pith. sign in

arxiv: 2308.13563 · v1 · pith:UAUYDVFKnew · submitted 2023-08-25 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.IR· cs.LG

Large Language Models in Analyzing Crash Narratives -- A Comparative Study of ChatGPT, BARD and GPT-4

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IRcs.LG
keywords crashwerenarrativesinformationquestionsextractingmodelsrelated
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

In traffic safety research, extracting information from crash narratives using text analysis is a common practice. With recent advancements of large language models (LLM), it would be useful to know how the popular LLM interfaces perform in classifying or extracting information from crash narratives. To explore this, our study has used the three most popular publicly available LLM interfaces- ChatGPT, BARD and GPT4. This study investigated their usefulness and boundaries in extracting information and answering queries related to accidents from 100 crash narratives from Iowa and Kansas. During the investigation, their capabilities and limitations were assessed and their responses to the queries were compared. Five questions were asked related to the narratives: 1) Who is at-fault? 2) What is the manner of collision? 3) Has the crash occurred in a work-zone? 4) Did the crash involve pedestrians? and 5) What are the sequence of harmful events in the crash? For questions 1 through 4, the overall similarity among the LLMs were 70%, 35%, 96% and 89%, respectively. The similarities were higher while answering direct questions requiring binary responses and significantly lower for complex questions. To compare the responses to question 5, network diagram and centrality measures were analyzed. The network diagram from the three LLMs were not always similar although they sometimes have the same influencing events with high in-degree, out-degree and betweenness centrality. This study suggests using multiple models to extract viable information from narratives. Also, caution must be practiced while using these interfaces to obtain crucial safety related information.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. An Agentic Workflow for Detecting Personally Identifiable Information in Crash Narratives

    cs.CR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A hybrid agentic workflow using Presidio for structured PII and fine-tuned LLMs plus verification for names, addresses, and identifiers detects PII in crash narratives at 0.82 precision and 0.94 recall.

  2. Earth Science Foundation Models: From Perception to Reasoning and Discovery

    astro-ph.IM 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    The paper delivers a unified review and roadmap of Earth science foundation models, structured by capability depth from perception to agentic reasoning and by application breadth across atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithos...

  3. Earth Science Foundation Models: From Perception to Reasoning and Discovery

    astro-ph.IM 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A review of Earth science foundation models covering capability evolution from perception to discovery, applications across atmosphere/hydrosphere/lithosphere/biosphere/anthroposphere/cryosphere, over 200 datasets, an...