MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586734364 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2017.2665480

Combining Capital and Operating Expenditure Costs in Vehicular Roadside Unit Placement

2017· article· en· W2586734364 on OpenAlexafffund
Naby Nikookaran, George Karakostas, T.D. Todd

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOperating expenseRoundingCapital expenditureOperating costComputer scienceInteger programmingLinear programmingSet (abstract data type)Integer (computer science)Mathematical optimizationComputer networkEngineeringAlgorithmOperating systemEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the problem of vehicular roadside unit (RSU) placement so that the sum of capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) costs is minimized. The minimum cost solution considers these two cost contributions jointly when making RSU placement decisions. The input to the placement process consists of historical vehicular traffic traces and a set of candidate site locations from which RSU placements are chosen. An integer linear program (ILP) formulation is first given that computes the minimum cost placement based on the input traffic traces and candidate locations. A practical algorithm is then introduced that solves a relaxed version of the ILP and uses a novel rounding procedure to obtain real RSU placements. The algorithm takes into account the energy costs incurred by vehicular requests when the latter are scheduled using a minimum energy online scheduler. Performance results are presented that show that the proposed algorithm performs well compared to the case where placements are done without jointly considering both CAPEX and OPEX cost components.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207