Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
The identiﬁcation of accident hot spots is a central task of road safety management. Bayesian count data models have emerged as the workhorse method for producing probabilistic rankings of hazardous sites in road networks. Typically, these methods assume simple linear link function speciﬁcations, which, however, limit the predictive power of a model. Furthermore, extensive speciﬁcation searches are precluded by complex model structures arising from the need to account for unobserved hetero- geneity and spatial correlations. Modern machine learning (ML) methods offer ways to automate the speciﬁcation of the link function. However, these methods do not capture estimation uncertainty, and it is also difﬁcult to incorporate spatial correlations. In light of these gaps in the literature, this paper proposes a new spatial negative binomial model, which uses Bayesian additive regression trees to endogenously select the speciﬁcation of the link function. Posterior inference in the proposed model is made feasible with the help of the Pólya-Gamma data augmentation technique. We test the performance of this new model on a crash count data set from a metropolitan highway network. The empirical results show that the proposed model performs at least as well as a baseline spatial count data model with random parameters in terms of goodness of ﬁt and site ranking ability. Keywords: accident analysis, site ranking, spatial count data modelling, negative binomial model, Bayesian additive regression trees, Pólya-Gamma data augmentation. 1 Introduction The identiﬁcation of accident-prone locations (so-called hot spots) is a core task of road safety management (Cheng et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2020). Of the various approaches for accident hot spot identiﬁcation (see Wang et al., 2018; Zahran et al., 2019, for a comparison), crash frequency analysis is the most widely employed method. Crash count data models are used to produce model-based rankings of hazardous sites and to predict crash counts at hot spots under counterfactual trafﬁc ﬂow and road design scenarios (Deacon et al., 1975). Recent work also uses multivariate analysis for the joint modelling of road fatality and injury counts (Besharati et al., 2020), single and multi-vehicle crashes (Wang and Feng, 2019), and crash frequency by travel modes (Huang et al., 2017). Crash counts are typically modelled using Poisson log-normal or negative binomial regression models (Lord and Mannering, 2010). Accommodating ﬂexible representations of unobserved heterogeneity in model parameters and accounting for correlations between spatial units are central themes of the recent crash count modelling literature (Cai et al., 2019a; Cheng et al., 2020; Dong et al., 2016; Heydari et al., 2016; Mannering et al., 2016; Ziakopoulos and Yannis, 2020). However, these ﬂexible representations of unobserved heterogeneity are achieved at the cost of a restrictive linear speciﬁcation of the link function. Whilst linear-in-parameters link functions are appealing from an interpretability perspective, an over-simpliﬁcation of the relationship between predictors and the explained variable may negatively affect the predictive performance of a model (Li et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2016). Since the predictive performance of a model is of paramount importance in hot spot identiﬁcation and site ranking applications, the speciﬁcation of the link function should be carefully selected. However, in practice, the space of possible link function speciﬁcations is prohibitively large, which precludes exhaustive speciﬁcation searches. Modern machine learning (ML) methods offer a remedy to this challenge, as they enable automatic speciﬁcation searches. A few studies have adopted kernel- based regression (Thakali, 2016), neural networks (Chang, 2005; Huang et al., 2016; Xie et al., 2007; Zeng et al., 2016a,b), support vector machine (Dong et al., 2015; Li et al., 2008), and deep learning architectures (Cai et al., 2019b; Dong et al., 2018) for crash count modelling. Modern ML methods are shown to surpass the traditional count data models in terms of predictive accuracy but succumb to four limitations. First, with exception of the work by Dong et al. (2015), none of the existing ML studies account for spatial correlations between observations. It is important to note that a non-linear link function speciﬁcation does not inherently account for spatial correlations, and ignoring these correlations can deteriorate the robustness of predictions (Dong et al., 2015). Second, unlike traditional count data models, ML methods do not provide a quantiﬁcation of estimation uncertainty and thus do not offer straightforward ways to construct conﬁdence or credible intervals. Third, ML methods are fully nonparametric, with no easy ways to integrate interpretable components in link functions. In other words, if a user is interested in inferring the relationship between selected explanatory variables and crash counts, there is no straightforward way to specify a semiparametric link function in the above-mentioned ML-based count data models. Fourth, ML-based crash count studies benchmark the performance of their methods against simplistic parametric models which do not account for unobserved and spatial heterogeneity, which is not a fair comparison. More speciﬁcally, none of the previous studies address an important question—whether a count data model with a nonparametric link function can outperform a model with a linear link function that also accounts for unobserved heterogeneity. 1 We emphasise that the before-mentioned ML methods adopt classical inference approaches, which yield point estimates of parameters of interest. On the contrary, the Bayesian approach facilitates accounting for various sources of uncertainty in model formulation and inference. For instance, posterior draws of site rankings at each iteration of the Gibbs sampler can directly provide ranking estimates with credible intervals (Miaou and Song, 2005). Hence, the fully Bayesian approach has emerged as the workhorse method in the site ranking literature. Along the same lines, this paper proposes a Bayesian negative binomial regression model, which not only addresses the ﬁrst three limitations of the above-discussed ML methods by retaining all advantages of the statistical crash count models (interpretability, inference, accounting for random parameters and spatial correlations) but also allows for an additional nonparametric component in the link function with an endogenous selection of the speciﬁcation. This nonparametric component is speciﬁed as sum-of-trees using the Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART) framework (Chipman et al., 2010). The sum-of-trees speciﬁcation inherently partitions the support of each explanatory variable during the estimation, resulting in a sum of step functions of individual predictors. Furthermore, if a tree depends only on one predictor, then this speciﬁcation captures the main effect of the predictors; it represents an interaction effect, if a tree depends on more than one predictor. This process is equivalent to creating categorical variables from continuous