# Evaluating the Feasibility of Intelligent Blind Road Junction V2I Deployments
## 4 Results
### Throughput  
In addition to latency and jitter, throughput is another important metric when evaluating a communications system's ability to maintain QoS. Several of the advanced V2X communications use cases, such as remote driving, sensor sharing, and vehicle platooning, require the transmission of unprocessed sensor data, i.e., videos or point clouds. As such, these advanced V2X communications use cases are infeasible if the communications system is unable to maintain a minimum throughput for the duration required. Statistics for the download performance of both connectivity setups are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Additionally, the corresponding distributions for both connectivity setups are presented in Figures 8 and 9 (Sub-6 GHz), and Figure 10 (mmWave). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Data Type** & **Mean** & **StD.** & **Skew** & **Kurt.** & **IQR** & **Min.** & **25\%** & **50\%** & **75\%** & **Max.** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Object Data (kbps)} & Quiet Scene (12.5 kbps) & 11.583 & 0.003 & 2.099 & 4.782 & 0.002 & 11.574 & 11.582 & 11.583 & 11.584 & 11.596 \\  & Moderate Scene (25 kbps) & 23.167 & 0.004 & 1.031 & 0.675 & 0.01 & 23.159 & 23.165 & 23.166 & 23.169 & 23.181 \\  & Busy Scene (50 kbps) & 50.017 & 5.391 & 0.787 & \(-\)1.38 & 11.587 & 46.271 & 46.332 & 46.336 & 57.919 & 57.995 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Sensor Data (Mbps)} & CCTV (8 Mbps) & 8.000 & 0.022 & 0.100 & 5.734 & 0.013 & 7.888 & 7.992 & 8.004 & 8.005 & 8.109 \\  & Action (50 Mbps) & 50.001 & 0.841 & \(-\)0.425 & 16.687 & 12.070 & 37.636 & 49.98 & 49.997 & 50.018 & 62.055 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Consumer (150 Mbps) & 122.311 & 17.689 & \(-\)0.864 & 0.781 & 24.021 & 48.653 & 112.309 & 123.915 & 136.330 & 146.013 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Automotive (800 Mbps) & 119.392 & 20.613 & \(-\)0.921 & 0.697 & 37.721 & 27.938 & 107.132 & 122.780 & 135.070 & 145.995 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Sub-6 GHz Throughput Statistics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Jitter (ms)** & **Mean** & **StD.** & **Skew** & **Kurt.** & **IQR** & **Min.** & **25\%** & **50\%** & **75\%** & **Max.** \\ \hline Sub-6 GHz & 5.55 & 17.86 & 9.20 & 102.44 & 3.11 & \(5.93\times 10^{-4}\) & 0.85 & 1.85 & 3.96 & 272.63 \\ mmWave & 5.78 & 24.36 & 8.04 & 80.81 & 1.96 & \(4.89\times 10^{-4}\) & 0.68 & 1.41 & 2.64 & 457.42 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Jitter Performance Statistics. Figure 7: eCDF + marginal box plot of E2E jitter performance distribution for Sub-6 GHz and mmWave connectivity setups (Sub-6 GHz: 1.85 ms, mmWave: 1.41 ms median jitter). As can be seen from Table 4, the Sub-6 GHz connectivity setup maintains a high degree of reliability at all three of the chosen scenarios, i.e., quiet (12.5 kbps), moderate (25 kbps) and busy (50 kbps). Particularly for quiet and moderate scenarios, the standard deviation is as low as 3-4 bytes. However, there is a notable increase in the standard deviation of the busy scenario, highlighted by the abrupt shift from \(\sim\)46 kbps to \(\sim\)57 kbps in the eCDF curve of Figure 8 at \(\sim\)67%. This is an apparent artefact of the iPerf tool, wherein an integer multiple of the Ethernet MTU size (1448 bytes with 52 bytes overhead) is used to achieve a given data rate. As such, this 1448 MTU size results in a data rate of 11.584 kbps, giving the 11.583 kbps (1 MTU) and 23.166 kbps (2 MTU) median throughputs for the quiet and moderate scenarios. In the case of the busy scenario, the abrupt change in the eCDF curve is a result of the iPerf tool using 4 MTUs (46.336 kbps) and 5 MTUs (57.920 kbps) with a ratio of 32 (\(\sim\)67%) to approximate the desired average data rate of 50 kbps (50.017 kbps actual mean throughput). Figure 8: eCDF plot of throughput performance distribution for object data using the Sub-6 GHz connectivity setup (Quiet: 11.583 kbps, Moderate: 23.166 kbps, Busy: 46.336 kbps median throughput).