Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Analyzing Contact Patterns in Public Transportation Systems for Opportunistic Communication Services

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bus-to-bus wireless contacts in a simulated Curitiba transit system last 57-107 seconds, with gaps of 132-163 seconds, implying that any communication service must be opportunistic and delay-tolerant.

desk verdict A useful engineering case study with a real tool and new Curitiba contact statistics, but the headline numbers rest on a simulation-fidelity assumption that is only weakly validated by aggregate travel-time checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02217 v1 pith:SS7DYS4U submitted 2025-06-02 cs.NI

Eduardo R. Manika , Emilio C. G. Wille , Joilson Alves Jr This is my paper
classification cs.NI
keywords publictransportationsystemsvehicularadhocnetworksopportunisticcommunicationdelay-tolerantcontacttimeinter-contactmap-matchingSUMOsimulation
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

This paper sets out to measure what wireless contact between buses in a public transportation system actually looks like, using a simulation pipeline that converts the city's real geolocation and timetable data into bus mobility. The authors built a tool, EMMS, that automatically matches bus routes and stops onto the SUMO road network, and they check it by comparing simulated and real travel times. Analyzing 152 buses in two Curitiba regions, they find mean contact times of 57-107 seconds at 150-300 m transmission ranges, and mean inter-contact times of 132-163 seconds, so buses form only small, temporary groups of two or three vehicles. The result matters because it tells network designers that bus-to-bus communication cannot rely on stable links or multihop paths, and must instead be opportunistic and delay-tolerant.

What carries the argument

The central object is EMMS (Engine for Map-Matching to SUMO), a four-layer Python tool that turns public bus data into a SUMO simulation: layer one validates and converts GPS coordinates; layer two matches each itinerary point to a road edge, enforcing physical and logical edge interconnections; layer three places bus stops on matched edges; layer four writes the configuration files. The analytical machinery is the pair of metrics 'contact time' and 'inter-contact time,' computed from pairwise distances with transmission ranges of 150 m and 300 m, sampled every 3 seconds and summarized as violin plots. The travel-time compatibility check (around 90% agreement between simulated and real bus journey times) is what licenses the claim that these simulated contacts are reliable.

What would settle it

Compute pairwise distances directly from the original Curitiba GPS traces used as input for the same buses and time window, then derive empirical contact and inter-contact times with the same 150 m and 300 m thresholds and 3-second sampling; if those empirical means differ from the simulated 40-107 second contact times and 132-163 second inter-contact times by more than a few tens of seconds, the travel-time validation is insufficient to support the contact conclusions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the contact and inter-contact statistics of the simulated Curitiba public transportation system show a fragmented network. With a 150 m transmission range, mean contact time is about 57 seconds in the central region and 40 seconds in the southern region; with 300 m, it rises to roughly 107 seconds, while inter-contact times stay in the 132-163 second range. Combined with the per-vehicle connectivity results, this means each bus typically has one or two neighbors during a contact and groups average 2-3 buses. The paper takes these numbers as evidence that any communication service running on the bus network would be opportunistic and delay-tolerant by nature.

