A Computationally Efficient Model for Pedestrian Motion Prediction

arXiv:1803.04702v1 [] 13 Mar 2018

Ivo Batkovic1,2 , Mario Zanon1 , Nils Lubbe3 , and Paolo Falcone1

Abstract— We present a mathematical model to predict
pedestrian motion over a finite horizon, intended for use in
collision avoidance algorithms for autonomous driving. The
model is based on a road map structure, and assumes a rational
pedestrian behavior. We compare our model with the stateof-the art and discuss its accuracy, and limitations, both in
simulations and in comparison to real data.

I. I NTRODUCTION
In recent years, autonomous driving has received increased
research attention [1], [2], where the main expected benefits
include increased safety and efficiency. The first autonomous
driving applications will be in structured and easy-to-predict
environments such as highway driving and low-speed parking [3], [4]. Arguably, urban scenarios are among the most
challenging ones, due to the presence of a large amount of
human road users. However, only little research attention has
been devoted to deriving models able to predict the stochastic
behavior of non-cooperative agents such as human-driven
cars, cyclists, and pedestrians.
This paper targets the modeling of pedestrian motion in
structured environments, with the aim of using the predicted
future pedestrian position in collision-avoidance algorithms.
We assume that safety-enforcing strategies manage non road
code abiding situations. Therefore, the model is required to
accurately predict road code abiding behaviors especially
over short horizons. Moreover, since the computations need
to be done in the vehicle, a low computational complexity is
necessary. Fig.1 shows an example how predicted pedestrian
positions can be used for collision avoidance.
Several motion prediction models have been developed
based on a variety of different approaches and for different purposes. In [5] a model based on switching between
linearizations of a unicycle is used for short prediction
horizons up to 2 s. In [6], hybrid models are used to describe
human gaits in order to switch between different dynamics.
Situational awareness is introduced on top of switching
dynamical models to anticipate changes in pedestrian intent
in [7]. Still, this approach has only been applied over short
prediction horizons.
We would like to thank Dr. Landgraf and Dr. Erbsmehl from the
Fraunhofer Institute for Transportation and Infrastructure Systems IVI, in
Dresden, Germany, for the pedestrian dataset. This work was supported by
the Wallenberg Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP), and
by the COPPLAR project (VINNOVA. V.P. Grant No. 2015-04849).
1 Ivo Batkovic, Mario Zanon and Paolo Falcone are with the
Mechatronics group at the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Chalmers
University
of
Technology,
Gothenburg,
Sweden
{ivo.batkovic,mario.zanon,falcone}@chalmers.se
2 Ivo Batkovic is also with the research department at Zenuity AB
3 Nils Lübbe is with the research department at Autoliv Development
AB nils.lubbe@autoliv.com

t1

t2

t3
t3

Road
Sidewalk
Crosswalk

t2
t1

Fig. 1. Example of predicted pedestrian regions (red circles) that the car
needs to avoid while driving to ensure safety.

Other approaches where underlying dynamical models
were learned using Gaussian processes [8] give accurate
predictions for longer time horizons. Predicting motion
patterns from data observations also shows improvement
in accuracy [9]. However, these approaches have a high
computational complexity [10].
Social force models predict behavior of several agents and
their interactions. This enables predicting agent movements
in crowded environments [11], [12], [13]. The dynamics are
often modeled using potential functions to attract or repel the
agent from different goals or other agents. However, such
methods have been developed for different purposes than
autonomous driving and their applicability to traffic scenarios
seems limited.
Other methods are based on predefined goals for agents.
Modeling agents as moving stochastically along the shortest
paths towards these goals leads to accurate long-term predictions [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. This framework incorporates
environmental constraints, e.g regions to avoid or impenetrable objects. In order to obtain the future trajectories, one
needs to solve a reinforcement learning (RL) problem, and
then sample the learned policy.
This paper aims to provide predictions for collisionavoidance algorithms, therefore we are interested in prediction horizons up to a few seconds. We propose to combine
the use of simple strategies, similarly to what has been used
in [5], with references related to the road geometry, similarly
to the approach used in [17]. Our aim is to benefit from the
increased accuracy for longer horizons while maintaining the
computational complexity as low as possible. While beyond
the scope of this paper, we stress that our approach can be
easily combined with situation awareness models, such as
those proposed in [7].
This paper is structured as follows. In Section II we
introduce the mathematical model. We compare our model
to the one proposed in [17] in simulations in Section III and
versus real data in Section IV. Over short horizons up to 10 s
we obtain a comparable accuracy for the two models. Finally,
we draw conclusions and outline future research directions
in Section V.

d1

l1

l2

d3

discretization with sampling time ts to obtain the discretetime model

d2

xk+1 = Axk + Buk + ck + wk ,
Road
Sidewalk
Crosswalk

l3

d4

l4

d5

l5

d6

Fig. 2. Example of an intersection: the colored sections refer to different
parts of the road; the white circles and the black center lines (li ) depict the
nodes and edges of the graph. The black lines around the nodes refer to the
distance di when the transition between different edges occurs.

II. P EDESTRIAN M ODEL
Pedestrian models to be used for safe autonomous driving
need to be computationally efficient but at the same time
sufficiently accurate without being overly conservative. In
the following, we first introduce the proposed model and
subsequently discuss its benefits and limitations.
A. Mathematical Model
Our model relies on a map of the road configuration,
including sidewalks and zebra crossings. All areas where
the pedestrian is expected to walk is split into a graph of
connected edges, defined so as to yield a connected graph
which covers all pedestrian areas of the map. Each edge has
an associated reference r = [ rx ru ]> which is related to
the center line of the walking strip. An example of a map is
given in Fig. 2.
We model the pedestrian using states x ∈ R4 , controls
u ∈ R2 and process noise w ∼ N (0, W ) ∈ R4 , defined as

 x 

w
x


 wy 
 y 
a


u :=
,
w := 
x := 
 wv  ,
 v ,
ω
θ
wθ

where we denote the position coordinates in the absolute
reference frame as x, y and the velocity in direction θ
as v. The acceleration and angular velocity are defined
respectively as a and ω. This state representation was used
as it explains the physical states at a given time instant. One
can alternatively consider lower or higher order models e.g.
having the velocity or the jerk as control input.
With the chosen representation, the dynamics are described by the unicycle equations

 

ẋ
v cos θ
 ẏ   v sin θ 
 
 + w =: f (x, u) + w.
ẋ = 
(1)
 v̇  = 

a
ω
θ̇
However, for simplicity, we linearize the dynamics around
the reference r of each edge and use a zero-order hold

(2)

where the affine term ck accounts for the fact that we
linearize the system on a feasible trajectory rather than a
steady-state. Note that the model we propose is similar to
the one used in [5], with the difference that in our case the
system dynamics are linearized around the reference rather
than the current state.
In reality, even starting from identical initial conditions,
each pedestrian will follow a different trajectory, depending
on its own preferences, on the environment, and on the presence of other pedestrians. Such phenomena are impossible
to model in detail, and the error introduced by linearization
is expected to have a marginal effect on the accuracy of
the model. Indeed, our model aims at predicting average
behaviors and the covariance of the uncertain trajectories,
rather than the behavior of every single pedestrian. In this
view, the control u is used to capture the average behavior,
while the process noise w introduces uncertainty in the
model in the attempt to predict the covariance of the future
position deviation from the average.
We compute the input as the linear feedback
u = −K(x − rx ).

(3)

Because it is intuitive to tune and understand, we design the
feedback matrix K using a linear quadratic regulator (LQR)
formulation penalizing the deviation from the reference:
> 


∞ 
X
Q S
xk − rxk
xk − rxk
min
(4a)
uk − ru
uk − ru
S> R
x,u
k
k
k=0

s.t. x0 = x̂0 ,

(4b)

xk+1 = Axk + Buk .

(4c)

Using the closed-loop model, we define AK = A − BK
and compute the prediction of average x̄ := E[x] and
covariance P := E[xx> ] as
x̄k+1 = AK xk ,

Pk+1 = AK Pk A>
K + W.

