Improving Crash Data Quality with Large Language Models: Evidence from Secondary Crash Narratives in Kentucky
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This study evaluates advanced natural language processing (NLP) techniques to enhance crash data quality by mining crash narratives, using secondary crash identification in Kentucky as a case study. Drawing from 16,656 manually reviewed narratives from 2015-2022, with 3,803 confirmed secondary crashes, we compare three model classes: zero-shot open-source large language models (LLMs) (LLaMA3:70B, DeepSeek-R1:70B, Qwen3:32B, Gemma3:27B); fine-tuned transformers (BERT, DistilBERT, RoBERTa, XLNet, Longformer); and traditional logistic regression as baseline. Models were calibrated on 2015-2021 data and tested on 1,771 narratives from 2022. Fine-tuned transformers achieved superior performance, with RoBERTa yielding the highest F1-score (0.90) and accuracy (95%). Zero-shot LLaMA3:70B reached a comparable F1 of 0.86 but required 139 minutes of inference; the logistic baseline lagged well behind (F1:0.66). LLMs excelled in recall for some variants (e.g., GEMMA3:27B at 0.94) but incurred high computational costs (up to 723 minutes for DeepSeek-R1:70B), while fine-tuned models processed the test set in seconds after brief training. Further analysis indicated that mid-sized LLMs (e.g., DeepSeek-R1:32B) can rival larger counterparts in performance while reducing runtime, suggesting opportunities for optimized deployments. Results highlight trade-offs between accuracy, efficiency, and data requirements, with fine-tuned transformer models balancing precision and recall effectively on Kentucky data. Practical deployment considerations emphasize privacy-preserving local deployment, ensemble approaches for improved accuracy, and incremental processing for scalability, providing a replicable scheme for enhancing crash-data quality with advanced NLP.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2025.
Builds on
3 of 24 references.
References · 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Domain-Adapted Pre-trained Language Models for Implicit Information Extraction in Crash Narratives
- 2024Leveraging Large Language Models with Chain-of-Thought and Prompt Engineering for Traffic Crash Severity Analysis and Inference
- 2025CrashSage: A Large Language Model-Centered Framework for Contextual and Interpretable Traffic Crash Analysis
- 2024Learning Traffic Crashes as Language: Datasets, Benchmarks, and What-if Causal Analyses
- 2025Accuracy is Not Agreement: Expert-Aligned Evaluation of Crash Narrative Classification Models
- 2025From Narratives to Probabilistic Reasoning: Predicting and Interpreting Drivers' Hazardous Actions in Crashes Using Large Language Model
- 2025Large Language Models for Crash Detection in Video: A Survey of Methods, Datasets, and Challenges
- 2026Crash Narrative-Guided Countermeasure Recommendation Using Large Language Models: A Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Intersection Safety