Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Automated Generation of Precedence Graphs in Digital Value Chains for Automotive Production

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a data-extraction pipeline paired with a mixed-integer linear program can generate digital value chain precedence graphs for automotive production in about two minutes, with fewer stations and higher utilization than…

desk verdict What looks like a MILP-based scheduling breakthrough is actually a greedy heuristic with a constant objective; the NLP extraction part is solid, but the headline station reductions don't stand up to scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19835 v2 pith:Z5BFSADV submitted 2025-04-28 cs.RO cs.LGcs.SYeess.SY

Cornelius Hake , Christian Friedrich This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.LGcs.SYeess.SY
keywords AutomotiveproductionDigitalvaluechainPrecedencegraphgenerationAutomatedschedulingMixedintegerlinearprogrammingNaturallanguageprocessingElectroniccontrolunitsECUcommissioning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Cars today can contain more than 100 electronic control units, and the digital value chain (DVC) that checks, flashes, configures, calibrates, and commissions them must be scheduled for dozens of vehicle derivatives on one assembly line. This paper proposes an automated pipeline that extracts the needed information from heterogeneous text sources and feeds a mixed-integer linear program, which generates a DVC precedence graph in about two minutes instead of the ten days a planner needs manually. The authors report that the automated schedules use fewer stations overall, with the calibration and commissioning process dropping from 21-22 stations to 12-13 in the six tested configurations, while raising utilization from roughly 30-35% to 55-65% in that process. Preparation time falls by half, from two weeks to five days, and backup stations become unnecessary. The central claim is that this combination of NLP-based information extraction and MILP scheduling is not only feasible but consistently outperforms manual DVC scheduling across the tested derivatives.

What carries the argument

The central object is the DVC precedence graph, a directed representation of which digital value chain processes can run when and on which station, subject to precedence, bus, and power constraints. The carrying mechanism is a mixed-integer linear program (MILP) whose objective minimizes the number of stations plus cumulative station load, assigning each ECU's ID check, software flash, configuration, and calibration/commissioning processes to powered stations within a cycle-time limit. The DVC-specific constraints encode bus-technology prerequisites (termination, cold starters, master-slave relations), diagnostic classes (DC 0-4) that determine whether a higher-level ECU must be configured or merely ID-checked, and terminal 15/30 power requirements. A data-extraction step supplies the inputs: fuzzy matching and classifiers (DistilBERT, Gaussian Naive Bayes, SVM, regex) are compared, with Gaussian Naive Bayes achieving 99.87% accuracy on ECU-assembly station detection and 97.07% on powered-station detection for this dataset.

What would settle it

Run the algorithm's schedules on the actual line for the six tested configurations and compare planned versus realized station counts and cycle times; if the calibration-and-commissioning work cannot fit into 12-13 stations instead of 21-22 once manual-work interference, duration scatter, or station layout limits are accounted for, the station-reduction claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the digital value chain's precedence graph can be generated automatically and optimally, rather than assembled by hand. The proposed system parses the EE-architecture topology, assembly precedence graph, ECU commissioning specifications, and vehicle details; extracts which stations assemble each ECU and which stations are powered; and then solves a MILP that assigns the DVC processes (ID check, software flash, configuration, calibration and commissioning) to powered stations under bus-technology, diagnostic-class, terminal 15/30, and cycle-time constraints. In the evaluation across six configurations from two derivatives, the algorithm reduces the ID-check station count from 9 to 7 for every variant, cuts calibration and commissioning stations from 21-22 to 12-13, raises utilization and parallelization in most processes, and creates the precedence graph in two minutes compared with ten days of manual graph creation. The paper concludes that automated scheduling outperforms manual scheduling in efficiency, functionality, and adaptability, and that the constraint-based design eliminates backup stations while keeping vehicle-specific configurability.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that a DVC schedule can be planned accurately from fixed process durations and the bus, diagnostic-class, and station-power constraints alone, with the manual assembly happening in parallel never disturbing the timed processes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New derivatives or new EE-architecture topologies can be scheduled in about two minutes of compute, so late configuration changes no longer force a planner to redo the schedule by hand.
  • The station-count reductions, especially calibration and commissioning from 21-22 to 12-13 stations, mean fewer stations must be equipped with expensive diagnostic hardware and software licenses.
  • Higher utilization and parallelization (for example, calibration and commissioning utilization rising from 30-35% to 55-65%) imply more DVC work completed per station per shift, shortening per-vehicle commissioning time.
  • Because constraints are vehicle-specific rather than locked to a derivative template, the same algorithm can handle hundreds of configurations without backup stations.
  • The best extraction method (Gaussian Naive Bayes at 99.87% for assembly-station detection) determines the quality of the whole graph, so the pipeline depends on the classifier performing on future text as it did on the labeled 1000-row dataset.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, this extraction-plus-MILP pipeline could transfer to other low-volume, high-variability production steps such as battery commissioning or end-of-line EV diagnostics, where task lists exist in heterogeneous text; the paper does not test these settings.
  • Beyond the paper, the reported station counts are not unique: the MILP weights α and β trade station count against cumulative station load, so different cost weights would yield different precedence graphs; the paper reports no sensitivity analysis.
  • Beyond the paper, the two-minute generation time makes closed-loop rescheduling plausible: feeding failed-process feedback back into the MILP could regenerate the precedence graph mid-run, which the paper leaves to future work.
  • Beyond the paper, comparing against one planner's manual practice couples the reported gains to documentation quality; a multi-planner or multi-plant test would separate algorithm performance from text quality.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an automated method for generating precedence graphs for the digital value chain (DVC) in automotive production. The method combines natural-language-processing information extraction (fuzzy matching, regex, and classifiers) with a scheduling algorithm that is described as a mixed-integer linear program (MILP). The claimed outputs are reduced station counts, higher utilization, better parallelization, and a large reduction in planning time, evaluated on six vehicle derivatives. The central claim is that the automated scheduling algorithm outperforms manual scheduling in efficiency, functionality, and adaptability.

