Table 4.
Ablation analysis on TITAN and TRANCOS datasets. Performance variations are reported for models with individual modules removed. The full model consistently outperforms all ablated variants in terms of Accuracy, Precision, F1 Score, and AUC.
| Model | TITAN Dataset | TRANCOS Dataset | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | Precision | F1 Score | AUC | Accuracy | Precision | F1 Score | AUC | |
| w./o.Relational attention mechanism | 86.37 ± 0.03 | 82.04 ± 0.02 | 83.65 ± 0.02 | 87.41 ± 0.03 | 86.18 ± 0.03 | 82.71 ± 0.02 | 84.26 ± 0.03 | 86.75 ± 0.02 |
| w./o. Risk-oriented scene decoding | 87.54 ± 0.02 | 84.10 ± 0.03 | 85.01 ± 0.02 | 88.16 ± 0.03 | 87.33 ± 0.03 | 83.66 ± 0.03 | 85.42 ± 0.02 | 88.07 ± 0.02 |
| w./o. Directional local risk | 85.76 ± 0.03 | 81.93 ± 0.03 | 82.78 ± 0.02 | 86.12 ± 0.02 | 84.79 ± 0.02 | 81.55 ± 0.02 | 82.31 ± 0.03 | 85.69 ± 0.03 |
| Ours | 89.42 ±0.02 | 86.15 ±0.03 | 87.63 ±0.02 | 90.33 ±0.02 | 88.91 ±0.03 | 85.92 ±0.02 | 87.18 ±0.02 | 89.87 ±0.03 |