variables, as it inherently accounts for interaction effects between predictors, while cut-offs and functional forms of interaction effects are endogenously selected during estimation based on predictive accuracy. This is particularly relevant in the context of the site ranking, where continuous predictors like speed limit and shoulder width are often converted into categorical variables by manually selecting cut-offs before entering into linear link functions because such explanatory variables are unlikely to have a constant marginal effect over the entire support. In the Gibbs sampler for the proposed model, we adopt the Pólya-Gamma augmentation method to deal with the non-conjugacy of the negative binomial likelihood (Polson et al., 2013). The key idea of this data augmentation approach is to translate the negative binomial likelihood into a Gaussian likelihood by introducing auxiliary Pólya-Gamma-distributed random variables into the model. Finally, we address the last limitation of recent ML studies by providing a fair comparison of the proposed model with its linear-link counterpart, while also incorporating random parameters and spatial random effects. The proposed approach is a full Bayes (FB) method and the superiority of FB over empirical Bayes (EB) methods is well established in the literature (Guo et al., 2019). Nonetheless, we still benchmark our approach against EB in site ranking analysis. The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: In Section 2, we introduce the formulation of the proposed model framework and in Section 3, we outline the estimation approach. In Section 4, we present the empirical analysis and in Section 5, we conclude and discuss avenues of future research. 2 Model formulation Let y denote an observed crash count on road segment i =f1, 2, . . . , Ng. We consider the distribution of y to be negative binomial (NB) with probability parameter p and shape parameter r . The link i i function = log depends on road-segment-speciﬁc attributes F and X . While F enters in i i i i 1p the link function in a linear, interpretable form, the effect of X is speciﬁed using a sum of trees 2 P g (X ; T , M ) (Chipman et al., 2010). Here, T is a binary regression tree, and M denotes i i j j j j j=1 the parameters associated with its terminal nodes. To account for spatial correlations between road segments, we also include a spatial random effect into the link function. The collection of spatial random effects = ( , . . . ) follows a matrix exponential spatial speciﬁcation (MESS) 1 N of dependence that ensures exponential decay of inﬂuence over space (LeSage and Pace, 2007). Consequently, we have S = exp(W) = with Normal(0, I ), where W is an N N non-negative spatial weight matrix, captures the magnitude of spatial association, and is an error scale. The proposed model is summarised below: y NB(r, p ), i = 1, . . . , N (1) i i exp( ) p = , i = 1, . . . , N (2) 1 + exp( ) = F + G (X ; T , M) + , i = 1, . . . , N (3) i i i i G (X ; T , M) = g (X ; T , M ), i = 1, . . . , N (4) i i i i j j j=1 S = exp(W) = (5) Normal(0, I ) (6) Equation 3 can be rewritten in vector form. We have = F + G(X ; T , M) + (7) such that N [ F G] [ F G] 2 2 P( j , T , M , ,) = (2 ) exp (8) S S with = . 2.1 Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) Chipman et al. (2010) introduce BART as a nonparametric prior over a regression function to capture non-linear relationships and interaction effects between predictors. BART has been widely applied to a wide range of regression and classiﬁcation problems (see Hill et al., 2020) but the current study presents the ﬁrst application of BART in spatial count data modelling. BART speciﬁes the regression function as a sum of trees. Each tree T consists a group of decision nodes with splitting rules and a set of terminal leaf nodes. Figure 1 illustrates one such tree, whose splitting rules at the decision nodes are x < 0.7 and x < 0.4, and whose leaf nodes are 1 2 M =f , , g. A tree and its associated decision rules create partitions of the predictor space j j1 j2 j3 such that each partition corresponds to a leaf node. In the illustrative example, three partitions are induced: P =f x < 0.7g,P =f x > 0.7, x < 0.4g,P =f x > 0.7, x > 0.4g. The illustrative j1 1 j2 1 2 j3 1 2 tree inherently accounts for the interaction between x and x . However, if a tree depends only on 1 2 3 one predictor, the main effect of that predictor is captured. The function for the illustrative tree is: g(X ; T , M ) = if X =f x , x g2P 8t 2f1, 2, 3g. (9) j j j t 1 2 j t g(X ; T , M ) is a step function of a subset of predictors and thus, BART is a sum of step functions. j j The key idea of BART is to regularise the ﬁt by keeping the effect of each individual tree small such that each of tree can explain a different portion of the regression function. In other words, each tree is constrained to be a weak learner and BART is an ensemble of weak learners. The sum of trees model is a ﬂexible speciﬁcation, which results in an excellent predictive accuracy (Chipman et al., 2010). Furthermore, splitting rules and leaf nodes are estimable parameters in BART, which in turn facilitates automated speciﬁcation searches through endogenous partitioning of the predictor space. x < 0.7 j3 x j1 j1 x < 0.4 0.4 j2 0 0.7 µ µ 1 j2 j3 Figure 1: Illustration of a single binary tree T and its corresponding partition of the predictor space X = f x , x g. Internal tree nodes are marked with their splitting rules; leaf 1 2 nodes are marked with their leaf parameters. 2.2 Spatial error dependence In this study, we adopt the matrix exponential spatial speciﬁcation (MESS; LeSage and Pace, 2007) to model the unobserved dependence among spatial units. MESS is an appealing speciﬁcation because it offers computational advantages by simplifying the log-likelihood computations (LeSage and Pace, 2009). MESS also has close correspondence with spatial autoregressive (SAR) and conditional autoregressive (CAR) speciﬁcations (Strauss et al., 2017). Whereas SAR and CAR assume geometric decay of spatial correlation, MESS relies on exponential decay (LeSage and Pace, 2007). Readers can refer to Debarsy et al. (2015) for a detailed derivation of the large sample properties of MESS. 3 Estimation 3.1 Pólya-Gamma data augmentation Irrespective of the link function speciﬁcation, conditional posterior distributions of the parameters of the negative binomial model do not belong to a known family of distributions (Buddhavarapu et al., 2016; Park and Lord, 2009). In such situations, data augmentation techniques, which involve intermediate or additional latent random variables, are used to derive tractable conditional posteriors 4 of model parameters (Van Dyk and Meng, 2001). BART was originally developed for Gaussian models and therefore, its application in non-Gaussian models can be operationalised by transforming the original model into a Gaussian model via data augmentation. For example, Chipman et al. (2010) extend BART for a binary probit model with a ﬂexible link function and estimated it by adopting the data augmentation technique suggested by Albert and Chib (1993). Similarly, Kindo et al. (2016) use BART to specify indirect utilities in a multinomial probit model and estimated it by augmenting indirect utilities as latent Gaussian random variables. In this study, we adopt the Pólya-Gamma data augmentation technique which transforms the nega- tive binomial model into a heteroskedastic Gaussian model (Polson et al., 2013). This augmentation is not only appropriate for any negative binomial speciﬁcation, as shown by Buddhavarapu et al. (2016), but also enables seamless integration of the Gibbs sampler of the heteroskedastic BART (Bleich and Kapelner, 2014) into that of the proposed model. Pólya-Gamma data augmentation introduces auxiliary Pólya-Gamma random variates ! into the model. Conditional on ! , the negative binomial likelihood is translated into a heteroskedastic Gaussian likelihood, while closed-form posteriors for the augmentation variables are retained (see Polson et al., 2013, for a detailed proof). ! PG( y + r, 0) (10) i i • ˜ ! y r i i P( y j , r,! )/ exp (11) i i i i 2 2! ‹ P(yj , r,!)/ exp [ Z] [ Z] (12) where 2 3 2 3 y r ! . . . 0 2! 6 7 6 7 . . . . . . . Z = = (13) 4 5 4 . 5 . . . y r 0 . . . ! 2! N NN N1 Z = +% = F + G(X ; T , M) + +%, % Normal(0, ) (14) 3.2 Prior speciﬁcation We adopt the strategy used by Chipman et al. (2010) to specify priors on T and M jT . Other prior j j j distributions are summarised below: Normal( , ) (15) Normal( , ) (16) Gamma( b 2 , c 2) (17) r Gamma(r , h) (18) h Gamma( b , c ) (19) 0 0 Here f , , , , b , c , r , b , c g [ fTree Hyper-parametersg is a set of hyper-parameters and 2 2 0 0 0 = ,, T , M , ,!, r, h, is a set of latent variables of the models. Thus, the joint distribution 5 of observed and latent variables is: 2 2 2 P(y ,) = P(yjr,!, , T , M ,)P(j ,)P(rjr , h)P(hj b , c )P( j b 2 , c 2)P(j , ) . . . 0 0 0 ‚ Œ (20) . . . P( j , )P(T , MjfTree Hyper-parameters) P(! jr) i=1 3.3 Posterior updates To infer the posterior distributions of the model parameters of interest, we construct Markov chains by generating samples from the conditional distributions of individual coordinates of the parameters space. One iteration of the Gibbs sampler is described below: 1 1 ˜ ˜ Update by sampling Normal ( (Z G F ), ( ) . Update by sampling from € Š 1 > 1 > 1 1 > 1 Normal ( + F F) (F (Z G) + ), ( + F F) > > N S S 2 2 Update by sampling Gamma b 2 + , c 2 + . 2 2 Update ! by sampling from ! PG( y + r, ). i i i i Update r by sampling from a Gamma distribution (see Zhou et al., 2012, Section 4.1.1). Update h by sampling from h Gamma(r + b , r + c ). 0 0 0 € Š 2 > ( ) Update using the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm where P(j)/ exp exp . Update T and M as illustrated for the heteroskedastic BART by Bleich and Kapelner (2014), where the dependent variable is Z F and the error covariance matrix is . The updates of BART parameters are based on an iterative Bayesian backﬁtting algorithm (Hastie et al., 2000), where one tree is updated conditional on all other trees. y r Compute Z = , i = 1, . . . , N . 2! In this study, we present the estimation procedure for a speciﬁcation with only non-random parameters in the interpretable part of the link function. However, a modeller might expect unobserved heterogeneity in some elements of . For completeness, we note that the proposed estimation procedure can be extended for such speciﬁcations of unobserved heterogeneity to facilitate ﬂexibility at no compromise in interpretability. Thanks to Pólya-Gamma data augmentation, the extension is as simple as deriving a Gibbs sampler for a linear mixed-effects model. 4 Empirical analysis 4.1 Data The proposed model framework is empirically validated using detailed crash frequency data from 1,158 contiguous road segments of eleven highway facilities in the Greater Houston metropolitan area in the United States of America. The data were compiled by geographically fusing information retrieved from accident and road databases for an observation period covering four consecutive 6 calendar years in the period from 2007 to 2010. For each road segment, the considered data include the annual crash count aggregated over all accident types and severity levels as well as other segment- speciﬁc characteristics, namely the type of highway facility the segment in question is associated with, the trafﬁc volume, the truck trafﬁc percentage, the road condition and roadway design attributes. The identiﬁed Table 1 enumerates summary statistics of the annual crash counts and the segment features for the considered road segments for each year of the observation period. More details about the the data collection and processing are presented in Buddhavarapu (2015). In the subsequent analysis, we treat the data from each year as a separate sample and evaluate the empirical performance of the proposed model across the different years of the observation period. 7 8 Predictor space 2007 2008 2009 2010 I I (random) II Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std. Mean Std. Crash count N.A. N.A. N.A. 19.15 25.76 15.17 20.60 14.17 19.21 17.44 23.68 Interstate highway (dummy) 3 7 3 0.45 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.45 0.50 Exurban area (dummy) 3 7 3 0.27 0.45 0.27 0.45 0.27 0.45 0.20 0.40 Asphalt pavement (dummy) 3 7 3 0.17 0.38 0.17 0.37 0.14 0.35 0.12 0.33 Asphalt shoulder (dummy) 3 7 3 0.60 0.49 0.58 0.49 0.58 0.49 0.57 0.50 Total road width 7 7 3 54.51 15.17 55.00 15.27 55.97 15.62 56.27 15.43 Left shoulder width [ft] 7 7 3 8.61 2.78 8.66 2.78 8.36 3.33 8.52 3.23 Right shoulder width [ft] 7 7 3 9.02 2.31 9.06 2.30 9.75 2.07 9.60 2.26 Left shoulder width < 10 ft 3 3 7 0.53 0.50 0.53 0.50 0.52 0.50 0.51 0.50 Right shoulder width < 10 ft 3 3 7 0.44 0.50 0.44 0.50 0.25 0.43 0.27 0.45 Road overall quality index 7 7 3 35.40 20.11 36.66 18.08 36.03 19.32 37.89 17.92 Road overall quality index 45 3 7 7 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.56 0.50 Road comfort index 7 7 3 34.48 5.70 34.95 5.57 34.57 5.78 35.13 5.57 Road structural index 7 7 3 41.80 14.95 42.52 13.71 42.69 13.97 43.56 12.76 Road surface index 7 7 3 0.61 1.27 0.62 1.28 1.82 1.47 1.06 1.54 Speed limit [MPH] 3 3 3 61.17 5.05 61.25 4.92 61.35 4.85 61.37 4.79 No. of through lanes 7 7 3 3.13 0.99 3.16 1.01 3.15 1.03 3.18 1.01 Road proﬁle score (avg.) 3 7 7 117.45 35.76 114.40 34.47 116.89 36.10 113.11 34.19 Road proﬁle score (left) 7 7 3 117.15 35.11 107.67 34.38 114.86 34.51 112.04 32.91 Road proﬁle score (right) 7 7 3 117.88 37.55 121.32 37.50 119.06 38.67 114.32 36.44 Annual average daily trafﬁc (AADT) [10k veh.] per lane 7 7 3 1.52 0.84 1.54 0.85 1.56 0.86 1.50 0.85 Logarithm of AADT per lane 3 7 7 9.46 0.61 9.47 0.61 9.48 0.61 9.45 0.61 Truck trafﬁc percentage 3 7 3 10.49 6.73 10.36 6.47 10.69 6.57 10.79 6.36 Table 1: Sample description (N = 1,158) 4.2 Methodology 4.2.1 Model speciﬁcations We contrast the performance of four different model speciﬁcations. The proposed negative binomial Bayesian additive regression trees (NB-BART-I, henceforth) model is benchmarked against negative binomial regression models with spatial error terms and linear-in-parameters link functions. We consider one model with ﬁxed parameters (NB-ﬁxed, henceforth) as well as a model whose linear-in- parameters link function contains both ﬁxed and random parameters (NB-random, henceforth). The speciﬁcations NB-BART-I, NB-ﬁxed and NB-random use a restricted predictor space, as indicated in column “Predictor space: I” of Table 1. In the restricted predictor space, some continuous predictors are converted into dummy variables, because assuming a constant marginal effect over the entire support of the predictors is not meaningful. For example, left shoulder width is a continuous variable but its support is partitioned at 10 feet. Column “Predictor space: I (random)” in the same table indicates the predictors that are associated with fully-correlated random parameters in the link function. We conducted an extensive speciﬁcation search, during which we closely monitored model tractability, to determine which predictors to associate with random parameters. We also test another speciﬁcation of the proposed model (NB-BART-II, henceforth), which considers all predictors in their original form, and allow BART to automatically partition the predictor space. Column “Predictor space: II” of Table 1 indicates which predictors are included in speciﬁcation NB-BART-II. For the deﬁnition of the spatial weight matrix W , we exploit the inherent neighbourhood structure of the road segments. First, we create a N N contiguity-based proximity matrix C , which is informed by the neighbourhood relationships of the road segments. An element C of C is given by i j for d ( j)2f1, . . . , k g d ( j) C = , (21) i j 0 otherwise where d ( j) takes a value of k if i and j are kth-order neighbours and zero otherwise. k 2 f x 2 Nj x 2 [1, N]g is a truncation point, which is set to 3 in the current application. The intu- ition underlying the deﬁnition of C is that distant road segments exhibit weaker spatial correlation i j than proximal ones. Ultimately, we obtain W by row-normalising C , i.e. W = . i j i j 4.2.2 Implementation and estimation practicalities We implement the MCMC algorithm outlined in Section 3 by writing our own Python code. Our implementation of the heteroskedastic BART updates follows the documentation provided by Bleich and Kapelner (2014) and Kapelner and Bleich (2016). For the generation of the Pólya-Gamma random variates, we rely on an existing Python implementation (Linderman et al., 2015, 2016a,b) of the appropriate sampling methods (Polson et al., 2013; Windle et al., 2014). For each of the considered model speciﬁcations, the MCMC algorithm is executed with four parallel Markov chains and 10,000 draws for each chain, whereby the initial 5,000 draws of each chain are discarded for burn-in. After the burn-in period, a thinning factor of 2 is applied. The step size of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm for the generation of the posterior draws of the spatial association parameter is adaptively tuned with a target acceptance rate of 44%, which is the recommended The Python code is publicly available at https://github.com/RicoKrueger/nb_bart. 9 acceptance ratio for a one-dimensional target density (see Roberts et al., 1997). Convergence of the MCMC simulation is monitored with help of the potential scale reduction factor (Gelman et al., 1992). 4.2.3 Assessment of model ﬁt We evaluate the goodness of ﬁt of the considered methods using the log pointwise predictive density (LPPD; Gelman et al., 2014) and the root mean square error (RMSE): LPPD is a strictly proper scoring rule (Gneiting and Raftery, 2007), which corresponds to the logarithm of the pointwise likelihood integrated over the posterior distribution of the relevant model parameters. It is given by LPPD = log P( y j )p( jy)d , (22) i i i i i=1 where =f , rg. A larger value of LPPD indicates superior goodness of ﬁt. i i RMSE is informed by the discrepancy between the predicted accident count ˆ y and the observed accident count y , whereby the former is given by the posterior mean of the conditional expectation of the crash count at site i. It is given by u X RMSE = ( ˆ y y ) . (23) i i i=1 4.2.4 Assessment of site ranking ability Numerous techniques for the model-based identiﬁcation of accident hot spots are presented in the literature (see e.g. Aguero-Valverde and Jovanis, 2009; Geedipally and Lord, 2010; Miaou and Song, 2005; Miranda-Moreno et al., 2007; Washington et al., 2014). In this study, we use the probabilistic ranking method proposed by Schmidt (2012) to identify hazardous sites. To be speciﬁc, we rank sites by their posterior mean probability to belong to the top 5% most hazardous sites in the network. Formally, we proceed as follows: In each MCMC iteration d , we calculate the probability that a site belongs to the top m most hazardous sites, i.e. P (R( ) m), where R( ) denotes the rank d i i of site i as a function of the expected accident count . The posterior mean of the crash statistic E (R mjy , X) is then obtained by averaging the respective posterior draws, and in the current application, we use m = N with = 5%. Schmidt’s (2012) probabilistic ranking method robustiﬁes the Bayesian ranking procedures introduced by Miaou and Song (2005) against heterogeneity in the posterior variance of the underlying decision parameter. Different hot spot identiﬁcation methods can be compared by assessing the temporal consistency of the produced site rankings (Cheng and Washington, 2008; Montella, 2010). In this study, we employ the site consistency, method consistency and total rank differences tests of Cheng and Washington (2008) to evaluate site ranking consistency We use H to denote the set of sites that are identiﬁed ,t as hazardous in time period t at risk level and deﬁne the site ranking consistency tests as follows: The site consistency test (T ) measures the ability of a method to consistently identify a site SC as high risk over two consecutive time periods. It is based on the assumption that an unsafe 10 site should remain hazardous provided that no safety improvements are implemented. T for SC period t is obtained by averaging the predicted accident counts ˆ y for period t + 1 of all h,t+1 sites h2 H : ,t T = ˆ y . (24) SC,t h,t+1 jH j ,t h2H ,t A larger value of T indicates superior site ranking consistency. SC,t The method consistency test (T ) measures the ability of a method to consistently identify MC the same hazardous sites over two consecutive time periods. T for period t is given by the MC cardinality of the intersection of H and H , i.e. ,t ,t+1 T = H \ H . (25) MC,t ,t ,t+1 A larger value of T indicates superior site ranking consistency. MC,t Finally, the total rank differences test (T ) measures the average absolute differences in ranks TRD of hazardous sites over two consecutive time periods. T for period t is given by TRD T = R R , (26) TRD,t h,t+1 h,t jH j ,t h2H ,t where R denotes the rank of site h in period t . A smaller value of T indicates superior h,t TRD,t site ranking consistency. 