Performance of Radio Access Technologies for Next Generation V2VRU Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of road accidents has remained stable in recent years. By using the latest technologies such as vehicle-to-vehicle communications, it is possible to improve road safety and reduce the number of road fatalities, especially for vulnerable road users (VRUs). There are two existing radio access technologies (RAT) for vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications, i.e., Wi-Fi -based by IEEE (802.11p and its next-generation standard 802.11bd), and cellular-based by 3GPP (LTE-V2X and 5G NR-V2X). Although many works have evaluated and compared the performance of V2V RAT communications, very little work has been done to compare the performance of these technologies in the context of vehicle-VRU communications. In this paper, we present, to the best of our knowledge, the first work that evaluates the performance of each RAT in the context of vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P) and vehicle-to-cyclist (V2C) communications. Using four performance metrics, namely packet error rate (PER), packet reception rate (PRR), throughput, and latency, we examined whether each RAT can meet the requirements of safety applications intended for implementation in urban areas. The answer to this question is yes. However, each RAT has its own performance profile. In terms of PER and PRR, 802.11bd has an advantage, while in terms of throughput and latency, 5G NR-V2X performs better.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 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 it