Conditional Trajectory GAN

• Conditional Trajectory GANs are deep generative models that synthesize realistic motion trajectories conditioned on variables like scene context and control inputs.
• They fuse sequence modeling, adversarial training, and explicit conditioning to enable multimodal and context-aware motion prediction in robotics and autonomous driving.
• Empirical evaluations show improvements in metrics such as ADE, FDE, and collision rates, demonstrating robust performance over traditional planning methods.

Conditional Trajectory GANs are a class of deep generative models that synthesize or forecast feasible motion trajectories by explicitly conditioning on contextual variables such as scene layout, agent class, historical state, semantic map, or user-defined controls (e.g., speed). These architectures fuse the strengths of sequence modeling (e.g., LSTM, Transformer), adversarial training, and conditional input fusion to address the multimodal, context-dependent nature of motion planning and prediction in robotics, autonomous driving, air mobility, and navigation scenarios.

1. Mathematical Formulation and Conditioning

Conditional Trajectory GANs extend the default GAN framework by enforcing trajectory synthesis to be a function of both a stochastic noise source and explicit context. For a time-indexed sequence $X_{1:t}$ (e.g., past trajectory) and a conditioning variable $c$ (class label, map, speed profile, or obstacles), the generator and discriminator are defined as

• $G: (X_{1:t}, c, z) \mapsto \hat{Y}_{t+1:T}$,
• $D: (X_{1:t}, Y_{t+1:T}, c) \mapsto \mathbb{R}$,

with adversarial losses such as

$$\min_G\max_D\;\mathcal{L}_{\text{cGAN}}(G,D) = \mathbb{E}_{(X,Y,c)\sim p_{data}} \big[\log D(X,Y,c)\big] + \mathbb{E}_{(X,c)\sim p_{data},\,z\sim p_z} \big[\log(1-D(X,G(X,c,z),c))\big]$$

Variants inject context by concatenation (class labels (Li et al., 2021)), raster embedding (scene image (Wang et al., 2020)), or explicit conditioning modules (speed profile (Julka et al., 2021), obstacle map (Ando et al., 2022)). This advances prior approaches that were context-unaware or only implicitly multimodal.

2. Generator and Discriminator Architectures

Trajectory GANs employ architectures tailored to the input and conditioning domain:

• Seq2Seq/LSTM-based Generators: Encode observation history and context into hidden states, decode future trajectory conditioned on context and latent noise. Used for UAS landing with past-trajectory conditioning (Xiang et al., 2024); multi-class agent motion (Li et al., 2021); speed-controlled pedestrian paths (Julka et al., 2021).
• Social and Spatial Pooling: Per-agent encoders pool information from neighbors via learned social pooling, attention, or concatenation (Julka et al., 2021, Kothari et al., 2022). Aggregation schemes outperform previous hand-crafted interaction models.
• Transformer-based Discriminators: Enhance temporal and social interaction modeling, allowing more precise adversarial assessment of multimodal and collision-free output (Kothari et al., 2022).
• Raster-based Scene Fusion: For scene-compliant prediction, generators fuse deep raster features (MobileNet), kinematic state, and noise, while discriminators employ differentiable rasterization to merge predicted trajectory with scene (Wang et al., 2020). Gradients propagate through the rasterizer for improved realism enforcement.

Conditioning type	Generator arch.	Discriminator arch.
Class labels	LSTM, Transformer	LSTM/MLP
Scene raster	CNN+MLP	CNN+Rasterizer
Speed profile	LSTM+FC	LSTM+FC
Obstacle map	FC+CNN module	FC+CNN module

3. Adversarial Loss Functions and Training

Conditional Trajectory GANs utilize adversarial objectives customized for multimodal sequence generation. Common practices include:

• Standard cGAN losses: Binary cross-entropy/logits (Xiang et al., 2024, Li et al., 2021, Julka et al., 2021).
• Wasserstein GAN with Gradient Penalty (WGAN-GP): Enables stable training, particularly for raster and context-aware discriminators (Wang et al., 2020).
• Least-Squares GAN (LSGAN): Smooths gradients, deployed in safety-compliant crowd motion forecasting (Kothari et al., 2022).
• Auxiliary Regression Losses: Variety loss (min-over-K L2 error) encourages multimodality and diversity (Li et al., 2021, Kothari et al., 2022). Map-consistency, bijectivity, and collision penalties further regularize planning GANs (Ando et al., 2022).

Training commonly alternates D and G updates per minibatch, with optimizers such as Adam (learning rates typically in 1e-3 to 1e-4 range), moderate batch sizes, and convergence monitored by ADE/FDE metrics.

