Trajectory Evaluators: A Probabilistic Approach

• Trajectory evaluators are methods and frameworks that assess time-parameterized spatial paths using probabilistic models and continuous-time representations.
• They redefine both absolute and relative error metrics as likelihood functions to capture spatial discrepancies and uncertainty in SLAM and tracking systems.
• They enable robust benchmarking by accommodating temporal misalignment and sparse ground truth through Gaussian Process formulations and uncertainty-aware decompositions.

A trajectory evaluator is any method, metric, framework, or algorithm designed to assess, compare, or score time-parameterized spatial paths—trajectories—in application domains such as robotics, autonomous driving, computer vision, multi-object tracking, and intelligent transportation systems. Trajectory evaluators formalize notions of spatial accuracy, error, uncertainty, efficiency, safety, and comfort, and provide quantitative measures that undergird benchmarking, optimization, and safety validation for trajectory estimation and prediction algorithms.

1. Probabilistic and Continuous-Time Foundations

Modern trajectory evaluation has moved toward probabilistic and continuous-time formulations, notably in SLAM and related robotics problems (Zhang et al., 2019). Here, trajectory points (e.g., robot poses) are not regarded as deterministic but as random variables on geometric manifolds such as SE(3). A typical pose T is extended to a stochastic representation: $$T' = T \cdot \exp(\xi), \quad \xi \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \Sigma)$$ where exp(·) denotes the matrix exponential on se(3), and $\xi$ models perturbations. Crucially, performance metrics such as Absolute Trajectory Error (ATE) and Relative Error (RE) are generalized as likelihood functions, quantifying the probability that estimated trajectories would be observed given the stochastic ground truth and its covariances.

To address temporal associations and to move beyond point-wise evaluations, ground truth is modeled as a continuous-time, piecewise Gaussian Process over the trajectory. Given sparse ground-truth samples, query points are inferred with a context-dependent covariance that increases as queries are temporally distant from observations. This continuous representation seamlessly manages asynchronous data, missing measurements, and quantifies the uncertainty propagated to evaluation metrics.

2. Error Metrics: Absolute, Relative, and Uncertainty-Aware Decompositions

Error metrics in trajectory evaluation typically fall into absolute and relative categories:

• Absolute Error (ATE): Measures discrepancies between corresponding estimated and ground-truth poses after global alignment (accounting for rigid-body ambiguities).
• Relative Error (RE): Quantifies local inaccuracies, often through relative transformations between consecutive or temporally adjacent frames.

Within probabilistic frameworks, both ATE and RE are reformulated in likelihood terms:

• For RE: The error vector $e_i = \log((\overline{T}_{i,i+1})^{-1} T_{i,i+1})$ is modeled as a zero-mean Gaussian with cross-term-induced covariance.
• For ATE: Instead of aligning via a global transform, the error is marginalized over the unknown alignment, resulting in an integral of Gaussian likelihoods over the alignment parameter.

Remarkably, in the first-order (linearized) regime, these probabilistic forms become equivalent, providing theoretical justification for the empirical observation that ATE and RE are highly correlated, despite differences in computation (Zhang et al., 2019).

Further advancements incorporate uncertainty-aware decompositions, as in the Probabilistic Trajectory GOSPA (PTGOSPA) metric for multi-object tracking (Xia et al., 18 Jun 2025). PTGOSPA extends traditional assignment-based metrics to Bernoulli densities, capturing both existence probability and state-level uncertainty for each trajectory, with the overall metric decomposed into interpretable localization, existence, missed/false detection, and track switch costs.

3. Temporal Association and Handling Incomplete or Asynchronous Data

A persistent challenge in trajectory evaluation is the temporal alignment of estimate and ground-truth: real-world setups often provide asynchronous, sparse, or incomplete reference trajectories. Traditional nearest-neighbor association can introduce bias and artificial errors, particularly under low-frequency annotation regimes.

The continuous-time Gaussian Process representation enables principled temporal association. Evaluation can proceed at arbitrary time stamps, with associated uncertainties increasing as the time gap widens: $$y^* \sim \mathcal{N}(\text{mean}(z^*), \text{variance}(z^*))$$ where $z^*$ is the query time, and the variance naturally penalizes distant queries. This formalism allows evaluation metrics to factor in both the quality of the estimate and the reliability of the reference at each time step (Zhang et al., 2019).

4. Theoretical Connections and Unified Error Analysis

By casting trajectory evaluation within a unified probabilistic and continuous-time framework, theoretical relationships between disparate metrics are established. Marginalization over alignment ambiguities and treating ground-truth as random variables allows both absolute and relative error metrics to be interpreted as likelihoods, with their equivalence shown in the linear regime.

This unification yields several benefits:

• Consistent benchmarking across different datasets and setups,
• Robustness to imperfect, uncertain, or sparse reference data,
• Direct reflection of input data quality in the metrics.

Such frameworks also generalize to evaluating multi-object tracking performance, where uncertainty in track assignment and partial existence is handled through multi-dimensional assignment and cost decompositions that are computationally tractable—using linear programming relaxations—and interpretable (Xia et al., 18 Jun 2025).

5. Implications for SLAM and Trajectory Estimation Systems

The adoption of probabilistic, continuous-time, and uncertainty-aware trajectory evaluators yields several implications for the design and evaluation of SLAM and trajectory estimation algorithms:

• Benchmarking: Provides a principled standard for comparing algorithms, especially when reference data is incomplete or uncertain.
• Algorithm Robustness: Highlights the need for estimation methods to output uncertainty along with point estimates.
• Temporal Robustness: Evaluation metrics become robust to misalignment and data loss, critical in practical deployments with real sensor imperfections.
• System Improvement: Detailed analysis of error composition guides the refinement of estimation modules, emphasizing parts of the pipeline where uncertainty or error propagate most.

Ongoing research directions include the incorporation of higher-order error propagation, the enforcement of continuity constraints across GP segments, and empirical comparisons between probabilistic evaluation and traditional metrics.

6. Prospective Extensions and Future Research

Trajectory evaluation is advancing toward even more general settings, including:

• Evaluations with higher-order temporal models (e.g., continuous-time trajectories with acceleration and jerk priors),
• Integration of data association uncertainty in multi-agent and multi-object scenarios,
• Extension to non-Euclidean manifolds for SE(3), Spatio-Temporal Graphs, and multi-modal behavior representations,
• Empirical adaption and tuning for new sensor types, dynamic environments, and real-world uncertainties.

Prospective work also involves leveraging these frameworks for adaptive benchmarking, automated anomaly detection in prediction models, and real-time, streaming trajectory evaluation for closed-loop robotics and safety-critical systems.

---

Trajectory evaluators, particularly in the form presented by probabilistic, continuous-time, and uncertainty-aware frameworks, provide a systematic, theoretically grounded approach for the rigorous assessment of trajectory estimation, prediction, and tracking algorithms. Their careful construction and rigorous mathematical underpinning are central to advancing the reliability and comparability of algorithms across robotics, autonomous systems, and computer vision (Zhang et al., 2019, Xia et al., 18 Jun 2025).