## 4 Results
### Derivation of Promising Evaluation Indicators and the Integrated Evaluation Index
\[Y_{MPR_{20}}=0.359*\left(\overline{V_{spac.}^{1/Avg.}}\right)+0.332*\left( \overline{V_{SDI}^{CC}}\right)+0.270*\left(\overline{V_{hday.}^{VF}}\right)+0.039*\left(\overline{V_{hday.}^{Std.}}\right) \tag{9}\]  
\[Y_{MPR_{40}}=0.671*\left(\overline{V_{spac.}^{1/Avg.}}\right)+0.180*\left( \overline{V_{TTC}^{CC}}\right)+0.149*\left(\overline{V_{hday.}^{VF}}\right) \tag{10}\]  
\[Y_{MPR_{60}}=0.316*\left(\overline{V_{spac.}^{1/Avg.}}\right)+0.205*\left( \overline{V_{spac.}^{VF}}\right)+0.127*\left(\overline{V_{SDI}^{CC}}\right)+ 0.126*\left(\overline{V_{hday.}^{1/Avg.}}\right)+0.116*\left(\overline{V_{ hday.}^{Std.}}\right)+0.110*\left(\overline{V_{DRAC}^{Avg.}}\right) \tag{11}\]  
\[Y_{MPR_{80}}=0.419*\left(\overline{V_{spac.}^{1/Avg.}}\right)+0.229*\left( \overline{V_{SDI}^{CC}}\right)+0.151*\left(\overline{V_{hday.}^{VF}}\right)+0.117*\left(\overline{V_{hday.}^{Std.}}\right)+0.084*\left(\overline{V_{DRAC}^ {CC}}\right) \tag{12}\] \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Definition** & **MPR 20** & **MPR 40** & **MPR 60** & **MPR 80** \\ \hline Class weight & Whether to apply the weight of each class & None & None & None \\ \hline Criterion & The function to measure & & & & \\ the quality of a split & Gini & Entropy & Entropy & Entropy \\ \hline Splitter & The strategy used to choose & & & & \\ the split at each node & & & & & \\ \hline Max depth & The maximum depth of the tree & 3 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\ \hline Min samples split & The minimum number of & & & & \\ samples required to split & & & & \\ an intermediate node & & & & & \\ \hline Min sample leaf & The minimum number of samples & & & & \\ required to be at a leaf node & & & & \\ \hline Max features & The number of features & & & & \\ to consider when looking & & & & \\ for the best split & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Parameter optimization results. The road characteristics of the most hazardous sections according to the integrated indicators for each scenario are shown in Figure 3. The most hazardous section in the MPR 20 scenario was segment 93, as shown in Figure 3a. Segment 93 is a four-lane approach that includes an exclusive right-turn lane. Slowing down to make a right turn can result in a rear-end collision with a vehicle that does not maintain a safe distance. Additionally, when a vehicle stops due to pedestrians or bicyclists moving to the traffic island, it may interact with the following vehicle, increasing the potential for conflict. The most hazardous section in the case of MPR 40 was segment 23, as shown in Figure 3b, where a lane drop exists. In segment 23, the lanes decrease to one lane, and a right turn is necessary to join the main road. As right-turning vehicles in this section join the main road, there are interactions with vehicles going straight on the main road, which would increase the potential for conflicts. In addition, pedestrians crossing at the unsignalized crosswalk can cause collisions due to the difficulty of maintaining a safe distance from following vehicles when stopping. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Confusion Matrix**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Criterion} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Prediction} & \multirow{3}{*}{Recall (\%)} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-5}  & & Normal & & Hazard \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Actual} & Normal & 41 & 2 & 69.57 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Hazard & 5 & 8 & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Precision (\%)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{80.00} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{87.50} \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Information Gain**} \\ \hline
0.4 & 0.359 & & & \\
0.3 & & & 0.270 & \\
0.2 & & & & \\
0.1 & & & & 0.039 \\ \cline{2-5}
0 & Avg. spacing & SDI\(-\)based conflict count & VF headway & Std. headway \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: An example of DT analysis results. Figure 3: Most hazardous section based on integrated evaluation index by different MPRs. The most hazardous section in the case of MPR 60 was segment 18, as shown in Figure 3c, with an approach to an unsignalized intersection.