Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
2000 character limit reached

AgentFormer: Agent-Aware Transformers for Socio-Temporal Multi-Agent Forecasting

Published 25 Mar 2021 in cs.AI, cs.CV, cs.LG, cs.MA, and cs.RO | (2103.14023v3)

Abstract: Predicting accurate future trajectories of multiple agents is essential for autonomous systems, but is challenging due to the complex agent interaction and the uncertainty in each agent's future behavior. Forecasting multi-agent trajectories requires modeling two key dimensions: (1) time dimension, where we model the influence of past agent states over future states; (2) social dimension, where we model how the state of each agent affects others. Most prior methods model these two dimensions separately, e.g., first using a temporal model to summarize features over time for each agent independently and then modeling the interaction of the summarized features with a social model. This approach is suboptimal since independent feature encoding over either the time or social dimension can result in a loss of information. Instead, we would prefer a method that allows an agent's state at one time to directly affect another agent's state at a future time. To this end, we propose a new Transformer, AgentFormer, that jointly models the time and social dimensions. The model leverages a sequence representation of multi-agent trajectories by flattening trajectory features across time and agents. Since standard attention operations disregard the agent identity of each element in the sequence, AgentFormer uses a novel agent-aware attention mechanism that preserves agent identities by attending to elements of the same agent differently than elements of other agents. Based on AgentFormer, we propose a stochastic multi-agent trajectory prediction model that can attend to features of any agent at any previous timestep when inferring an agent's future position. The latent intent of all agents is also jointly modeled, allowing the stochasticity in one agent's behavior to affect other agents. Our method substantially improves the state of the art on well-established pedestrian and autonomous driving datasets.

Citations (374)

Summary

  • The paper introduces an agent-aware attention mechanism in a Transformer architecture to distinctly model features of individual agents and their interactions.
  • It unifies socio-temporal modeling by representing trajectories as a flattened sequence of agent-timestep pairs to effectively capture inter-agent influences.
  • It integrates a stochastic forecasting framework via a Conditional Variational Autoencoder, achieving notable improvements on ETH/UCY and nuScenes benchmarks.

AgentFormer: Agent-Aware Transformers for Socio-Temporal Multi-Agent Forecasting

The paper "AgentFormer: Agent-Aware Transformers for Socio-Temporal Multi-Agent Forecasting" addresses the complex task of trajectory prediction for multiple agents, focusing on enhancing the performance of autonomous systems such as self-driving vehicles. Multi-agent trajectory forecasting is inherently challenging due to the intricate interactions between agents and the associated uncertainties in predicting individual trajectories. The authors propose a novel Transformer-based model, termed AgentFormer, which aims to concurrently model the temporal and social dimensions of agent trajectories. This unified approach contrasts with prior methods that typically treat these dimensions separately.

Technical Contributions

  1. Agent-Aware Attention: The central innovation in AgentFormer is the agent-aware attention mechanism within the Transformer architecture. This mechanism enables the model to maintain distinctions between features of the same agent and features of other agents, preserving agent identities throughout the sequence modeling process. Traditional attention mechanisms in Transformers are agnostic to the identity of agents, potentially leading to information loss when applied to multi-agent scenarios. The agent-aware attention modifies how attention weights are computed, taking into account whether features belong to the same agent or different agents.
  2. Unified Socio-Temporal Modeling: By representing multi-agent trajectories in a flattened sequence of agent-timestep pairs, AgentFormer performs joint socio-temporal modeling. This design choice allows the model to consider an agent's state influence at one time and its impact on another agent's future state directly, eschewing intermediate summary steps that could obfuscate dependencies.
  3. Stochastic Forecasting Framework: Incorporating a Conditional Variational Autoencoder (CVAE) structure, AgentFormer models the latent intents of agents and infers future trajectory distributions conditioned on these intents. Importantly, the latent intents are jointly modeled, allowing for the stochasticity in one agent's behavior to potentially affect others, thereby informing a more socially coherent prediction of trajectories.
  4. Empirical Evaluation: The proposed method is evaluated on benchmarks such as the ETH/UCY pedestrian datasets and the nuScenes autonomous driving dataset. The results demonstrate that AgentFormer achieves substantial improvements over state-of-the-art methods, particularly in final displacement error, which underscores its capability for long-horizon prediction efficacy.

Implications and Future Directions

The introduction of AgentFormer provides a notable advancement in the field of trajectory forecasting, particularly for autonomous systems operating with high demands for safety and precision. By effectively capturing the temporal and social dynamics of multi-agent interactions, AgentFormer offers a tool that can potentially reduce the computational complexity and enhance the reliability of autonomous navigation systems.

Future research could explore the adaptation of AgentFormer to incorporate additional modalities of sensor data, like LiDAR and camera inputs, to improve its robustness across varied environments. Furthermore, additional study into the interpretability of attention mechanisms used within AgentFormer could yield insights into the decision-making processes of autonomous systems, enabling better safety assurances and trustworthiness in practical applications.

Overall, AgentFormer represents a sophisticated approach to multi-agent trajectory forecasting that leverages the strengths of Transformer architectures. It opens pathways for more integrated and holistic modeling strategies that can facilitate the development of intelligent, cooperative, and autonomous agents within complex and dynamic environments.

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Knowledge Gaps

Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions

Below is a concise list of unresolved issues and open research questions that future work could address to strengthen, generalize, or clarify the findings of this paper.

  • Scalability and efficiency: The attention over flattened socio-temporal sequences scales as O(N2 T(H+1)) in memory and compute. No analysis of runtime, memory footprint, or practical limits for large N, long horizons T, or long histories H; methods for efficient attention (e.g., sparse or low-rank) remain unexplored.
  • Dynamic agent sets: The formulation assumes a fixed set of N agents per scene window and flattens sequences accordingly. How the model handles agent births/deaths, missing observations, or variable N over time (padding, masking, reindexing) is not described or evaluated.
  • Permutation invariance: Agent-aware attention uses a mask based on index modulo N (i mod N = j mod N). It is unclear whether the model is truly permutation invariant to agent ordering across timesteps and between past/future sequences, or if invariance depends on consistent ordering conventions; a formal proof or empirical test is missing.
  • Connectivity modeling: The rule-based connectivity mask relies on a single distance threshold at the current time t=0 (η=100). There is no analysis of sensitivity to η, no learned or time-varying connectivity, and no modeling of non-local or delayed interactions (e.g., anticipatory interactions, gaze, intent cues).
  • Latent variable factorization: Although the paper claims “joint latent intent modeling,” both the prior and posterior factorize across agents. There is no explicit non-factorized (coupled) latent distribution over all agents. The extent to which inter-agent intent dependencies are captured solely via the decoder’s attention remains unclear; exploring coupled priors/posteriors is an open direction.
  • Autoregressive training and exposure bias: The decoder is autoregressive at inference, but training procedures (teacher forcing, scheduled sampling, beam search) are not detailed. How exposure bias affects long-horizon accuracy and social compliance is unknown.
  • Uncertainty modeling: The conditional likelihood uses an isotropic Gaussian (I/β) and evaluates with ADE/FDE only. There is no calibration assessment (e.g., NLL, CRPS), anisotropic covariance modeling, or uncertainty decomposition (aleatoric vs epistemic).
  • Diversity sampler coupling: The sampler generates per-agent latent codes via independent Gaussian noises ε_n and linear transforms {A_nk, b_nk}. It’s unclear if this suffices to capture correlated multi-agent mode configurations; modeling a joint latent distribution over all agents is not explored.
  • Semantic map usage: On ETH/UCY, maps are omitted “for fair comparisons,” but this leaves unanswered how scene semantics affect performance and generalization. On nuScenes, only local per-agent map crops (rotated to heading) are used; global context, dynamic elements (e.g., traffic signals), and map inaccuracies are not studied.
  • Heterogeneous agent interactions: Pedestrians and vehicles are evaluated separately. Mixed-type, cross-class interactions (e.g., vehicles and pedestrians in shared spaces) and role-specific attention mechanisms are not explored.
  • Physical feasibility and social compliance: The model qualitatively shows non-colliding trajectories, but quantitative metrics (collision rate, lane adherence, off-road rate, traffic-rule compliance, comfort/smoothness) are not reported.
  • Robustness to perception noise: The model assumes accurate past trajectories and headings. Robustness to detection/tracking noise, occlusions, missed observations, and asynchronous sampling is not evaluated.
  • Irregular sampling and multi-frequency data: Time encoding uses sinusoidal functions of discrete timesteps; handling irregular sampling rates or resampling across datasets (2.5 Hz ETH/UCY vs 2 Hz nuScenes) is not investigated.
  • Handling long-horizon prediction: Pedestrians are evaluated at 4.8s and vehicles at 6s. Performance beyond these horizons, degradation patterns, and strategies to stabilize long-term forecasts (e.g., hierarchical decoding) are unknown.
  • Model interpretability: Aside from a single qualitative attention visualization, there is no systematic analysis of what agent-aware attention learns (e.g., attention patterns across interaction types, reliability of attention as causal explanations).
  • Hyperparameter sensitivity: Key hyperparameters (η, d_k/d_v/d_τ, number of heads, latent dimension d_z, KL clipping to 2, sampler σ_d) lack sensitivity analysis; robustness to these choices is unclear.
  • Agent-aware attention expressivity: The design uses only two projections (intra-agent vs inter-agent). More expressive relation-specific attention (e.g., learned relation types, distance-aware, behavior states) is not investigated.
  • Learning connectivity vs masking: Connectivity is hard-coded via distance threshold and optional masking. Learning interaction graphs (e.g., via GNNs, attention scores) or integrating rule-based and learned connectivity remains an open question.
  • Training stability and convergence: Agent-aware attention involves masked operations; potential training instabilities, gradient flow issues, or convergence behavior relative to standard attention are not analyzed.
  • Failure mode characterization: The paper reports average improvements but does not analyze failure cases (e.g., dense crowds, sharp turns, stop-and-go, merges) or when AgentFormer underperforms baselines.
  • Generalization across datasets: Evaluation is limited to ETH/UCY and nuScenes. Generalization to other benchmarks (e.g., Argoverse, Lyft, Waymo, MOT datasets), different map formats, and diverse geographies is not assessed.
  • Kinematic constraints and orientation: Output focuses on 2D positions; explicit modeling of orientation, speed, acceleration, and kinematic constraints (especially for vehicles) is limited. Effects on downstream planning or controller compatibility are not discussed.
  • Joint training of sampler and CVAE: The sampler is trained after freezing CVAE weights. The potential benefits of joint or alternating training, and the impact on sample diversity, coverage, and accuracy, are not studied.
  • Evaluation metrics breadth: ADE/FDE are used primarily. Broader evaluation (NLL, HIT rate, minADE/FDE with standardized protocols, risk-sensitive metrics, distributional tests) and statistical significance testing are absent.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.