Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Deep Learning Advances in Vision-Based Traffic Accident Anticipation: A Comprehensive Review of Methods, Datasets, and Future Directions

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review organizes 147 studies on vision-based traffic accident anticipation into four method families and argues that future progress depends on fusing modalities and using unlabeled data.

desk verdict A useful survey topic undermined by a reference list that doesn't support its own '147 papers' claim; salvageable, but not citable as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07611 v2 pith:UYFXE7HU submitted 2025-05-12 cs.CV

Ruonan Lin , Tao Tang , Yongtai Liu , Wenye Zhou , Xin Yang , Hao Zheng , Jianpu Lin , Yi Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords Vision-TAAtrafficaccidentanticipationdeeplearningcomputervisionmultimodaldatafusionspatio-temporalpredictiondrivingdatasetssurvey
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

This review argues that vision-based traffic accident anticipation (Vision-TAA) has reached a point where its deep-learning literature can be sorted into four method families: image and video feature prediction, spatio-temporal feature prediction, scene understanding, and multimodal data fusion. It surveys 147 studies published through 2024, groups them by these families, and catalogues the datasets—real-world, multi-task, and synthetic—that the field trains on. The paper's intended contribution is a structured entry point: a reader should be able to locate where a new model sits, which dataset it should be tested on, and which known weakness it must address. If the review's map is right, it gives the field a shared vocabulary for comparing methods and choosing research directions.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a four-category taxonomy of Vision-TAA methods, each defined by the feature type it consumes: raw image/video pixels, spatio-temporal sequences, semantic scene graphs, or fused multimodal signals. Around this taxonomy sit the benchmark datasets (real-world, multi-task/risk, simulated) and the model families (CNN, RNN/LSTM/GRU, GAN, Transformer, GNN, SSD/YOLO, R-CNN). The taxonomy does the argumentative work: it turns scattered accuracy numbers and architectures into a map of complementary strengths and weaknesses, which is what allows the review to conclude that fusion and self-supervised learning are the next steps.

What would settle it

Check the 147 claimed studies against the reference list and the cited sources: if a substantial fraction of the Table 1 accuracy values cannot be located in the cited papers, or if many of the 147 papers are actually duplicates or off-topic, then the claimed comprehensiveness and the accuracy baselines are not reliable. A simpler counting test: tally how many of the 147 have a matching in-text mention and reference entry; if the count falls well short, the review's empirical grounding fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the deep-learning work on anticipating traffic accidents from cameras is now classifiable into four complementary research streams rather than an undifferentiated pile of models. Image/video feature methods (CNN, SSD, YOLO) capture spatial evidence but lose temporal continuity; spatio-temporal methods (RNN, LSTM, GRU, graph networks) model dynamics but need large labeled temporal data and are noise-sensitive; scene-understanding methods embed semantic relations among agents but are data-hungry and generalize poorly; multimodal fusion combines vision, sensor, and text data for accuracy and robustness at the cost of fusion complexity. The paper also holds that the field's reported accuracies cluster around a recurring set of benchmarks—KITTI, CCD, CADP, DAD, NIDB, DRAMA, DADA-2000, GTACrash, DoTA—and that the dominant open problems are data scarcity, limited generalization, and real-time constraints. On this reading, future progress is less about inventing new single-stream models and more about fusing modalities and exploiting unlabeled data through self-supervised learning and Transformers.

Load-bearing premise

The review's map of the field is only as trustworthy as its selection and transcription of the 147 papers, but the methods section gives no search strategy or inclusion criteria and several in-text citations do not match the numbered reference list.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New Vision-TAA systems can be positioned by which family they extend; for example, a model that couples object detection with a recurrent head belongs to the spatio-temporal stream and inherits that family's need for labeled temporal data.
  • The recurring accuracy figures in Table 1 give future work quantitative baselines; beating them on the same datasets (DAD, CADP, DoTA) is the field's working definition of progress.
  • If the challenge list is correct, then unimodal, single-stream models have largely been explored, and gains should come from combining camera data with radar, LiDAR, or text/semantic cues.
  • Adopting self-supervised pretraining and Transformer-based architectures, as the review recommends, would attack data scarcity and context modeling simultaneously.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The taxonomy suggests a concrete hypothesis the authors do not test: because each family fails on a different axis, ensembling a spatial detector with a temporal reasoner and a scene-semantic model should yield complementary accuracy gains on DAD or CADP.
  • A fifth family, built around large language models and textual scene descriptions, is visible in the table but not given its own category; future reviews may need to split multimodal fusion into sensor fusion and language-guided fusion.
  • Dataset selection is arguably a larger driver of reported accuracy than architecture: synthetic datasets allow controlled training while real dashcam data stress generalization, so benchmark choice should be reported alongside method choice.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a literature review of vision-based traffic accident anticipation (Vision-TAA). It claims to review 147 papers published through 2024, organizes methods into four categories (image/video feature-based prediction, spatio-temporal feature-based prediction, scene understanding, and multimodal data fusion), describes commonly used real-world and synthetic datasets, and identifies challenges and future research directions such as multimodal fusion, self-supervised learning, and Transformer-based architectures.

Significance. If the claims were accurate, the paper would provide a useful structured entry point to a growing research area, with a taxonomy and dataset inventory that could orient new researchers. The paper addresses a practically important topic (road safety) and brings together a broad set of recent deep learning techniques. However, the review's value depends entirely on the reliability of its literature corpus and citation mapping, and that reliability is currently not established. The paper also lacks a reproducible search protocol, which is a standard expectation for comprehensive reviews. The strengths are the breadth of the attempted scope and the organization of methods into four categories, but the manuscript in its current form does not support the central claim of being a comprehensive and accurate synthesis.

major comments (5)
  1. [Summary / Methods, Data Collection and Preprocessing] The paper claims to review 147 papers, but the reference list contains only 70 numbered entries. There is no search protocol, no inclusion/exclusion criteria, no PRISMA-style flow diagram, and no supplemental file visible. For a survey, the reference list is the data; without a way to verify the corpus or reproduce the selection, the central claim of comprehensiveness is unsupported. The authors should either supply the full 147-item corpus with a documented selection method or revise the claim to match the actual number of references.
  2. [Spatio-Temporal Feature-Based Prediction] Several in-text citations do not match the reference list. For example, 'Wentao Bao et al. 20' is cited for a GCN-RNN spatio-temporal model, but reference [20] is Wang et al., 'GSC: A graph and spatio-temporal continuity based framework for accident anticipation'; 'Tianhang Wang et al.55' refers to reference [55], which is Andrea et al., not Wang et al.; 'Zachary C et al.53' refers to reference [53], which is Lipton; and 'Yu Li et al.52' attributes the DSTA model to Yu Li, but reference [52] is Karim et al. These mismatches break the attribution chain that a reader relies on in a survey and must be corrected systematically, not just in the highlighted sentences.
  3. [Spatio-Temporal Feature-Based Prediction] The section contains garbled and unfinished sentences that obscure the content. Specifically, the passage beginning 'Spatio-temporal feature-based methods capture the ped a novel model called GSNet...' and the sentence 'Beibei Wang et al.58 develoantic dimensions for traffic accident risk prediction' are ungrammatical and incomplete. These are not merely stylistic issues; they make it impossible for a reader to understand what the cited works actually proposed. The entire section needs a careful rewrite.
  4. [Scene Understanding-Based Prediction] The claim that 'Early research in scene understanding-based prediction mainly focused on the surveillance domain, using direct physical distance calculations for accident prediction49,59,60,61,62' cites reference [49], which is Karim et al. (2022), a deep-learning dynamic spatio-temporal attention model, not an early physical-distance-based work. This mis-citation undermines the historical narrative and further evidences the citation unreliability. The authors should re-verify every citation in this paragraph and throughout the manuscript.
  5. [Methods] The Methods section contains boilerplate and placeholder text: 'The methods section must provide sufficient information for the reader to be able to reproduce the study' and 'Further details regarding the methods can be found in the supplemental information.' This appears to be template language, not actual methodological description. Combined with the absence of a search protocol or reproducibility details, this makes the survey's methodology non-transparent. The section should be rewritten to describe the actual literature search and selection process.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methods, Data Collection and Preprocessing] There is a typo in 'GTAC rash' which should read 'GTACrash'.
  2. [Deep Learning Models, Hybrid Deep Neural Networks] 'YOL 44' should be 'YOLO [44]', and reference [44] (Gutierrez-Osorio and Pedraza) is a review, not the YOLO object detector; the intended citation is likely to a YOLO paper.
  3. [Table 1] The table formatting is inconsistent: some entries have multiple accuracy values without clear correspondence to multiple models, and some cells appear to run together (e.g., '51.4%' on the same row as Zeng et al.). The table would benefit from a clearer layout that maps each model to its reported metric.
  4. [Image and Video Feature-Based Prediction] The phrase 'Qian Liu (2024) et al.54' is awkwardly phrased; it should be 'Qian Liu et al. [54]'.
  5. [References] References [49] and [52] are identical entries for the same paper (Karim et al., 2022). This duplication should be removed, and all citations to [49] and [52] should be unified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a literature review that synthesizes external works without deriving or fitting any result.

