Benchmarking Frontier Large Language Models Against Official Crash Database Coding Using Police Crash Narratives
Authors: Sudhir Bharati, Rajendra K C Khatri, Sudip Bharati
Organizations: Planning and Research Division, Arkansas Department of Transportation, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA · Department of Mathematics, Philander Smith University, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA · Itahari International College, Itahari, Nepal
Police crash narratives contain information that may supplement structured crash databases, but manual review is labor-intensive and it remains unclear how well large language models (LLMs) reproduce official crash coding. This study benchmarked six frontier LLMs by comparing narrative-derived crash attribute codes with corresponding fields in the Arkansas fatal-crash database. The analysis linked 5,587 fatal-crash narratives with 5,889 structured crash records from Arkansas (2015-2025), yielding 4,194 matched crashes. Six LLMs were evaluated using an identical zero-shot prompt to code crash manner, non-motorist relation, intersection type, work-zone relation, roadway surface condition, and light condition. Performance was evaluated using agreement, macro-averaged F1 score, Cohen's kappa, coverage, selective agreement, and comparisons with always-majority, always-Unknown, and keyword-rule baselines. Repeated-measures analyses and a generalized estimating equations model assessed differences among models and attributes. GPT-5.5 High achieved the highest agreement among the evaluated LLMs, but the always-majority baseline produced higher raw agreement and the keyword-rule baseline achieved macro-averaged F1 score and Cohen's kappa comparable to the best-performing LLM. Agreement was highest for non-motorist relation and crash manner and lowest for light condition, roadway surface condition, and work-zone relation. Differences across crash attributes exceeded differences across models. These results provide a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based crash coding and show that deployment should be evaluated on an attribute-specific basis using transparent baselines and human review.
Crash datasets that carry an investigator narrative hold information the coded fields omit. Coding those narratives at scale has been blocked by three obstacles. Frontier large language models are costly at that scale, their generated text cannot be verified, and no rule says how much output a human must check. This paper formulates narrative coding as gated, typed decisions answered by Jev, a System One model that returns probabilities over analyst-defined options and generates no text. A screen covered 499,500 Texas narratives and 195,857 were coded with a 27-question schema. Cost is governed by schema size rather than narrative length. The probabilities are audited against coded fields and against 2,416 blinded human judgments drawn under a stated sampling design. Two frontier large language models are benchmarked on the same records. Against human labels the typed model attains an F1 of 0.908. One frontier model gains 0.059 and the other is indistinguishable from it. Calibration varies by model rather than by paradigm, so each model must be audited. Recalibration on the same labels reduces calibration error by a factor of 3.3. Agreement with coded fields understates fidelity to the narrative by a median of 0.26 in kappa. A resolution-floor bound covers any model that reports probabilities on a discrete grid. A review budget over flagged records gives the records a human must read per variable and per year. Adding the calibrated variables to the coded fields raises the injury and fatal crashes attributed to nine factors by 10,747 per year.
Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States, and understanding the circumstances that precede it requires extracting structured information from death investigation narratives. Many of these circumstances require semantic inference beyond simple keyword matching. We develop a ``Complexity Score'' algorithm that analyzes coding manual structure to predict when detailed prompts with full coding guidelines improve over name-only prompts. We then construct a hybrid approach that selects prompt strategy per circumstance. We evaluate large language models (LLMs) against fine-tuned RoBERTa on 25 inferentially complex circumstances from the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS). We found that LLMs substantially outperform on low-prevalence circumstances where training data is insufficient. We further demonstrate that our framework generalizes across frontier LLMs, with GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama-3 70B showing consistent performance patterns. These findings support a hybrid architecture where LLMs handle rare, inferentially complex circumstances while fine-tuned models handle common ones.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly described as performing at the level of human experts on knowledge economy tasks. These claims are primarily based on how LLMs perform on benchmarking tasks that measure average performance across standardized datasets. Primary limitations of many benchmarking tasks are that they often measure performance based on content directly included in LLM training data, and they frequently do not assess the reliability of LLM performance or the magnitude of LLM errors. However, in high stakes contexts, these qualities are critically important. Through a novel LLM benchmarking task that requires writing computer code to complete a data analysis task, we compare the performance of a frontier LLM against submissions from human experts and explicitly measure the variance of responses and the magnitude of errors. Our study reveals that the human experts perform better on average on a range of metrics and demonstrate less variability in performance. Our results provide evidence that LLMs do not consistently perform at the level of human experts and demonstrate the importance of measuring variance and assessing error magnitude in LLM benchmark evaluations.