(5)

The proposed approach allows us to predict the future
behavior while remaining on one edge. In order to transition
between different edges, we use the simple rule that, once the
pedestrian is sufficiently close to the final node of the edge,
the dynamics are propagated along all neighboring edges. In
particular, the switch occurs when ∆d ≤ d, with
∆d = (x − rx ) cos(rθ ) + (y − ry ) sin(rθ ).
Clearly, other criteria could be used. Yet, our approach is
simple, and as it will be shown, reasonably accurate.
If more than one edge has a starting node corresponding to
the final node of the current edge, i.e. there is a bifurcation,
then we propagate the pedestrian predictions along all these
edges. This corresponds to assuming that new pedestrians are
generated instantaneously at the end of each edge. While this
carries no physical meaning, it allows us to make sure that

10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-10

-5

0

5

10

Fig. 3. General intersection. Red points are goals used for the method in
[17], whereas the purple lines are the reference paths and the black tangent
lines to the circles refer to the minimum distance where switching to new
references occurs for our method. The red ellipses correspond to the 99percentile uncertainty, and the blue lines are the prediction average.

we do account for all possible directions the pedestrian might
take.
The tuning parameters of the proposed LQR-based model
are the stage cost matrices Q, S, R, the process noise
covariance W and the distance to the final node d. The
main advantages of the LQR-based model are the computational simplicity, its intuitive tuning parameters, and its
flexibility (since no expensive pre-computation is necessary
for different road configurations). The main drawback of
the model in its proposed form is that we are able to only
predict “nominal”, or road code-abiding behavior. However,
the model can easily be combined with previous work from
[7] to e.g. predict the intent of a pedestrian and add edges
to the graph if the possibility of a non-standard behavior is
detected. Future research will focus on such extensions of
the model.
III. S IMULATIONS AND Q UALITATIVE C OMPARISON
In order to motivate the use of the proposed model, we
compare our model (5) to the model proposed in [17] in
simulations. While other prediction approaches have been
developed, we use [17] as a baseline for comparison because,
similar to our approach, it uses a model for a stochastic
prediction of the pedestrian motion. In contrast to [17],
we did not aim at developing long-term motion prediction
to study human behavior, but at providing computationally
inexpensive short-term predictions.
The model used in [17] is based on RL and uses a
unicycle pedestrian model and a semantic map of costs for a
stochastic state feedback policy. The presence of bifurcations
is handled by introducing goals in the map where the
pedestrian is assumed to be willing to go. Given position
(and eventually orientation) measurements, a particle filter
estimates the probability that the pedestrian will go to each
of the available goals. The motion prediction consists in a
two-step computation: (a) the RL problem is solved offline
once in order to learn the value function for each goal and
state, and (b) starting from the current state, the stochastic
pedestrian motion is online approximated by sampling based
on simulations performed using the policy associated to
the learned value function. The tuning parameters of the
algorithm are: (a) the cost associated with each region of the
map, (b) the discount factor γ, and (c) parameter α which

Fig. 4. Predicted motion for the RL-based model [17] (left plot) and the
LQR-based model (right plot). Sampled trajectories are displayed in yellow,
mean positions are displayed as blue lines, 99-percentile confidence ellipses
are displayed in red and the initial state and goal are displayed as green and
red asterisks respectively. Note that the covariance ellipses are only drawn
for certain time steps in order to improve visibility in the figures.

Fig. 5. Scenario yielding conservative naive covariance estimates. The
color coding matches the one of Fig. 4.

is related to the inverse of the policy covariance. For more
details on the algorithm we refer to [17].
We consider the simple intersection scenario displayed
in Fig. 3, where reference paths (purple lines) connect
goals depicted as red asterisks. We generate predictions
for the two methods starting from the initial state x0 =
[−3.5, −10, 1, π/2]> . In the right plot of Fig. 3 we display
the 20 s prediction obtained with our model.
In Fig. 4 we focus on the goal g = [10, 3.5]> . The results
of the RL-based model are displayed in the left plot and
those obtained with the proposed model are displayed in
the right plot. Note that we display only trajectories for the
given goal to simplify visual inspection of the simulation
results. The predicted mean state is similar, but the predicted
covariance shows a different behavior: for the RL method,
its size reduces when approaching corners, while for our
method it does not. This difference is based on different use
of costs in the feedback policies and reflects the simpler
representation of the environment in our approach. We
believe that this difference is too small to have practical
implications. Furthermore, our estimation is conservative for
collision avoidance algorithms, and will not lead to harm.
A major difference between the two approaches occurs
when the shortest path towards a given goal is not unique,
i.e the road structure is symmetric. Our method handles the
bifurcation by branching the prediction in multiple outcomes,
whereas the RL method predicts a single multimodal stochastic trajectory. Therefore, a naive covariance computation
is bound to yield very conservative estimates, as shown