full rationale

This manuscript is a survey of vision-based traffic accident anticipation methods. It does not introduce a model, derive an equation, or fit a parameter, so the circularity patterns based on self-definition, fitted inputs called predictions, or imported uniqueness theorems do not apply. The survey relies on citations to external prior work (e.g., datasets, deep learning architectures, and earlier surveys) and does not claim those cited results as new derivations. The authors' own contributions are limited to organization and summarization, and the cited prior works are not by the present authors, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing. The substantive weaknesses of the paper are accuracy and completeness concerns: the text claims 147 reviewed papers while the reference list contains only 70 numbered entries, and several in-text attributions are inconsistent (e.g., the DSTA model is attributed to both [49] and [52], which are the same paper; [49] is also cited as an early physical-distance method). These are correctness and reproducibility problems, not circularity. Under the hard rules, a claim of circularity requires exhibiting a specific reduction of the argument to its own inputs, and no such reduction exists here. The paper is self-contained in the sense that a literature review's claims are summary judgments about other papers; they are not derived from the surveyed papers in a circular way. Therefore the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no free parameters or new entities. It relies on three domain assumptions: that the selected papers are representative, that the transcriptions of results are accurate, and that the taxonomy is a valid partition. All three are unstated and unsupported by the paper itself.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 147 papers included in the review are representative of the field.
    The Methods section provides no search strategy, databases, or inclusion/exclusion criteria, so the representativeness of the selection is assumed without evidence.
  • domain assumption Reported accuracy values in Table 1 are correctly transcribed from the original papers.
    Several table entries show multiple unlabeled accuracy numbers and the references are sometimes mismatched, undermining this assumption.
  • domain assumption The four-way categorization is a meaningful and non-overlapping partition of the literature.
    The categories are used to structure the review, but no formal basis or inter-annotation agreement is given, and some methods plausibly fit multiple categories.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Learning Advances in Vision-Based Traffic Accident Anticipation: A Comprehensive Review of Methods, Datasets, and Future Directions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UYFXE7HU

@misc{pith2026250507611,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Learning Advances in Vision-Based Traffic Accident Anticipation: A Comprehensive Review of Methods, Datasets, and Future Directions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UYFXE7HU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07611}
}
read the original abstract