4.3 Results 4.3.1 Model ﬁt Table 2 gives the goodness of ﬁt measures of the considered model speciﬁcations across the four years of the observation period. It can be seen that NB-BART-II with an unrestricted predictor space outperforms the competing model speciﬁcations by a signiﬁcant margin in all four samples. For example, for year 2010, NB-BART-II yields LPPD and RMSE values of3510.43 and 10.53, respectively, whereas the next-best model speciﬁcation NB-BART-I yields LPPD and RMSE values of 3558.87 and 11.46, respectively. Furthermore, we observe that NB-BART-I closely matches the performance of NB-random in the considered samples. As expected, NB-ﬁxed exhibits the poorest performance among the four considered model speciﬁcations in all four samples due to its rigid link function speciﬁcation. In sum, Table 2 shows that the endogenous partitioning of the predictor space induced by the BART component in NB-BART-II results in a substantial improvement in goodness of ﬁt. We acknowledge that a modeller could exogenously partition the support of the continuous predictors in manifold ways to eventually achieve a comparable or better goodness-of-ﬁt. However, the computation time of such an iterative hit-and-trial speciﬁcation search would be prohibitive, as the space of possible speciﬁcations is enormously large. NB-BART-II automates this search process and achieves the optimal partitioning of the predictor space and thus obviates the need for expensive speciﬁcation searches. Consequently, NB-BART-II with an unrestricted predictor space should be preferred over NB-BART-I with a restricted predictor space. 11 2007 2008 2009 2010 Method LPPD RMSE LPPD RMSE LPPD RMSE LPPD RMSE NB-ﬁxed -3784.34 14.74 -3545.04 11.66 -3545.89 11.73 -3627.46 12.80 NB-random -3726.01 13.77 -3483.54 10.85 -3478.76 10.93 -3564.49 12.03 NB-BART-I -3734.88 13.82 -3490.67 10.69 -3510.13 10.97 -3558.87 11.46 NB-BART-II -3664.14 12.15 -3437.68 9.84 -3407.94 9.39 -3510.43 10.53 Note: LPPD = log pointwise predictive density; RMSE = root mean square error. For each observation period and goodness ﬁt measures, the best-performing method is highlighted in bold font. Table 2: Goodness of ﬁt. 4.3.2 Site ranking performance Next, we compare the site ranking ability of the different model speciﬁcations. Our analysis covers all four years of the observation period but to avoid clutter, we restrict the visual display of the site ranking results to year 2010. Subplot a) of Figure 2 shows the observed crash count for each pavement segment. Subplot b) of the same ﬁgure displays the results of the naïve ranking approach, which involves assigning a value of 1 to the top 5% sites with the highest accident count and a value of 0 to all other sites. Subplot c) shows the expected accident counts calculated via the empirical Bayes (EB) approach (Hauer et al., 2002) in conjunction with a negative binomial model and maximum likelihood estimation. Subplots d) to g) correspond to the four NB-BART speciﬁcations; each of the plots shows the posterior mean probabilities of each road segment to belong to the top 5% most hazardous sites in the network. Figure 2 illustrates that the probabilistic ranking approaches can better capture the inherent uncertainty about the safety of a site, as the results differ markedly from the observed accident counts. In contradistinction, the results of the naïve approach and the EB method closely mimic the observed accident counts and thus provided limited additional information. Furthermore, it can be seen that the posterior mean probability plots corresponding to the speciﬁcations NB-ﬁxed, NB-random, NB-BART-I, NB-BART-II are virtually indistinguishable from each other. This insight corroborates our earlier ﬁnding that the automated selection of an optimal link function speciﬁcation in BART obviates the need for random parameters in a link function. Notwithstanding signiﬁcant differences in goodness-of-ﬁt (see Table 2), Figure 2 suggests that model speciﬁcations NB-BART-I and NB-BART-II compare favourably to each other as well as to NB-ﬁxed and NB-random in terms of their site ranking abilities. 12 a) Observed crash counts b) Naïve ranking 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 c) Empirical Bayes Highway H1 d) NB-fixed 1.00 H2 H3 0.75 H4 0.50 H5 H6 0.25 H7 0.00 H8 H9 e) NB-random 1.00 H10 H11 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 f) NB-BART-I 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 g) NB-BART-II 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Pavement index Figure 2: Site ranking results for year 2010. The naïve ranking approach consists of identifying the top 5% most hazardous sites based on the observed accident counts. For the prob- abilistic methods NB-ﬁxed, NB-random, NB-BART-I and NB-BART-II, the plot shows the posterior mean probability that a site belongs to the top 5% most hazardous sites. The highways are given arbitrary names for proprietary reasons. Post. mean. prob. Post. mean. prob. Post. mean. prob. Post. mean. prob. Boolean indicator Expected count Count Next, we contrast the site ranking ability of the EB approach as well as of NB-ﬁxed, NB-random, NB-BART-I and NB-BART-II using the site consistency (T ), method consistency (T ) and total SC MC rank differences (T ) tests of Cheng and Washington (2008). Table 3 shows the results of the TRD site ranking consistency tests for three reference period. We observe that NB-BART-II, followed by NB-BART-I, performs best in respect to site consistency for all reference periods. In terms of method consistency and total rank differences, none of the considered methods display superior performance across the three reference periods and the relative difference in the test score of the methods are not substantial. Therefore, we conclude that NB-BART affords similar site ranking consistency as NB-ﬁxed and NB-BART. In addition, we note the EB approach underperforms in terms of site consistency but remains competitive with respect to the other methods in terms of method consistency and total rank differences. 2007 2008 2009 T T T T T T T T T SC MC TRD SC MC TRD SC MC TRD EB 28.27 41 25.57 28.62 38 26.34 30.99 27 48.45 NB-ﬁxed 54.95 39 27.03 46.94 39 30.10 60.87 31 49.17 NB-random 56.35 40 23.60 47.48 41 29.67 61.10 30 48.41 NB-BART-I 57.52 33 29.83 49.80 40 33.72 61.84 30 59.40 NB-BART-II 61.05 37 38.19 53.73 40 38.47 69.09 30 45.93 Note: T = site consistency test; T = method consistency test; T = total rank differences SC MC TRD test. For each test and reference period, the best-performing hot spot identiﬁcation method is highlighted in bold font. Table 3: Site ranking consistency. 4.3.3 Variable importance and parameter estimates As a byproduct of the estimation, BART provides a statistic about the variable importance (see Bleich et al., 2014). In the context of BART, the notion of “importance” is different from elasticity. To be precise, variable importance of BART predictors denotes the proportion of times a variable of the predictor space is included in a splitting rule. Figure 3 shows the inclusion proportions of the predictors used in the model speciﬁcations NB-BART-I and NB-BART-II for the whole observation period. For both NB-BART speciﬁcations, we observe that the importance of the different variables is stable across the different years of the observation period. This insight shows that BART can consistently identify the variation explained by each predictor. Furthermore, the importance of several predictors (e.g. road quality index and left shoulder width) is higher in NB-BART-II than in NB-BART-I. This is because these variables are included as dummy variables in NB-BART-I, and variables with binary support only admit at most one split. In contrast, these variables are included as continuous predictors in NB-BART-II, and variables with continuous support inherently provide more ways to be incorporated into decision rules. This analysis suggests that the exogenous conversion of a continuous predictor into a dummy variable may reduce its importance. Yet, the endogenous partitioning of the predictor space in NB-BART-II allows to bypass the shortcomings of a manual speciﬁcation selection. Furthermore, Figure 3 shows the estimated posterior distribution of the negative binomial shape parameter r (whose inverse is also referred to as the dispersion parameter) and the spatial association parameter for year 2010 of the observation period for each of the considered model speciﬁcations. 