Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Beyond Accuracy: A Unified Random Matrix Theory Diagnostic Framework for Crash Classification Models

Ibne Farabi Shihab, Sanjeda Akter, Anuj SharmaPublished Feb 23, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.

Crash classification models in transportation safety are typically evaluated using accuracy, F1, or AUC, metrics that cannot reveal whether a model is silently overfitting. We introduce a spectral diagnostic framework grounded in Random Matrix Theory (RMT) and Heavy-Tailed Self-Regularization (HTSR) that spans the ML taxonomy: weight matrices for BERT/ALBERT/Qwen2.5, out-of-fold increment matrices for XGBoost/Random Forest, empirical Hessians for Logistic Regression, induced affinity matrices for Decision Trees, and Graph Laplacians for KNN. Evaluating nine model families on two Iowa DOT crash classification tasks (173,512 and 371,062 records respectively), we find that the power-law exponent $α$ provides a structural quality signal: well-regularized models consistently yield $α$ within $[2, 4]$ (mean $2.87 \pm 0.34$), while overfit variants show $α< 2$ or spectral collapse. We observe a strong rank correlation between $α$ and expert agreement (Spearman $ρ= 0.89$, $p < 0.001$), suggesting spectral quality captures model behaviors aligned with expert reasoning. We propose an $α$-based early stopping criterion and a spectral model selection protocol, and validate both against cross-validated F1 baselines. Sparse Lanczos approximations make the framework scalable to large datasets.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
Crash classification models in transportation safety are typically evaluated using accuracy, F1, or AUC, metrics that cannot reveal whether a model is silently overfitting.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Aug 23, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX