Intelligent transportation systems: A survey on modern hardware devices for the era of machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing complexity of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), that comprise a wide variety of applications and services, has imposed a necessity for high-performance Modern Hardware Devices (MHDs). The performance challenge has become more noticeable with the integration of Machine Learning (ML) techniques deployed in large-scale settings. ML has effectively supported the field of ITS by providing efficient and optimized solutions to problems that were otherwise tackled using traditional statistical and analytical approaches. Addressing the hardware deployment needs of ITS in the era of ML is a challenging problem that involves temporal, spatial, environmental, and economical factors. This survey reviews the recent literature of ML-driven ITS, in which MHDs were utilized, with a focus on performance indicators. A taxonomy is then synthesized, giving a complete representation of what the current capabilities of the surveyed ITS rely on in terms of ML techniques and technological infrastructure. To alleviate the difficulties faced in the non-trivial task of selecting suitable ML techniques and MHDs for an ITS with a specific complexity level, a performance evaluation framework is proposed. The presented survey sets the basis for developing suitable hardware, facilitating the integration of ML within ITS, and bridging the gap between research and real-world deployments.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".