Simulating the Unseen: Crash Prediction Must Learn from What Did Not Happen

Dominique Lord; Hao Zhang; Jiwan Jiang; Keke Long; Keshu Wu; Kexin Tian; Mohammad Anis; Tianbao Yang; Xiangbo Gao; Xiaopeng Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Simulating the Unseen: Crash Prediction Must Learn from What Did Not Happen

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Crash prediction is statistically starved; the paper argues the fix is counterfactual learning from near-miss events, with a Fisher-information argument that near-miss augmentation sharply lowers estimator variance.

desk verdict A useful position paper whose central efficiency argument for near-miss augmentation confounds the crash probability p with the augmented positive rate p+alpha. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21743 v1 pith:6SOQMJ7D submitted 2025-05-27 cs.LG cs.AI

Zihao Li , Xinyuan Cao , Xiangbo Gao , Kexin Tian , Keshu Wu , Mohammad Anis , Hao Zhang , Keke Long

show 7 more authors

Jiwan Jiang Xiaopeng Li Yunlong Zhang Tianbao Yang Dominique Lord Zhengzhong Tu Yang Zhou

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords trafficcrashpredictionnear-missaugmentationcounterfactualsafetylearningFisherinformationrare-eventestimationVisionZerodigitaltwinsimulationgenerativescenariosynthesis

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Traffic crashes are so rare—on the order of $10^{-9}$ to $10^{-6}$ per instant of driving—that crash-only records carry almost no statistical information about crash risk: for a Bernoulli model, any unbiased estimator of the crash probability $p$ has relative standard error at least $1/\sqrt{Np}$, so even billions of uneventful miles leave the estimate noisy. The paper argues that the only way out is counterfactual safety learning: explicitly generate and learn from near-miss events, situations where the crash probability is high but the crash did not occur. Mathematically, adding near-miss samples raises the effective positive rate from $p$ to $p+\alpha$ and reduces the relative standard error to about $1/\sqrt{N(p+\alpha)}$, turning sparse crash records into rich training signals. The paper then lays out a four-pillar AI agenda—generative scenario creation, a digital-twin testbed, multi-objective validation, and reasoning-driven interventions—to produce, validate, and exploit such near-miss data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the Bernoulli-model Fisher information $I(p)=1/(p(1-p))\approx 1/p$ for small $p$, combined with the Cramér–Rao bound $\mathrm{Var}(\hat{p})\ge p/N$ and the resulting relative standard error $1/\sqrt{Np}$. The counterfactual augmentation rule labels near-misses by the condition $\Pr(Y_t=1 \mid Z_{t-\Delta:t}) > \tau$ using the model's own estimated crash probability, which changes the effective positive rate to $p+\alpha$ and yields $\mathrm{RSE}\approx 1/\sqrt{N(p+\alpha)}$. The engineering machinery that operationalizes this is a four-pillar framework: a crash-focused digital twin built by fusing detailed road geometry, vehicle dynamics, and environmental simulation; a generative scenario engine based on diffusion models, adversarial perturbation, and reinforcement-learning editing; a multi-objective validator combining surrogate-severity alignment with a rare-event reproduction index under Pareto search; and an intervention platform coupling reinforcement learning with vision-language reasoning.

What would settle it

Run a controlled experiment where the true crash probability $p$ is known from a generative model, draw $N$ samples with only crash indicators, then apply the paper's near-miss augmentation using the model's own probability estimates. If the augmented estimator's variance does not decrease toward $1/(N(p+\alpha))$ without a compensating bias, or if the same variance reduction is obtained when the near-miss labels are replaced by random labels matched to the same positive rate, then the claimed Fisher-information gain is an artifact of relabeling rather than a real information gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central quantitative claim is that crash prediction is statistically starved: with per-instant crash probabilities around $10^{-9}$ to $10^{-6}$, the Fisher information per Bernoulli observation is about $1/p$, so the Cramér–Rao bound forces any unbiased estimator of $p$ to have relative standard error at least $1/\sqrt{Np}$. Because crashes are also confounded by unobserved human and environmental factors, crash-only datasets cannot support reliable models. The proposed remedy, counterfactual near-miss augmentation, defines near-misses as events where the model-estimated crash probability $\Pr(Y_t=1 \mid Z_{t-\Delta:t})$ exceeds a threshold $\tau$; adding these samples changes the effective positive rate to $p+\alpha$ and reduces the relative standard error to approximately $1/\sqrt{N(p+\alpha)}$. This statistical argument underpins a broader agenda: a pipeline of generative scenario engines, digital-twin simulation, multi-scale validation, and causal reasoning that manufactures and exploits near-miss events to make crash prediction efficient and actionable.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that near-miss events labeled by a threshold on the model's own estimated crash probability are valid positive examples for estimating the true crash probability, rather than relabelings that merely inflate the effective sample size.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Crash-only datasets are fundamentally insufficient: even very large naturalistic studies with tens of millions of miles and only hundreds of crashes cannot support precise crash-probability estimates.
Near-miss augmentation can reduce the relative standard error of crash-probability estimators from $1/\sqrt{Np}$ to $1/\sqrt{N(p+\alpha)}$, meaning far less driving data is needed to reach the same precision.
Simulation platforms must be judged by their explicit coverage of high-risk joint conditions (for example, low friction combined with delayed braking and poor visibility), not merely by total simulated kilometers.
Causal and neuro-symbolic validators are required to turn synthetic near-misses into actionable counterfactual explanations, such as 'had friction been higher, the crash would not have persisted.'
The agenda implies a concrete validation criterion: synthetic data must reproduce the tail of observed crash distributions through a rare-event reproduction index, not just match average traffic statistics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same statistical logic transfers to any rare-event prediction problem beyond traffic—medical adverse events, equipment failure, fraud—provided a credible near-miss label exists; the paper does not make this generalization, but its Fisher-information argument is domain-agnostic.
The paper's near-miss definition is circular: a model's own probability estimate selects the training examples for that model. A testable extension would require near-miss labels from an independent source (human expert annotation or physical surrogates) and a study of how label quality affects the variance reduction.
A concrete next step the paper does not spell out is to benchmark a single pipeline component, such as a generative scenario engine, by measuring how much additional Fisher information its synthesized near-misses actually contribute relative to real near-miss data.
The multi-objective Pareto validation criterion suggests an acceptance test for synthetic near-misses: the generated scenarios must simultaneously match microscopic realism, surrogate-aligned hotspots, and the empirical crash tail, a requirement that goes beyond the paper's headline variance-reduction argument.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look, but with a red flag on the math. This is a well-put-together position paper: the four-pillar agenda—generative scenario engines, digital twins, multi-scale validation, and intervention design—is a sensible map for counterfactual safety learning, and the discussion of data limitations, surrogate measures, and the macro-micro gap is honest. The dataset and simulator appendices are a useful reference.

What is new is mostly synthesis. The individual pieces (rare-event simulation, adversarial scenario generation, TTC and other surrogates, digital twins) are already in the cited literature, and the paper says so. Its advertised novelty is 'the first systematic mathematical analysis' of rarity and randomness in safety learning. Appendix A is a textbook Fisher-information bound for Bernoulli outcomes; Appendix B is a reasonable but unproven marginalization argument. The problem is Appendix C.

Appendix C defines near-misses by thresholding the model-estimated crash probability Pr(Y_t=1|Z), sets alpha = P(that threshold exceeded and no crash), and then computes an RSE of 1/sqrt(N(p+alpha)). That is the RSE of the combined crash/near-miss rate, not of p. The near-miss labels come from the model itself, so there is a circularity: you are labeling events with the very quantity you are trying to estimate. If you knew alpha and subtracted it to recover p, the variance of the estimate of p would be (p+alpha)(1-p-alpha)/N, whose relative error is larger than the crash-only value by roughly sqrt((p+alpha)/p). So the claimed efficiency gain is an artifact of changing the estimand. The stress test is correct. This is load-bearing because the paper cites Appendix C as the quantitative motivation for the whole agenda.

What is good: the paper is candid about what is not known, grounds its claims in the literature, and the appendices are a solid reference collection. There is no empirical validation, which is acceptable for a position paper, but it means the argument must stand on its own.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. The topic is important and the programmatic parts deserve discussion, but a referee should push the authors to fix the statistical argument or resubmit as a pure research proposal without the math. I would not cite the Appendix C result until it is corrected.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a position paper arguing that traffic crash prediction should be reframed from crash-only learning to counterfactual near-miss learning: because crashes are rare and stochastic, models should also learn from events that almost happened. It reviews the core challenges (rarity and randomness, human behavioral diversity, multi-agent interactions, data scarcity), criticizes current macroscopic models, surrogate safety measures, and simulation platforms, and then proposes a four-pillar AI-centered agenda spanning generative scenario creation, a digital-twin testbed, multi-scale validation with causal reasoning, and intervention design. Appendices A-C provide the mathematical scaffolding for the argument: a Bernoulli rare-event Fisher-information bound, a claim that marginalizing unobserved factors reduces Fisher information, and a derivation that counterfactual near-miss augmentation reduces estimator relative standard error from 1/sqrt(N p) to about 1/sqrt(N(p+alpha)).

Significance. If the statistical argument in Appendix C were correct, the paper would provide a principled justification for its central thesis and would serve as a useful roadmap for the traffic-safety community. The paper is strong in breadth: it catalogues real-world and simulated datasets, naturalistic driving studies, generative scenario methods, simulators, and validation metrics, and it identifies real gaps such as macro-micro inconsistency, ambiguous surrogate thresholds, and under-sampling of crash tails in simulation. The attempt to formalize the efficiency intuition in appendices is commendable and gives referees a concrete claim to check. However, the Appendix C computation does not establish variance reduction for estimating the crash probability p; it changes the estimand. The thesis may still be correct, but the quantitative support as written is not.

major comments (3)

[Appendix C] The claimed RSE reduction is for the augmented positive rate p+alpha, not for the crash probability p. The augmented sample labels a time step as positive if either Y_t=1 or Pr(Y_t=1|Z_{t-delta:t})>tau with Y_t=0, so its success probability is p+alpha = p + Pr(Pr(Y_t=1|Z)>tau, Y_t=0). Repeating the Bernoulli calculation of Appendix A gives RSE approximately 1/sqrt(N(p+alpha)) for the combined near-miss/crash rate only. If alpha were known and subtracted to recover p, the variance would be (p+alpha)(1-p-alpha)/N, whose relative error exceeds the crash-only value by roughly sqrt((p+alpha)/p); the augmentation would increase, not decrease, the RSE of the crash-probability estimate. The same symbol hat-p is reused, but no estimator of p based on the augmented labels is actually defined. The paper must either exhibit an unbiased estimator of p with Fisher information N(p+alpha), or explicitly reframe the claim as variance reduction for the joint near-miss/crash rate.
[Section 2.1 and Appendix C] The near-miss labels are generated by thresholding Pr(Y_t=1|Z_{t-delta:t}), which is the very quantity the paper proposes to estimate. If the threshold uses the model's own probability output, the labels are functions of the model and carry no independent ground-truth information about crash risk; the apparent Fisher-information gain is then an artifact of relabeling events as positives. This circularity is load-bearing because Section 2.1 explicitly says the paper proposes augmenting with near-miss cases where the model-estimated crash probability exceeds a threshold. The manuscript should specify an oracle or external data source for near-miss labels that does not reference the estimated crash probability, or acknowledge that the augmentation analysis applies only to a model-dependent composite positive rate.
[Appendix B] The claim that marginalizing over unobserved factors Et and Ht reduces the Fisher information is asserted without proof. The displayed integral for Pr(Y_t=1|X_t) is a standard marginalization, and it does not by itself imply reduced curvature of the log-likelihood or reduced Fisher information. Since this claim is part of the paper's formal case that crash-only learning is statistically inefficient beyond the Bernoulli rarity argument of Appendix A, it should be proved under explicit assumptions (for example, a parametric model with latent variables) or removed from the technical argument.

minor comments (6)

[Appendix C] The displayed formula 'RSE(hat-p) = 1/sqrt(N p) - > RSEaug(hat-p) approx 1/sqrt(N(p+alpha))' is garbled in the manuscript; please typeset it correctly as 1/sqrt(N p) and 1/sqrt(N(p+alpha)).
[Section 1] There are typos and punctuation issues, including 'inadequent' for 'inadequate' and 'data, hungry AI models' in the 'Hungry Models' callout; these should be corrected.
[Section 2.1] The paper calls near-miss events 'counterfactual' without an operational definition; please define the term precisely when it is first used, distinguishing model-generated near-misses from observed conflicts or surrogate-based events.
[Section 3.2] The statement that 'unless TTC falls into a very low regime, there is no consensus on what threshold signifies danger' would benefit from a citation or a quantitative illustration of the contested threshold range.
[References] Reference [33] lists 'Anonymous Zhora' as the author of a NeurIPS poster; this is not a proper citation and should be corrected or removed.
[Table 1] The symbol-based focus codes in Table 1 are compact and hard to parse; a legend column or explicit text labels for each dataset would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Appendix C's near-miss labels are defined by thresholding the model's own crash-probability estimate, and its RSE improvement silently replaces the estimand p by p+alpha; the central quantitative case for augmentation reduces by construction.

self definitional [Section 2.1 and Appendix C (definition of near-miss set and alpha)]
"We propose augmenting the dataset with near-miss cases where the model-estimated crash probability exceeds a threshold. ... We therefore augment the dataset with near-miss samples satisfying Pr(Yt = 1| Zt−∆:t) > τ ... α = Pr(Pr(Yt = 1| Zt−∆:t) > τ, Yt = 0) ≫ p"

The near-miss label set is defined by thresholding Pr(Y_t=1 | Z_{t−Δ:t}), which is exactly the conditional crash probability the model is intended to estimate. Treating the model's own thresholded scores as ground-truth positive labels means the augmented data carry no independent information about crash risk; any increase in the positive rate is manufactured by relabeling the target function's outputs. The threshold tau can be chosen to produce any desired alpha, so the claimed Fisher-information boost is an artifact of self-labeling rather than evidence about crashes.
other [Appendix C, final RSE comparison]
"Refer to Appendix A, the RSE improves from RSE(ˆp) = 1√N p − →RSEaug(ˆp) ≈ 1p N (p + α) ≪ 1√N p."

The augmented label has success probability q = p + alpha, not p. The displayed RSE is the relative error of an estimator of q, namely sqrt(q(1−q)/N)/q ≈ 1/sqrt(Nq). If the target remains p, an unbiased estimator must subtract alpha, giving variance q(1−q)/N ≈ (p+alpha)/N and RSE ≈ sqrt((p+alpha)/p)/sqrt(Np), which is larger than the crash-only 1/sqrt(Np). The claimed improvement therefore follows by replacing the estimand p with p+alpha by construction; it is not a variance reduction for the crash probability the paper says it is estimating.

full rationale

The paper is a position/agenda paper rather than an empirical study, so Appendix C is the only quantitative support for its central thesis that crash prediction must learn from near-misses. That derivation is circular in two connected ways. First, the near-miss positives are defined by thresholding the model-estimated crash probability, i.e., the very quantity to be learned; the augmented labels are the model's own outputs promoted to ground truth. Second, the displayed RSE improvement is obtained by substituting the augmented positive rate p+alpha into the Bernoulli RSE formula while keeping the symbol p, thereby changing the estimand from crash probability to combined crash-or-near-miss rate. An unbiased estimator of p would have larger, not smaller, relative standard error under the paper's own model. The self-citations in the paper are descriptive and not load-bearing for this mathematical claim, and the broader agenda is independent, but the quantitative heart of the argument reduces to relabeling and estimand switching. Hence a score of 8 is appropriate: the central claimed efficiency gain is forced by the definitions used in Appendix C.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Its free parameters and assumptions are concentrated in the near-miss labeling rule, which is both an unspecified threshold and a circular use of the target quantity.

free parameters (1)

Near-miss threshold tau
Used in Appendix C to define which samples count as near-misses. The value is never specified and directly controls the size and composition of the augmented dataset.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Crashes at each time step follow a Bernoulli distribution with constant mean p
Appendix A models Y_t ~ Bernoulli(p_t) and then treats p = E[p_t] as a fixed parameter. This ignores time-varying covariates that are central to the rest of the paper.
standard math Samples are independent so that the Cramer-Rao bound applies with N independent observations
Appendix A implicitly assumes independence of the Bernoulli draws; correlated traffic states would reduce effective sample size.
ad hoc to paper Marginalizing over unobserved factors reduces Fisher information
Appendix B states this without a derivation or bound; the displayed integration does not, by itself, prove a decrease in any estimator's precision.
ad hoc to paper Near-miss events defined by a model-estimated crash probability threshold are informative positives for estimating crash risk
Appendix C defines the augmentation set using the model's own estimate Pr(Y_t=1|Z), which is the target of learning; this is the paper's core unproven assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simulating the Unseen: Crash Prediction Must Learn from What Did Not Happen." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SOQMJ7D

@misc{pith2026250521743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simulating the Unseen: Crash Prediction Must Learn from What Did Not Happen},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SOQMJ7D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21743}
}

read the original abstract

Traffic safety science has long been hindered by a fundamental data paradox: the crashes we most wish to prevent are precisely those events we rarely observe. Existing crash-frequency models and surrogate safety metrics rely heavily on sparse, noisy, and under-reported records, while even sophisticated, high-fidelity simulations undersample the long-tailed situations that trigger catastrophic outcomes such as fatalities. We argue that the path to achieving Vision Zero, i.e., the complete elimination of traffic fatalities and severe injuries, requires a paradigm shift from traditional crash-only learning to a new form of counterfactual safety learning: reasoning not only about what happened, but also about the vast set of plausible yet perilous scenarios that could have happened under slightly different circumstances. To operationalize this shift, our proposed agenda bridges macro to micro. Guided by crash-rate priors, generative scene engines, diverse driver models, and causal learning, near-miss events are synthesized and explained. A crash-focused digital twin testbed links micro scenes to macro patterns, while a multi-objective validator ensures that simulations maintain statistical realism. This pipeline transforms sparse crash data into rich signals for crash prediction, enabling the stress-testing of vehicles, roads, and policies before deployment. By learning from crashes that almost happened, we can shift traffic safety from reactive forensics to proactive prevention, advancing Vision Zero.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21743 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Context-aware group-wise interactions and both intra-type and cross-type relations in traffic, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** A pipeline integrating GenAI-driven scenario creation, digital twin perturbation testing, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Mind-map of generative AI techniques for scenario creation and behavior emulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

DRAMA-X: A Fine-grained Intent Prediction and Risk Reasoning Benchmark For Driving
cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A new benchmark, DRAMA-X, adds multi-class directional intents, risk labels, and action suggestions for vulnerable road users to frames from the DRAMA dataset, and shows that scene-graph reasoning improves VLM risk sc...
Forecasting the Emergence and Evolution of Crash Hotspots: A Unified Deep Learning Framework for Proactive Traffic Safety
cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A CNN–Transformer with exposure anchoring, Hawkes self-excitation, and mixture-of-experts forecasts weekly crash hotspots and life cycles better than five matched baselines across six Wisconsin counties.
Edge-Based Multimodal Sensor Data Fusion with Vision Language Models (VLMs) for Real-time Autonomous Vehicle Accident Avoidance
cs.AI 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

A lightweight vision-language model on an edge device fuses roadside hazard alerts with onboard camera views to adjust trajectories, and the authors report a 77% simulated collision reduction over a vision-only baseline.
Automated Vehicles Should be Connected with Natural Language
cs.MA 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