Significance. If the claims were substantiated, the work would be of practical value to automotive production planning: it addresses a real industrial problem with heterogeneous data sources and a concrete scheduling task. The paper also makes a useful empirical comparison of NLP/classification methods for extracting ECU assembly and power-station information. However, in its current form the manuscript does not provide a verifiable optimization model, does not supply data, code, or parameter values, and contains an internal contradiction between the stated objective of minimizing station count and the reported station increases. The significance is therefore currently limited by lack of reproducibility and by the mismatch between the formal claims and the presented method.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.D, Algorithm 2, Eq. (21)] The problem is labelled a MILP and an objective f = min(α·Σz_s + β·ΣCD_b,s) is given in Eq. (21), but no MILP formulation is actually provided. There are no constraint equations, no decision-variable domains beyond a list, no solver, and no values for α, β, or CT. Algorithm 2 is a sequential constructive heuristic that greedily fills stations and increments the station index when a constraint check fails. This is not a MILP and cannot be reproduced as such. The authors need to either present the full MILP model with constraints and solve it with a documented solver, or relabel the method as a heuristic and evaluate it on that basis.
  2. [Section IV, Table IV] Table IV reports that the configuration process increases the number of stations from 8 to 10 for Base Max, Base Mid, and Top Min, while the text simultaneously claims 'an overall reduction in the number of stations required for all DVC processes.' These statements are directly inconsistent. Since the stated objective minimizes the number of stations, the reported increases cannot be explained by the objective alone; they must be the result of constraints or an undocumented heuristic behavior. The paper does not reconcile this contradiction, and as a result the headline station-reduction claim is not supported by the paper's own data.
  3. [Section IV, Table IV and Section III.D] The evaluation compares automated scheduling with a 'traditional manual scheduling' baseline, but the manual baseline is never described: how are the before-station counts determined, what assumptions about cycle times and constraints are made, and who generated the manual schedule? Without a precise definition of the baseline, the claimed improvements from 9 to 7 stations, 21-22 to 12-13 stations, and the utilization and parallelization gains are not interpretable. The paper also does not provide the underlying data or the extracted feature sets, so the reported numbers cannot be independently checked.
  4. [Section III.B and III.D] The paper leaves all key parameter values unspecified: the cycle time limit CT, the objective weights α and β, the fuzzy matching threshold (stated only as 90% in the text, but not tied to results), the composition of the labeled dataset for classifiers, and the train/test split for the reported 99.87% accuracy. In addition, no code or data repository is provided. This lack of transparency is a load-bearing issue for an empirical paper making strong performance claims, because the reader cannot verify the extraction accuracies, the scheduling results, or the claimed two-minute runtime.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.D, Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2 references 'CheckConstraints (cf. III. B.)', but the prerequisites and constraints are described in Section III.C, not III.B.
  2. [Section III.D, Algorithm 1] The notation is overloaded: P denotes both the set of process types and the parallelization metric, and S denotes both the set of stations and the station-count variables. Please use distinct symbols to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (21)] The second term in the objective, β·ΣCD_b,s, is essentially a constant since each process duration is counted exactly once when assigned. If this is intentional, the authors should state that the objective reduces to minimizing station count; if not, the objective should be revised to avoid a meaningless term.
  4. [Section IV, Figures 5 and 6] Figures 5 and 6 lack explicit legends and axis labels for the 'before' and 'after' groups, making it difficult to map the plotted bars to the numerical values discussed in the text.
  5. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract claims a 50% reduction in preparation time, while the conclusion states preparation drops from two weeks to five days (a 50% reduction) but precedence-graph creation drops from ten days to two minutes. These two time scales should be reconciled or clearly separated, as the current wording suggests a much larger total reduction than 50%.
  6. [References [6] and [7]] References [6] and [7] list the same patent number DE10107263A1 with different years; please verify the patent numbers and years to avoid citation errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the station-count reduction is the algorithm's objective evaluated against a manual baseline, not a prediction fitted to its own output.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an automated scheduling algorithm reduces station counts, increases utilization, and improves parallelization relative to manual scheduling. The algorithm's objective in Section III.D is f = min(α·Σz_s + β·ΣCD_b,s), so station minimization is indeed the optimization target, and Table IV reports station counts before and after the algorithm. This is a standard evaluation of an optimization objective against an externally described manual baseline, not a circular derivation: the manual baseline station counts ('Sb' in Table IV) are not inputs to the algorithm, and no parameter is fitted to make the reported reductions occur. Utilization and parallelization in Eqs. 23-24 are definitions based on the generated schedule, but they are used descriptively with before/after comparisons rather than as independent predictions. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: references [8]-[10] and [12]-[13] are prior work by other authors, and the bus, diagnostic-class, and terminal constraints come from external standards (DIN 72552, bus specifications) and stated engineering requirements. The NLP extraction methods are trained on labeled rows of the assembly precedence graph, which is independent of the final station counts. The reviewer-raised concerns about Algorithm 2 being a constructive greedy heuristic rather than a true MILP, the missing solver details, and the configuration-process station increases in Table IV are matters of internal consistency, reproducibility, and correctness, not circularity: they do not show that the reported outcome is equivalent by construction to the paper's inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The DVC precedence graph is a scheduling artifact composed of existing processes, constraints, and ECUs. The main ledger content is the set of hand-chosen scheduling parameters, domain assumptions about bus and diagnostic-class rules, and the assumption that manual assembly activities do not constrain DVC scheduling.

free parameters (6)
  • objective weight alpha = not specified
    Weight on the number of stations in the objective f = min(alpha * sum z_s + beta * sum CD); without a value the scheduling result is not reproducible.
  • objective weight beta = not specified
    Weight on cumulative bus duration in the same objective; value not given.
  • cycle time limit CT = not specified
    Capacity limit used in Algorithm 2's feasibility check; the paper states a cycle time limit without giving a numerical value.
  • fuzzy matching threshold = 90%
    FuzzyWuzzy matching threshold chosen by the authors; affects which ECU-installation matches are accepted and thus the extracted station set.
  • keyword set for matching = contact, install
    Search terms used together with ECU names to identify assembly stations; a hand-chosen design choice that influences extraction accuracy.
  • labeled dataset composition for classifiers = 1000 rows (250 assembly, 250 powered, 500 neither)
    Manually labeled training set for BERT, Gaussian Naive Bayes, and SVM; classification accuracy and therefore the extracted stations depend on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The bus-protocol constraints, including CAN and FlexRay termination, LIN master-slave behavior, MOST loop rings, and FlexRay cold starter behavior, are necessary and sufficient to model valid DVC scheduling.
    Section III.C states these as prerequisites, but the paper provides no validation that this constraint set is complete or that all production-relevant bus effects are captured.
  • domain assumption The diagnostic-class rules in Table I and Section III.C.1-3 accurately encode the plant's DVC process requirements.
    These rules are introduced without a source or empirical validation; the scheduling outcomes depend on them.
  • domain assumption DVC processes can be scheduled independently of the manual assembly activities that occur in parallel on the vehicle.
    Section I says the DVC takes place in parallel with manual activities, but the scheduling model in Section III.D includes only DVC tasks, station power, and bus constraints, not manual-task interference or human capacity.
  • ad hoc to paper The objective function minimizing a weighted sum of station count and cumulative duration correctly represents production cost.
    Alpha and beta are never assigned values, and no evidence is given that this weighted objective matches the plant's true cost structure; it is chosen by the authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automated Generation of Precedence Graphs in Digital Value Chains for Automotive Production." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5BFSADV

@misc{pith2026250419835,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automated Generation of Precedence Graphs in Digital Value Chains for Automotive Production},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5BFSADV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19835}
}
read the original abstract

This study examines the digital value chain in automotive manufacturing, focusing on the identification, software flashing, customization, and commissioning of electronic control units in vehicle networks. A novel precedence graph design is proposed to optimize this process chain using an automated scheduling algorithm, which combines structured data extraction from heterogeneous sources via natural language processing and classification techniques with mixed integer linear programming for efficient graph generation. The results show significant improvements in key metrics. The algorithm reduces the number of production stations equipped with expensive hardware and software to execute digital value chain processes, while also increasing capacity utilization through efficient scheduling and reduced idle time. Task parallelization is optimized, resulting in streamlined workflows and increased throughput. Compared to the traditional scheduling method, the automated approach has reduced preparation time by 50% and reduced scheduling activities, as it now takes two minutes to create the precedence graph. The flexibility of the algorithm's constraints allows for vehicle-specific configurations while maintaining high responsiveness, eliminating backup stations and facilitating the integration of new topologies. Automated scheduling significantly outperforms manual methods in efficiency, functionality, and adaptability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19835 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Processes and checkpoints in the digital value chain (DVC) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Methodology from input (raw data) to output (precedence graph) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Station Utilization by Process before and after the scheduling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Total Number of ECUs by DVC process and Bus Type [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total Number of Calibration and Commissioning per ECU and Bus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Askaripoor, M

    H. Askaripoor, M. Hashemi Farzaneh, and A. Knoll, ”E/E Architecture Synthesis: Challenges and Technologies,” Electronics, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 518, 2022, DOI: 10.3390/electronics11040518

    doi:10.3390/electronics11040518 2022

  2. [2]

    Zimmermann and R

    W. Zimmermann and R. Schmidgall, Bussysteme in der Fahrzeugtech- nik. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Vieweg, 2014, DOI: 10.1007/978- 3-658-02419-2

    doi:10.1007/978- 2014

  3. [3]

    R. T. Lutchen, ”Methode zur Identifizierung der Fahrzeug-Netzwerk- Architektur,” in Optimierung der Fahrzeugdiagnose durch eine cloud- basierte Methode zur Identifikation der Datennetze mit k ¨unstlicher In- telligenz, Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2023, pp. 55-112, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-43113-6 4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-658-43113-6 2023

  4. [4]

    ”Verfahren zur Programmierung eines Steuerger ¨ats eines Kraft- fahrzeugs,” DE Patent DE102015203776A1, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    ”Verfahren und V orrichtung zur Programmierung eines Steuerger ¨ats eines Fahrzeugs, insbesondere eines Kraftfahrzeugs,” DE Patent DE10153447A1, 2001

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    ”Verfahren und V orrichtung zur fahrzeugtypischen Programmierung von Fahrzeugsteuerger¨aten,” DE Patent DE10107263A1, 2001

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    ”Inbetriebnahme-Steuerger ¨at eines Verbunds aus Steuerger ¨aten eines Kraftfahrzeugs und Verfahren zur Inbetriebnahme von Steuerger ¨aten,” DE Patent DE10107263A1, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Klindworth, C

    H. Klindworth, C. Otto, and A. Scholl, ”On a learning precedence graph concept for the automotive industry,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 217, no. 2, pp. 259–269, Sep. 2011, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.09.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.09.024 2011

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Otto and A

    C. Otto and A. Otto, ”Multiple-source learning precedence graph concept for the automotive industry,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 234, no. 1, pp. 253–265, Oct. 2013, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.09.034

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    K. R. Antani, B. Pearce, L. Mears, R. Renu, M. E. Kurz, and J. Schulte, ”Application of system learning to precedence graph generation for assembly line balancing,” in Proc. ASME Int. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Conf., Jun. 2014, DOI: 10.1115/msec2014-3906

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Kern, Methodik zur Gestaltung eines modularen Montagesystems, in Modulare Produktion, Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Vieweg, 2021, pp

    W. Kern, Methodik zur Gestaltung eines modularen Montagesystems, in Modulare Produktion, Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Vieweg, 2021, pp. 149–222. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-36300-0 5

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    K ¨onig et al., ”Flexible scheduling of diagnostic tests in automotive manufacturing,” Flex

    S. K ¨onig et al., ”Flexible scheduling of diagnostic tests in automotive manufacturing,” Flex. Serv. Manuf. J., vol. 35, pp. 320–342, 2023, DOI: 10.1007/s10696-021-09438-3

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Herberth, S

    R. Herberth, S. K ¨orper, T. Stiesch, F. Gauterin, and O. Bringmann, ”Au- tomated Scheduling for Optimal Parallelization to Reduce the Duration of Vehicle Software Updates,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 2921-2933, Mar. 2019, DOI: 10.1109/TVT.2019.2895109

    2019

  6. [14]

    Deutsches Institut f ¨ur Normung e.V ., ”DIN 72552: Bezeichnungen f ¨ur elektrische und elektronische Bauteile,” Beuth Verlag, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Singh, ”Natural Language Processing for Information Extraction,” arXiv:1807.02383, 2018

    S. Singh, ”Natural Language Processing for Information Extraction,” arXiv:1807.02383, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Arabadzhieva - Kalcheva and I

    N. Arabadzhieva - Kalcheva and I. Kovachev, ”Comparison of BERT and XLNet accuracy with classical methods and algorithms in text classification,” 2021 International Conference on Biomedical Innova- tions and Applications (BIA), Varna, Bulgaria, 2022, pp. 74-76, doi: 10.1109/BI...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Ren et al., ”Matching Algorithms: Fundamentals, Applications and Challenges,” IEEE Trans

    J. Ren et al., ”Matching Algorithms: Fundamentals, Applications and Challenges,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Topics Comput. Intell., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 332-350, Jun. 2021, DOI: 10.1109/TETCI.2021.3067655

    2021

  10. [18]

    P. J. Rao, K. N. Rao, S. Gokuruboyina, and K. N. Neeraja, ”An Efficient Methodology for Identifying the Similarity Between Languages with Levenshtein Distance,” in Lect. Notes Electr. Eng., 2024, pp. 161–174, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-99-7137-4 15

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    C. Sun, X. Qiu, Y . Xu, and X. Huang, ”How to Fine-Tune BERT for Text Classification?,” in Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., 2019, pp. 194–206, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-32381-3 16

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Taneja and J

    K. Taneja and J. Vashishtha, ”Comparison of Transfer Learning and Traditional Machine Learning Approach for Text Classification,” in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Comput. Sustainable Global Develop. (INDIACom), Mar. 2022, pp. 195–200, DOI: 10.23919/indiacom54597.2022.9763279

    2022

  13. [21]

    V . Sanh, L. Debut, J. Chaumond, and T. Wolf, ”DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter,” arXiv:1910.01108, 2020

    1910 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kowsari, K

    M. Kowsari, K. J. Meimandi, M. Heidarysafa, S. Mendu, L. Barnes, and D. Brown, ”Text Classification Algorithms: A Survey,” Information, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 150, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Zhang and X

    Y . Zhang and X. Y . Lee, ”A Comparison of Methods for Multi-Class Text Classification,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 21, no. 76, pp. 1-22, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Makowitz and C

    R. Makowitz and C. Temple, ”Flexray - A communication net- work for automotive control systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Work- shop Factory Commun. Syst., Turin, Italy, 2006, pp. 207-212, DOI: 10.1109/WFCS.2006.1704153

    2006

  17. [25]

    Y . Xu, J. Wang, W. Chen, J. Tao, and Q. Liu, ”Application of LIN Bus in Vehicle Network,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Veh. Electron. Safety, Shang- hai, China, 2006, pp. 119-123, DOI: 10.1109/ICVES.2006.371566

    2006

  18. [26]

    Zeeb, ”Optical data bus systems in cars: current status and future challenges,” in Proc

    E. Zeeb, ”Optical data bus systems in cars: current status and future challenges,” in Proc. 27th Eur. Conf. Opt. Commun., Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2001, pp. 70-71, DOI: 10.1109/ECOC.2001.989436

    2001

  19. [27]

    Dim ´eny and T

    I. Dim ´eny and T. Koltai, ”Comparison of MILP and CP models for balancing partially automated assembly lines,” Cent. Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 32, pp. 945–959, 2024, DOI: 10.1007/s10100-023-00885-x

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.