Debiased Machine Learning for Estimating the Causal Effect of Urban Traffic on Pedestrian Crossing Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before the transition of automated vehicles (AVs) to urban roads and subsequently unprecedented changes in traffic conditions, the evaluation of transportation policies and futuristic road design related to pedestrian crossing behavior is of vital importance. Recent studies analyzed the non-causal impact of various variables on pedestrian waiting time in the presence of AVs. However, we mainly investigate the causal effect of traffic density on pedestrian waiting time. We develop a double/debiased machine learning (DML) model in which the impact of the confounders variable influencing both a policy and an outcome of interest is addressed, resulting in unbiased policy evaluation. Furthermore, we try to analyze the effect of traffic density by developing a copula-based joint model of the two main components of pedestrian crossing behavior, pedestrian stress level and waiting time. The copula approach has been widely used in the literature for addressing self-selection problems, which can be classified as a causality analysis in travel behavior modeling. The results obtained from copula approach and DML are compared based on the effect of traffic density. In the DML model structure, the standard error term of the density parameter is lower than that of the copula approach and the confidence interval is considerably more reliable. In addition, despite the similar sign of effect, the copula approach estimates the effect of traffic density lower than DML, because of the spurious effect of the confounders. In short, the DML model structure can flexibly adjust the impact of confounders by using machine learning algorithms and is more reliable for planning future policies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".