Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
As vessel traffic becomes increasingly dense in inland waterways, accurate prediction and interpretation of multi-ship collision risk are important for navigational safety and intelligent maritime supervision. However, existing methods mainly focus on pairwise risk assessment or scenario-level prediction, while providing limited insight into which vessels and interactions contribute to predicted future risk. To address these limitations, this study proposes a Multi-Ship Risk Attribution Network (MSRA-Net) for interpretable short-term collision-risk prediction from historical Automatic Identification System (AIS) data. The proposed framework integrates three key components: a Dynamic Multi-Ship Interaction Graph (DMIG) to represent time-varying vessel states and encounter relationships, a Spatio-Temporal Risk Prediction Network (STRP-Net) to capture temporal vessel dynamics and inter-vessel interactions, and a Multi-Ship Risk Attribution (MSRA) module to quantify vessel-level and interaction-level contributions to the predicted risk. The performance of MSRA-Net is evaluated using 6,433,925 AIS observations collected from a representative section of the Yangtze River in Wuhan, China. Experimental results show that MSRA-Net achieves the lowest average MAE of 0.0493 across 1, 3, and 5 min prediction horizons and obtains an MAE of 0.0632, RMSE of 0.0740, and R2 of 0.862 at the 5 min horizon. Progressive vessel-deletion experiments further demonstrate attribution fidelity, with high-to-low deletion achieving a DelAUC of 0.1730, compared with 0.3016 for random deletion and 0.4384 for low-to-high deletion. Controlled AIS perturbation experiments also show that the learned attribution patterns remain relatively stable under small variations in vessel states. Overall, MSRA-Net provides a unified framework for dynamic multi-ship interaction modeling, future collision-risk prediction, and model-level risk attribution, offering an interpretable approach for maritime traffic safety analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: