Search for: All records

In the first part of the review, we observed that there exists a significant gap between the predictive and prescriptive models pertaining to crash risk prediction and minimization, respectively. In this part, we review and categorize the optimization/ prescriptive analytic models that focus on minimizing crash risk. Although the majority of works in this segment of the literature are related to the hazardous materials (hazmat) trucking problems, we show that (with some exceptions) many can also be utilized in non-hazmat scenarios. In an effort to highlight the effect of crash risk prediction model on the accumulated risk obtained from the prescriptive model, we present a simulated example where we utilize four risk indicators (obtained from logistic regression, Poisson regression, XGBoost, and neural network) in the k-shortest path algorithm. From our example, we demonstrate two major designed takeaways: (a) the shortest path may not always result in the lowest crash risk, and (b) a similarity in overall predictive performance may not always translate to similar outcomes from the prescriptive models. Based on the review and example, we highlight several avenues for future research. 

This part of the review aims to reduce the start-up burden of data collection and descriptive analytics for statistical modeling and route optimization of risk associated with motor vehicles. From a data-driven bibliometric analysis, we show that the literature is divided into two disparate research streams: (a) predictive or explanatory models that attempt to understand and quantify crash risk based on different driving conditions, and (b) optimization techniques that focus on minimizing crash risk through route/path-selection and rest-break scheduling. Translation of research outcomes between these two streams is limited. To overcome this issue, we present publicly available high-quality data sources (different study designs, outcome variables, and predictor variables) and descriptive analytic techniques (data summarization, visualization, and dimension reduction) that can be used to achieve safer-routing and provide code to facilitate data collection/exploration by practitioners/researchers. Then, we review the statistical and machine learning models used for crash risk modeling. We show that (near) real-time crash risk is rarely considered, which might explain why the optimization models (reviewed in Part 2) have not capitalized on the research outcomes from the first stream. 

As data science is an evolving field, existing definitions reflect this uncertainty with overloaded terms and inconsistency. As a result of the field’s fluidity, there is often a mismatch between what data-related programs teach, what employers expect, and the actual tasks data scientists are performing. In addition, the tools available to data scientists are not necessarily the tools being taught; textbooks do not seem to meet curricular needs; and empirical evidence does not seem to support existing program design. Currently, the field appears to be bifurcating into data science (DS) and data engineering (DE), with specific but overlapping roles in the combined data science and engineering (DSE) lifecycle. However, curriculum design has not yet caught up to this evolution. This working group report shows an empirical and data-driven view of the data-related education landscape, and includes several recommendations for both academia and industry that are based on this analysis.