-N mode (minimum over the 64 outputs), or the mode corresponding to the intention point closest to the GT endpoint. This matters because the closed-loop and real-vehicle policies use the highest-confidence trajectory, while the open-loop numbers may reflect a different selection rule. Please specify the metric definitions and report both best-mode and confidence-selected planning ADE/FDE.
  3. [§4 Ablation Study; Table 3] The comparison between cluster intention (CI) and route intention (RI) does not control for scene-conditioning. CI uses global K-means centers of GT endpoints, which are identical for all scenes, whereas RI anchors are re-sampled from the per-scene route. The observed improvement could therefore be attributed to the anchors being scene-conditional and route-constrained rather than to the specific route-sampling scheme. Please add a baseline with a matched number of scene-conditioned anchors (e.g., lane-center samples or per-scene projected cluster centers) to isolate the contribution of the route-based sampling.
  4. [§4 Main Results; Table 1; Abstract] The abstract's claim that 'Int2Planner achieves state-of-the-art performance' is not supported by the full results. On the Val14 benchmark in Table 1, the best Int2Planner variant (0.8385 overall) is below PDM-Hybrid (0.8967) and only on par with PlanTF (0.8360); the top score is achieved only on Test14-hard. Moreover, the comparison in Table 1 mixes models with different training data sizes and post-processing, and the private-dataset evaluation in Table 2 includes a single baseline (GameFormer). Please qualify the SOTA claim to the specific benchmark (Test14-hard relative to the compared planners) and expand the number of baselines on the private dataset.
  5. [All experimental tables; especially Tables 4-6] No error bars or multiple-seed runs are reported for any table. The differences in Tables 4-6 are small (e.g., NR-CL 0.6784 vs 0.6971 for integrated prediction), so it is possible that the reported improvements are within run-to-run noise. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three random seeds for the main results and ablations, and state whether the differences are statistically significant.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'avaliable' should be 'available'; additionally, the sentence 'we construct Int2Planner, an Intention-based Integrated motion Planner achieves multi-modal planning' is grammatically incomplete and should be reworded.
  2. [References] The references Hu et al. 2023a and Hu et al. 2023b appear to be the same paper (identical title and venue) and should be merged into a single citation.
  3. [§4 Implementation Details] There are missing spaces in several places, e.g., 'useth = 15' and 'tf = 50future'; these should be corrected for readability.
  4. [Figure 1] The caption lists subfigures (a)-(d), but the data flow between the modules is not explained in the text; a short walk-through of the figure would greatly improve readability.
  5. [Real-world Vehicle Test] The qualitative claims of 'safe and reasonable planning trajectories' would be more convincing with quantitative safety indicators, such as the number of take-overs or a breakdown by scenario type.
  6. [Table A1] There is a typo in the table: 'PDM-Hybird' should be 'PDM-Hybrid'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the planning network is supervised by held-out GT trajectories and evaluated externally; route intention points are geometric samples, not fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that route-conditioned intention points improve integrated prediction and planning. This is tested by training a supervised transformer (L1 regression on GT trajectories plus cross-entropy on confidence scores, with the positive intention point selected as closest to the GT endpoint following Shi et al. 2022) and by comparing against clustered intention points on both a held-out private validation set and the nuPlan Val14/Test14-hard closed-loop benchmarks. The route intention points of Eq. (4) are equidistant geometric samples along primary and secondary route polylines, not parameters fitted to the target metric; the reported ADE/FDE and closed-loop scores are therefore not equal, by construction, to any input quantity. The MTR-style closest-point positive assignment does create an expected coupling between an intention point and the trajectory trained for that mode, and the qualitative statement that the selected point is close to the planned endpoint is a consistency check rather than independent evidence of endpoint coverage; the unvalidated 4 m grid is a real coverage risk but is a correctness concern, not a circularity. Citations to the authors' prior work (e.g., HDGT, DriveAdapter) appear in related-work or baseline contexts and are not load-bearing for the claimed result. The acknowledged limitation that the highest-confidence trajectory is not necessarily optimal is an honest statement about mode selection, not a hidden circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are hyperparameters of the route intention sampling and decoder, chosen by hand or ablation. The axioms are standard domain assumptions for learning-based planners plus the closest-point supervision heuristic.

