Evaluates multimodal language models to improve accuracy in road attribute assessment, suggesting effective coding techniques for infrastructure evaluation.
Road safety assessment is essential for reducing traffic fatalities, with road infrastructure contributing to a substantial proportion of crashes worldwide. International frameworks such as the International Road Assessment Program (iRAP) define standardized attributes for infrastructure auditing; however, many of these attributes remain challenging to automate using imagery alone. This study evaluates V-RoAst (visual question answering for road assessment), a public dataset of road images that are annotated with iRAP-style attributes, using state-of-the-art multimodal large language models (MLLMs), specifically Gemini 2.0 and Gemini 2.5. The analysis focuses on how prompt design influences the accuracy and stability of single image iRAP inference. A token-efficient reduced prompt is developed that preserves the iRAP schema while removing single-class constants, hard-coded administrative fields, and derived or non-visual codes, retaining only visually interpretable attributes. Performance is compared with the original full multi-attribute prompt and single attribute prompts using a fixed evaluation protocol incorporating majority voting, bootstrap 95% confidence intervals, and per-code sample-size checks. Results indicate only minor performance differences between Gemini 2.0 and Gemini 2.5, while prompt optimization produces the most consistent gains, improving macro-F1 scores and tightening confidence intervals for visually grounded attributes such as roadside severity, intersection channelization, and service-road presence. Token analysis shows an approximate 30% reduction in prompt length, reducing computational cost and truncation risk. Overall, the findings demonstrate that prompt scope has a greater impact than model version in image-only iRAP coding, offering practical guidance for scalable infrastructure assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ameen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: