An Alternative Method for Traffic Accident Severity Prediction: Using Deep Forests Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traffic safety has always been an important issue in sustainable transportation development, and the prediction of traffic accident severity remains a crucial challenging issue in the domain of traffic safety. A huge variety of forecasting models have been proposed to meet this challenge. These models gradually evolved from linear to nonlinear forms and from traditional statistical regression models to current popular machine learning models. Recently, a machine learning algorithm called Deep Forests based on the decision tree ensemble has aroused widespread concern, which was proposed for the first time by a research team of Nanjing University. This algorithm was proved to be more accurate and robust in comparison with other machine learning algorithms. Motivated by this benefit, this study employs the UK road safety dataset to propose a novel method for predicting the severity of traffic accidents based on the Deep Forests algorithm. To verify the superiority of our proposed method, several other machine learning algorithm-based perdition models were implemented to predict traffic accident severity with the same dataset, and the prediction results show that the Deep Forests algorithm present good stability, fewer hyper-parameters, and the highest accuracy under different level of training data volume. It is expected that the findings from this study would be helpful for the establishment or improvement of effective traffic safety system within a sustainable transportation system, which is of great significance for helping government managers to establish timely proactive strategies in traffic accident prevention and effectively improve road traffic safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".