Traffic accident prediction and detection are critical for enhancing road safety, and vision-based traffic accident anticipation (Vision-TAA) has emerged as a promising approach in the era of deep learning. This paper reviews 147 recent studies, focusing on the application of supervised, unsupervised, and hybrid deep learning models for accident prediction, alongside the use of real-world and synthetic datasets. Current methodologies are categorized into four key approaches: image and video feature-based prediction, spatio-temporal feature-based prediction, scene understanding, and multi modal data fusion. While these methods demonstrate significant potential, challenges such as data scarcity, limited generalization to complex scenarios, and real-time performance constraints remain prevalent. This review highlights opportunities for future research, including the integration of multi modal data fusion, self-supervised learning, and Transformer-based architectures to enhance prediction accuracy and scalability. By synthesizing existing advancements and identifying critical gaps, this paper provides a foundational reference for developing robust and adaptive Vision-TAA systems, contributing to road safety and traffic management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07611 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multilayer Perceptron  Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN): Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN)28 effectively capture local features and patterns from images through convolution operations, preserving spatial hierarchies from low-level features to high-level semantic features. In Vision-TAA systems, CNNs are used to extract spatial features from video frames and analyze sequential frames to detect accident indicato… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convolutional Neural Networks  Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) and Variants: Unlike CNNs, Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) 31 are well-suited for handling sequential data by utilizing feedback connections to retain historical information. However, standard RNNs suffer from the vanishing gradient problem, limiting their capacity to process long sequences. Variants such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Gated Recur… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Recurrent Neural Networks and Variants Unsupervised Learning Networks  Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN): Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN)35, introduced by Ian Goodfellow, are an unsupervised learning approach where two networks, the generator (G) and the discriminator (D), compete against each other. GANs are employed to generate synthetic traffic accident videos, enhancing the robustness and adaptability… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Generative Adversarial Networks  Transformer: The Transformer is a deep learning architecture based on attention mechanisms. Unlike GANs, Transformers use self-attention and multi-head attention techniques to process sequential data and capture relationships between e…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Transformer  Graph Neural Networks (GNN): Graph Neural Networks (GNN)41 play a critical role in handling graph-structured data, essential for tasks such as action recognition in computer vision. GNNs utilize a message-passing mechanism between nodes to capture relatio…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Graph Neural Networks Hybrid Deep Neural Networks  Single-Stage Object Detection Techniques: SSD and YOLO: Single Shot MultiBox Detector (SSD) 43 is an object detection framework that detects multiple object candidates and their classes in a single forward pass throug…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SSD and YOLO  Region-Based Convolutional Neural Networks (R-CNN): Region-Based Convolutional Neural Networks (R-CNN)47 is a two-stage deep learning object detection technique that predicts object categories and bounding boxes by first identifying image regions. Faster…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Region-Based Convolutional Neural Networks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    GSC: A graph and spatio-temporal continuity based framework for accident anticipation

    Wang, T., Chen, K., Chen, G., Li, B., Li, Z., Liu, Z., & Jiang, C. GSC: A graph and spatio-temporal continuity based framework for accident anticipation. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh., 9(1), 2249-2261(2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [55]

    C., Lee, C

    Andrea, M. C., Lee, C. K., Kim, Y. S., Noh, M. J., Moon, S. I., & Shin, J. H. Computer Vision-Based Car Accident Detection using YOLOv8. J. Korea Soc. Ind. Inform. Syst., 29(1), 91-105 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [53]

    Lipton, Z. C. A Critical Review of Recurrent Neural Networks for Sequence Learning. arXiv Preprint, CoRR, abs/1506.00019 (2015)

    arXiv 2015

  4. [52]

    M., Li, Y., Qin, R., & Yin, Z

    Karim, M. M., Li, Y., Qin, R., & Yin, Z. A dynamic spatial-temporal attention network for early anticipation of traffic accidents. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 23(7), 9590-9600 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [1]

    (2021, December 3)

    United Nations News. (2021, December 3). 130 million people die each year in road traffic accidents, the United Nations strives to halve the number by 2030. Retrieved from https://news.un.org/story/2021/12/1095452

    work page 2021

  6. [2]

    Road traffic injuries,

    “Road traffic injuries,”World Health Organization, 2023. Online. Available: https://www.who.int/news- room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries

    work page 2023

  7. [3]

    Improving the transferability of the crash prediction model using the TrAdaBoost

    Tang, D., Yang, X., & Wang, X. Improving the transferability of the crash prediction model using the TrAdaBoost. R2 algorithm. Accid. Anal. Prev., 141, 105551 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [4]

