Randomized trial predicts high-risk conflicts on highways, indicating enhanced driver alerts.
Accurately predicting high-risk conflicts on highways is essential yet challenging due to complex traffic maneuvering under heterogeneous conditions. This challenge is further complicated in real-world data by the prevalence of non-high-risk conflicts relative to high-risk conflicts, resulting in an extremely imbalanced dataset. To address this challenge, the present study developed three machine-learning algorithms with six resampling techniques, including a novel deep learning framework that integrates conditional tabular generative adversarial network (CTGAN)–based synthetic data generation with strategic undersampling. High-risk conflicts were identified using the surrogate safety measure modified time to collision ( MTTC < 1 s ). Spatiotemporal traffic variables (i.e., traffic density, traffic flow, standard deviation in speed and acceleration, lane change frequency, etc.) were extracted for the 5-s window prior to each conflict within a two-dimensional influence zone using high-resolution trajectory data. Results show that the random forest model outperformed others when trained on CTGAN-synthesized data combined with random undersampling (RU). This hybrid approach improved sensitivity by 30% and increased the G -mean by 11% compared to the original imbalanced dataset, validating the proposed data-balancing approach. Sensitivity analysis indicated that CTGAN-RU performs optimally when the RU ratio is 2:1 (non-high-risk: high-risk) and the CTGAN-RU ratio becomes 1:1. Further, Shapley additive explanations identified traffic density and speed variability as the two most influential variables increasing the likelihood of high-risk conflicts, while higher flow reduced risk. By addressing both data imbalance and critical preconflict dynamics, the proposed framework significantly enhances high-risk conflict prediction and supports more effective driver alerts in heterogeneous traffic conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jain et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: