Reducing Power Consumption through Effective Data Sharing in Platooning Scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platooning occurs when vehicles travel closely together to benefit from multi-vehicle movement, increased road capacity, and reduced fuel consumption. This study focused on reducing energy consumption under different driving scenarios and road conditions. To quantify the energy consumption, we first consider dynamic events that can affect driving, such as braking and sudden acceleration. In our experiments, we focused on modeling and analyzing the power consumption of autonomous platoons in a simulated environment, the main goal of which was to develop a clear understanding of the different driving and road factors influencing power consumption and to highlight key parameters. The key elements that influence the energy consumption can be identified by simulating multiple driving scenarios under different road conditions. The initial findings from the simulations suggest that by efficiently utilizing the inter-vehicle distances and keeping the vehicle movements concurrent, the power consumption of each vehicle within the platoon can be reduced. Moreover, we explored the influence and impact of vehicle-to-vehicle coordination and communication delays on the power consumption. Additionally, controlling speed changes and reducing unnecessary braking can enhance energy efficiency within the platoon, resulting in significant cost savings over time. This study focused on understanding the importance of including detailed power consumption models in the design of a collaborative vehicular environment via information exchange. Incorporating these models can allow platoons to reduce overall power consumption through efficiently designed data sharing and control strategies. The results of this study can help advance automotive technologies in terms of vehicle data exchange and communication, thereby providing a strong foundation for future transportation-related research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".