To DSRC or 5G? A Safety Analysis for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Connected Autonomous Vehicles (CAV) utilize vehicular communication to collect information about the surrounding environment to make informed decisions about speed and maneuvering. This enables safe driving and decreases the number of accidents and thereby the associated fatalities. However, vehicular communication may suffer from high latency and low reliability, especially in dense vehicle environments, which may negatively affect the safety of CAVs. Therefore, it is crucial to study the impact of these metrics on the safety application performance while taking into account realistic CAV kinematics and dynamics. In this paper, we address this problem by comparing the performance of the Short Range Communication (DSRC) to that of the Fifth-Generation New Radio (5G-NR) and their impacts on the safety applications in the CAV environment under different settings. We develop a full-fledged simulation framework that can realistically model both vehicular mobility and communication and can capture the impact of communication on safety applications. Within this framework, we implement an important CAV's safety application, namely, the forward collision avoidance system, in which following vehicles use vehicular communications to gather information from leading vehicles to compute the safe speed and avoid collisions. We then use this framework to study and compare the performance safety of the forward collision avoidance system using both DSRC and 5G-NR communications. The results show that the packet delays and drops in communication networks can adversely affect CAV safety. The results also demonstrate that 5G is more capable of supporting the safety requirements under higher packet traffic loads and vehicle densities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".