Load-bearing premise

The findings hinge on the assumption that the simulated bus trajectories preserve fine-grained spacing and timing between buses, not just average travel times; the paper's roughly 90% travel-time compatibility check does not by itself guarantee that contact-level statistics are realistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At measured contact durations of 40-107 seconds, an encounter can carry only a limited data volume at typical vehicular communication rates, so applications should be designed for short bursty exchanges.
  • Inter-contact times of 132-163 seconds impose a minimum delay of minutes between forwarding opportunities, ruling out real-time or streaming services on the bus network alone.
  • With groups of 2-3 buses per contact, multi-hop paths are rare and fragile; routing should assume frequent disconnections and use store-carry-forward.
  • Because the two Curitiba regions show similar contact dynamics, the qualitative conclusion of an opportunistic, delay-tolerant network appears robust across different terminal layouts and bus densities.
  • Beyond these two regions, the paper reports that other dates and periods yield distributions of the same shape, suggesting the design guidance is not limited to the single afternoon analyzed in detail.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same contact statistics hold in other cities, routing parameters for delay-tolerant bus networks could be pre-tuned from public timetable and route data alone, skipping per-city simulation.
  • Feeding the simulated traces into a packet-level network simulator would quantify how much data actually transfers within a 57-107 second contact at realistic 802.11p rates, which the paper leaves for future work.
  • The small group sizes suggest buses might serve better as message ferries between fixed access points than as a mesh backbone; this design direction is implied but not tested here.
  • A testable extension is to repeat the measurement with different traffic-light timings and congestion levels to see whether inter-contact times remain stable, since those are exactly the fine-grained variables the travel-time validation may not constrain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 presents EMMS, a tool that automatically converts real public transportation data (routes, bus stop locations, and departure timetables) into SUMO simulation configuration files via map-matching. The authors use EMMS to simulate bus mobility in two regions of Curitiba (central and southern) using data from October 25, 2022, and then report a statistical analysis of travel times, vehicle density, connectivity, and contact/inter-contact times. The central claim is that bus-to-bus contacts are short (mean contact times of 57-107 s for 150-300 m transmission ranges), inter-contact times are about two to three times longer (132-163 s), and the resulting groups are small (2-3 buses), so any communication service built on this network must be opportunistic and delay-tolerant.

