Safety Monitoring System of CAVs Considering the Trade-Off between Sampling Interval and Data Reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The safety of urban transportation systems is considered a public health issue worldwide, and many researchers have contributed to improving it. Connected automated vehicles (CAVs) and cooperative intelligent transportation systems (C-ITSs) are considered solutions to ensure the safety of urban transportation systems using various sensors and communication devices. However, realizing a data flow framework, including data collection, data transmission, and data processing, in South Korea is challenging, as CAVs produce a massive amount of data every minute, which cannot be transmitted via existing communication networks. Thus, raw data must be sampled and transmitted to the server for further processing. The data acquired must be highly accurate to ensure the safety of the different agents in C-ITS. On the other hand, raw data must be reduced through sampling to ensure transmission using existing communication systems. Thus, in this study, C-ITS architecture and data flow are designed, including messages and protocols for the safety monitoring system of CAVs, and the optimal sampling interval determined for data transmission while considering the trade-off between communication efficiency and accuracy of the safety performance indicators. Three safety performance indicators were introduced: severe deceleration, lateral position variance, and inverse time to collision. A field test was conducted to collect data from various sensors installed in the CAV, determining the optimal sampling interval. In addition, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was conducted to ensure statistical consistency between the sampled and raw datasets. The effects of the sampling interval on message delay, data accuracy, and communication efficiency in terms of the data compression ratio were analyzed. Consequently, a sampling interval of 0.2 s is recommended for optimizing the system's overall efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".