Dynamic short-term crash risk prediction from traffic conflicts at signalized intersections with emerging mixed traffic flow: A novel conflict indicator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic short-term crash risk prediction derived from traffic conflicts can provide significant support for proactive safety management at signalized intersections. Especially after the formation of emerging mixed traffic flow, an accurate prediction of future crash risk can help conceive proactive crash prevention measures. However, the precision of crash risk estimation at signalized intersections with emerging mixed traffic flow is still subject to doubt, largely attributable to the lack of an exclusive conflict indicator. This situation presents considerable challenges to the dynamic short-term crash risk prediction at signalized intersections with emerging mixed traffic flow. Therefore, this study performs dynamic short-term crash risk prediction from traffic conflicts at signalized intersections with emerging mixed traffic flow by combining the non-stationary generalized extreme value (GEV) model and the self-attention mechanism-based online learning long short-term memory (SAM-OL-LSTM) approach. A novel conflict indicator, the time to avoid a crash (TTAC), is developed to describe traffic conflicts in the emerging mixed traffic flow. Based on TTAC, a non-stationary GEV model that considers acceleration variance as a covariate is developed to calculate the value at risk (VaR) for each minute, which is used to dynamically quantify crash risk at signalized intersections. Afterwards, the SAM-OL-LSTM approach that considers traffic volume and the uncertainty in vehicle speed distribution as two input features is proposed to dynamically predict the VaR for the future one minute based on the VaR time series data of the prior five minutes. The results indicate that: i) the proposed SAM-OL-LSTM approach outperforms baseline approaches under various MPRs in terms of prediction accuracy; ii) the application of VaR facilitates a dynamic quantification of the crash risk at an intra-minute temporal resolution; iii) the developed TTAC exhibits a strong capability in identifying traffic conflicts in the emerging mixed traffic flow at signalized intersections. The findings of this study can provide a theoretical foundation for proactive traffic control considering the future crash risk in the emerging mixed traffic flow at signalized intersections.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".