A vision paper recommending natural language as the universal communication medium for connected and automated vehicles.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

193 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

[1]

Early estimate of motor vehicle traffic fatalities in

National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Early estimate of motor vehicle traffic fatalities in
[2]

Blincoe, T

L. Blincoe, T. Miller, J.-S. Wang, D. Swedler, T. Coughlin, B. Lawrence, F. Guo, S. Klauer, and T. Dingus. The economic and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2019 (revised). Technical Report DOT HS 813 403, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, February 2023

2019
[3]

Poisson, poisson-gamma and zero-inflated regression models of motor vehicle crashes: balancing statistical fit and theory

Dominique Lord, Simon P Washington, and John N Ivan. Poisson, poisson-gamma and zero-inflated regression models of motor vehicle crashes: balancing statistical fit and theory. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37(1):35–46, 2005

2005
[4]

Virtual roads, smarter safety: A digital twin framework for mixed autonomous traffic safety analysis

Hao Zhang, Ximin Yue, Kexin Tian, Sixu Li, Keshu Wu, Zihao Li, Dominique Lord, and Yang Zhou. Virtual roads, smarter safety: A digital twin framework for mixed autonomous traffic safety analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17968, 2025

arXiv 2025
[5]

Hetero-convlstm: A deep learning approach to traffic accident prediction on heterogeneous spatio-temporal data

Zhuoning Yuan, Xun Zhou, and Tianbao Yang. Hetero-convlstm: A deep learning approach to traffic accident prediction on heterogeneous spatio-temporal data. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, pages 984–992, 2018

2018
[6]

Riskoracle: A minute-level citywide traffic accident forecasting framework

Zhengyang Zhou, Yang Wang, Xike Xie, Lianliang Chen, and Hengchang Liu. Riskoracle: A minute-level citywide traffic accident forecasting framework. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 1258–1265, 2020

2020
[7]

Crashformer: A multimodal architecture to predict the risk of crash

Amin Karimi Monsefi, Pouya Shiri, Ahmad Mohammadshirazi, Nastaran Karimi Monsefi, Ron Davies, Sobhan Moosavi, and Rajiv Ramnath. Crashformer: A multimodal architecture to predict the risk of crash. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Advances in Urban-AI, pages 42–51, 2023

2023
[8]

Leveraging textual description and structured data for estimating crash risks of traffic violation: A multimodal learning approach

Zihao Li, Chaolun Ma, Yang Zhou, Dominique Lord, and Yunlong Zhang. Leveraging textual description and structured data for estimating crash risks of traffic violation: A multimodal learning approach. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pages 1–13,

Show all 193 references

[9]

Enhancing crash frequency modeling based on augmented multi-type data by hybrid vae-diffusion-based generative neural networks

Junlan Chen, Qijie He, Pei Liu, Wei Ma, and Ziyuan Pu. Enhancing crash frequency modeling based on augmented multi-type data by hybrid vae-diffusion-based generative neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10017, 2025

2025
[10]

Supporting equitable and responsible highway safety improvement funding allocation strategies–why ai prediction biases matter

Zihang Wei, Yang Zhou, Zihao Li, Mihir Kulkarni, and Yunlong Zhang. Supporting equitable and responsible highway safety improvement funding allocation strategies–why ai prediction biases matter. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 202:107585, 2024

2024
[11]

Hoffmann and Rugolf G

Errol R. Hoffmann and Rugolf G. Mortimer. Drivers’ estimates of time to collision. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 26(4):511–520, 1994

1994
[12]

post encroachment time

PJ Cooper. Experience with traffic conflicts in canada with emphasis on “post encroachment time” techniques. In International calibration study of traffic conflict techniques, pages 75–96. Springer, 1984. 10

1984
[13]

Estimating crash risk and injury severity considering multiple traffic conflict and crash types: A bivariate extreme value approach

Md Mohasin Howlader, Fred Mannering, and Md Mazharul Haque. Estimating crash risk and injury severity considering multiple traffic conflict and crash types: A bivariate extreme value approach. Analytic Methods in Accident Research, 42:100331, 2024

2024
[14]

Anticipating traffic accidents with adaptive loss and large-scale incident db

Tomoyuki Suzuki, Hirokatsu Kataoka, Yoshimitsu Aoki, and Yutaka Satoh. Anticipating traffic accidents with adaptive loss and large-scale incident db. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3521–3529, 2018

2018
[15]

A system of vision sensor based deep neural networks for complex driving scene analysis in support of crash risk assessment and prevention

Muhammad Monjurul Karim, Yu Li, Ruwen Qin, and Zhaozheng Yin. A system of vision sensor based deep neural networks for complex driving scene analysis in support of crash risk assessment and prevention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10319, 2021

2021 arXiv
[16]

Evaluating the performance of traffic conflict measures in real-time crash risk prediction using pre-crash vehicle trajectories

Kequan Chen, Chengcheng Xu, Pan Liu, Zhibin Li, and Yuxuan Wang. Evaluating the performance of traffic conflict measures in real-time crash risk prediction using pre-crash vehicle trajectories. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 203:107640, 2024

2024
[17]

Abductive ego-view accident video understanding for safe driving perception

Jianwu Fang, Lei lei Li, Junfei Zhou, Junbin Xiao, Hongkai Yu, Chen Lv, Jianru Xue, and Tat-Seng Chua. Abductive ego-view accident video understanding for safe driving perception. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024

2024
[18]

Ai2-active safety: Ai-enabled interaction-aware active safety analysis with vehicle dynamics

Keshu Wu, Zihao Li, Sixu Li, Xinyue Ye, Dominique Lord, and Yang Zhou. Ai2-active safety: Ai-enabled interaction-aware active safety analysis with vehicle dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00322, 2025

2025 arXiv
[19]

Deepaccident: A motion and accident prediction benchmark for v2x autonomous driving

Tianqi Wang, Sukmin Kim, Ji Wenxuan, Enze Xie, Chongjian Ge, Junsong Chen, Zhenguo Li, and Ping Luo. Deepaccident: A motion and accident prediction benchmark for v2x autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 5599–5606, 2024

2024
[20]

A digital twin in transportation: Real-time synergy of traffic data streams and simulation for virtualizing motorway dynamics

Krešimir Kuši ´c, René Schumann, and Edouard Ivanjko. A digital twin in transportation: Real-time synergy of traffic data streams and simulation for virtualizing motorway dynamics. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 55:101858, 2023

2023
[21]

A digital twin framework for physical-virtual integration in v2x-enabled connected vehicle corridors

Keshu Wu, Pei Li, Yang Cheng, Steven T Parker, Bin Ran, David A Noyce, and Xinyue Ye. A digital twin framework for physical-virtual integration in v2x-enabled connected vehicle corridors. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2025

2025
[22]

Elsevier, 2021

Dominique Lord, Xiao Qin, and Srinivas R Geedipally.Highway safety analytics and modeling. Elsevier, 2021

2021
[23]

Big data, traditional data and the tradeoffs between prediction and causality in highway-safety analysis

Fred Mannering, Chandra R Bhat, Venky Shankar, and Mohamed Abdel-Aty. Big data, traditional data and the tradeoffs between prediction and causality in highway-safety analysis. Analytic methods in accident research, 25:100113, 2020

2020
[24]

Statistical road safety modeling

Ezra Hauer. Statistical road safety modeling. Transportation Research Record, 1897(1):81–87, 2004

2004
[25]

Compositional training for end-to-end deep auc maximization

Zhuoning Yuan, Zhishuai Guo, Nitesh Chawla, and Tianbao Yang. Compositional training for end-to-end deep auc maximization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

2021
[26]

Deep auc maximization for medical image classification: Challenges and opportunities

Tianbao Yang. Deep auc maximization for medical image classification: Challenges and opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.02400, 2021

2021 arXiv
[27]

Large-scale robust deep auc maximization: A new surrogate loss and empirical studies on medical image classification

Zhuoning Yuan, Yan Yan, Milan Sonka, and Tianbao Yang. Large-scale robust deep auc maximization: A new surrogate loss and empirical studies on medical image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3040–3049, 2021

2021
[28]

Auc maximization in the era of big data and ai: A survey

Tianbao Yang and Yiming Ying. Auc maximization in the era of big data and ai: A survey. ACM computing surveys, 55(8):1–37, 2022. 11

2022
[29]

Theory of statistical estimation

Ronald Aylmer Fisher. Theory of statistical estimation. In Mathematical proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical society, volume 22, pages 700–725. Cambridge University Press, 1925

1925
[30]

Curse of rarity for autonomous vehicles

Henry X Liu and Shuo Feng. Curse of rarity for autonomous vehicles. nature communications, 15(1):4808, 2024

2024
[31]

Social-bigat: Multimodal trajectory forecasting using bicycle-gan and graph attention networks

Vineet Kosaraju, Amir Sadeghian, Roberto Martín-Martín, Ian Reid, Hamid Rezatofighi, and Silvio Savarese. Social-bigat: Multimodal trajectory forecasting using bicycle-gan and graph attention networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 13772...

2019
[32]

Social-stgcnn: Social spatio- temporal graph convolutional neural networks for human trajectory prediction

Shreya Gong, Mark Hoogendoorn, Yike Lu, and Matthew Turk. Social-stgcnn: Social spatio- temporal graph convolutional neural networks for human trajectory prediction. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), page 10534–10543, 2020

2020
[33]

What truly matters in trajectory prediction for autonomous driving?, 2023

Anonymous Zhora. What truly matters in trajectory prediction for autonomous driving?, 2023. NeurIPS Poster

2023
[34]

Multi-modal agent trajectory prediction with local self- attention contexts

Manoj Bhat and Jonathan Francis. Multi-modal agent trajectory prediction with local self- attention contexts. In NeurIPS Workshop on Machine Learning for Autonomous Driving , 2020

2020
[35]

Multimodal trajectory prediction for autonomous driving with semantic map and dynamic graph attention network

Rowan McAllister. Multimodal trajectory prediction for autonomous driving with semantic map and dynamic graph attention network. In NeurIPS Workshop on Machine Learning for Autonomous Driving, 2020

2020
[36]

The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation

Robert M Yerkes, John D Dodson, et al. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of comparative neurology and psychology, 18(5):459–482, 1908

1908
[37]

Drivers’ rear end collision avoidance behaviors under different levels of situational urgency.Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 71:419–433, 2016

Xuesong Wang, Meixin Zhu, Ming Chen, and Paul Tremont. Drivers’ rear end collision avoidance behaviors under different levels of situational urgency.Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 71:419–433, 2016

2016
[38]

Decision making for human-in-the-loop robotic agents via uncertainty-aware reinforcement learning

Siddharth Singi, Zhanpeng He, Alvin Pan, Sandip Patel, Gunnar A Sigurdsson, Robinson Piramuthu, Shuran Song, and Matei Ciocarlie. Decision making for human-in-the-loop robotic agents via uncertainty-aware reinforcement learning. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotic...

2024
[39]

Lmdrive: Closed-loop end-to-end driving with large language models

Hao Shao, Yuxuan Hu, Letian Wang, Guanglu Song, Steven L Waslander, Yu Liu, and Hongsheng Li. Lmdrive: Closed-loop end-to-end driving with large language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15120–15130, 2024

2024
[40]

An end-to-end autonomous driving pre-trained transformer model for multi-behavior- optimal trajectory generation

Zelin Qian, Kun Jiang, Weitao Zhou, Junze Wen, Cheng Jing, Zhong Cao, and Diange Yang. An end-to-end autonomous driving pre-trained transformer model for multi-behavior- optimal trajectory generation. In 2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Sys...

2023
[41]

A physics-informed risk force theory for estimating pedestrian crash risk by severity using artificial intelligence-based video analytics

Saransh Sahu, Yasir Ali, Sebastien Glaser, and Md Mazharul Haque. A physics-informed risk force theory for estimating pedestrian crash risk by severity using artificial intelligence-based video analytics. Analytic Methods in Accident Research, 46:Article–number, 2025

2025
[42]

Detecting intentions of vulnerable road users based on collective intelligence as a basis for automated driving

Stefan Zernetsch, Viktor Kress, Maarten Bieshaar, Jan Schneegans, Günther Reitberger, Erich Fuchs, Bernhard Sick, and Konrad Doll. Detecting intentions of vulnerable road users based on collective intelligence as a basis for automated driving. In Cooperatively Interacting Vehi...

2024
[43]

Graph-based interaction-aware multimodal 2d vehicle trajectory prediction using diffusion graph convolutional networks

Keshu Wu, Yang Zhou, Haotian Shi, Xiaopeng Li, and Bin Ran. Graph-based interaction-aware multimodal 2d vehicle trajectory prediction using diffusion graph convolutional networks. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 9(2):3630–3643, 2023. 12

2023
[44]

Hypergraph- based motion generation with multi-modal interaction relational reasoning

Keshu Wu, Yang Zhou, Haotian Shi, Dominique Lord, Bin Ran, and Xinyue Ye. Hypergraph- based motion generation with multi-modal interaction relational reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11676, 2024

2024 arXiv
[45]

Modeling interactions of autonomous vehicles and pedestrians with deep multi-agent reinforcement learning for collision avoidance

Raphael Trumpp, Harald Bayerlein, and David Gesbert. Modeling interactions of autonomous vehicles and pedestrians with deep multi-agent reinforcement learning for collision avoidance. In 2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 331–336. IEEE, 2022

2022
[46]

Pedsumo: Simulacra of automated vehicle-pedestrian interaction using sumo to study large- scale effects

Mark Colley, Julian Czymmeck, Mustafa Kücükkocak, Pascal Jansen, and Enrico Rukzio. Pedsumo: Simulacra of automated vehicle-pedestrian interaction using sumo to study large- scale effects. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction...

2024
[47]

Learning the pedestrian-vehicle interaction for pedestrian trajectory prediction

Chi Zhang and Christian Berger. Learning the pedestrian-vehicle interaction for pedestrian trajectory prediction. In 2022 8th International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR), pages 230–236. IEEE, 2022

2022
[48]

Highway capacity manual

Highway Capacity Manual. Highway capacity manual. Washington, DC, 2(1):1, 2000

2000
[49]

An integrated car-following and lane changing vehicle trajectory prediction algorithm based on a deep neural network

Kunsong Shi, Yuankai Wu, Haotian Shi, Yang Zhou, and Bin Ran. An integrated car-following and lane changing vehicle trajectory prediction algorithm based on a deep neural network. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 599:127303, 2022

2022
[50]

Enhancing vehicular platoon stability in the presence of communication cyberattacks: A reliable longitudinal cooperative control strategy

Zihao Li, Yang Zhou, Yunlong Zhang, and Xiaopeng Li. Enhancing vehicular platoon stability in the presence of communication cyberattacks: A reliable longitudinal cooperative control strategy. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 163:104660, 2024

2024
[51]

A predictive deep reinforcement learning based connected automated vehicle anticipatory longitudinal control in a mixed traffic lane change condition

Haotian Shi, Kunsong Shi, Keshu Wu, Wan Li, Yang Zhou, and Bin Ran. A predictive deep reinforcement learning based connected automated vehicle anticipatory longitudinal control in a mixed traffic lane change condition. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2025

2025
[52]

Why anticipatory sensing matters in commercial acc systems under cut-in scenarios: A perspective from stochastic safety analysis

Hao Zhang, Sixu Li, Zihao Li, Mohammad Anis, Dominique Lord, and Yang Zhou. Why anticipatory sensing matters in commercial acc systems under cut-in scenarios: A perspective from stochastic safety analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 218:108064, 2025

2025
[53]

Physically analyzable ai-based nonlinear platoon dynamics modeling during traffic oscillation: A koopman approach.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2025

Kexin Tian, Haotian Shi, Yang Zhou, and Sixu Li. Physically analyzable ai-based nonlinear platoon dynamics modeling during traffic oscillation: A koopman approach.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2025

2025
[54]

Multiple-vehicle collision induced by a sudden stop in traffic flow

Naoki Sugiyama and Takashi Nagatani. Multiple-vehicle collision induced by a sudden stop in traffic flow. Physics Letters A, 376(22):1803–1806, 2012

2012
[55]

Trajectron++: Dynamically-feasible trajectory forecasting with heterogeneous data

Tim Salzmann, Boris Ivanovic, Punarjay Chakravarty, and Marco Pavone. Trajectron++: Dynamically-feasible trajectory forecasting with heterogeneous data. In Computer Vision– ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XVIII 16, pages ...

2020
[56]

Crash: Crash recognition and anticipation system harnessing with context-aware and temporal focus attentions

Haicheng Liao, Haoyu Sun, Huanming Shen, Chengyue Wang, Chunlin Tian, KaHou Tam, Li Li, Chengzhong Xu, and Zhenning Li. Crash: Crash recognition and anticipation system harnessing with context-aware and temporal focus attentions. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Co...

2024
[57]

Multimodal crash likelihood prediction: A complexity-infused approach integrating semantic, contextual, and driving features

Meng Wang, Zach Noonan, Pnina Gershon, and Shannon C Roberts. Multimodal crash likelihood prediction: A complexity-infused approach integrating semantic, contextual, and driving features. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17886, 2024

2024 arXiv
[58]

Traffic accident risk forecasting using contextual vision transformers with static map generation and coarse-fine-coarse trans- formers

Artur Grigorev, Khaled Saleh, and Adriana-Simona Mihaita. Traffic accident risk forecasting using contextual vision transformers with static map generation and coarse-fine-coarse trans- formers. In 2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (...

2023
[59]

Design of the in-vehicle driving behavior and crash risk study: in support of the SHRP 2 naturalistic driving study

Jon Antin. Design of the in-vehicle driving behavior and crash risk study: in support of the SHRP 2 naturalistic driving study. Transportation Research Board, 2011. 13

2011
[60]

Graph neural networks for road safety modeling: Datasets and evaluations for accident analysis

Abhinav Nippani, Dongyue Li, Haotian Ju, Haris Koutsopoulos, and Hongyang Zhang. Graph neural networks for road safety modeling: Datasets and evaluations for accident analysis. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:52009–52032, 2023

2023
[61]

Understanding traffic crash under-reporting: linking police and medical records to individual and crash characteristics

Kira H Janstrup, Sigal Kaplan, Tove Hels, Jens Lauritsen, and Carlo G Prato. Understanding traffic crash under-reporting: linking police and medical records to individual and crash characteristics. Traffic injury prevention, 17(6):580–584, 2016

2016
[62]

Safety prediction with datasets characterised with excess zero responses and long tails

Dominique Lord and Srinivas Reddy Geedipally. Safety prediction with datasets characterised with excess zero responses and long tails. In Safe Mobility: Challenges, Methodology and Solutions, volume 11, pages 297–323. Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018

2018
[63]

Safe mobility: Challenges, methodology and solutions

Dominique Lord and Simon Washington. Safe mobility: Challenges, methodology and solutions. Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018

2018
[64]

The statistical analysis of crash-frequency data: A review and assessment of methodological alternatives

Dominique Lord and Fred Mannering. The statistical analysis of crash-frequency data: A review and assessment of methodological alternatives. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 44(5):291–305, 2010

2010
[65]

An improved deep learning model for traffic crash prediction

Chunjiao Dong, Chunfu Shao, Juan Li, and Zhihua Xiong. An improved deep learning model for traffic crash prediction. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018(1):3869106, 2018

2018
[66]

Real-time crash risk prediction in freeway tunnels considering features interaction and unobserved heterogeneity: A two-stage deep learning modeling framework

Jieling Jin, Helai Huang, Chen Yuan, Ye Li, Guoqing Zou, and Hongli Xue. Real-time crash risk prediction in freeway tunnels considering features interaction and unobserved heterogeneity: A two-stage deep learning modeling framework. Analytic methods in accident research, 40:10...

2023
[67]

A review of surrogate safety measures and their applications in connected and automated vehicles safety modeling

Chen Wang, Yuanchang Xie, Helai Huang, and Pan Liu. A review of surrogate safety measures and their applications in connected and automated vehicles safety modeling. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 157:106157, 2021

2021
[68]

Be- yond 1d and oversimplified kinematics: A generic analytical framework for surrogate safety measures

Sixu Li, Mohammad Anis, Dominique Lord, Hao Zhang, Yang Zhou, and Xinyue Ye. Be- yond 1d and oversimplified kinematics: A generic analytical framework for surrogate safety measures. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 204:107649, 2024

2024
[69]

Disturbances and safety analysis of linear adaptive cruise control for cut-in scenarios: A theoretical framework

Zihao Li, Yang Zhou, Danjue Chen, and Yunlong Zhang. Disturbances and safety analysis of linear adaptive cruise control for cut-in scenarios: A theoretical framework. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 168:104576, 2024

2024
[70]

Estimating the expected number of crashes with traffic conflicts and the lomax distribution–a theoretical and numerical exploration

Andrew P Tarko. Estimating the expected number of crashes with traffic conflicts and the lomax distribution–a theoretical and numerical exploration. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 113:63–73, 2018

2018
[71]

Freeway safety estimation using extreme value theory approaches: A comparative study

Lai Zheng, Karim Ismail, and Xianghai Meng. Freeway safety estimation using extreme value theory approaches: A comparative study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 62:32–41, 2014

2014
[72]

Real-time risk estimation for active road safety: Leveraging waymo av sensor data with hierarchical bayesian extreme value models

Mohammad Anis, Sixu Li, Srinivas R Geedipally, Yang Zhou, and Dominique Lord. Real-time risk estimation for active road safety: Leveraging waymo av sensor data with hierarchical bayesian extreme value models. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 211:107880, 2025

2025
[73]

Stochastic driver modeling and validation with traffic data

Mert Albaba, Yildiray Yildiz, Nan Li, Ilya Kolmanovsky, and Anouck Girard. Stochastic driver modeling and validation with traffic data. In 2019 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 4198–4203. IEEE, 2019

2019
[74]

Adaptive cruise control under threat: A stochastic active safety analysis of sensing attacks in mixed traffic

Zihao Li, Yang Zhou, Jiwan Jiang, Yunlong Zhang, and Mihir Mandar Kulkarni. Adaptive cruise control under threat: A stochastic active safety analysis of sensing attacks in mixed traffic. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 209:107813, 2025

2025
[75]

Learning robust control policies for end-to-end autonomous driving from data-driven simulation

Alexander Amini, Igor Gilitschenski, Jacob Phillips, Julia Moseyko, Rohan Banerjee, Sertac Karaman, and Daniela Rus. Learning robust control policies for end-to-end autonomous driving from data-driven simulation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2):1143–1150, 2020. 14

2020
[76]

Trafficsim: Learning to simulate realistic multi-agent behaviors

Simon Suo, Sebastian Regalado, Sergio Casas, and Raquel Urtasun. Trafficsim: Learning to simulate realistic multi-agent behaviors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10400–10409, 2021

2021
[77]

Metadrive: Composing diverse driving scenarios for generalizable reinforcement learning

Quanyi Li, Zhenghao Peng, Lan Feng, Qihang Zhang, Zhenghai Xue, and Bolei Zhou. Metadrive: Composing diverse driving scenarios for generalizable reinforcement learning. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 45(3):3461–3475, 2022

2022
[78]

Improved deep reinforce- ment learning for car-following decision-making

Xiaoxue Yang, Yajie Zou, Hao Zhang, Xiaobo Qu, and Lei Chen. Improved deep reinforce- ment learning for car-following decision-making. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 624:128912, 2023

2023
[79]

Aads: Augmented autonomous driving simulation using data-driven algorithms

Wei Li, CW Pan, Rong Zhang, JP Ren, YX Ma, Jin Fang, FL Yan, QC Geng, XY Huang, HJ Gong, et al. Aads: Augmented autonomous driving simulation using data-driven algorithms. Science robotics, 4(28):eaaw0863, 2019

2019
[80]

Intelligent driving intelligence test for autonomous vehicles with naturalistic and adversarial environment.Nature communications, 12(1):748, 2021

Shuo Feng, Xintao Yan, Haowei Sun, Yiheng Feng, and Henry X Liu. Intelligent driving intelligence test for autonomous vehicles with naturalistic and adversarial environment.Nature communications, 12(1):748, 2021

2021
[81]

Learning naturalistic driving environment with statistical realism

Xintao Yan, Zhengxia Zou, Shuo Feng, Haojie Zhu, Haowei Sun, and Henry X Liu. Learning naturalistic driving environment with statistical realism. Nature communications, 14(1):2037, 2023

2023
[82]

Dense reinforcement learning for safety validation of autonomous vehicles

Shuo Feng, Haowei Sun, Xintao Yan, Haojie Zhu, Zhengxia Zou, Shengyin Shen, and Henry X Liu. Dense reinforcement learning for safety validation of autonomous vehicles. Nature, 615(7953):620–627, 2023

2023
[83]

Adaptive stress testing for autonomous vehicles

Mark Koren, Saud Alsaif, Ritchie Lee, and Mykel J Kochenderfer. Adaptive stress testing for autonomous vehicles. In 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2018

2018
[84]

Integrating macro-and micro- level safety analyses: a bayesian approach incorporating spatial interaction

Qing Cai, Mohamed Abdel-Aty, Jaeyoung Lee, and Helai Huang. Integrating macro-and micro- level safety analyses: a bayesian approach incorporating spatial interaction. Transportmetrica A: transport science, 15(2):285–306, 2019

2019
[85]

Learning deep representation from big and heterogeneous data for traffic accident inference

Quanjun Chen, Xuan Song, Harutoshi Yamada, and Ryosuke Shibasaki. Learning deep representation from big and heterogeneous data for traffic accident inference. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 30, 2016

2016
[86]

Risk-aware planning: Methods and case study on safe driving route

John Krumm and Eric Horvitz. Risk-aware planning: Methods and case study on safe driving route. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 31, pages 4708–4714, 2017

2017
[87]

Combining satellite imagery and open data to map road safety

Alameen Najjar, Shun’ichi Kaneko, and Yoshikazu Miyanaga. Combining satellite imagery and open data to map road safety. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 31, 2017

2017
[88]

Simnet: Learning reactive self-driving simulations from real-world observations

Luca Bergamini, Yawei Ye, Oliver Scheel, Long Chen, Chih Hu, Luca Del Pero, Bła˙zej Osi´nski, Hugo Grimmett, and Peter Ondruska. Simnet: Learning reactive self-driving simulations from real-world observations. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (I...

2021
[89]

The waymo open sim agents challenge

Nico Montali, John Lambert, Paul Mougin, Alex Kuefler, Nicholas Rhinehart, Michelle Li, Cole Gulino, Tristan Emrich, Zoey Yang, Shimon Whiteson, et al. The waymo open sim agents challenge. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:59151–59171, 2023

2023
[90]

Safeshift: Safety-informed distribution shifts for robust trajectory prediction in autonomous driving

Benjamin Stoler, Ingrid Navarro, Meghdeep Jana, Soonmin Hwang, Jonathan Francis, and Jean Oh. Safeshift: Safety-informed distribution shifts for robust trajectory prediction in autonomous driving. In 2024 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pages 1179–1186. IEEE, 2024. 15

2024
[91]

Safety-critical scenario generation via reinforcement learning based editing

Haolan Liu, Liangjun Zhang, Siva Kumar Sastry Hari, and Jishen Zhao. Safety-critical scenario generation via reinforcement learning based editing. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 14405–14412. IEEE, 2024

2024
[92]

Scenario dreamer: Vectorized latent diffusion for generating driving simulation environments

Luke Rowe, Roger Girgis, Anthony Gosselin, Liam Paull, Christopher Pal, and Felix Heide. Scenario dreamer: Vectorized latent diffusion for generating driving simulation environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22496, 2025

2025 arXiv
[93]

Scenediffuser: Efficient and controllable driving simulation initialization and rollout

Chiyu Max Jiang, Yijing Bai, Andre Cornman, Christopher Davis, Xiukun Huang, Hong Jeon, Sakshum Kulshrestha, John Lambert, Shuangyu Li, Xuanyu Zhou, Carlos Fuertes, Chang Yuan, Mingxing Tan, Yin Zhou, and Dragomir Anguelov. Scenediffuser: Efficient and controllable driving sim...

2024
[94]

Language conditioned traffic generation

Shuhan Tan, Boris Ivanovic, Xinshuo Weng, Marco Pavone, and Philipp Kraehenbuehl. Language conditioned traffic generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07947, 2023

2023 arXiv
[95]

Chatscene: Knowledge-enabled safety-critical scenario generation for autonomous vehicles

Jiawei Zhang, Chejian Xu, and Bo Li. Chatscene: Knowledge-enabled safety-critical scenario generation for autonomous vehicles. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15459–15469, 2024

2024
[96]

Scalable diffusion models with transformers

William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4195–4205, 2023

2023
[97]

Controllable diffusion models for safety-critical driving scenario generation

Zipeng Guo, Yuezhao Yu, and Chao Gou. Controllable diffusion models for safety-critical driving scenario generation. In 2023 IEEE 35th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), pages 717–722. IEEE, 2023

2023
[98]

A proactive crash risk prediction framework for lane-changing behavior incorporating individual driving styles

Yunchao Zhang, Yanyan Chen, Xin Gu, NN Sze, and Jianling Huang. A proactive crash risk prediction framework for lane-changing behavior incorporating individual driving styles. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 188:107072, 2023

2023
[99]

Adversarial variational bayes: Unifying variational autoencoders and generative adversarial networks

Lars Mescheder, Sebastian Nowozin, and Andreas Geiger. Adversarial variational bayes: Unifying variational autoencoders and generative adversarial networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2391–2400. PMLR, 2017

2017
[100]

Vehicle trajectory prediction at intersections using interaction based generative adversarial networks

Debaditya Roy, Tetsuhiro Ishizaka, C Krishna Mohan, and Atsushi Fukuda. Vehicle trajectory prediction at intersections using interaction based generative adversarial networks. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent transportation systems conference (ITSC), pages 2318–2323. IEEE, 2019

2019
[101]

On learning the tail quantiles of driving behavior distributions via quantile regression and flows

Jia Yu Tee, Oliver De Candido, Wolfgang Utschick, and Philipp Geiger. On learning the tail quantiles of driving behavior distributions via quantile regression and flows. In 2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pages 5876–5883. I...

2023
[102]

Collision risk assessment for intelligent vehicles considering multi-dimensional uncertainties

Zhenhai Gao, Mingxi Bao, Taisong Cui, Fangyuan Shi, Xianqing Chen, Wenhao Wen, Fei Gao, and Rui Zhao. Collision risk assessment for intelligent vehicles considering multi-dimensional uncertainties. IEEE Access, 12:57780–57795, 2024

2024
[103]

Phantom of the adas: Securing advanced driver-assistance systems from split-second phantom attacks

Ben Nassi, Yisroel Mirsky, Dudi Nassi, Raz Ben-Netanel, Oleg Drokin, and Yuval Elovici. Phantom of the adas: Securing advanced driver-assistance systems from split-second phantom attacks. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security,...

2020
[104]

Battaglia, Jessica B

Peter W. Battaglia, Jessica B. Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Rachel Faulkner, et al. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806...

2018 arXiv
[105]

Nest: A neuromodulated small-world hypergraph trajectory prediction model for autonomous driving

Chengyue Wang, Haicheng Liao, Bonan Wang, Yanchen Guan, Bin Rao, Ziyuan Pu, Zhiyong Cui, Cheng-Zhong Xu, and Zhenning Li. Nest: A neuromodulated small-world hypergraph trajectory prediction model for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel...

2025
[106]

Learning from heterogeneity: A dynamic learning framework for hypergraphs

Tiehua Zhang, Yuze Liu, Zhishu Shen, Xingjun Ma, Peng Qi, Zhijun Ding, and Jiong Jin. Learning from heterogeneity: A dynamic learning framework for hypergraphs. IEEE Transac- tions on Artificial Intelligence, 2025

2025
[107]

Framework to generate hyper- graphs with community structure

Nicolò Ruggeri, Federico Battiston, and Caterina De Bacco. Framework to generate hyper- graphs with community structure. Physical Review E, 109(3):034309, 2024

2024
[108]

Heterogeneous hypergraph embedding for node classification in dynamic networks

Malik Khizar Hayat, Shan Xue, Jia Wu, and Jian Yang. Heterogeneous hypergraph embedding for node classification in dynamic networks. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2024

2024
[109]

Scalable end-to-end autonomous vehicle testing via rare-event simulation

Matthew O’Kelly, Aman Sinha, Hongseok Namkoong, Russ Tedrake, and John C Duchi. Scalable end-to-end autonomous vehicle testing via rare-event simulation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

2018
[110]

Generating useful accident-prone driving scenarios via a learned traffic prior

Davis Rempe, Jonah Philion, Leonidas J Guibas, Sanja Fidler, and Or Litany. Generating useful accident-prone driving scenarios via a learned traffic prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17305–17315, 2022

2022
[111]

Seeking to collide: Online safety-critical scenario generation for autonomous driving with retrieval augmented large language models

Yuewen Mei, Tong Nie, Jian Sun, and Ye Tian. Seeking to collide: Online safety-critical scenario generation for autonomous driving with retrieval augmented large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00972, 2025

2025 arXiv
[112]

Risk-informed diffusion transformer for long-tail trajectory prediction in the crash scenario

Junlan Chen, Pei Liu, Zihao Zhang, Hongyi Zhao, Yufei Ji, and Ziyuan Pu. Risk-informed diffusion transformer for long-tail trajectory prediction in the crash scenario. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16349, 2025

2025 arXiv
[113]

Advdiffuser: Gener- ating adversarial safety-critical driving scenarios via guided diffusion

Yuting Xie, Xianda Guo, Cong Wang, Kunhua Liu, and Long Chen. Advdiffuser: Gener- ating adversarial safety-critical driving scenarios via guided diffusion. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 9983–9989. IEEE, 2024

2024
[114]

Diffscene: Diffusion-based safety- critical scenario generation for autonomous vehicles

Chejian Xu, Aleksandr Petiushko, Ding Zhao, and Bo Li. Diffscene: Diffusion-based safety- critical scenario generation for autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 8797–8805, 2025

2025
[115]

Crash: Challenging reinforcement- learning based adversarial scenarios for safety hardening

Amar Kulkarni, Shangtong Zhang, and Madhur Behl. Crash: Challenging reinforcement- learning based adversarial scenarios for safety hardening. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16996, 2024

2024 arXiv
[116]

Nvidia physx sdk

NVIDIA Corporation. Nvidia physx sdk. https://github.com/NVIDIA-Omniverse/ PhysX, 2025. Version 5.6.0, released 25 March 2025

2025
[117]

Carla: An open urban driving simulator

Alexey Dosovitskiy, German Ros, Felipe Codevilla, Antonio Lopez, and Vladlen Koltun. Carla: An open urban driving simulator. In Conference on robot learning, pages 1–16. PMLR, 2017

2017
[118]

Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis

Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoor- thi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021

2021
[119]

Neural radiance field in autonomous driving: A survey

Lei He, Leheng Li, Wenchao Sun, Zeyu Han, Yichen Liu, Sifa Zheng, Jianqiang Wang, and Keqiang Li. Neural radiance field in autonomous driving: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13816, 2024

2024 arXiv
[120]

3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4):139–1, 2023

2023
[121]

Street gaussians: Modeling dynamic urban scenes with gaussian splatting

Yunzhi Yan, Haotong Lin, Chenxu Zhou, Weijie Wang, Haiyang Sun, Kun Zhan, Xianpeng Lang, Xiaowei Zhou, and Sida Peng. Street gaussians: Modeling dynamic urban scenes with gaussian splatting. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 156–173. Springer, 2024. 17

2024
[122]

2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields

Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 conference papers, pages 1–11, 2024

2024
[123]

Sugar: Surface-aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruction and high-quality mesh rendering

Antoine Guédon and Vincent Lepetit. Sugar: Surface-aligned gaussian splatting for efficient 3d mesh reconstruction and high-quality mesh rendering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5354–5363, 2024

2024
[124]

Neusg: Neural implicit surface reconstruction with 3d gaussian splatting guidance

Hanlin Chen, Chen Li, and Gim Hee Lee. Neusg: Neural implicit surface reconstruction with 3d gaussian splatting guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00846, 2023

2023 arXiv
[125]

Cosmos-transfer1: Conditional world generation with adaptive multimodal control

Hassan Abu Alhaija, Jose Alvarez, Maciej Bala, Tiffany Cai, Tianshi Cao, Liz Cha, Joshua Chen, Mike Chen, Francesco Ferroni, Sanja Fidler, et al. Cosmos-transfer1: Conditional world generation with adaptive multimodal control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14492, 2025

2025 arXiv
[126]

Freesim: Toward free-viewpoint camera simulation in driving scenes

Lue Fan, Hao Zhang, Qitai Wang, Hongsheng Li, and Zhaoxiang Zhang. Freesim: Toward free-viewpoint camera simulation in driving scenes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.03566, 2024

2024 arXiv
[127]

Pip: Planning-informed trajectory prediction for autonomous driving

Haoran Song, Wenchao Ding, Yuxuan Chen, Shaojie Shen, Michael Yu Wang, and Qifeng Chen. Pip: Planning-informed trajectory prediction for autonomous driving. In Computer Vision– ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXI 16, page...

2020
[128]

Validating a driving simulator using surrogate safety measures.Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(1):274–288, 2008

Xuedong Yan, Mohamed Abdel-Aty, Essam Radwan, Xuesong Wang, and Praveen Chilakapati. Validating a driving simulator using surrogate safety measures.Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(1):274–288, 2008

2008
[129]

Interpretable hierarchical symbolic regression for safety-critical systems with an application to highway crash prediction

Thomas Veran, Pierre-Edouard Portier, and François Fouquet. Interpretable hierarchical symbolic regression for safety-critical systems with an application to highway crash prediction. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 117:105534, 2023

2023
[130]

Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering

R Timothy Marler and Jasbir S Arora. Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Structural and multidisciplinary optimization, 26:369–395, 2004

2004
[131]

Causality: models, reasoning, and inference, by judea pearl, cam- bridge university press, 2000

Leland Gerson Neuberg. Causality: models, reasoning, and inference, by judea pearl, cam- bridge university press, 2000. Econometric Theory, 19(4):675–685, 2003

2000
[132]

Causal inference and the data-fusion problem

Elias Bareinboim and Judea Pearl. Causal inference and the data-fusion problem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27):7345–7352, 2016

2016
[133]

Causal discovery with reinforcement learning

Shengyu Zhu, Ignavier Ng, and Zhitang Chen. Causal discovery with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04477, 2019

1906 arXiv
[134]

Counterfactual causal inference in natural language with large language models

Gaël Gendron, Jože M Rožanec, Michael Witbrock, and Gillian Dobbie. Counterfactual causal inference in natural language with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.06392, 2024

2024 arXiv
[135]

Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

2022
[136]

Deep structural causal models for tractable counterfactual inference

Nick Pawlowski, Daniel Coelho de Castro, and Ben Glocker. Deep structural causal models for tractable counterfactual inference. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:857–869, 2020

2020
[137]

Neuro-symbolic artificial intelligence: Current trends

Md Kamruzzaman Sarker, Lu Zhou, Aaron Eberhart, and Pascal Hitzler. Neuro-symbolic artificial intelligence: Current trends. Ai Communications, 34(3):197–209, 2022

2022
[138]

Deepproblog: Neural probabilistic logic programming

Robin Manhaeve, Sebastijan Dumancic, Angelika Kimmig, Thomas Demeester, and Luc De Raedt. Deepproblog: Neural probabilistic logic programming. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

2018
[139]

Neuro-symbolic approaches in artificial intelligence

Pascal Hitzler, Aaron Eberhart, Monireh Ebrahimi, Md Kamruzzaman Sarker, and Lu Zhou. Neuro-symbolic approaches in artificial intelligence. National Science Review, 9(6):nwac035, 2022. 18

2022
[140]

Neural-symbolic computing: An effective methodology for principled integration of machine learning and reasoning

Artur d’Avila Garcez, Marco Gori, Luis C Lamb, Luciano Serafini, Michael Spranger, and Son N Tran. Neural-symbolic computing: An effective methodology for principled integration of machine learning and reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.06088, 2019

1905 arXiv
[141]

Robust adversarial reinforcement learning

Lerrel Pinto, James Davidson, Rahul Sukthankar, and Abhinav Gupta. Robust adversarial reinforcement learning. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2817–2826. PMLR, 2017

2017
[142]

Challenges and countermeasures for adversarial attacks on deep reinforcement learning

Inaam Ilahi, Muhammad Usama, Junaid Qadir, Muhammad Umar Janjua, Ala Al-Fuqaha, Dinh Thai Hoang, and Dusit Niyato. Challenges and countermeasures for adversarial attacks on deep reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 3(2):90–109, 2021

2021
[143]

Robust reinforcement learning.Neural computation, 17(2):335– 359, 2005

Jun Morimoto and Kenji Doya. Robust reinforcement learning.Neural computation, 17(2):335– 359, 2005

2005
[144]

Hierarchical rein- forcement learning: A comprehensive survey

Shubham Pateria, Budhitama Subagdja, Ah-hwee Tan, and Chai Quek. Hierarchical rein- forcement learning: A comprehensive survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(5):1–35, 2021

2021
[145]

Hybrid car following control for cavs: Integrating linear feedback and deep reinforcement learning to stabilize mixed traffic

Ximin Yue, Haotian Shi, Yang Zhou, and Zihao Li. Hybrid car following control for cavs: Integrating linear feedback and deep reinforcement learning to stabilize mixed traffic. Trans- portation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 167:104773, 2024

2024
[146]

A survey on interpretable reinforcement learning

Claire Glanois, Paul Weng, Matthieu Zimmer, Dong Li, Tianpei Yang, Jianye Hao, and Wulong Liu. A survey on interpretable reinforcement learning. Machine Learning, 113(8):5847–5890, 2024

2024
[147]

Vlm-mpc: Vision language foundation model (vlm)-guided model predictive controller (mpc) for autonomous driving

Keke Long, Haotian Shi, Jiaxi Liu, and Xiaopeng Li. Vlm-mpc: Vision language foundation model (vlm)-guided model predictive controller (mpc) for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04821, 2024

2024 arXiv
[148]

Cur- ricuvlm: Towards safe autonomous driving via personalized safety-critical curriculum learning with vision-language models

Zihao Sheng, Zilin Huang, Yansong Qu, Yue Leng, Sruthi Bhavanam, and Sikai Chen. Cur- ricuvlm: Towards safe autonomous driving via personalized safety-critical curriculum learning with vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15119, 2025

2025 arXiv
[149]

Vlm-rl: A unified vision language models and reinforcement learning framework for safe autonomous driving

Zilin Huang, Zihao Sheng, Yansong Qu, Junwei You, and Sikai Chen. Vlm-rl: A unified vision language models and reinforcement learning framework for safe autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15544, 2024

2024 arXiv
[150]

Dialogue for prompting: a policy-gradient-based discrete prompt generation for few-shot learning

Chengzhengxu Li, Xiaoming Liu, Yichen Wang, Duyi Li, Yu Lan, and Chao Shen. Dialogue for prompting: a policy-gradient-based discrete prompt generation for few-shot learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 18481–18489, 2024

2024
[151]

Prompting multi-modal tokens to enhance end-to- end autonomous driving imitation learning with llms

Yiqun Duan, Qiang Zhang, and Renjing Xu. Prompting multi-modal tokens to enhance end-to- end autonomous driving imitation learning with llms. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 6798–6805. IEEE, 2024

2024
[152]

Rt-2: Vision-language- action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control

Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yevgen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choro- manski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, et al. Rt-2: Vision-language- action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15818, 2023

2023 arXiv
[153]

Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model

Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov, Ethan Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, et al. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246, 2024

2024 arXiv
[154]

π0: A vision-language-action flow model for general robot control, 2024

Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Szymon Jakubczak, Tim Jones, Liyiming Ke, Sergey Levine, Adrian Li-Bell, Mohith Mothukuri, Suraj Nair, Karl Pertsch, Lucy Xi- aoyang Shi, J...

2024
[155]

Fundamentals of statistical signal processing: estimation theory

Steven M Kay. Fundamentals of statistical signal processing: estimation theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993

1993
[156]

The 100- car naturalistic driving study, phase ii-results of the 100-car field experiment

Thomas A Dingus, Sheila G Klauer, Vicki Lewis Neale, Andy Petersen, Suzanne E Lee, Jeremy Sudweeks, Miguel A Perez, Jonathan Hankey, David Ramsey, Santosh Gupta, et al. The 100- car naturalistic driving study, phase ii-results of the 100-car field experiment. Technical report,...

2006
[157]

The potential of naturalistic driving for in-depth understanding of driver behavior: Udrive results and beyond

Nicole van Nes, Jonas Bärgman, Michiel Christoph, and Ingrid van Schagen. The potential of naturalistic driving for in-depth understanding of driver behavior: Udrive results and beyond. Safety Science, 119:11–20, 2019

2019
[158]

The australian 400-car naturalistic driving study: Innovation in road safety research and policy

Michael Arthur Regan, Aa Williamson, Raphael Grzebieta, J Charlton, M Lenne, B Watson, Nc Haworth, Andry Rakotonirainy, Jd Woolley, Rd Anderson, et al. The australian 400-car naturalistic driving study: Innovation in road safety research and policy. In Proc. Australasian Road ...

2013
[159]

Modeling car-following behavior on urban expressways in shanghai: A naturalistic driving study

Meixin Zhu, Xuesong Wang, Andrew Tarko, and Shou’en Fang. Modeling car-following behavior on urban expressways in shanghai: A naturalistic driving study. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 93:425–445, 2018

2018
[160]

The study design of udrive: the naturalistic driving study across europe for cars, trucks and scooters

Yvonne Barnard, Fabian Utesch, Nicole van Nes, Rob Eenink, and Martin Baumann. The study design of udrive: the naturalistic driving study across europe for cars, trucks and scooters. European Transport Research Review, 8:1–10, 2016

2016
[161]

nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving

Holger Caesar, Varun Bankiti, Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Giancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom. nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern r...

2020
[162]

Large scale interactive motion forecasting for autonomous driving: The waymo open motion dataset

Scott Ettinger, Shuyang Cheng, Benjamin Caine, Chenxi Liu, Hang Zhao, Sabeek Pradhan, Yuning Chai, Ben Sapp, Charles R Qi, Yin Zhou, et al. Large scale interactive motion forecasting for autonomous driving: The waymo open motion dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Internat...

2021
[163]

Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting

Benjamin Wilson, William Qi, Tanmay Agarwal, John Lambert, Jagjeet Singh, Siddhesh Khandelwal, Bowen Pan, Ratnesh Kumar, Andrew Hartnett, Jhony Kaesemodel Pontes, et al. Argoverse 2: Next generation datasets for self-driving perception and forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:230...

2023 arXiv
[164]

Kesten, M

R. Kesten, M. Usman, J. Houston, T. Pandya, K. Nadhamuni, A. Ferreira, M. Yuan, B. Low, A. Jain, P. Ondruska, S. Omari, S. Shah, A. Kulkarni, A. Kazakova, C. Tao, L. Platinsky, W. Jiang, and V . Shet. Lyft level 5 av dataset 2019.https://level5.lyft.com/dataset/, 2019

2019
[165]

Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset

Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, Christoph Stiller, and Raquel Urtasun. Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset. The international journal of robotics research, 32(11):1231–1237, 2013

2013
[166]

Dair-v2x: A large-scale dataset for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative 3d object detection

Haibao Yu, Yizhen Luo, Mao Shu, Yiyi Huo, Zebang Yang, Yifeng Shi, Zhenglong Guo, Hanyu Li, Xing Hu, Jirui Yuan, et al. Dair-v2x: A large-scale dataset for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and ...

2022
[167]

V2x-seq: A large-scale sequential dataset for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception and forecasting

Haibao Yu, Wenxian Yang, Hongzhi Ruan, Zhenwei Yang, Yingjuan Tang, Xu Gao, Xin Hao, Yifeng Shi, Yifeng Pan, Ning Sun, et al. V2x-seq: A large-scale sequential dataset for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative perception and forecasting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference ...

