Vulnerable road user (VRU) prediction must operate under partial observability and distribution shift, so reliable uncertainty matters alongside accuracy. Masked pretraining is attractive in this setting because it naturally exposes the model to missing content during self-supervision, but existing time-series masked autoencoding methods are typically deterministic and do not constrain how confidence should change with observability. We introduce eCoMAE, an evidential masked pretraining method for multivariate time series that explicitly aligns predictive evidence with what is observed. eCoMAE combines block-wise time-step masking with a Normal-Inverse-Gamma decoder and three observability-aware mechanisms: uncertainty-weighted mean consistency on positions visible in both a masked view and a reference pass, evidence suppression on masked positions, and representation consistency across stochastic masks. On IMPTC benchmark for VRU intention prediction under leave-one-environment-out weather shift, eCoMAE improves the strongest baseline from 0.7971 to 0.8068 in OOD accuracy and from 0.0718 to 0.0648 in OOD AURC. Additional evaluation on pedestrian trajectory forecasting across IMPTC, Waymo, nuScenes, and inD further yields the best fine-tuning MSE on all four datasets. These results show that observability-aligned evidential pretraining improves reliability under shift and remains effective beyond the primary benchmark.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: eCoMAE workflow. For each input sequence, K stochastic masked views and one unmasked reference view are processed by a shared encoder–decoder with an NIG head. Training combines masked fitting, visible-token mean consistency against the reference, masked-token evidence suppression, and cross-view representation consistency.
Figure 2: Mask-rate sensitivity of finetuning accuracy
Capacity
ID finetune
OOD finetune
Cost
Acc f↑
ECE f↓
Acc f↑
ECE f↓
min ↓
Capacity scaling at MR=0.80
Small
0.8040
0.0384
0.7824
0.0642
40.5
Medium
0.8247
0.0184
0.7941
0.0781
41.4
Large
0.8384
0.0129
0.7971
0.0698
48.7
Table 1: Capacity sweep results and backbone definitions. Small, Medium, and Large set (dmodel,dff,E,D,H) to (32, 64, 2, 1, 4), (64, 128, 2, 1, 8), and (128, 256, 3, 2, 8), respectively. Here dmodel is the Transformer hidden size, dff is the width of the feed-forward network inside each Transformer block, E is the number of encoder layers, D is the number of decoder layers, and H is the number of attention heads.
Setting
ID
OOD
Acc p
ECE p
Acc f
ECE f
Acc p
ECE p
Acc f
ECE f
Evidential objective (REP off)
MAE (no EVI/REP)
0.7987
0.0436
0.8379
0.0226
0.7794
0.0721
0.8000
0.0799
EVI (no REP)
0.7993
0.0434
0.8387
0.0124
0.7765
0.0595
0.8000
0.0658
Representation consistency (EVI on)
λrep=0.05
0.7998
0.0436
0.8394
0.0148
0.7765
0.0557
0.7971
0.0660
Table 2: Main results of 18 variants under ID and OOD. Subscripts p and f denote probing and finetuning. Higher accuracy and lower ECE are better. Best finetuning values are in bold. In the component ablations, NIG and REP remain enabled; only the μ / α consistency terms vary.
Figure 3: Representative pretraining diagnostic for one sample-feature pair. Shaded regions indicate masked positions. Compared with Evidential MAE, adding representation consistency (eCoMAE) yields lower reconstruction error on masked regions and a clearer increase of predictive variance with reconstruction error, supporting better observability-aligned uncertainty during self-supervised pretraining.
Figure 4: Multi-view scaling design of eCoMAE under different numbers of mask views ( nmask ) and evidential-consistency views ( kevi ). Cell text reports finetune accuracy, while color indicates ECE, for both ID and OOD evaluation. Hatched cells denote invalid settings with kevi>nmask .
Method
ID
OOD
Acc f↑
ECE f↓
AURC f↓
UE-corr f↑
Acc f↑
ECE f↓
AURC f↓
UE-corr f↑
eCoMAE-S
0.8387
0.0123
0.0388
0.5380
0.8014
0.0701
0.0667
0.4464
eCoMAE-M
0.8389
0.0129
0.0390
0.5388
0.8068
0.0659
0.0672
0.4186
eCoMAE-L
0.8397
0.0144
0.0382
0.5391
0.8066
0.0678
0.0648
0.4323
Transformer (sup.)
0.7838
0.0516
0.0991
0.4145
0.7676
0.0825
0.1497
0.2969
Ti-MAE [ 11 ]
0.8379
0.0226
0.0409
0.5231
0.7971
0.0857
0.0718
0.4255
Table 3: Main comparison. Higher Acc and UE-corr are better. Lower ECE and AURC are better. Best values are shown in bold. All self-supervised methods are evaluated by end-to-end fine-tuning. DAE denotes a denoising autoencoder baseline. Results are averaged over five random seeds.
Method
Finetune MSE ↓
IMPTC
Waymo
nuScenes
inD
eCoMAE-L
0.2691
0.2912
0.2514
0.3483
Transformer (sup.)
0.3209
0.4809
0.3279
0.4113
Ti-MAE
0.2997
0.3317
0.2678
0.3753
Gaussian Ti-MAE
0.2977
0.3328
0.2679
0.3752
DAE
0.2857
0.3012
0.3139
0.3756
Table 4: Additional evaluation on pedestrian trajectory forecasting on four datasets. Results report finetune MSE under a shared forecasting protocol, lower is better. Best values are shown in bold. Results are averaged over five random seeds.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Ablation setting
λevi
λreg
Φˉ
λμ
λα
λrep
Evidential objective (REP off)
MAE (no EVI/REP)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
EVI (no REP)
1.0
10−2
2.0
0.05
0.05
0.00
Representation consistency (EVI on)
λrep=0.05
1.0
10−2
2.0
0.05
0.05
0.05
eCoMAE ( λrep=0.10 )
1.0
10−2
2.0
0.05
0.05
0.10
Appendix
Table 5: Hyperparameters for the 18 experimental variants (same order as Table 2 ). Evidence-cap values ( Φˉ=2.5 and 6 ) follow the main-text ablation study.
Ablation setting
Probe
Finetune
AURC p↓
UE-corr p↑
AURC f↓
UE-corr f↑
Evidential objective (REP off)
MAE (no EVI/REP)
0.1807
0.2082
0.0681
0.4397
EVI (no REP)
0.1660
0.2615
0.0666
0.4538
Representation consistency (EVI on)
λrep=0.05
0.1656
0.2616
0.0660
0.4740
Appendix
Table 6: OOD uncertainty quality for the same 18 ablation variants. Lower AURC and higher UE-corr are better; best entries in each column are bold. Subscripts p and f indicate linear probing and finetuning, respectively.
An uncertainty estimate is meaningful only if its semantics can be tied to observable predictive behavior. Normal-Inverse-Gamma (NIG) evidential regression provides a structured decomposition of predictive variability into data-scale and predictive-mean components, but marginal likelihood does not identify their allocation. We address this semantic ambiguity in masked representation learning. MORSE (Masked Observability for Reliable Structured Encoding) predicts the same hidden target under controlled changes in visible context and uses normalized cross-context variation to ground predictive-mean uncertainty, while a Gaussian objective learns the conditional mean and data scale. The normalized variation plays the role of the NIG factor 1/ν, which the marginal leaves unidentified; this yields a policy-relative observability variance that measures dependence on visible evidence, distinct from variation induced by resampling the training set. On a Gaussian-process benchmark with a contextual reference built from analytic Bayes conditional means, MORSE has the lowest log-variance error among compared evidential, ensemble, and dropout estimators in all nine tested settings, while the estimator closest to training-set variation perturbs the model rather than its context in every setting, so the two references separate the estimators empirically. MORSE amortizes observability estimation into one forward pass per observation state. On a heteroscedastic pulse benchmark, its predictor's cross-context variance approaches a large-sample reference as training data increase. MORSE also improves low-label transfer on PTB-XL and in-distribution trajectory prediction on IMPTC.
Early action prediction seeks to anticipate an action before it fully unfolds, but limited visual evidence makes this task especially challenging. We introduce EAST, a simple and efficient framework that enables a model to reason about incomplete observations. In our empirical study, we identify key components when training early action prediction models. Our key contribution is a randomized training strategy that samples a time step separating observed and unobserved video frames, enabling a single model to generalize seamlessly across all test-time observation ratios. We further show that joint learning on both observed and future (oracle) representations significantly boosts performance, even allowing an encoder-only model to excel. To improve scalability, we propose a token masking procedure that cuts memory usage in half and accelerates training by 2x with negligible accuracy loss. Combined with a forecasting decoder, EAST sets a new state of the art on NTU60, SSv2, and UCF101, surpassing previous best work by 10.1, 7.7, and 3.9 percentage points, respectively.
Iva Sović, Ivan Martinović, Marin Oršić
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, University of Zagreb, Croatia
Masked video modeling (MVM) has emerged as a simple and scalable self-supervised pretraining paradigm, but only encodes motion information implicitly, limiting the encoding of temporal dynamics in the learned representations. As a result, such models struggle on motion-centric tasks that require fine-grained motion awareness. To address this, we propose TrackMAE, a simple masked video modeling paradigm that explicitly uses motion information as a reconstruction signal. In TrackMAE, we use an off-the-shelf point tracker to sparsely track points in the input videos, generating motion trajectories. Furthermore, we exploit the extracted trajectories to improve random tube masking with a motion-aware masking strategy. We enhance video representations learned in both pixel and feature semantic reconstruction spaces by providing a complementary supervision signal in the form of motion targets. We evaluate on six datasets across diverse downstream settings and find that TrackMAE consistently outperforms state-of-the-art video self-supervised learning baselines, learning more discriminative and generalizable representations. Code available at https://github.com/rvandeghen/TrackMAE
Renaud Vandeghen, Fida Mohammad Thoker, Marc Van Droogenbroeck +1