Significance. The EMMS pipeline is a practical engineering contribution: it automates the labor-intensive process of converting real bus routes, stops, and timetables into a SUMO simulation, and the paper reports real-data-driven mobility statistics for two distinct urban regions. The travel-time compatibility check (~90% in Section IV) is a useful sanity check that the simulated routes and schedules broadly match reality. If the fine-grained contact statistics were validated, the paper would provide valuable input for the design of opportunistic and delay-tolerant communication protocols in public-transportation-based networks. However, the headline quantitative claim rests on an unvalidated fidelity assumption, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV (validation paragraph) and §V (Figs. 8-9)] The validation offered for the simulation is limited to travel-time compatibility (~90% between real and simulated journey times). Travel time is an aggregate, origin-to-destination quantity; it is not sensitive to the small speed variations, traffic-signal phase offsets, dwell times, and bus-bunching effects that determine whether two buses come within 150-300 m of each other at the same moment. The sentence that a high degree of compatibility 'ensures that the results obtained from the simulation environment are reliable' is therefore an overreach with respect to the contact/inter-contact statistics in Figures 8 and 9. Since the paper's central conclusion about opportunistic and delay-tolerant communication is keyed to these statistics, this unvalidated simulation-fidelity assumption is load-bearing. The authors should compare simulated contact durations and inter-bus distances against real GPS-derived measurements from the URBS dataset, or, if that is not feasible, explicitly limit the claim to the simulation environment and describe the contact statistics as not independently validated.
  2. [§V, 'Contact Time and Inter-contact Time' (Figs. 8-9)] The reported means (e.g., 57 s contact time and 132 s inter-contact time at 150 m in the central region; 107 s and 163 s at 300 m) are presented without confidence intervals, standard deviations, or sample sizes. The violin plots show distribution shapes, but the text makes precise mean-based claims without any measure of uncertainty. The authors should report the number of contact events, the dispersion around each mean, and, where comparisons are made (between regions or between ranges), appropriate statistical tests or at least non-overlapping confidence intervals. Without these, the reader cannot judge whether the differences described are meaningful.
  3. [§V, sampling interval] The paper states that 'data sampling was performed every 3 seconds.' This sampling period imposes a lower bound on the duration of a detectable contact and quantizes inter-contact times: any contact shorter than 3 s is missed, and the measured contact durations are multiples of the sampling period. The mean contact times reported (57-107 s) are well above 3 s, so the bias may be modest, but the paper provides no sensitivity analysis. The authors should test whether the qualitative conclusion (short contacts, long inter-contact times, groups of 2-3 buses) is robust to the sampling interval, for example by repeating the analysis at 1 s and 5 s sampling periods.
  4. [§IV, simulation scenario] The simulation appears to include only buses; there is no explicit mention of general-purpose traffic, passenger-induced dwell-time variability, or varying traffic-signal phase offsets, all of which are known to affect bus bunching and the instantaneous relative positions of buses. The travel-time compatibility at the aggregate level does not directly validate these fine-grained dynamics. The authors should either incorporate and validate these elements (e.g., by adding background traffic to the SUMO scenario) or explicitly list them as limitations of the contact and inter-contact statistics. This limitation is especially important because the central claim concerns the exact distribution of short contacts and inter-contact gaps.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§VI vs. §IV] The compatibility values in the Conclusion (91.17% central, 90.42% southern) do not match the values in Section IV (afternoon 95.2%/89.2%; morning 90.5%/91.6%). Please reconcile the two sets of numbers or explain how the averages were computed.
  2. [Abstract and §I] The abstract and introduction describe the work as a 'complete statistical analysis,' but the paper reports only descriptive statistics and no hypothesis tests or uncertainty quantification. Please rephrase to avoid overclaiming.
  3. [Figure 3] The definition of inter-contact time in Figure 3 is confusing: the caption says 't4 being the beginning of the connected interval' for bus B, which appears to contradict the main text definition. Clarify with a precise timeline annotation.
  4. [§V, transmission range choice] The 150 m and 300 m transmission ranges are cited to reference [29], which is an IEEE 802.11p performance study; the choice should be justified in one sentence (e.g., as representative of V2V communication ranges) rather than simply cited.
  5. [§IV, data context] The paper does not state the weekday/weekend status, weather conditions, or any special events on October 25, 2022, which could affect traffic and bus behavior. Adding these contextual details would help readers assess the generalizability of the results.
  6. [§VI, omitted results] The conclusion mentions 'results obtained for other dates and time periods (omitted here due to space limitations)' without any supporting data. Either include a representative figure or state clearly that the paper analyzes only the single date and period described in Section IV.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the contact and inter-contact statistics are emergent simulation outputs validated against external URBS travel-time data, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: real URBS inputs (21/18 bus lines, 100/52 buses, routes, stops, timetables, traffic lights) are imported by EMMS into SUMO; the simulated trajectories produce the travel-time, density, connectivity, and contact/inter-contact statistics of Section V; the conclusion that services must be opportunistic and delay-tolerant is inferred from the short contact times (~40–107 s) and longer inter-contact times (~132–163 s). No step equates an output with an input by construction: contact is defined by the standard distance <= transmission-radius rule (150/300 m taken from the external IEEE 802.11p study [29]); no parameter is fitted to reproduce the contact statistics; and the validation benchmark (real URBS journey times, ~89–95% compatibility) is independent of the contact metrics, so the central statistics are not forced by a fit. The only author-overlapping citation ([15], supporting 'agile, reliable and realistic simulations') is not load-bearing: the paper's own external validation, not [15], supplies the support for the simulation, and [15] does not provide the contact results. For completeness, two non-circularity caveats are flagged and weighed: (i) Section IV's assertion that travel-time compatibility 'ensures that the results obtained from the simulation environment are reliable' overstates the evidence, because aggregate journey times need not constrain the fine-grained relative bus separations that drive Figures 8 and 9; this is a correctness/fidelity risk, not a circularity. (ii) Section VI's claim that results for other dates 'omitted here due to space limitations' maintain similar patterns is an unshown robustness assertion. Neither caveat makes the derivation self-referential, and the central claim remains an independent, external-benchmark-validated simulation result.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All parameters are chosen by hand, not fitted to the contact outputs. The main assumptions concern simulation fidelity and the validity of using travel-time compatibility as a proxy for realistic contact patterns. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • transmission_range = 150 m and 300 m
    Chosen by the authors to represent typical IEEE 802.11p ranges; affects all connectivity and contact metrics.
  • perimeter_radius = 2 km and 4 km
    Defines the area around terminals for travel time and vehicle count metrics.
  • sampling_interval = 3 seconds
    Time between position samples; affects resolution of contact and inter-contact times.
  • map_matching_search_radius = 15 meters
    Radius used to find candidate edges for GPS point matching; affects itinerary mapping accuracy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SUMO accurately simulates micro-scale bus movement given routes and timetables.
    Paper relies on SUMO realism for contact patterns without independent validation of spatial distribution.
  • domain assumption The map-matching algorithm correctly identifies routes and stops from GPS data.
    No quantitative validation of matching accuracy is provided; only aggregate travel time compatibility.
  • domain assumption Bus GPS data from URBS are accurate and representative.
    Data source is assumed correct; no error analysis of GPS noise.
  • ad hoc to paper Travel time compatibility of ~90% implies that other mobility metrics are reliable.
    This inference is made in Section IV and is not established; contact patterns could diverge despite similar travel times.
  • domain assumption Two vehicles are in contact if Euclidean distance <= transmission radius.
    Standard wireless range model, but ignores obstacles, interference, and signal propagation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analyzing Contact Patterns in Public Transportation Systems for Opportunistic Communication Services." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SS7DYS4U

