A cross-comparison of different extreme value modeling techniques for traffic conflict-based crash risk estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• A comprehensive comparison of different extreme value modeling approaches for conflict-based crash frequency estimation is conducted. • The block maxima model, peak-over-threshold model, and their variants are included in the comparison. • Incorporating additional order statistics enhances predictive performance, especially with limited extreme conflict samples. • The dynamic threshold selection method outperforms the fixed threshold selection method in peak-over-threshold modeling. • Generally, integrating two conflict indicators leads to more accurate crash frequency estimation results. • The bivariate peak-over-threshold model with the dynamic threshold shows superior prediction accuracy over the bivariate block maxima model. Extreme Value Theory (EVT) models have recently gained increasing popularity for crash risk estimation using traffic conflict data. Extreme value modeling consists of two fundamental approaches: the block maxima approach and the peak-over-threshold approach, each with several variants. However, a comprehensive comparison of these two approaches and their variants in crash risk estimation is lacking. This study bridges this gap by comparing different extreme value modeling techniques and evaluating their performance in estimating crash frequencies. Within a non-stationary Bayesian hierarchical modeling framework, the analyzed models include the block maxima model, the r largest order statistic model, and the peak-over-threshold model with the fixed and dynamic threshold, across univariate and bivariate traffic conflict cases. The analysis utilizes modified time-to-collision and post-encroachment time conflict indicator data collected from four signalized intersections in the City of Surrey, British Columbia, Canada. The results show that incorporating additional order statistics in the r largest order statistic model improves predictive performance, particularly with limited extreme conflict samples. Moreover, employing the dynamic threshold within the peak-over-threshold model enhances model goodness-of-fit and yields more accurate crash frequency estimates compared to using the fixed threshold. While the performance of the block maxima and peak-over-threshold models varies with the selected conflict indicator in the univariate case, the bivariate peak-over-threshold model with the dynamic threshold exhibits superior overall prediction accuracy over the corresponding block maxima model. This is likely due to the effectiveness of the dynamic threshold in precisely identifying truly critical extreme conflicts.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".