Cost Analysis of Vehicle‐Road Cooperative Intelligence Solutions for High‐Level Autonomous Driving: A Beijing Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of the vehicle‐road cooperative intelligence can effectively resolve the current technical impediment and cost quandary associated with high‐level autonomous driving. Nevertheless, the intelligent infrastructure entails initial deployment costs and ongoing energy consumption and maintenance costs, necessitating a comprehensive and quantitative analysis of the costs of intelligent infrastructure and the corresponding changes in comprehensive costs. The cost evaluation model for the cooperative intelligent system is designed in this paper, considering the corresponding intelligent infrastructure layout scheme for different road types within the technical framework. The intelligent configuration and corresponding cost transfer from roadside to vehicle side under the synergy effect is also analyzed. Using Beijing as a case study, the results indicate that the deployment of intelligent infrastructure will effectively reduce acquisition and usage costs of high‐level intelligent vehicles and achieve a greater “reuse” effect by serving more intelligent connected vehicles (ICVs). Compared to the vehicle intelligence, collaborative intelligence will reduce cumulative total costs by more than ¥200 billion from 2023 to 2050, even with the inclusion of intelligent infrastructure’s costs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".