Fig. 7. Intersection map. The notations match the ones of Fig. 3. The
transparent blue lines show the measured pedestrian trajectories from the
dataset.

where xt+k is the τ steps-ahead predicted position at time t,
and xmeas
t+k is the corresponding measure. The average error
in x is then computed as
N T −τ

XX
1
Êx (τ ) =
Ex,i (t, τ ).
N (T − τ ) i=1 t=1

(7)

The average error Êy (τ ) is defined equivalently. The `2 error
is then computed as
q
(8)
Ê(τ ) = Êx2 (τ ) + Êy2 (τ ).

Fig. 6.

Intersection and sensor setup.

in Fig. 5. While this problem can be solved by either
postprocessing the sampling results or by introducing intermediate goals wherever bifurcations can occur, both remedies
increase the computational complexity of the algorithm.
Lastly, the flexibility of the RL method is limited by the
need of computing a value function for every single road
configuration. Any changes of the tuning parameters require
the same time computations to be redone.
In this section we compared our model to a state-of-the art
model [17]. In the next section, we evaluate the two methods
based on data from a pedestrian crossing.
IV. VALIDATION AGAINST R EAL DATA
We use measurements of pedestrians walking near an
intersection in Dresden, Germany, displayed in Fig. 6 and
7. The data was captured using an IR camera that was
placed in a high position, overlooking the intersection and
its sidewalks, while recording at 52 frames per second.
The estimation of the pedestrian position was performed by
the Fraunhofer Institute for Transportation and Infrastructure
Systems IVI in Dresden, Germany, using similar methods
and setup as in [19].
The dataset consists of 46 trajectories: 29 crossing the
street and 17 remain on the side walks.
A. Error Metric
We evaluate the accuracy of the model in terms of predicted average and covariance errors. The prediction error
for a given trajectory i in the dataset, at time t is
Ex,i (t, τ ) = xmeas
t+τ − xt+τ ,

(6)

The covariance for a time horizon τ is computed using Ex
and Ey for all time steps t and trajectories i.
To compare the predicted covariance matrices with the
ones obtained from the predicted errors, we use two metrics:
(a) the Frobenius norm of the difference
N T −τ

XX
1
||P (t, τ )meas − Pi (t, τ )||F ,
N (T − τ ) i=1 t=1
(9)
and (b) the size difference
∆F (τ ) =

∆Λ (τ ) =

N T −τ

XX
1
Λ(t, τ )meas − Λi (t, τ ), (10)
N (T − τ ) i=1 t=1

where || · ||F denotes the Frobenius norm, Pi (t, τ ) is the
τ steps-ahead predicted covariance of scenario i at time t,
P (t, τ )meas is the corresponding measured covariance given
the errors, and Λi and Λmeas are the corresponding products
of eigenvalues.
Our LQR-based model propagates all possible bifurcations
and the RL-based model propagates trajectories associated
with all goals. In order to obtain a sensible error evaluation,
when deploying the two approaches we prune all solutions
which take different turns than the measured trajectory.
B. Results
We implemented the algorithms in MATLAB using a
sampling time ts = 0.1 s for both methods.
For the RL-based method, since parameter α can be easily
tuned, we used values α ∈ [20, 50, 100, 1000]. The discount
factor and the cost, instead, need to be tuned together. Since
tuning them is not very intuitive and requires one to wait for
long computations to run, we did not fine-tune them. The
discount factor was set to γ = 0.99, whereas the classes:
road, sidewalk and crosswalk had the rewards Rr = −3,

TABLE I
RUNTIME BETWEEN ALGORITHMS AVERAGED OVER 1000 ITERATIONS .
τ
LQR
RL

50
6.6 ms
1.19 s

100
9.3 ms
2.14 s

150
14.7 ms
3.39 s

200
19.5 ms
4.31 s

20
15
10
5
0

Rsw = −1 and Rcw = −1 respectively. The goals placed
in the map had rewards set to Rg = 0. The state space was
discretized into 20 cm by 20 cm grid cells, and the action
space into 24 different directions.
For the LQR-based method we used

-5
10

15

20

10

15

20

10

15

20

10

15

20

Q = q · diag(1 1 1 1), R = r · diag(1 1), S = 0

to tune the controller, and W = 0.3·diag(0.1 0.1 0.1 π/180)
as process noise. The ratio between q and r was initially
set to 10 and then progressively reduced to 1, 0.1 and,
finally 0.02. Also for the LQR we did not fine-tune the
cost beyond these tuning steps and the process noise was set
once for early simulations and never tuned further. Future
research should establish formal methods to identify model
parameters systematically through learning or identification
methods.
Fig. 8 illustrates the comparison between the LQR-model
and the RL-model while plotted against a measured pedestrian trajectory. The predicted motion is similar between the
methods, however, the RL-model predicts a motion closer
to the edges of the intersection. Our model on the other
hand propagates more conservative uncertainty ellipses in
comparison to the RL-model for the current model parameters. Fig. 9 shows an example of a non road code abiding
trajectory. Because our method is not designed to predict
such situations, it predicts that the pedestrian will cross the
road closer to the zebra crossing. As time evolves, however,
new measurements improve the prediction. Ideally, an intent
prediction algorithm should deliver the information that the
pedestrian is likely to violate the road code, such that a new
edge can be added to our graph for the considered pedestrian.
Fig. 10 shows the average `2 error across different prediction horizons in the dataset. As expected, the error increases
with longer prediction horizons. It is visible from the figure,
that the average error grows less rapidly in the LQR-based
approach.
Fig. 11 displays the second error metric, i.e. the Frobenius
norm of the difference between the predicted covariance and
the measured covariance. Also for this second metric, we
notice that the error increases with longer horizons. One
can note that the RL-based method has a smaller error for
short horizons. However, while the RL-based model slightly
underestimates the covariance, the LQR-based approach
slightly overestimates it, as shown in Fig. 12. Increasing
time-varying process noise could improve the quality of the
covariance estimate, and future research should investigate
these opportunities.
Finally, the actual runtime of the algorithms is decisive
for implementation in autonomous driving applications. Both
models were implemented in MATLAB. Neither the RL

Fig. 8. Predicted motion for the LQR-based model (top plot) and the RLbased model (bottom plot). The color coding matches the one of Fig. 4.
The dotted black line represents the measured pedestrian motion, and the
black asterisks in the top plot indicate when switching of reference occurs
for the LQR-based model.
20
15
10
5
0
-5
15

20

25

15

20

25

15

20

25

15

20

25

Fig. 9. Predicted motion of the LQR method under different times t. The
color scheme matches the one of Fig. 8.

nor the LQR implementations were optimized. The runtime
comparison is therefore only indicative for the intended use
in real-time automotive environments. The algorithms were
timed by running 1000 simulations with four different prediction horizons. We evaluated the runtime using 100 samples
for the RL-based method. From the results presented in Table
I, the RL-based method has substantially longer runtimes.
Moreover, the LQR timings include the evaluation of the
covariance, while the RL timings refer to the evaluation of
the samples and do not include the computation of mean,
covariance, nor the handling of situations such as the one
depicted in Fig. 5.
Finally, we also compared our model versus a unicycle
model which, at every time instant, is linearized around the
current predicted average state. This substantial increase in
complexity led only to a small improvement in the error
metrics.
V. CONCLUSIONS
We presented a prediction model for pedestrian motions
based on simple graph representation of the road geometry.

2.5

10

=20
=50
=100
=1000
10:1 Q/R
1:1 Q/R
1:10 Q/R
1:50 Q/R

2.25
2
1.75
1.5
1.25
1

=20
=50
=100
=1000
10:1 Q/R
1:1 Q/R
1:10 Q/R
1:50 Q/R

9
8
7
6
5
4
3

0.75

2

0.5
1

0.25
0

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

-1
0

Fig. 10.

Performance in terms of `2 error.

=20
=50
=100
=1000
10:1 Q/R
1:1 Q/R
1:10 Q/R
1:50 Q/R

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

1

2

Fig. 11.

3

4

5

6

7

8

2

Fig. 12.

10
9

1

9

10

Covariance error measured by ∆F .

Our LQR-based model had an accuracy comparable to a
current state-of-the-art RL-model, but with a substantially
lower runtime, and a much higher flexibility, since no value
function needs to be pre-computed for each road segment.
Future research will aim at further improving the promising
performance for use in collision avoidance algorithms in automated driving. The results are limited to nominal behavior
of single pedestrians not interacting with the environment.
The combination of our model with intent prediction algorithms is expected to significantly improve the accuracy of
the predictions. Finally, future work will learn or identify the
tuning parameters of the model based on real data.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Ziegler, P. Bender, M. Schreiber, H. Lategahn, T. Strauss, C. Stiller,
T. Dang, U. Franke, N. Appenrodt, C. G. Keller, et al., “Making bertha
drive - an autonomous journey on a historic route,” IEEE Intelligent
Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 8–20, 2014.
[2] S. Thrun, M. Montemerlo, H. Dahlkamp, D. Stavens, A. Aron,
J. Diebel, P. Fong, J. Gale, M. Halpenny, G. Hoffmann, et al., “Stanley:
The robot that won the darpa grand challenge,” Journal of field
Robotics, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 661–692, 2006.
[3] K. Kompass, M. Schratter, and T. Schaller, “Active safety towards
highly automated driving,” in Automated Driving. Springer, 2017,
ch. 15, pp. 371–386.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Covariance error measured by ∆Λ .

[4] J. Becker, M.-B. A. Colas, S. Nordbruch, and M. Fausten, “Boschs
vision and roadmap toward fully autonomous driving,” in Road vehicle
automation. Springer, 2014, pp. 49–59.
[5] N. Schneider and D. M. Gavrila, “Pedestrian path prediction with recursive bayesian filters: A comparative study,” in German Conference
on Pattern Recognition. Springer, 2013, pp. 174–183.
[6] A. Bissacco and S. Soatto, “Hybrid dynamical models of human
motion for the recognition of human gaits,” International journal of
computer vision, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 101–114, 2009.
[7] J. F. P. Kooij, N. Schneider, F. Flohr, and D. M. Gavrila, “Contextbased pedestrian path prediction,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2014, pp. 618–633.
[8] D. Ellis, E. Sommerlade, and I. Reid, “Modelling pedestrian trajectory
patterns with gaussian processes,” in IEEE International Conference
on Computer Vision, 2009, pp. 1229–1234.
[9] Y. F. Chen, M. Liu, S.-Y. Liu, J. Miller, and J. P. How, “Predictive
modeling of pedestrian motion patterns with bayesian nonparametrics,”
in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2016, p.
1861.
[10] C. G. Keller and D. M. Gavrila, “Will the pedestrian cross? a
study on pedestrian path prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 494–506, 2014.
[11] D. Helbing, I. Farkas, and T. Vicsek, “Simulating dynamical features
of escape panic,” Nature, vol. 407, no. 6803, pp. 487–490, 2000.
[12] S. Pellegrini, A. Ess, K. Schindler, and L. Van Gool, “You’ll never
walk alone: Modeling social behavior for multi-target tracking,” in
IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2009, pp. 261–
268.
[13] K. Yamaguchi, A. C. Berg, L. E. Ortiz, and T. L. Berg, “Who are you
with and where are you going?” in IEEE Conference on Computer
Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2011, pp. 1345–1352.
[14] A. F. Foka and P. E. Trahanias, “Predictive autonomous robot navigation,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots
and Systems, vol. 1, 2002, pp. 490–495.
[15] K. M. Kitani, B. D. Ziebart, J. A. Bagnell, and M. Hebert, “Activity
forecasting,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer,
2012, pp. 201–214.
[16] D. Xie, S. Todorovic, and S.-C. Zhu, “Inferring” dark matter” and”
dark energy” from videos,” in IEEE International Conference on
Computer Vision, 2013, pp. 2224–2231.
[17] V. Karasev, A. Ayvaci, B. Heisele, and S. Soatto, “Intent-aware
long-term prediction of pedestrian motion,” in IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2016, pp. 2543–2549.
[18] A. Y. Ng and S. J. Russell, “Algorithms for inverse reinforcement
learning,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2000,
pp. 663–670.
[19] C. T. Erbsmehl, T. Landgraf, and H. Yuasa, “Animal street crossing
behavior - an in-depth field study for the identification of animal street
crossing behaviour using the aimats-methodology,” in International
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 2017.