free parameters (3)
  • route intention sampling interval dr = 4 meters
    Chosen by hand; determines the resolution of multi-modal coverage along the route.
  • number of intention points Nq = 64
    Set to 64; with dr=4m this covers roughly 256 meters of route, but the choice is not derived from route length.
  • decoder iterations K = 6
    Selected from ablation (K=6 vs K=1,2,3,9); affects final performance.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The route path is available and reliable as a conditioning signal for the ego vehicle
    The method requires route polylines (Eq. 3) and assumes they represent reasonable future intentions; in real deployment the route comes from an external rule-based routing planner.
  • ad hoc to paper The intention point closest to the GT trajectory endpoint is the correct mode for supervision
    Training selects the positive point by L2 distance (Loss Function section), following MTR. This heuristic is not validated against alternative mode assignment rules.
  • domain assumption Closed-loop nuPlan simulation scores and ADE/FDE on human-driven trajectories are valid proxies for planning quality
    The central evidence is simulated or offline; real-world tests are qualitative and supervised by safety operators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Int2Planner: An Intention-based Multi-modal Motion Planner for Integrated Prediction and Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOQC747V

@misc{pith2026250112799,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Int2Planner: An Intention-based Multi-modal Motion Planner for Integrated Prediction and Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOQC747V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12799}
}
read the original abstract

Motion planning is a critical module in autonomous driving, with the primary challenge of uncertainty caused by interactions with other participants. As most previous methods treat prediction and planning as separate tasks, it is difficult to model these interactions. Furthermore, since the route path navigates ego vehicles to a predefined destination, it provides relatively stable intentions for ego vehicles and helps constrain uncertainty. On this basis, we construct Int2Planner, an \textbf{Int}ention-based \textbf{Int}egrated motion \textbf{Planner} achieves multi-modal planning and prediction. Instead of static intention points, Int2Planner utilizes route intention points for ego vehicles and generates corresponding planning trajectories for each intention point to facilitate multi-modal planning. The experiments on the private dataset and the public nuPlan benchmark show the effectiveness of route intention points, and Int2Planner achieves state-of-the-art performance. We also deploy it in real-world vehicles and have conducted autonomous driving for hundreds of kilometers in urban areas. It further verifies that Int2Planner can continuously interact with the traffic environment. Code will be avaliable at https://github.com/cxlz/Int2Planner.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12799 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall framework of Int2Planner. (a) denotes the Context Encoder module, which encodes agent states and HD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Explanation of route intention points sampling. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results. (a)-(d) Primary and secondary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of planning confidence score. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Real-world tests in urban areas. The front view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S.; Fong, W

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

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Casas, S.; Luo, W.; and Urtasun, R. 2018. Intentnet: Learning to predict intention from raw sensor data. In Conference on Robot Learning, 947--956. PMLR

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Casas, S.; Sadat, A.; and Urtasun, R. 2021. MP3: A Unified Model To Map, Perceive, Predict and Plan. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 14403--14412

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Cheng, J.; Chen, Y.; Mei, X.; Yang, B.; Li, B.; and Liu, M. 2023. Rethinking Imitation-based Planner for Autonomous Driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10443

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Dauner, D.; Hallgarten, M.; Geiger, A.; and Chitta, K. 2023. Parting with Misconceptions about Learning-based Vehicle Motion Planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07962

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

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

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Fang, L.; Jiang, Q.; Shi, J.; and Zhou, B. 2020. Tpnet: Trajectory proposal network for motion prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6797--6806

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Gilles, T.; Sabatini, S.; Tsishkou, D.; Stanciulescu, B.; and Moutarde, F. 2022. GOHOME: Graph-oriented heatmap output for future motion estimation. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 9107--9114

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Gu, J.; Sun, C.; and Zhao, H. 2021. DenseTNT: End-to-end Trajectory Prediction from Dense Goal Sets. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 15283--15292

    2021

  2. [10]

