Automated Traffic Incident Response Plans using Generative Artificial Intelligence: Part 1 -- Building the Incident Response Benchmark

Artur Grigorev, Khaled Saleh, Jiwon Kim, Adriana-Simona Mihaita
6/3/2025
eess.SYcs.AIcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Traffic incidents remain a critical public safety concern worldwide, with Australia recording 1,300 road fatalities in 2024, which is the highest toll in 12 years. Similarly, the United States reports approximately 6 million crashes annually, raising significant challenges in terms of a fast reponse time and operational management. Traditional response protocols rely on human decision-making, which introduces potential inconsistencies and delays during critical moments when every minute impacts both safety outcomes and network performance. To address this issue, we propose a novel Incident Response Benchmark that uses generative artificial intelligence to automatically generate response plans for incoming traffic incidents. Our approach aims to significantly reduce incident resolution times by suggesting context-appropriate actions such as variable message sign deployment, lane closures, and emergency resource allocation adapted to specific incident characteristics. First, the proposed methodology uses real-world incident reports from the Performance Measurement System (PeMS) as training and evaluation data. We extract historically implemented actions from these reports and compare them against AI-generated response plans that suggest specific actions, such as lane closures, variable message sign announcements, and/or dispatching appropriate emergency resources. Second, model evaluations reveal that advanced generative AI models like GPT-4o and Grok 2 achieve superior alignment with expert solutions, demonstrated by minimized Hamming distances (averaging 2.96-2.98) and low weighted differences (approximately 0.27-0.28). Conversely, while Gemini 1.5 Pro records the lowest count of missed actions, its extremely high number of unnecessary actions (1547 compared to 225 for GPT-4o) indicates an over-triggering strategy that reduces the overall plan efficiency.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Cite this paper

@article{grigorev2025automated,
  title  = {Automated Traffic Incident Response Plans using Generative Artificial Intelligence: Part 1 -- Building the Incident Response Benchmark},
  author = {Artur Grigorev and Khaled Saleh and Jiwon Kim and Adriana-Simona Mihaita},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2506.03381},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.03381v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2506.03381.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2506.03381)

Discussion