14 For both model parameters, it can be seen that the posterior distributions produced by the different model speciﬁcations closely overlap. For the spatial association parameter , we observe that the posterior distributions produced by NB-BART-I and -II are slightly shifted to the right relative the posterior distributions produced by the other model speciﬁcations. A possible explanation for this right shift is that the BART component absorbs some of the spatial dependence that is left unexplained by the other model speciﬁcations. Finally, Table 4 displays the parameters estimates for NB-ﬁxed and NB-random for all four years of the observation period. Along with the variable inclusion proportions shown in Figure 3, Table 4 suggests that the importance of the predictors is stable across time periods. Consequently, temporal instability (Mannering, 2018) is not a serious concern in the current application. Year = 2007 | Method = NB-BART-I Year = 2007 | Method = NB-BART-II 0.100 0.15 0.075 0.10 0.050 0.05 0.025 Year = 2008 | Method = NB-BART-I Year = 2008 | Method = NB-BART-II 0.100 0.15 0.075 0.10 0.050 0.05 0.025 Year = 2009 | Method = NB-BART-I Year = 2009 | Method = NB-BART-II 0.100 0.15 0.075 0.10 0.050 0.05 0.025 Year = 2010 | Method = NB-BART-I Year = 2010 | Method = NB-BART-II 0.100 0.15 0.075 0.10 0.050 0.05 0.025 Figure 3: Variable inclusion proportions. The dots mark the posterior means; the vertical error bars mark the 95% credible intervals; the dashed horizontal lines indicate the equal importance inclusion proportions. Interstate highway Asphalt pavement Exurban area Asphalt shoulder Road overall quality index 45 Truck traffic percentage Road profile score (avg.) Log of AADT per lane Speed limit Left shoulder width < 10 ft Right shoulder width < 10 ft Interstate highway Asphalt pavement Exurban area Asphalt shoulder Road overall quality index Road structural index Road comfort index Road surface index AADT per lane Truck traffic percentage Speed limit No. of through lanes Road profile score (left) Road profile score (right) Total road width Left shoulder width Right shoulder width Inclusion prop. Inclusion prop. Inclusion prop. Inclusion prop. Posterior distribution of r Posterior distribution of 2.5 NB-fixed NB-fixed 3.0 NB-random NB-random NB-BART-I NB-BART-I 2.0 2.5 NB-BART-II NB-BART-II 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 Figure 4: Posterior distributions of the negative binomial shape parameter r and the spatial association parameter for year 2010 by model speciﬁcation. NB-ﬁxed NB-random Parameter 2007 2008 2009 2010 2007 2008 2009 2010 * * * * * * * * Intercept 2.00 1.70 1.69 1.72 1.90 1.59 1.58 1.61 * * * * * * Interstate highway 0.44 0.42 0.35 0.30 0.44 0.40 0.34 0.29 Asphalt pavement 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.09 * * * * * * * * Exurban area -1.03 -0.98 -0.87 -0.83 -1.03 -0.96 -0.86 -0.83 Asphalt shoulder 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.01 Road overall quality index 45 0.16 0.07 0.19 0.13 0.15 0.06 0.18 0.13 * * * * * * * Truck trafﬁc percentage -0.16 -0.26 -0.25 -0.19 0.42 0.40 0.44 0.53 * * * * * Road proﬁle score (avg.) 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.24 -0.16 -0.26 -0.25 -0.18 * * * * * * Log of AADT per lane 0.41 0.39 0.43 0.52 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.24 Speed limit Loc. -0.06 -0.05 -0.02 0.01 -0.07 -0.05 -0.01 0.00 * * * * Scale 0.11 0.10 0.15 0.15 Left shoulder width < 10 ft * * Loc. -0.05 -0.13 -0.16 -0.40 -0.05 -0.11 -0.20 -0.41 * * * * Scale 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.20 Right shoulder width < 10 ft * * * * Loc. -0.31 -0.26 -0.28 -0.10 -0.34 -0.37 -0.37 -0.14 * * * * Scale 0.20 0.32 0.43 0.29 * * * * * * * * Negative binomial shape parameter r 1.47 1.64 1.58 1.91 1.60 1.82 1.79 2.12 * * * * * * * * Spatial association parameter -1.50 -1.43 -1.42 -1.45 -1.52 -1.47 -1.47 -1.47 At least 95% of the posterior mass exclude zero. Table 4: Estimation results for the negative binomial model with only ﬁxed link function pa- rameters (NB-ﬁxed) and the negative binomial model with both ﬁxed and random link function parameters (NB-random). 5 Conclusions In this paper, we propose a spatial negative binomial Bayesian additive regression trees (NB-BART) model for the identiﬁcation of accident hot spots in road networks. The contribution of our work is threefold: 16 First, the proposed model re-conceptualises the speciﬁcation of the link function in count data models. Since NB-BART speciﬁes the link function as a sum-of-step-functions, it can ﬂexibly account for interactions and non-linear relationships between predictors. This ﬂexibility comes at no expense in interpretability, because a modeller can still specify a semiparametric link function in combination with a BART component and random parameters in a linear compo- nent. Furthermore, a modeller does not require to exogenously create dummy variables from continuous covariates before entering them into the link function, because BART endogenously partitions the predictor space and automatically extracts the maximum possible information from the predictors. Second, we derive a Gibbs sampler for NB-BART by employing the state-of-the-art Pólya-Gamma data augmentation technique. The sampler ensures conjugacy of the conditional posteriors of all non-BART parameters with the exception of a scalar spatial correlation parameter, which can be updated in a Metropolis-Hastings step. The Bayesian inference approach allows for the construction of credible intervals and other derived quantities such as site rankings. Third, we benchmark the performance of NB-BART against a baseline negative binomial regression model with a linear link function and spatial correlations. Goodness-of-ﬁt and site ranking measures indicate that NB-BART performs as well as or better than the baseline model with random parameters in the linear-in-parameters link function. Our results suggest that if the objectives of a study are centred around prediction, a modeller may be better off considering a ﬂexible link function with a BART component in lieu of a linear-in-parameters link function with random parameters. Nonetheless, if heterogeneity in some parameters is of interest to the modeller, it can be incorporated in NB-BART with a semiparametric link function. At the same time, we acknowledge that it is possible that a count data model with a sophisticated mixing distribution such as a ﬁnite mixture-of-normals or Dirichlet process mixture-of-normals mixing distribution (see e.g. Buddhavarapu et al., 2016; Cheng et al., 2020; Heydari et al., 2016) could effectively control for non-linearities in the predictors and could be more competitive with NB-BART in certain empirical applications. However, such models are time-consuming to estimate and necessitate post-hoc model selection for determining the dimensionality and complexity of the mixing distribution, whereas NB-BART endogenously partitions the predictor space. The hierarchical nature of NB-BART offers opportunities for extensions in two directions. First, a multivariate extension of NB-BART can facilitate the joint modelling of multiple crash frequency variables such as crash counts by crash type, severity level, and vehicle type (Dong et al., 2014; Yasmin et al., 2018). Second, the proposed NB-BART formulation accounts for only spatial random effects but can be extended to accommodate temporal variation in model parameters as well as spatiotemporal random effects (Li et al., 2019; Liu and Sharma, 2017). Recent developments in BART can also be incorporated in the above-discussed extensions. First, in the case of sparse and large predictors spaces, the original BART framework is vulnerable to the curse of dimensionality. Recently proposed soft trees can be adopted in order to handle this challenge (Linero and Yang, 2018). Second, Bayesian regression trees have recently been used for observational causal inference (Hahn et al., 2020), which is a critical avenue for future research in the accident analysis literature (Mannering et al., 2020). 17 Acknowledgements We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their critical assessment of our work. 18 References Aguero-Valverde, J. and Jovanis, P. P. (2009). Bayesian multivariate poisson lognormal models for crash severity modeling and site ranking. Transportation research record, 2136(1):82–91. Albert, J. H. and Chib, S. (1993). Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American statistical Association, 88(422):669–679. Besharati, M. M., Kashani, A. T., Li, Z., Washington, S., and Prato, C. G. (2020). A bivariate random effects spatial model of trafﬁc fatalities and injuries across provinces of iran. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 136:105394. Bleich, J. and Kapelner, A. (2014). Bayesian additive regression trees with parametric models of heteroskedasticity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.5397. Bleich, J., Kapelner, A., George, E. I., and Jensen, S. T. (2014). Variable selection for bart: an application to gene regulation. The Annals of Applied Statistics, pages 1750–1781. Buddhavarapu, P., Scott, J. G., and Prozzi, J. A. (2016). Modeling unobserved heterogeneity using ﬁnite mixture random parameters for spatially correlated discrete count data. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 91:492–510. Buddhavarapu, P. N. V. S. R. (2015). On Bayesian estimation of spatial and dynamic count models using data augmentation techniques: application to road safety management. PhD thesis. Cai, Q., Abdel-Aty, M., Lee, J., and Huang, H. (2019a). Integrating macro-and micro-level safety analyses: a bayesian approach incorporating spatial interaction. Transportmetrica A: transport science, 15(2):285–306. Cai, Q., Abdel-Aty, M., Sun, Y., Lee, J., and Yuan, J. (2019b). Applying a deep learning approach for transportation safety planning by using high-resolution transportation and land use data. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 127:71–85. Chang, L.-Y. (2005). Analysis of freeway accident frequencies: negative binomial regression versus artiﬁcial neural network. Safety science, 43(8):541–557. Cheng, W., Gill, G. S., Zhang, Y., Vo, T., Wen, F., and Li, Y. (2020). Exploring the modeling and site- ranking performance of bayesian spatiotemporal crash frequency models with mixture components. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 135:105357. Cheng, W. and Washington, S. (2008). New criteria for evaluating methods of identifying hot spots. Transportation Research Record, 2083(1):76–85. Chipman, H. A., George, E. I., McCulloch, R. E., et al. (2010). Bart: Bayesian additive regression trees. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 4(1):266–298. Deacon, J. A., Zegeer, C. V., and Deen, R. C. (1975). Identiﬁcation of hazardous rural highway locations. Transportation Research Record, (543). Debarsy, N., Jin, F., and Lee, L.-F. (2015). Large sample properties of the matrix exponential spatial speciﬁcation with an application to fdi. Journal of Econometrics, 188(1):1–21. 19 Dong, C., Clarke, D. B., Yan, X., Khattak, A., and Huang, B. (2014). Multivariate random-parameters zero-inﬂated negative binomial regression model: An application to estimate crash frequencies at intersections. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 70:320–329. Dong, C., Shao, C., Li, J., and Xiong, Z. (2018). An improved deep learning model for trafﬁc crash prediction. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018. Dong, N., Huang, H., Lee, J., Gao, M., and Abdel-Aty, M. (2016). Macroscopic hotspots identiﬁcation: a bayesian spatio-temporal interaction approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 92:256–264. Dong, N., Huang, H., and Zheng, L. (2015). Support vector machine in crash prediction at the level of trafﬁc analysis zones: assessing the spatial proximity effects. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 82:192–198. Geedipally, S. R. and Lord, D. (2010). Identifying hot spots by modeling single-vehicle and multivehicle crashes separately. Transportation research record, 2147(1):97–104. Gelman, A., Hwang, J., and Vehtari, A. (2014). Understanding predictive information criteria for bayesian models. Statistics and computing, 24(6):997–1016. Gelman, A., Rubin, D. B., et al. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical science, 7(4):457–472. Gneiting, T. and Raftery, A. E. (2007). Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. Journal of the American statistical Association, 102(477):359–378. Guo, X., Wu, L., Zou, Y., and Fawcett, L. (2019). Comparative analysis of empirical bayes and bayesian hierarchical models in hotspot identiﬁcation. Transportation research record, 2673(7):111–121. Hahn, P. R., Murray, J. S., Carvalho, C. M., et al. (2020). Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effects. Bayesian Analysis. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., et al. (2000). Bayesian backﬁtting (with comments and a rejoinder by the authors. Statistical Science, 15(3):196–223. Hauer, E., Harwood, D. W., Council, F. M., and Grifﬁth, M. S. (2002). Estimating safety by the empirical bayes method: a tutorial. Transportation Research Record, 1784(1):126–131. Heydari, S., Fu, L., Joseph, L., and Miranda-Moreno, L. F. (2016). Bayesian nonparametric modeling in transportation safety studies: applications in univariate and multivariate settings. Analytic methods in accident research, 12:18–34. Hill, J., Linero, A., and Murray, J. (2020). Bayesian additive regression trees: A review and look forward. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 7. Huang, H., Chin, H. C., and Haque, M. M. (2009). Empirical evaluation of alternative approaches in identifying crash hot spots: Naive ranking, empirical bayes, full bayes methods. Transportation Research Record, 2103(1):32–41. Huang, H., Zeng, Q., Pei, X., Wong, S., and Xu, P. (2016). Predicting crash frequency using an optimised radial basis function neural network model. Transportmetrica A: transport science, 12(4):330–345. 20 Huang, H., Zhou, H., Wang, J., Chang, F., and Ma, M. (2017). A multivariate spatial model of crash frequency by transportation modes for urban intersections. Analytic methods in accident research, 14:10–21. Kapelner, A. and Bleich, J. (2016). bartmachine: Machine learning with bayesian additive regression trees. Journal of Statistical Software, Articles, 70(4):1–40. Kindo, B. P., Wang, H., and Peña, E. A. (2016). Multinomial probit bayesian additive regression trees. Stat, 5(1):119–131. Lee, J., Chung, K., Papakonstantinou, I., Kang, S., and Kim, D.-K. (2020). An optimal network screening method of hotspot identiﬁcation for highway crashes with dynamic site length. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 135:105358. LeSage, J. and Pace, R. K. (2009). Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman and Hall/CRC. LeSage, J. P. and Pace, R. K. (2007). A matrix exponential spatial speciﬁcation. Journal of Econometrics, 140(1):190–214. Li, X., Lord, D., Zhang, Y., and Xie, Y. (2008). Predicting motor vehicle crashes using support vector machine models. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(4):1611–1618. Li, Z., Chen, X., Ci, Y., Chen, C., and Zhang, G. (2019). A hierarchical bayesian spatiotemporal random parameters approach for alcohol/drug impaired-driving crash frequency analysis. Analytic methods in accident research, 21:44–61. Linderman, S., Adams, R. P., and Pillow, J. W. (2016a). Bayesian latent structure discovery from multi-neuron recordings. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 2002–2010. Linderman, S., Johnson, M. J., and Adams, R. P. (2015). Dependent multinomial models made easy: Stick-breaking with the pólya-gamma augmentation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3456–3464. Linderman, S. W., Miller, A. C., Adams, R. P., Blei, D. M., Paninski, L., and Johnson, M. J. (2016b). Recurrent switching linear dynamical systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.08466. Linero, A. R. and Yang, Y. (2018). Bayesian regression tree ensembles that adapt to smoothness and sparsity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 80(5):1087–1110. Liu, C. and Sharma, A. (2017). Exploring spatio-temporal effects in trafﬁc crash trend analysis. Analytic methods in accident research, 16:104–116. Lord, D. and Mannering, F. (2010). 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. Mannering, F. (2018). Temporal instability and the analysis of highway accident data. Analytic methods in accident research, 17:1–13. 21 Mannering, F., Bhat, C. R., Shankar, V., and Abdel-Aty, M. (2020). Big data, traditional data and the tradeoffs between prediction and causality in highway-safety analysis. Analytic Methods in Accident Research, 25:100113. Mannering, F. L., Shankar, V., and Bhat, C. R. (2016). Unobserved heterogeneity and the statistical analysis of highway accident data. Analytic methods in accident research, 11:1–16. Miaou, S.-P. and Song, J. J. (2005). Bayesian ranking of sites for engineering safety improvements: decision parameter, treatability concept, statistical criterion, and spatial dependence. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37(4):699–720. Miranda-Moreno, L. F., Labbe, A., and Fu, L. (2007). Bayesian multiple testing procedures for hotspot identiﬁcation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(6):1192–1201. Montella, A. (2010). A comparative analysis of hotspot identiﬁcation methods. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(2):571–581. Park, B.-J. and Lord, D. (2009). Application of ﬁnite mixture models for vehicle crash data analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(4):683–691. Polson, N. G., Scott, J. G., and Windle, J. (2013). Bayesian inference for logistic models using pólya–gamma latent variables. Journal of the American statistical Association, 108(504):1339–1349. Roberts, G. O., Gelman, A., Gilks, W. R., et al. (1997). Weak convergence and optimal scaling of random walk metropolis algorithms. The annals of applied probability, 7(1):110–120. Schmidt, K. (2012). Modeling crash frequency data. PhD thesis, Iowa State University. Strauss, M. E., Mezzetti, M., and Leorato, S. (2017). Is a matrix exponential speciﬁcation suitable for the modeling of spatial correlation structures? Spatial statistics, 20:221–243. Thakali, L. (2016). Nonparametric Methods for Road Safety Analysis. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo. Van Dyk, D. A. and Meng, X.-L. (2001). The art of data augmentation. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 10(1):1–50. Wang, K., Zhao, S., Ivan, J. N., Ahmed, I., and Jackson, E. (2018). Evaluation of hot spot identiﬁcation methods for municipal roads. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, pages 1–19. Wang, X. and Feng, M. (2019). Freeway single and multi-vehicle crash safety analysis: inﬂuencing factors and hotspots. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 132:105268. Washington, S., Haque, M. M., Oh, J., and Lee, D. (2014). Applying quantile regression for modeling equivalent property damage only crashes to identify accident blackspots. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 66:136–146. Windle, J., Polson, N. G., and Scott, J. G. (2014). Sampling pólya-gamma random variates: alternate and approximate techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.0506. Xie, Y., Lord, D., and Zhang, Y. (2007). Predicting motor vehicle collisions using bayesian neural network models: An empirical analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(5):922–933. 22 Yasmin, S., Momtaz, S. U., Nashad, T., and Eluru, N. (2018). A multivariate copula-based macro-level crash count model. Transportation research record, 2672(30):64–75. Zahran, E.-S. M. M., Tan, S. J., Tan, E. H. A., Mohamad’Asri Putra, N. A. B., Yap, Y. H., and Abdul Rah- man, E. K. (2019). Spatial analysis of road trafﬁc accident hotspots: evaluation and validation of recent approaches using road safety audit. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, pages 1–30. Zeng, Q., Huang, H., Pei, X., and Wong, S. (2016a). Modeling nonlinear relationship between crash frequency by severity and contributing factors by neural networks. Analytic methods in accident research, 10:12–25. Zeng, Q., Huang, H., Pei, X., Wong, S., and Gao, M. (2016b). Rule extraction from an optimized neural network for trafﬁc crash frequency modeling. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 97:87–95. Zhou, M., Li, L., Dunson, D., and Carin, L. (2012). Lognormal and gamma mixed negative binomial regression. In Proceedings of the... International Conference on Machine Learning. International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 2012, page 1343. NIH Public Access. Ziakopoulos, A. and Yannis, G. (2020). A review of spatial approaches in road safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 135:105323.
Statistics – arXiv (Cornell University)
Published: May 24, 2020
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.