Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates accident detection in Thai roadways, suggesting geographic context affects model reliability.
Real-time roadway surveillance now leans hard on automated detection. How a model trained in one geographic context actually behaves on another, though, is still underexplored for Southeast Asian deployments. We answer that question for Thai roadway closed-circuit television with a cross-domain validation framework. A YOLOv11n (Ultralytics v8.2.0; Ultralytics, Los Angeles, CA, USA) detector trained with focal loss feeds a confidence-aggregation step that turns per-detection scores into a per-frame accident score, and we put four aggregation operators head-to-head. Reliability comes from DeLong variance estimation paired with non-parametric bootstrap on 1245 Thai frames that carry 23 positive accident events. Under maximum-class aggregation the proposed configuration reaches a frame-level AUROC of 0.959 ± 0.020 across three random seeds. Under top-K aggregation it reaches 0.965 ± 0.018. Per-seed DeLong 95 percent intervals exclude chance performance throughout. We also evaluate three baseline configurations: YOLOv5su comes in at 0.738, YOLOv8n at 0.868, and a Chiang Mai-tuned YOLOv11n variant at 0.918. The architectural progression seen on standard benchmarks therefore carries cleanly into the cross-domain setting. The same Chiang Mai-tuned variant reached an in-domain mAP50 of 0.952 yet only 0.918 cross-region AUROC on a separate Thai region, which is a quiet but clear signal that geographic proximity within a country does not on its own remove distributional shift. Bounding-box localisation appears as a secondary diagnostic because the operational target here is frame-level alerting rather than pixel-precise annotation. Edge deployment optimisation falls outside the present scope. What the work leaves behind is a reproducible baseline and a statistical protocol that follow-up Southeast Asian roadway-safety research can build on.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gabbualoy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: