SEPT: Towards Efficient Scene Representation Learning for Motion Prediction

Response to Reviewer Ukgp (1/2)

Thank you for your thorough assessment and valuable feedback on our paper. We have addressed each of your concerns as follows. > W1 (a): Limited novelty: The model structure is not new, which is basically SceneTransformer [A], which should (not) be considered as contributions. We consider scene understanding pretraining as the primary contribution of SEPT paper. Benefited from the pretraining scheme, our model could achieve SOTA performance with a greatly simplified architecture, as illustrated in Figure 2 of the paper. Regarding our model's relationship with SceneTransformer, while both the two models are built on transformer, there are several notable differences in their architectural designs: 1. **Encoder architecture**: SceneTransformer takes a spatiotemporal-intertwined encoding structure that performs factorized attention along both the time and space (agent & road graph) axes alternately and repeatedly, to fuse the spatiotemporal information. In contrast, SEPT adopts a spatiotemporal-separated encoding mechanism that, first processes temporal information within agent trajectories and reduces the time dimension by max pooling, then encodes the spatial relationships among agents and roads. This saves computation, allowing for more efficient training and inference. 2. **Decoder architecture**: SEPT's decoder uses N learnable queries to aggregate information from scene embeddings through cross-attention operation, with N corresponding to the number of motion modalities. On the other hand, SceneTransformer's decoder conducts self-attention across time and agent dimension on the "agent features" which is stacked N times, and it adds one-hot encoding to distinguish each predictive modality. > W1 (b): For the three pretraining objectives, it is very similar to Traj-MAE[B] and ForecastMAE[C], as stated by the authors as well. Compared to [B] and [C], they achieve better performance, but the paper does not give a thorough analysis regarding the difference. As a result, it is hard to determine the real working part of the method. > Q1: Could the authors explain more about the difference between your method and Traj-MAE/ForecastMAE and discuss why your method better performance than them? It might be the case that "the devil is in the details" and I think it is important to find out these details as your contributions. Otherwise, the proposed methodology is basically the same as Traj-MAE/ForecastMAE, which has nothing new. Regarding the relationship between our method and Traj-MAE and Forecast-MAE, we would like to revise our paper and expand the related works section to highlight the main differences: 1. **Traj-MAE** designs two independent mask-reconstruction tasks on trajectories and road map input, to train its trajectory and map encoder separately. Such separation leads to a notable limitation that the spatial relationship between agents and roads are not stressed during pretraining. In contrast, SEPT's pretraining introduces the Tail prediction (TP) task, which considers both temporal and spatial information, and jointly trains TempoNet and SpaNet. Our ablation experiments clearly show that TP has a significant impact on the final performance improvement. This could be explained by the fact that TP can help the encoder better align the representations learned by the masked trajectory modeling (MTM) and masked road modeling (MRM) tasks. 2. **Forecast-MAE** has a notable difference with our method: the granularity of the tokenization for the scene inputs. Forecast-MAE uses the whole historical or future trajectory as a single token, while SEPT treats a waypoint in a trajectory as a token. Similarly, for road input, it uses a polyline of lane segment as a token, while our method uses a short road vector less than 5m. We believe that our approach can better capture the motion patterns, as well as the dependency between the historical motions and the road structure. Also, Forecast-MAE adopts a distinct masking strategy for agent trajectory by incorporating ground-truth future in pretraining, and it predict the future given its history or vice versa. Also, we would like to share more thoughts on the performance differences: 1. Within the benchmarks of Argoverse 1 and 2, preceding SOTA methods like QCNet and ProphNet set a notable standard. SEPT was able to surpass these methods, but it required the assistance of SSL pretraining to do so. Hence, we consider the proposed SSL pretraining scheme as the primary contributor to the observed performance improvement. 2. It's worth mentioning that Traj-MAE chose AutoBots as the baseline model, which, as observed, is not a strong competitor on Argoverse 1 (minADE 0.89; minFDE 1.41). We would like to highlight that earlier this year, our prototype model, without pretraining, achieved a minADE of 0.83 and a minFDE of 1.30 on the Argoverse 1 test set. We believe that the performance improvement over a stronger baseline model lends more credibility to our method.

Response to Reviewer Ukgp (2/2)

> Do the authors plan to open source the code so that the community could easily reproduce the results and find out the working part? Certainly! We plan to opensource our codebase once the paper is accepted. It is a great pleasure to share our work with the community! > Missed reference: it seems that some classic transformer based works are not mentioned, which might cause wrong understanding of the contributions of this work. We appreciate your suggestion to include more classic transformer-based works in our related works section. We agree that these works are important and relevant to our research topic, and we will review them in our revised manuscript.

Response to Reviewer siKy

Thank you for the detailed and insightful review of our paper. We have addressed each of your concerns as follows. > W1: The paper mentions using the test set (unlabeled wrt the actual task) for self-supervised learning. While the test set from Argoverse is available to users, the intention is to provide it so that users can run their own inference and submit the predictions. Using the unlabelled part of this dataset (road network, agent motion histories) for pre-training could be giving the model an unfair advantage. I would encourage the authors to report the results without using the test set anywhere in their training / validation, or at the very least report an ablation result without using the test set for pre-training. > Q1: What is the impact on the results when not using the test set for pre-training? For participants in the Argoverse 1 motion prediction challenge, it's a widely recognized observation that test performance often exhibits a substantial gap when compared to validation performance, potentially due to distribution mismatches. Indeed, our initial motivation for exploring pretraining, especially on the test set, as the reviewer speculates, was to address this gap. However, the experimental results did not align with our expectations. Surprisingly, this led us in a different direction, ultimately resulting in an overall improvement in prediction performance. During our investigation, we also experimented with excluding the test set from the pretraining process. We found that this exclusion has a negligible impact on the prediction performance. We decide to keep using the test set to demonstrate that our pretraining could incorporate all the data at hand. In the next few days, we intend to conduct further experiments and will include an ablation study to provide additional insight into the use of the test set in our approach. > W2: While results are reported on both Argoverse 1 and 2, it would be good to see generalization of the proposed methods to at-least one other dataset such as waymo open dataset or nuScenes. We recognize the importance of testing SEPT's performance on a wider range of datasets to assess its generalization capabilities more comprehensively. Specifically, we will consider including test results on additional datasets like Waymo Open Dataset or nuScenes in the camera-ready version to provide a more thorough evaluation of our approach. Thank you for your feedback, and we will ensure that this aspect is addressed in our final submission.

Response to Reviewer fR6X (1/3)

Thank you for the insightful and constructive feedback on our paper. We appreciate the thorough evaluation and your valuable comments, which we have carefully considered and addressed in our response below. > W1: The Introduction effectively illustrates the potential of SSL in motion prediction tasks. However, it could benefit from acknowledging previous works such as Traj-MAE and Forecast-MAE that have already explored SSL in motion prediction. The three self-supervised tasks presented appear to be inspired or derived from these preceding studies. We appreciate your feedback and agree that our paper could benefit from acknowledging previous works, including Traj-MAE and Forecast-MAE, which have explored self-supervised learning in motion prediction. However, we want to clarify that while our work draws inspiration from the success of self-supervised learning, it is not directly derived from Traj-MAE or Forecast-MAE. Early this year, our initial motivation for exploring pretraining was to address the validation-test performance gap of our model on Argoverse 1. The experimental results did not align with our expectations, but led us in a different direction, ultimately resulting in an overall improvement in prediction performance. We became aware of Traj-MAE and Forecast-MAE around June 2023, but by that time, our task design had already been finalized. We will revise the introduction to include references to these works. Also, to address the concerns raised by multiple reviewers regarding the relationship between our method and Traj-MAE and Forecast-MAE, we would like to expand the related works section to highlight the main differences: 1. **Traj-MAE** designs two independent mask-reconstruction tasks on trajectories and road map input, to train its trajectory and map encoder separately. Such separation leads to a notable limitation that the spatial relationship between agents and roads are not stressed during pretraining. In contrast, SEPT's pretraining introduces the Tail prediction (TP) task, which considers both temporal and spatial information, and jointly trains TempoNet and SpaNet. Our ablation experiments clearly show that TP has a significant impact on the final performance improvement. This could be explained by the fact that TP can help the encoder better align the representations learned by the masked trajectory modeling (MTM) and masked road modeling (MRM) tasks. 2. **Forecast-MAE** has a notable difference with our method: the granularity of the tokenization for the scene inputs. Forecast-MAE uses the whole historical or future trajectory as a single token, while SEPT treats a waypoint in a trajectory as a token. Similarly, for road input, it uses a polyline of lane segment as a token, while our method uses a short road vector less than 5m. We believe that our approach can better capture the motion patterns, as well as the dependency between the historical motions and the road structure. Also, Forecast-MAE adopts a distinct masking strategy for agent trajectory by incorporating ground-truth future in pretraining, and it predict the future given its history or vice versa. > W2: The framework presented in the paper is well-organized and operational, but it seems to lack novelty and groundbreaking contributions in the area of study. Thank you for acknowledging the organization and operational nature of our framework. While we understand that our work may not be deemed groundbreaking in the sense of a revolutionary breakthrough, we do believe that novelty lies in our introduction of self-supervised learning (SSL) to the field of motion prediction, as well as our unique task design. Our experiments and ablation studies have shown that pretraining for scene understanding significantly contributes to prediction performance. In response to your valuable feedback, we will also revise the paper to provide more in-depth details about the relationship between our method and Traj-MAE as well as Forecast-MAE. This will help clarify our specific contributions in the context of existing research.

Response to Reviewer fR6X (2/3)

> W3: It's observed that the predominant improvement in SEPT's performance relative to the previous state-of-the-art isn’t chiefly attributed to SSL pretraining. This seems to be somewhat divergent from the central thesis and focus of the paper. > Q2: In table 4, there is a noted reduction of 6.4% in minADE on the validation set relative to the baseline without SSL pretraining. Meanwhile, SEPT shows a 10.1% and 12.3% decrease in minADE compared to Traj-MAE and Forecast-MAE, respectively. Could you elucidate whether the baseline model, even without the SSL pretraining, has already exceeded the performance of previous state-of-the-art methods? And what are the primary contributors to this enhancement in performance? Defining 'state-of-the-art' in this context might introduce ambiguity. In our interpretation, SOTA references the leading techniques showcased on specific leaderboards, such as QCNet and ProphNet on Argoverse, as well as MTR on WOMD. Traj-MAE and Forecast-MAE, while exploring SSL, did not attain SOTA performance on both Argoverse 1 and 2. Within the benchmarks of Argoverse 1 and 2, preceding SOTA methods like QCNet and ProphNet set a notable standard. SEPT was able to surpass these methods, but it required the assistance of SSL pretraining to do so. Hence, we consider the proposed SSL pretraining scheme as the primary contributor to the observed performance improvement. Regarding the comparison with Traj-MAE and Forecast-MAE, besides pretraining, our performance gains likely stem from various other elements, encompassing data preprocessing, input representation, model architecture, and hyperparameters. Through our exploration, we found that the agent-centric data representation and the DETR-like decoder architecture may have pivotal roles in this observed enhancement. > Q1: Regarding the related work, you’ve cited that the lane mask SSL task of Forecast-MAE didn’t exhibit considerable advancement in the ablation study. However, in Traj-MAE, there was a significant enhancement noted in the HDMap mask. Isn't the consistent improvement across all SSL tasks already an established finding prior to this research? We noticed that Traj-MAE indeed conducted an ablation study on the effectiveness of pretraining tasks, as indicated in Table 4 of the paper and Table 4 of the supplementary material. From our perspective, while the consistent improvement across SSL tasks can be considered an indicator of reasonable task design, it may not be the sole criterion for evaluating a method's efficacy. It's worth mentioning that Traj-MAE chose AutoBots as the baseline model, which, as observed, is not a strong competitor on the Argoverse 1 leaderboard (minADE 0.89; minFDE 1.41). We would like to highlight that earlier this year, our prototype model, without extensive pretraining or hyperparameter tuning, achieved a minADE of 0.83 and a minFDE of 1.30 on the Argoverse 1 test set, with only 3.5 hours of training on a single NVIDIA 3090 Ti. We believe that the performance improvement over a stronger baseline model lends more credibility to our method. Furthermore, we observed a notable gap between Traj-MAE's validation and test performance on Argoverse 1. While its validation performance surpassed that of ProphNet and our SEPT, its test performance was significantly worse (as elaborated in our response to your Q3). In light of this, we find Traj-MAE's ablation study, which relies on their validation performance, less convincing.

Response to Reviewer fR6X (3/3)

> Q3: On the other hand, it seems that in Traj-MAE, its pretraining method improved the baseline's 0.732 minADE to a final 0.604 minADE, marking a relative decrease of 17.5%. Would this imply that Traj-MAE's pretraining technique holds a comparative advantage or superiority over SEPT's methodology? We did take note of Traj-MAE's performance on the Argoverse 1 validation set, where they achieved a remarkable minADE of 0.604. However, it's important to consider that Traj-MAE has not made their code publicly available, which makes it challenging to draw definitive conclusions about the differences between their pretraining methodology and SEPT's. We can offer some speculations based on our experience and observations: 1. In our experience, pretraining or other techniques typically lead to balanced improvements in both minADE and minFDE. For example, in the case of SEPT, we observed a 6.4% improvement in minADE and an 8.5% improvement in minFDE compared to the baseline without pretraining. In contrast, Traj-MAE achieved a 17.5% reduction in minADE but only an 8.5% reduction in minFDE, which appears unbalanced. 2. It's worth noting that, in our experience, even with some degree of distribution mismatch, improvements on the validation set tend to reflect a similar level of improvement on the test set. To provide a more comprehensive comparison, we analyzed the performance of SEPT, ProphNet, and Traj-MAE, as shown in the table below. ProphNet ranks 3rd on the Argoverse 1 leaderboard, and we observed that SEPT and ProphNet exhibit a similar pattern, while Traj-MAE's performance deviates significantly, particularly in terms of minADE. | |minADE (val)|minADE (test)|minADE gap|minFDE (val)|minFDE (test)|minFDE gap| |:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----|:----| |SEPT|0.643|0.728|11.7%|0.927|1.057|12.3%| |ProphNet|0.680|0.762|10.8%|0.970|1.134|14.5%| |Traj-MAE|0.600|0.810|**25.9%**|1.003|1.250|**19.8%**| Based on these two observations, we speculate that Traj-MAE may have encountered some form of data leakage during their pretraining process, such as accidentally incorporating validation set labels, which could have led to the observed improvement. Therefore, the substantial improvement in minADE might not necessarily prove the inherent advantage of their training scheme. It would be beneficial to have access to their code and further details to make a more accurate assessment.

Response to Reviewer JZgu

Thank you for your detailed assessment and positive evaluation of our paper. We carefully address each of your concerns as follows. > When it comes to model efficiency, the paper only compares with QCNet which is one of the largest models among all comparison methods. Since time-consuming is one of the main drawbacks of previous methods as is claimed in Section 1, it would be good to know the exact inference speeds of SEPT and the other comparison methods. Our paper primarily focuses on self-supervised scene understanding, which enhances prediction accuracy with a greatly simplified network design. We included QCNet in our comparisons because it was the previous SOTA on Argoverse 1 and 2 leaderboard, and intended to highlight that our method achieves SOTA performance with a reduced computational cost. In the paper, we indeed mentioned that “These empirical techniques consequently lead to an intricate and time-consuming information processing pipeline”. However, we acknowledge that (1) time-saving is not the primary objective of our research, and (2) the information processing pipeline is not the sole determinant of inference efficiency. Therefore, we plan to remove the claim of "time-consuming" from that sentence in our revised paper. In response to your inquiry about the exact inference speeds of SEPT, we conducted comprehensive tests under various circumstances, as outlined below: 1. GPU inference during training (batch size = 96): 26 iteration/s, or 2496 samples/s, on an NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti; 2. GPU inference at deployment using ONNX (batch size = 1): 4.5 ms/sample, on an NVIDIA GTX 1060; 3. CPU inference at deployment using ONNX (batch size = 1, single-threaded): 27.8 ms/sample, on an Intel Core i5-8400. These results demonstrate that our model's inference speeds are competitive and suitable for use within an autonomous driving pipeline. > It would be good if the authors could talk more about their research findings in addition to presenting their approach, which I believe will inspire other researchers. We appreciate your feedback and agree with your suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we will expand our discussion to include a dedicated part on our research findings. This part will emphasize the significance of pretraining and its task design in the context of our work, addressing the concerns raised by multiple reviewers.