When Blockchain Meets Urban Rail Transit: Current Prospects, Case Studies, and Future Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thanks to the vigorous development of artificial intelligence, urban rail transit (URT) is undergoing a new round of intelligent upgrades. While its intelligence level is improving, URT suffers from a weak trust foundation, high data sharing costs, and low collaboration efficiency. Driven by outstanding features of decentralization, resilience against tampering, and traceability, blockchain can provide a safe and efficient value-trust exchange infrastructure for URT. This article focuses on the current prospects, case studies, and future challenges of blockchain-empowered URT. We first introduce blockchain fundamentals and mainstream blockchain platforms, comparing the technology’s advantages and highlighting the motivation of using it in URT. The prospects of using blockchain in the lifecycle of URT, which includes planning and construction, operation and management, control and security, and upgrading and transformation, are explored. Furthermore, a concrete case study of using blockchain in a distributed authentication scheme for URT is described. Extensive testing results show that the proposed blockchain-based distributed authentication scheme can enhance the security of the train control system without sacrificing communication performance. Finally, we summarize the challenges and problems when using blockchain in future URT systems.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".