MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362676646 · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2023.100814

A study on road accident prediction and contributing factors using explainable machine learning models: analysis and performance

2023· article· en· W4362676646 on OpenAlexaff
Shakil Ahmed, Md Akbar Hossain, Sayan Kumar Ray, Md. Mafijul Islam Bhuiyan, Saifur Rahman Sabuj

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoad accidentRandom forestComputer scienceMachine learningAdaBoostBoosting (machine learning)Categorical variableGradient boostingArtificial intelligenceRoad traffic accidentPredictive modellingClassifier (UML)Transport engineeringRoad trafficEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Road accidents are increasing worldwide and are causing millions of deaths each year. They impose significant financial and economic expenses on society. Existing research has mostly studied road accident prediction as a classification problem, which aims to predict whether a traffic accident may happen in the future or not without exploring the underneath relationships between the complicated factors contributing to road accidents. A number of research have been done to date to explore the importance of road accident contributing factors in relation to road accidents and their severity, however, only a few of those research have explored a subset of ensemble ML models and the New Zealand (NZ) road accident dataset. Therefore, in this paper, we have evaluated a set of machine learning (ML) models to predict road accident severity based on the most recent NZ road accident dataset. We have also analysed the predicted results and applied an explainable ML (XML) technique to evaluate the importance of road accident contributing factors. To predict road accidents with different injury severity, this work has considered different ensembles of ML models, like Random Forest (RF), Decision Jungle (DJ), Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (L-GBM), and Categorical Boosting (CatBoost). New Zealand road accident data from 2016 through 2020 obtained from the New Zealand Ministry of Transport is used to perform this study. The comparison results show that RF is the best classifier with 81.45% accuracy, 81.68% precision, 81.42% recall, and 81.04% of F1-Score. Next, we have employed the Shapley value analysis as an XML technique to interpret the RF model performance at global and local levels. While the global level explanation provides the rank of the features’ contribution to severity classification, the local one is for exploring the use of features in the model. Furthermore, the Shapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) dependence plot is used to investigate the relationship and interaction of the features towards the target variable prediction. Based on the findings, it can be said that the road category and number of vehicles involved in an accident significantly impact injury severity. The identified high-ranked features through SHAP analysis are used to retrain the ML models and measure their performance. The result shows 6%, 5%, and 8%, increase, respectively, in the performances of DJ, AdaBoost, and CatBoost models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations176
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Interdisciplinary PerspectivesSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207