## 1 Introduction
### Contributions  
To the best of our knowledge, the current literature lacks comprehensive studies on the impact of network latency and mitigation methods during teleoperation, particularly in the CAV domain. this paper proposes a comprehensive and systematic review that explores the trends, impact, and state-of-the-art latency mitigation strategies that apply to CAV teleoperation, further offering valuable insights for researchers and practitioners in this field. The contributions of this paper are as follows:  
* It thoroughly examines the various network quality-of-service (QoS) parameters and their relation with latency, outlining their significance in the context of teleoperation, further indicating the sources of latency in system aspects of CAV teleoperation.
* It reviews various approaches to model network delays for teleoperation experiments.
* It identifies and delves into various wireless technologies relevant to teleoperation, further analysing their suitability and implications for CAVs.
* It provides insights into various teleoperation practices across different domains, highlighting the unique requirements of remote driving.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Other Surveys**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Our Approach**} \\ \hline
**Architecture** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Teleoperation system [8; 13]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Sources of latency in teleoperation system} \\  & & & model (Sections 4.1 and 4.4) \\ \hline
**Challenges** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Main teleoperation challenges [7; 8]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Brief discussion of challenges of teleoperation, with a focus on CAVs and latency as a key challenge (Section 3)} \\ \hline
**Communication Network** & A few wireless technologies [13] & Little about network requirements [10] & Impact of latency on operators [1; 15] & Most wireless technologies used in teleoperation including cellular and non-cellular (Section 4.2) \\ \hline
**Domain** & Robotics [8; 12; 13] & CAVs [1; 3; 7; 10; 14; 15] & Latency impact on various teleoperation domains, and then, focusing on CAVs (Sections 4.7 and 4.8) \\ \hline
**Mitigation Strategies** & Control and time-series prediction models [12] & A few latency mitigation strategies & Detailed analysis of mitigation strategies for control and perception, with a brief discussion of network optimisation (Section 5, Sections 5.1–5.3 and 5.5) \\ \hline
**Initiatives and Standards** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Real use cases (specific to situation awareness) [1]; standardisation for road vehicles [10]; cover standards and technical reports [14]; a few industry applications [15]} & Brief discussion of initiatives and standards (Section 5.4) \\ \hline
**Auxiliary** & Situational awareness [1; 13] & Interface enhancement [7] & Driving feedback and support control [15] & Other enhancement techniques for different challenges [8] & Modelling delay for teleoperation, QoS parameters interdependency with latency (Sections 4.5 and 4.6) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Comparison with other survey papers.  
* It critically analyses state-of-the-art latency mitigation methods for control and perception latency, discussing their advantages and disadvantages for compensating time-varying delays during CAV teleoperation. Additionally, it presents up-to-date initiatives and standardisation efforts that have contributed to remote driving.