Connected Vehicles: Technology Review, State of the Art, Challenges and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to reach accident-free milestones or drastically reduce/eliminate road fatalities rates and traffic congestion and to create disruptive, transformational mobility systems and services, different parties (e.g., automakers, universities, governments, and road traffic regulators) have collaborated to research, develop, and test connected vehicle (CV) technologies. CVs create new data-rich environments and are considered key enablers for many applications and services that will make our roads safer, less congested, and more eco-friendly. A deeper understanding of the CV technologies will pave the way to avoid setbacks and will help in developing more innovative applications and breakthroughs. In the CV paradigm, vehicles become smarter by communicating with nearby vehicles, connected infrastructure, and the surroundings. This connectivity will be substantial to support different features and systems, such as adaptive routing, real-time navigation, and slow and near real-time infrastructure. Further examples include environmental sensing, advanced driver-assistance systems, automated driving systems, mobility on demand, and mobility as a service. This article provides a comprehensive review on CV technologies including fundamental challenges, state-of-the-art enabling technologies, innovative applications, and potential opportunities that can benefit automakers, customers, and businesses. The current standardization efforts of the forefront enabling technologies, such as Wi-Fi 6 and 5G-cellular technologies are also reviewed. Different challenges in terms of cooperative computation, privacy/security, and over-the-air updates are discussed. Safety and non-safety applications are described and possible future opportunities that CV technology brings to our life are also highlighted.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 |
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".