    A., & Alozi, A

    Hamad, K., Khalil, M. A., & Alozi, A. R. Predicting freeway incident duration using machine learning. Int. J. ITS Res., 18(2), 367-380 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 69 references
  1. [5]

    F., & Capretz, M

    L’heureux, A., Grolinger, K., Elyamany, H. F., & Capretz, M. A. Machine learning with big data: Challenges and approaches. Ieee Access, 5, 7776-7797 (2017)

    2017

  2. [6]

    F., Alam, M

    Ahmed, S. F., Alam, M. S. B., Hassan, M., Rozbu, M. R., Ishtiak, T., Rafa, N., ... & Gandomi, A. H. Deep learning modelling techniques: current progress, applications, advantages, and challenges. Artif. Intell. Rev., 56(11), 13521-13617 (2023)

    2023

  3. [7]

    Vision-based traffic accident detection and anticipation: A survey

    Fang, J., Qiao, J., Xue, J., & Li, Z. Vision-based traffic accident detection and anticipation: A survey. TCSVT, 34, 4 (2023)

    2023

  4. [8]

    Sarker, I. H. Deep learning: a comprehensive overview on techniques, taxonomy, applications and research directions. SN Comput. Sci., 2(6), 420 (2021)

    2021

  5. [9]

    Recent Advances in Traffic Accident Analysis and Prediction: A Comprehensive Review of Machine Learning Techniques

    Behboudi, N., Moosavi, S., & Ramnath, R. Recent Advances in Traffic Accident Analysis and Prediction: A Comprehensive Review of Machine Learning Techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13968 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  6. [10]

    Vision-Based Accident Anticipation and Detection Using Deep Learning

    Verma, A., & Khari, M. Vision-Based Accident Anticipation and Detection Using Deep Learning. IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag., 27(3), 22-29 (2024)

    2024

  7. [11]

    W., & Chung, K

    Baek, J. W., & Chung, K. Accident risk prediction model based on attention-mechanism LSTM using modality convergence in multimodal. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 27(3), 1179-1189 (2023)

    2023

  8. [12]

    V., Yu, S

    Malawade, A. V., Yu, S. Y., Hsu, B., Muthirayan, D., Khargonekar, P. P., & Al Faruque, M. A. Spatiotemporal scene-graph embedding for autonomous vehicle collision prediction. IEEE Internet Things J., 9(12), 9379-9388 (2022)

    2022

  9. [13]

    Predicting real-time traffic conflicts using deep learning

    Formosa, N., Quddus, M., Ison, S., Abdel-Aty, M., & Yuan, J. Predicting real-time traffic conflicts using deep learning. Accid. Anal. Prev., 136, 105429 (2020)

    2020

  10. [14]

    Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite

    Geiger, A., Lenz, P., & Urtasun, R. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. IEEE.,3354-3361 (2012)

    2012

  11. [15]

    Uncertainty-based traffic accident anticipation with spatio-temporal relational learning

    Bao, W., Yu, Q., & Kong, Y. Uncertainty-based traffic accident anticipation with spatio-temporal relational learning. In Proc. 28th ACM Multimedia Conf. ,2682-2690 (2020)

    2020

  12. [16]

    P., Lamare, J

    Shah, A. P., Lamare, J. B., Nguyen-Anh, T., & Hauptmann, A. CADP: A novel dataset for CCTV traffic camera based accident analysis. IEEE., 1-9 (2018)

    2018

  13. [17]

    H., Chen, Y

    Chan, F. H., Chen, Y. T., Xiang, Y., & Sun, M. Anticipating accidents in dashcam videos. Springer, 10114,136-153 (2017)

    2017

  14. [18]

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

    Suzuki, T., Kataoka, H., Aoki, Y., & Satoh, Y. Anticipating traffic accidents with adaptive loss and large- scale incident db. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 3521-3529 (2018)

    2018

  15. [19]

    Joint pedestrian detection and risk-level prediction with motion-representation-by-detection

    Kataoka, H., Suzuki, T., Nakashima, K., Satoh, Y., & Aoki, Y. Joint pedestrian detection and risk-level prediction with motion-representation-by-detection. IEEE., 1021-1027 (2020)

    2020

  16. [21]

    H., & Li, J

    Malla, S., Choi, C., Dwivedi, I., Choi, J. H., & Li, J. Drama: Joint risk localization and captioning in driving. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Winter Conf. Appl. Comput. Vis., 1043-1052 (2023)

    2023

  17. [22]

    Sutd-trafficqa: A question answering benchmark and an efficient network for video reasoning over traffic events

    Xu, L., Huang, H., & Liu, J. Sutd-trafficqa: A question answering benchmark and an efficient network for video reasoning over traffic events. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 9878- 9888 (2021)

    2021

  18. [23]

    DADA: Driver attention prediction in driving accident scenarios

    Fang, J., Yan, D., Qiao, J., Xue, J., & Yu, H. DADA: Driver attention prediction in driving accident scenarios. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 23(6), 4959-4971(2021)

    2021

  19. [24]

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

    Kim, H., Lee, K., Hwang, G., & Suh, C. Crash to not crash: Learn to identify dangerous vehicles using a simulator. In Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 33, 978-985 (2019)

    2019

  20. [25]

    Yao, Y., Wang, X., Xu, M., Pu, Z., Wang, Y., Atkins, E., & Crandall, D. J. Dota: Unsupervised detection of traffic anomaly in driving videos. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 45(1), 444-459 (2022)

    2022

  21. [26]

    Deep learning

    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. Deep learning. nature, 521(7553), 436-444 (2015)

    2015

  22. [27]

    Liao, H., Li, Y., Wang, C., Guan, Y., Tam, K., Tian, C., ... & Li, Z. When, Where, and What? An Novel Benchmark for Accident Anticipation and Localization with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16277 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition

    LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc. IEEE, 86(11), 2278-2324 (1998)

    1998

  24. [29]

    Vision transformer for detecting critical situations and extracting functional scenario for automated vehicle safety assessment

    Kang, M., Lee, W., Hwang, K., & Yoon, Y. Vision transformer for detecting critical situations and extracting functional scenario for automated vehicle safety assessment. Sustainability, 14(15), 9680 (2022)

    2022

  25. [30]

    R., & Osman, O

    Palit, J. R., & Osman, O. A. Application of LiDAR data for deep learning based near crash prediction at signalized intersection. J. Transp. Technol., 13(2), 158-172 (2023)

    2023

  26. [31]

    Deep learning methods and applications

    Khan, M., Jan, B., Farman, H., Ahmad, J., Farman, H., & Jan, Z. Deep learning methods and applications. Deep Learn. Big Data Anal., 31-42 (2019)

    2019

  27. [32]

    Long Short-term Memory

    Hochreiter, S. Long Short-term Memory. Neural Comput., 9(8), 1735-1780 (1997)

    1997

  28. [33]

    Wang, S., Liu, W., Wu, J., Cao, L., Meng, Q., & Kennedy, P. J. Training deep neural networks on imbalanced data sets. IEEE, 4368-4374 (2016)

    2016

  29. [34]

    L., Yang, K., Zheng, Z., Xue, J., & Chua, T

    Fang, J., Li, L. L., Yang, K., Zheng, Z., Xue, J., & Chua, T. S. Cognitive accident prediction in driving scenes: A multimodality benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09381 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  30. [35]

    & Bengio, Y

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., ... & Bengio, Y. Generative adversarial nets. NIPS., 27 (2014)

    2014

  31. [36]

    Automated traffic incident detection with a smaller dataset based on generative adversarial networks

    Lin, Y., Li, L., Jing, H., Ran, B., & Sun, D. Automated traffic incident detection with a smaller dataset based on generative adversarial networks. Accid. Anal. Prev., 144, 105628 (2020)

    2020

  32. [37]

    Real-time crash prediction on expressways using deep generative models

    Cai, Q., Abdel-Aty, M., Yuan, J., Lee, J., & Wu, Y. Real-time crash prediction on expressways using deep generative models. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol., 117, 102697 (2020)