    Hagedorn, S.; Hallgarten, M.; Stoll, M.; and Condurache, A. 2023. Rethinking Integration of Prediction and Planning in Deep Learning-Based Automated Driving Systems: A Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05731

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hallgarten, M.; Stoll, M.; and Zell, A. 2023. From Prediction to Planning With Goal Conditioned Lane Graph Traversals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07753

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hu, M.; Liao, Y.; Wang, W.; Li, G.; Cheng, B.; and Chen, F. 2017. Decision tree-based maneuver prediction for driver rear-end risk-avoidance behaviors in cut-in scenarios. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Hu, Y.; Yang, J.; Chen, L.; Li, K.; Sima, C.; Zhu, X.; Chai, S.; Du, S.; Lin, T.; Wang, W.; Lu, L.; Jia, X.; Liu, Q.; Dai, J.; Qiao, Y.; and Li, H. 2023 a . Planning-Oriented Autonomous Driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogniti...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Hu, Y.; Yang, J.; Chen, L.; Li, K.; Sima, C.; Zhu, X.; Chai, S.; Du, S.; Lin, T.; Wang, W.; Lu, L.; Jia, X.; Liu, Q.; Dai, J.; Qiao, Y.; and Li, H. 2023 b . Planning-Oriented Autonomous Driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogniti...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Huang, Z.; Liu, H.; and Lv, C. 2023. GameFormer: Game-theoretic Modeling and Learning of Transformer-based Interactive Prediction and Planning for Autonomous Driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05760

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    L.; and Li, H

    Jia, X.; Gao, Y.; Chen, L.; Yan, J.; Liu, P. L.; and Li, H. 2023 a . DriveAdapter: Breaking the Coupling Barrier of Perception and Planning in End-to-End Autonomous Driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 7953--7963

    2023

  9. [17]

    Jia, X.; Wu, P.; Chen, L.; Liu, Y.; Li, H.; and Yan, J. 2023 b . Hdgt: Heterogeneous driving graph transformer for multi-agent trajectory prediction via scene encoding. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

    2023

  10. [18]

    Jiang, B.; Chen, S.; Xu, Q.; Liao, B.; Chen, J.; Zhou, H.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, W.; Huang, C.; and Wang, X. 2023. VAD: Vectorized Scene Representation for Efficient Autonomous Driving. ICCV

    2023

  11. [19]

    Li, J.; Dai, B.; Li, X.; Li, C.; and Di, Y. 2017. A real-time and predictive trajectory-generation motion planner for autonomous ground vehicles. In 2017 9th International Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics (IHMSC), volume 2, 108--113

    2017

  12. [20]

    Li, K.; Eiffert, S.; Shan, M.; Gomez-Donoso, F.; Worrall, S.; and Nebot, E. 2021. Attentional-GCNN: Adaptive pedestrian trajectory prediction towards generic autonomous vehicle use cases. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 14241--14247

    2021

  13. [21]

    Lin, L.; Li, W.; Bi, H.; and Qin, L. 2022. Vehicle Trajectory Prediction Using LSTMs With Spatial–Temporal Attention Mechanisms. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 14(2): 197--208

    2022

  14. [22]

    Liu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Fang, L.; Jiang, Q.; and Zhou, B. 2021. Multimodal motion prediction with stacked transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 7577--7586

    2021

  15. [23]

    Mo, X.; Huang, Z.; Xing, Y.; and Lv, C. 2022. Multi-Agent Trajectory Prediction With Heterogeneous Edge-Enhanced Graph Attention Network. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(7): 9554--9567

    2022

  16. [24]

    S.; and Sapp, B

    Nayakanti, N.; Al-Rfou, R.; Zhou, A.; Goel, K.; Refaat, K. S.; and Sapp, B. 2023. Wayformer: Motion forecasting via simple & efficient attention networks. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2980--2987

    2023

  17. [25]

