arXiv:2506.03381eess.SYcs.AI2025-06

用AI自动生成交通事件应对方案,提升响应速度与准确性。

Automated Traffic Incident Response Plans using Generative Artificial Intelligence: Part 1 -- Building the Incident Response Benchmark

  • 基于真实事故数据训练生成式AI,自动制定包含封路、提示牌等动作的响应计划。
  • GPT-4o和Grok 2生成方案与专家方案匹配度最高,哈明距离平均仅2.97。
  • 部分模型虽少遗漏动作,但误触发过多,影响实际执行效率。

交通事件仍是全球性的公共安全挑战,澳大利亚2024年道路死亡人数达1300人,为12年来最高;美国每年约发生600万起交通事故,对快速响应与运营管理提出严峻挑战。传统依赖人工决策的响应流程存在不一致与延迟问题,关键时刻每分钟都影响安全与网络性能。为此,本文提出首个交通事件响应基准(Incident Response Benchmark),利用生成式人工智能自动生成针对具体事件特征的响应计划,包括可变信息牌部署、车道封闭及应急资源调配等。研究采用真实事故报告数据集PeMS作为训练与评估基础,从历史记录中提取已实施动作,并与AI生成方案对比。评估显示,GPT-4o和Grok 2在动作匹配上表现最优,平均哈明距离为2.96–2.98,加权差异约为0.27–0.28。相比之下,Gemini 1.5 Pro虽误漏动作最少,但产生1547次不必要的动作,远高于GPT-4o的225次,反映出过度激活策略,降低整体计划效率。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Traffic incidents remain a critical public safety concern worldwide, with Australia recording 1,300 road fatalities in 2024, which is the highest toll in 12 years. Similarly, the United States reports approximately 6 million crashes annually, raising significant challenges in terms of a fast reponse time and operational management. Traditional response protocols rely on human decision-making, which introduces potential inconsistencies and delays during critical moments when every minute impacts both safety outcomes and network performance. To address this issue, we propose a novel Incident Response Benchmark that uses generative artificial intelligence to automatically generate response plans for incoming traffic incidents. Our approach aims to significantly reduce incident resolution times by suggesting context-appropriate actions such as variable message sign deployment, lane closures, and emergency resource allocation adapted to specific incident characteristics. First, the proposed methodology uses real-world incident reports from the Performance Measurement System (PeMS) as training and evaluation data. We extract historically implemented actions from these reports and compare them against AI-generated response plans that suggest specific actions, such as lane closures, variable message sign announcements, and/or dispatching appropriate emergency resources. Second, model evaluations reveal that advanced generative AI models like GPT-4o and Grok 2 achieve superior alignment with expert solutions, demonstrated by minimized Hamming distances (averaging 2.96-2.98) and low weighted differences (approximately 0.27-0.28). Conversely, while Gemini 1.5 Pro records the lowest count of missed actions, its extremely high number of unnecessary actions (1547 compared to 225 for GPT-4o) indicates an over-triggering strategy that reduces the overall plan efficiency.

交通管理生成式AI智能调度

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。