    2020

  33. [38]

    Traffic accident data generation based on improved generative adversarial networks

    Chen, Z., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., & Huang, Z. Traffic accident data generation based on improved generative adversarial networks. Sensors, 21(17), 5767 (2021)

    2021

  34. [39]

    Chavan, D., Saad, D., & Chakraborty, D. B. COLLIDE-PRED: prediction of on-road collision from surveillance videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.08463 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  35. [40]

    Multi-modal fusion transformer for end-to-end autonomous driving

    Prakash, A., Chitta, K., & Geiger, A. Multi-modal fusion transformer for end-to-end autonomous driving. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 7077-7087 (2021)

    2021

  36. [41]

    C., Hagenbuchner, M., & Monfardini, G

    Scarselli, F., Gori, M., Tsoi, A. C., Hagenbuchner, M., & Monfardini, G. The graph neural network model. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw., 20(1), 61-80 (2008)

    2008

  37. [42]

    Dynamic attention augmented graph network for video accident anticipation

    Song, W., Li, S., Chang, T., Xie, K., Hao, A., & Qin, H. Dynamic attention augmented graph network for video accident anticipation. Pattern Recognit., 147, 110071 (2024)

    2024

  38. [43]

    Y., & Berg, A

    Liu, W., Anguelov, D., Erhan, D., Szegedy, C., Reed, S., Fu, C. Y., & Berg, A. C. Ssd: Single shot multibox detector. Springer, 9905, 21-37. (2016)

    2016

  39. [44]

    Modern data sources and techniques for analysis and forecast of road accidents: A review

    Gutierrez-Osorio, C., & Pedraza, C. Modern data sources and techniques for analysis and forecast of road accidents: A review. J. Traffic Transp. Eng., 7(4), 432-446 (2020)

    2020

  40. [45]

    I., Zaghdoud, R., Ahmed, M

    Basheer Ahmed, M. I., Zaghdoud, R., Ahmed, M. S., Sendi, R., Alsharif, S., Alabdulkarim, J., ... & Krishnasamy, G. A real-time computer vision based approach to detection and classification of traffic incidents. Big Data Cogn. Comput., 7(1), 22 (2023)

    2023

  41. [46]

    S., & Zettsu, K

    Dao, M. S., & Zettsu, K. Near-Miss Accident Prediction on the Edge: A Real-Time System for Safer Driving. In Proc. 2024 Int. Conf. Multimedia Retr., 1165-1169 (2024)

    2024

  42. [47]

    Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation

    Girshick, R., Donahue, J., Darrell, T., & Malik, J. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit., 580-587 (2014)

    2014

  43. [48]

    A vehicle detection and tracking method for traffic video based on faster R- CNN

    Othmani, M. A vehicle detection and tracking method for traffic video based on faster R- CNN. MULTIMED TOOLS APPL, 81(20), 28347-28365 (2022)

    2022

  44. [50]

    DRIVE: Deep reinforced accident anticipation with visual explanation

    Bao, W., Yu, Q., & Kong, Y. DRIVE: Deep reinforced accident anticipation with visual explanation. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis., 7619-7628 (2021)

    2021

  45. [51]

    DADA: Driver attention prediction in driving accident scenarios

    Fang, J., Yan, D., Qiao, J., Xue, J., & Yu, H. DADA: Driver attention prediction in driving accident scenarios. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 23(6), 4959-4971 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Automatic Detection for Road Voids from GPR Images using Deep Learning Method

    Liu, Q., & Zhu, C. Automatic Detection for Road Voids from GPR Images using Deep Learning Method. IEEE, 617-620 (2023)

    2023

  47. [56]

    Predicting traffic accidents with event recorder data

    Takimoto, Y., Tanaka, Y., Kurashima, T., Yamamoto, S., Okawa, M., & Toda, H. Predicting traffic accidents with event recorder data. In Proc. 3rd ACM SIGSPATIAL Int. Workshop Predict. Hum. Mob., 11-14 (2019)

    2019

  48. [57]

    THAT-Net: Two-layer hidden state aggregation based two-stream network for traffic accident prediction

