Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper identifies a critical mismatch in trajectory forecasting for autonomous driving, where models are trained using a winner-take-all loss that leads to uninformative posteriors over forecast modes. By introducing two post-hoc treatments鈥攖est-time posterior-weighted merging and a one-step expectation-maximization update鈥攖he authors enhance the quality of mode probabilities without the need for retraining. The results show that these adjustments yield more informative and accurately ranked mode posteriors, significantly improving forecasting performance on standard metrics.
Uninformative mode probabilities in trajectory forecasting can be transformed into robust predictions with simple post-hoc adjustments, enhancing model performance without retraining.
Trajectory forecasting for autonomous driving has advanced rapidly, yet representative models often produce uninformative posteriors over forecast modes, causing problems for mode pruning. We trace this to a modeling-training mismatch: forecasters are typically modeled as conditional Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) but trained with a winner-take-all (WTA) loss that assigns each sample to its nearest mode. We argue that this K-means-like hard assignment (one-hot), while preventing mode collapse, is the source of uninformative mode probabilities: it over-segments the trajectory space, ignores relatedness among nearby modes, and yields assignment instability under small perturbations. Guided by this lens, we introduce two post-hoc treatments: (1) test-time posterior-weighted merging that aggregates nearby candidate trajectories; and (2) a one-step expectation-maximization (EM) update that replaces hard labels with soft responsibilities, sharing probability mass across neighboring modes. Across several WTA-trained architectures, these lightweight steps produce more informative, faithfully ranked mode posteriors and strengthen final forecasts on popular displacement metrics -- without retraining. Our analysis unifies recent design choices through a GMM-vs-K-means perspective and offers principled, practical corrections that better align training objectives with inference.
Stanford HAI