Strategies to Plan the Number and Locations of RSUs for an IEEE 802.11p-based Infrastructure in Urban Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose different strategies to efficiently deploy RSUs in a city with the ultimate goal of having an 802.11p-based infrastructure to deliver Internet services. Unlike most existing works, (i) our strategies' only prior information is the average density of vehicles in the studied area, and (ii) they rely on the forecast of a performance model of 802.11p to assist and guide their choices regarding the location of RSUs. With the help of two simulators, namely SUMO and ns-3, we investigate the behavior of each strategy in three scenarios inspired by the street map of real-life major cities. Our findings are twofold: (i) we demonstrate that any efficient RSUs deployment is tightly tied to the specifics of the considered city (namely, the arrangement of streets and the spatial density of vehicles); (ii) the best strategy is not to position RSUs where the traffic density is at its highest, nor at the street junctions where the traffic density is often at its highest but instead where they will be able to deliver the target QoS to a maximum number of vehicles.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".