Skip to content
#edge computing Open access

INTELLIGENT BANDWIDTH ALLOCATION FOR COOPERATIVE PERCEPTION IN EDGE–IOT VEHICULAR SYSTEMS: LEARNING WHAT TO SHARE UNDER COMMUNICATION BUDGETS

Sep 2026 · World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews · Vol 31, pp. 1643-1658 · 0 citations
Age of Information Optimization

TL;DR

The objective is to decide what to share under a single hard ego-side communication budget, and the allocator reaches 97% of full-fusion accuracy at lower energy than the baseline in all 243 parameterisations tested, and in 240 of 243 on total energy, where the helpers' compute dominates.

Abstract

Cooperative perception lets connected vehicles share intermediate neural features, but vehicle-to-everything (V2X) links carry far less than a modern detector produces, and existing work reports transmitted bytes without their energy cost. Our objective is to decide what to share under a single hard ego-side communication budget. As methodology, we predict, from metadata available before any feature is transmitted, how many objects a candidate block would add to what the ego alone detects, using an ensemble of gradient-boosted trees and a multilayer perceptron, and allocate the budget across helpers, spatial blocks and numerical fidelity (fp16/int8/int4) with a greedy knapsack. Energy and latency are modelled without hardware from measured 5G modem power, a per-operation model calibrated on measured Jetson TX2 data, and replayed 5G driving traces. On the OPV2V benchmark the allocator reaches 99% of full-fusion AP@0.5 while transmitting 20.0 kB per frame instead of 282.9 kB; with int4 fidelity it matches full-fusion accuracy at 10.0 kB (3.5% of the volume), where a per-agent top-k baseline needs 50.0 kB; it improves on that baseline by +0.3 to +0.9 AP points at equal budgets of 10-50 kB; and sharing the helpers' box lists adds two to three points more for under 1 kB. The allocator's own inference costs 0.02% of the total energy. We conclude that, on the radio energy that selection controls, it reaches 97% of full-fusion accuracy at lower energy than the baseline in all 243 parameterisations tested, and in 240 of 243 on total energy, where the helpers' compute dominates.

Read PDF

Similar papers

#computer vision Review Sep 2017

Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis

This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.

P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al. · 727 citations · ⚡54
#computer vision Jun 2008

The impact of agile practices on communication in software development

The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.

M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al. · 401 citations · ⚡48
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Related blog posts

Microsoft Research Blog Oct 6, 2026

What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us

Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity.  The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.