    Liu, W., Zhang, T., Lu, Y., Chen, J., & Wei, L. THAT-Net: Two-layer hidden state aggregation based two-stream network for traffic accident prediction. Inf. Sci., 634, 744-760 (2023)

    2023

  49. [58]

    GSNet: Learning spatial-temporal correlations from geographical and semantic aspects for traffic accident risk forecasting

    Wang, B., Lin, Y., Guo, S., & Wan, H. GSNet: Learning spatial-temporal correlations from geographical and semantic aspects for traffic accident risk forecasting. In Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., 35, 4402- 4409 (2021)

    2021

  50. [59]

    Traffic accident prediction using vehicle tracking and trajectory analysis

    Hu, W., Xiao, X., Xie, D., & Tan, T. Traffic accident prediction using vehicle tracking and trajectory analysis. IEEE, 1, 220-225 (2003)

    2003

  51. [60]

    Utilizing support vector machine in real-time crash risk evaluation

    Yu, R., & Abdel-Aty, M. Utilizing support vector machine in real-time crash risk evaluation. Accid. Anal. Prev., 51, 252-259(2013)

    2013

  52. [61]

    A., & Tian, Z

    Chen, C., Zhang, G., Qian, Z., Tarefder, R. A., & Tian, Z. Investigating driver injury severity patterns in rollover crashes using support vector machine models. Accid. Anal. Prev., 90, 128-139 (2016)

    2016

  53. [62]

    Dada-2000: Can driving accident be predicted by driver attentionƒ analyzed by a benchmark

    Fang, J., Yan, D., Qiao, J., Xue, J., Wang, H., & Li, S. Dada-2000: Can driving accident be predicted by driver attentionƒ analyzed by a benchmark. IEEE, 4303-4309 (2019)

    2019

  54. [63]

    Traffic Accident Prediction using Graph Neural Networks: New Datasets and the TRAVEL Model

    Huang, B., & Hooi, B. Traffic Accident Prediction using Graph Neural Networks: New Datasets and the TRAVEL Model. Traffic, 27(29), 31 (2022)

    2022

  55. [64]

    RiskOracle: A minute-level citywide traffic accident forecasting framework

    Zhou, Z., Wang, Y., Xie, X., Chen, L., & Liu, H. RiskOracle: A minute-level citywide traffic accident forecasting framework. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell.,34(1), 1258-1265 (2020)

    2020

  56. [65]

    A., Rehman, F

    Haris, M., Moin, M. A., Rehman, F. A., & Farhan, M. Vehicle crash prediction using vision. IEEE, 1-5 (2021)

    2021

  57. [66]

    An end-to-end online traffic-risk incident prediction in first-person dash camera videos

    Pradana, H. An end-to-end online traffic-risk incident prediction in first-person dash camera videos. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7(3), 129 (2023)

    2023

  58. [67]

    H., Chou, S

    Zeng, K. H., Chou, S. H., Chan, F. H., Carlos Niebles, J., & Sun, M. Agent-centric risk assessment: Accident anticipation and risky region localization. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit.,2222-2230 (2017)

    2017

  59. [68]

    NAVIBox: Real-Time Vehicle–Pedestrian Risk Prediction System in an Edge Vision Environment

    Lee, H., Cho, H., Noh, B., & Yeo, H. NAVIBox: Real-Time Vehicle–Pedestrian Risk Prediction System in an Edge Vision Environment. Electronics, 12(20), 4311(2023)

    2023

  60. [69]

    L., Fang, J., & Xue, J

    Li, L. L., Fang, J., & Xue, J. x. Cognitive Traffic Accident Anticipation. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine,16(5), 17-32 (2023)

    2023

  61. [70]

    Graph (Graph): A Nested Graph-Based Framework for Early Accident Anticipation

    Thakur, N., Gouripeddi, P., & Li, B. Graph (Graph): A Nested Graph-Based Framework for Early Accident Anticipation. Proc. IEEE/CVF Winter Conf. Appl. Comput. Vis.,7533-7541 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.