2023
[168]

Crash to not crash: Learn to identify dangerous vehicles using a simulator

Hoon Kim, Kangwook Lee, Gyeongjo Hwang, and Changho Suh. Crash to not crash: Learn to identify dangerous vehicles using a simulator. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 978–985, 2019. 20

2019
[169]

Tad: A large-scale benchmark for traffic accidents detection from video surveillance

Yajun Xu, Huan Hu, Chuwen Huang, Yibing Nan, Yuyao Liu, Kai Wang, Zhaoxiang Liu, and Shiguo Lian. Tad: A large-scale benchmark for traffic accidents detection from video surveillance. IEEE Access, 2024

2024
[170]

Opv2v: An open benchmark dataset and fusion pipeline for perception with vehicle-to-vehicle communication

Runsheng Xu, Hao Xiang, Xin Xia, Xu Han, Jinlong Li, and Jiaqi Ma. Opv2v: An open benchmark dataset and fusion pipeline for perception with vehicle-to-vehicle communication. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 2583–2589. IEEE, 2022

2022
[171]

V2x-sim: Multi-agent collaborative perception dataset and benchmark for autonomous driving

Yiming Li, Dekun Ma, Ziyan An, Zixun Wang, Yiqi Zhong, Siheng Chen, and Chen Feng. V2x-sim: Multi-agent collaborative perception dataset and benchmark for autonomous driving. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(4):10914–10921, 2022

2022
[172]

Viena2: A driving anticipation dataset

Mohammad Sadegh Aliakbarian, Fatemeh Sadat Saleh, Mathieu Salzmann, Basura Fernando, Lars Petersson, and Lars Andersson. Viena2: A driving anticipation dataset. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–1810, 2018

2018
[173]

Shift: a synthetic driving dataset for continuous multi-task domain adaptation

Tao Sun, Mattia Segu, Janis Postels, Yuxuan Wang, Luc Van Gool, Bernt Schiele, Federico Tombari, and Fisher Yu. Shift: a synthetic driving dataset for continuous multi-task domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,...

2022
[174]

Sumo (simulation of urban mobility)-an open-source traffic simulation

Daniel Krajzewicz, Georg Hertkorn, Christian Rössel, and Peter Wagner. Sumo (simulation of urban mobility)-an open-source traffic simulation. In Proceedings of the 4th middle East Symposium on Simulation and Modelling (MESM20002), pages 183–187, 2002

2002
[175]

Version 25.0

PTV Planung Transport Verkehr GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany.PTV Vissim 2025 [Computer software], 2025. Version 25.0. User manual available from PTV Group

2025
[176]

Aimsun Next 24 [Computer software], 2024

Aimsun SLU, Barcelona, Spain. Aimsun Next 24 [Computer software], 2024. Version 24.0.2. User manual available at docs.aimsun.com

2024
[177]

Paramics Discovery [Computer software], 2025

SYSTRA Ltd., Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Paramics Discovery [Computer software], 2025. Version 27.0. User guide available from SYSTRA Ltd

2025
[178]

Corsim-corridor traffic simulation model

Abolhassan Halati, Henry Lieu, and Susan Walker. Corsim-corridor traffic simulation model. In Traffic Congestion and Traffic Safety in the 21st Century: Challenges, Innovations, and Op- portunitiesUrban Transportation Division, ASCE; Highway Division, ASCE; Federal Highway Adm...

1997
[179]

Simcenter Prescan 2503 [Computer software], 2025

Siemens Digital Industries Software, Plano, TX, USA. Simcenter Prescan 2503 [Computer software], 2025. Version 25.03. User manual and release notes available from Siemens

2025
[180]

CarMaker 14.0 [Computer software], 2024

IPG Automotive GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany. CarMaker 14.0 [Computer software], 2024. Version 14.0. Reference manual available from IPG Automotive

2024
[181]

Virtual Test Drive (VTD) [Com- puter software], 2025

VIRES Simulationstechnologie GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany. Virtual Test Drive (VTD) [Com- puter software], 2025. Version 25.0. User manual and datasheet available from Hexagon AB

2025
[182]

Lgsvl simulator: A high fidelity simulator for autonomous driving

Guodong Rong, Byung Hyun Shin, Hadi Tabatabaee, Qiang Lu, Steve Lemke, M ¯artin, š Možeiko, Eric Boise, Geehoon Uhm, Mark Gerow, Shalin Mehta, et al. Lgsvl simulator: A high fidelity simulator for autonomous driving. In 2020 IEEE 23rd International conference on intelligent tr...

2020
[183]

Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator

Nathan Koenig and Andrew Howard. Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566), volume 3, pages 2149–2154. Ieee, 2004

2004
[184]

Chrono: An open-source multi-physics simulation package

Radu Serban, Alessandro Tasora, Dan Negrut, et al. Chrono: An open-source multi-physics simulation package. In presentado en The 5th Joint International Conference on Multibody System Dynamics, Lisboa, Portugal, 2018. 21

2018
[185]

Synchrono: A scalable, physics-based simulation platform for testing groups of autonomous vehicles and/or robots

Jay Taves, Asher Elmquist, Aaron Young, Radu Serban, and Dan Negrut. Synchrono: A scalable, physics-based simulation platform for testing groups of autonomous vehicles and/or robots. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 2251...

2020
[186]

Development of multimodal physical and virtual traffic reality simulation system

Ismet Goksad Erdagi, Slavica Gavric, and Aleksandar Stevanovic. Development of multimodal physical and virtual traffic reality simulation system. Applied Sciences, 15(9):5115, 2025

2025
[187]

Safety performance evaluation of freeway merging areas under autonomous vehicles environment using a co- simulation platform

Peng Chen, Haoyuan Ni, Liang Wang, Guizhen Yu, and Jian Sun. Safety performance evaluation of freeway merging areas under autonomous vehicles environment using a co- simulation platform. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 199:107530, 2024

2024
[188]

Co- simulation of power grid, information network and transportation network simulation system

Yongmin Shuai, Yu Zhang, Fuhao Liu, Xiaobin Qiao, Yunfei Xiong, and Yong Zeng. Co- simulation of power grid, information network and transportation network simulation system. In 2022 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence (SEAI), ...

2022
[189]

Learning autonomous driving tasks via human feedbacks with large language models

Yunsheng Ma, Xu Cao, Wenqian Ye, Can Cui, Kai Mei, and Ziran Wang. Learning autonomous driving tasks via human feedbacks with large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 4985–4995, 2024

2024
[190]

Chatsumo: Large language model for automating traffic scenario generation in simulation of urban mobility

Shuyang Li, Talha Azfar, and Ruimin Ke. Chatsumo: Large language model for automating traffic scenario generation in simulation of urban mobility. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024

2024
[191]

kit-extension-sample-airoomgenerator

NVIDIA Corporation. kit-extension-sample-airoomgenerator. https://github.com/ NVIDIA-Omniverse/kit-extension-sample-airoomgenerator , 2025. Git commit 78a4b7c, released 25 Apr 2025

2025
[192]

Traffic scene generation from natural language description for autonomous vehicles with large language model

Bo-Kai Ruan, Hao-Tang Tsui, Yung-Hui Li, and Hong-Han Shuai. Traffic scene generation from natural language description for autonomous vehicles with large language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09575, 2024. 22 Appendix Roadmap. In Section A, we establish the fundamental lim...

2024
[2024]

Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats Brief Statistical Summary DOT HS 813 710, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, April 2025

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Early estimate of motor vehicle traffic fatalities in

National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Early estimate of motor vehicle traffic fatalities in

[2] [2]

Blincoe, T

L. Blincoe, T. Miller, J.-S. Wang, D. Swedler, T. Coughlin, B. Lawrence, F. Guo, S. Klauer, and T. Dingus. The economic and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2019 (revised). Technical Report DOT HS 813 403, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, February 2023

2019

[3] [3]

Poisson, poisson-gamma and zero-inflated regression models of motor vehicle crashes: balancing statistical fit and theory

Dominique Lord, Simon P Washington, and John N Ivan. Poisson, poisson-gamma and zero-inflated regression models of motor vehicle crashes: balancing statistical fit and theory. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37(1):35–46, 2005

2005

[4] [4]

Virtual roads, smarter safety: A digital twin framework for mixed autonomous traffic safety analysis

Hao Zhang, Ximin Yue, Kexin Tian, Sixu Li, Keshu Wu, Zihao Li, Dominique Lord, and Yang Zhou. Virtual roads, smarter safety: A digital twin framework for mixed autonomous traffic safety analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17968, 2025

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

Hetero-convlstm: A deep learning approach to traffic accident prediction on heterogeneous spatio-temporal data

Zhuoning Yuan, Xun Zhou, and Tianbao Yang. Hetero-convlstm: A deep learning approach to traffic accident prediction on heterogeneous spatio-temporal data. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, pages 984–992, 2018

2018

[6] [6]

Riskoracle: A minute-level citywide traffic accident forecasting framework

Zhengyang Zhou, Yang Wang, Xike Xie, Lianliang Chen, and Hengchang Liu. Riskoracle: A minute-level citywide traffic accident forecasting framework. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 1258–1265, 2020

2020

[7] [7]

Crashformer: A multimodal architecture to predict the risk of crash

Amin Karimi Monsefi, Pouya Shiri, Ahmad Mohammadshirazi, Nastaran Karimi Monsefi, Ron Davies, Sobhan Moosavi, and Rajiv Ramnath. Crashformer: A multimodal architecture to predict the risk of crash. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Advances in Urban-AI, pages 42–51, 2023

2023

[8] [8]

Leveraging textual description and structured data for estimating crash risks of traffic violation: A multimodal learning approach

Zihao Li, Chaolun Ma, Yang Zhou, Dominique Lord, and Yunlong Zhang. Leveraging textual description and structured data for estimating crash risks of traffic violation: A multimodal learning approach. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pages 1–13,