Accuracy is Not Agreement: Expert-Aligned Evaluation of Crash Narrative Classification Models

This study explores the relationship between deep learning (DL) model accuracy and expert agreement in the classification of crash narratives. We evaluate five DL models -- including BERT variants, the Universal Sentence Encoder (USE), and a zero-shot classifier -- against expert-labeled data and narrative text. The analysis is further extended to four large language models (LLMs): GPT-4, LLaMA 3, Qwen, and Claude. Our results reveal a counterintuitive trend: models with higher technical accuracy often exhibit lower agreement with domain experts, whereas LLMs demonstrate greater expert alignment despite relatively lower accuracy scores. To quantify and interpret model-expert agreement, we employ Cohen's Kappa, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and SHAP-based explainability techniques. Findings indicate that expert-aligned models tend to rely more on contextual and temporal language cues, rather than location-specific keywords. These results underscore that accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating models in safety-critical NLP applications. We advocate for incorporating expert agreement as a complementary metric in model evaluation frameworks and highlight the promise of LLMs as interpretable, scalable tools for crash analysis pipelines.