Traffic Incident Duration Prediction: A Systematic Review of Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic literature review investigates the application of machine learning (ML) techniques for predicting traffic incident durations, a crucial component of intelligent transportation systems (ITSs) aimed at mitigating congestion and enhancing environmental sustainability. Utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we systematically analyze literature that overviews models for incident duration prediction. Our review identifies that while traditional ML models like XGBoost and Random Forest are prevalent, significant potential exists for advanced methodologies such as bilevel and hybrid frameworks. Key challenges identified include the following: data quality issues, model interpretability, and the complexities associated with high‐dimensional datasets. Future research directions proposed include the following: (1) development of data fusion models that integrate heterogeneous datasets of incident reports for enhanced predictive modeling; (2) utilization of natural language processing (NLP) to extract contextual information from textual incident reports; and (3) implementation of advanced ML pipelines that incorporate anomaly detection, hyperparameter optimization, and sophisticated feature selection techniques. The findings underscore the transformative potential of advanced ML methodologies in traffic incident management, contributing to the development of safer, more efficient, and environmentally sustainable transportation systems.
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 | 0.011 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".