4. Conditioning Modalities: Semantic, Geometric, and Control Inputs

Conditional GANs for trajectory modeling adapt to wide-ranging control and semantic conditioning:

• Semantic Class/Labels: Class-specific agent behaviors are injected via one-hot or embedded class features enabling agent-specific generation (Li et al., 2021).
• Scene/Raster Context: Bird’s-eye view images and map rasters allow trajectory generation to conform to scene geometry, improving off-road violation metrics (Wang et al., 2020).
• Physical Constraints/Obstacle Maps: Embedding CNN features of obstacle configurations yields collision-free latent representations and enables scalable planning in non-trivial workspaces (Ando et al., 2022).
• User Controls and Agent Parameters: Conditioning on speed sequence, explicit velocity, or future control parameters allows flexible generation across different modalities and simulation settings (Julka et al., 2021).

These mechanisms facilitate generalization across agents, context domains, and optimization requirements.

5. Evaluation Metrics, Benchmarks, and Empirical Findings

Performance of Conditional Trajectory GANs is assessed by:

• Average Displacement Error (ADE) and Final Displacement Error (FDE): L2-based path-integral and endpoint errors, supporting min-over-K evaluation for multimodal hypothesis sets (Xiang et al., 2024, Li et al., 2021, Kothari et al., 2022, Wang et al., 2020).
• Collision Rate: Fraction of forecasted positions colliding with other agents, enabling safety-compliance benchmarking (Kothari et al., 2022, Julka et al., 2021).
• Scene-Compliance Violations: Off-road metrics evaluate whether generated trajectories respect semantic context (Wang et al., 2020).
• Custom Criteria: Collision-free success rate in latent planning, optimizability for velocity/acceleration/jerk (Ando et al., 2022).

Empirical results demonstrate consistent superiority over prior baselines:

Model/Domain	ADE	FDE	Collision Rate	Reported Advantage
SC-GAN (raster, ATG4D)	2.44 m	5.86 m	2.11%	30–40% ADE/FDE improvement
SGANv2 (crowd)	1.0 m	1.9 m	0.5–1.0%	Collision halved vs SGAN
Speed-GAN (ETH/UCY)	0.47 m	0.93 m	22–27%	Explicit speed control
Latent cGAN (UR5e arm)	70–72% success		—	Fast, customizable planning
UAS-GAN (drone land)	0.11 m	—	—	Sub-meter accuracy, robust

Quantitative evaluation favors models integrating scene context and explicit conditioning.

6. Applications and Engineering Implications

Conditional Trajectory GANs find application in:

• Autonomous Driving: Forecasting multimodal vehicle and pedestrian motion compliant with HD/semantic maps (Wang et al., 2020).
• Robotics and Manipulation: Planning collision-free arm trajectories under arbitrary cost criteria and dynamic obstacles (Ando et al., 2022).
• Crowd Simulation: Human motion generation supporting multimodal, collision-free, socially-aware predictions (Kothari et al., 2022).
• Aerial Mobility: UAS landing and urban airspace conflict avoidance via data-driven trajectory generation (Xiang et al., 2024).
• Simulation and Data Augmentation: Explicit control of agent speed, class, or modality for simulation robustness (Julka et al., 2021).

These architectures enable scalable, scene-aware, and safe planning/simulation that adaptively generalize to novel contexts.

7. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Conditional Trajectory GANs are subject to several open challenges:

• Mode Collapse: Even with variety losses and collaborative sampling, training instability can result in impoverished multimodal coverage (Kothari et al., 2022).
• Explicit Geometric Constraints: While collision avoidance is improved by context fusion, hard guarantees can be lost unless supported by auxiliary penalties and post-hoc planning (Ando et al., 2022).
• Hyperparameter and Architectural Choices: Optimal aggregation (attention, pooling, concatenation) varies by domain; simple concatenation has proven unexpectedly competitive (Julka et al., 2021).
• Generalization Across Domains: Adapting to heterogeneous agent classes, unseen semantic maps, or out-of-distribution controls remains challenging.

Future directions include improved adversarial stabilization (e.g., via spectral norm, WGAN-GP), unified transformer-based sequence modeling, and direct incorporation of differentiable physics constraints.

---

Conditional Trajectory GANs thus represent a unified generative paradigm for trajectory prediction, planning, and simulation in complex, context- and agent-aware environments, leveraging conditional input fusion, multimodal output generation, and adversarial learning for robust, customizable motion synthesis (Wang et al., 2020, Xiang et al., 2024, Li et al., 2021, Julka et al., 2021, Kothari et al., 2022, Ando et al., 2022).