    L.; Ling, J.; Roelofs, R.; Bewley, A.; Liu, C.; Venugopal, A.; Weiss, D

    Ngiam, J.; Vasudevan, V.; Caine, B.; Zhang, Z.; Chiang, H.-T. L.; Ling, J.; Roelofs, R.; Bewley, A.; Liu, C.; Venugopal, A.; Weiss, D. J.; Sapp, B.; Chen, Z.; and Shlens, J. 2022. Scene Transformer: A unified architecture for predicting future trajectories of multiple agents. ...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Nilsson, J.; Ali, M.; Falcone, P.; and Sj \"o berg, J. 2013. Predictive manoeuvre generation for automated driving. In 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 418--423

    2013

  19. [27]

    Renz, K.; Chitta, K.; Mercea, O.-B.; Koepke, A.; Akata, Z.; and Geiger, A. 2022. Plant: Explainable planning transformers via object-level representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14222

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Rhinehart, N.; McAllister, R.; Kitani, K.; and Levine, S. 2019. Precog: Prediction conditioned on goals in visual multi-agent settings. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2821--2830

    2019

  21. [29]

    Sadat, A.; Casas, S.; Ren, M.; Wu, X.; Dhawan, P.; and Urtasun, R. 2020. Perceive, predict, and plan: Safe motion planning through interpretable semantic representations. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 414--430. Springer

    2020

  22. [30]

    Schmerling, E.; Leung, K.; Vollprecht, W.; and Pavone, M. 2018. Multimodal probabilistic model-based planning for human-robot interaction. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 3399--3406

    2018

  23. [31]

    Shi, S.; Jiang, L.; Dai, D.; and Schiele, B. 2022. Motion transformer with global intention localization and local movement refinement. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 6531--6543

    2022

  24. [32]

    Sun, Q.; Huang, X.; Gu, J.; Williams, B.; and Zhao, H. 2022. M2i: From factored marginal trajectory prediction to interactive prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 6543--6552

    2022

  25. [33]

    Treiber, M.; Hennecke, A.; and Helbing, D. 2000. Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations. Physical review E, 62(2): 1805

    2000

  26. [34]

    Van Hoek, R.; Ploeg, J.; and Nijmeijer, H. 2021. Cooperative Driving of Automated Vehicles Using B-Splines for Trajectory Planning. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 6(3): 594--604

    2021

  27. [35]

    S.; Nayakanti, N.; Cornman, A.; Chen, K.; Douillard, B.; Lam, C

    Varadarajan, B.; Hefny, A.; Srivastava, A.; Refaat, K. S.; Nayakanti, N.; Cornman, A.; Chen, K.; Douillard, B.; Lam, C. P.; Anguelov, D.; and Sapp, B. 2022. Multipath++: Efficient information fusion and trajectory aggregation for behavior prediction. In 2022 International Conf...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Xie, G.; Gao, H.; Huang, B.; Qian, L.; and Wang, J. 2018. A driving behavior awareness model based on a dynamic Bayesian network and distributed genetic algorithm. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 11(1): 469--482

    2018

  29. [37]

    Xie, G.; Gao, H.; Qian, L.; Huang, B.; Li, K.; and Wang, J. 2017. Vehicle trajectory prediction by integrating physics-and maneuver-based approaches using interactive multiple models. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 65(7): 5999--6008

    2017

  30. [38]

    Ye, M.; Cao, T.; and Chen, Q. 2021. TPCN: Temporal point cloud networks for motion forecasting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 11318--11327

    2021

  31. [39]

    Ye, T.; Jing, W.; Hu, C.; Huang, S.; Gao, L.; Li, F.; Wang, J.; Guo, K.; Xiao, W.; Mao, W.; Zheng, H.; Li, K.; Chen, J.; and Yu, K. 2023. Fusionad: Multi-modality fusion for prediction and planning tasks of autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01006

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zhao, H.; Gao, J.; Lan, T.; Sun, C.; Sapp, B.; Varadarajan, B.; Shen, Y.; Shen, Y.; Chai, Y.; Schmid, C.; Li, C.; and Anguelov, D. 2021. TNT: Target-driven Trajectory Prediction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Robot Learning, volume 155, 895--904

    2021

  33. [41]

    Zhou, Z.; Wang, J.; Li, Y.-H.; and Huang, Y.-K. 2023. Query-centric trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 17863--17873

    2023

  34. [42]

    , " * 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...

  35. [43]

    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.