@misc{pith2026250602217,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analyzing Contact Patterns in Public Transportation Systems for Opportunistic Communication Services},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SS7DYS4U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02217}
}
read the original abstract

Vehicle mobility has a significant impact on wireless communication between vehicles (buses) in Public Transportation Systems (PTS). Nevertheless, the transportation literature does not provide satisfactory models for bus movements because they are influenced by a variety of factors (itineraries, timetables, etc.). Custom-made mobility models that take these issues into account require a great deal of effort and may render simulations unfeasible. This article considers a tool (EMMS) that automatically inserts PTS information into a mobility simulator in order to undertake a complete statistical analysis of vehicular density, trip duration, and vehicle-to-vehicle interaction. In light of opportunistic communication services, this analysis is of the utmost importance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02217 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Map-matching example (route edge determination). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a shows one of the criteria analyzed, and if the second positioning point is closer than the first one to the node “to”, this represents a high probability that the edge corresponds to the real environment, because the node “to” is always the final destination of the edge. Another situation of correct matching is presented in Figure 2b, in the case that the first positioning point is closer to the node “to” and the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Calculation of Contact Time and Inter-contact Time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total Number of Vehicles in the Perimeter. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Vehicular Connectivity for two regions of Curitiba [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Contact Time and Inter-contact Time for Rui Barbosa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Performance of opportunistic data networks based on public transportation systems,

    E. R. Manika, E. C. G. Wille, and J. Alves Jr, “Performance of opportunistic data networks based on public transportation systems,”Journal of Communication and Information Systems, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 97–108, Jun. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://jcis.sbrt.org.br/jcis/article/view/878

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Evaluation of the concept of the smart city through local regulation and the importance of local initiative,

    A. Founoun and A. Hayar, “Evaluation of the concept of the smart city through local regulation and the importance of local initiative,” in 2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2). Kansas City, Missouri, USA: IEEE Smart Cities, Sep. 2018, pp. 1–6

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    We Are Sensemakers: The (Anti-)politics of Smart City Co-creation,

    D. Zandbergen, “We Are Sensemakers: The (Anti-)politics of Smart City Co-creation,”Public Culture, Durham, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 539–562, sep 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation ecosystems, technological advancements, and societal challenges,

    F. P. Appio, M. Lima, and S. Paroutis, “Understanding Smart Cities: Innovation ecosystems, technological advancements, and societal challenges,”Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 142, pp. 1–14, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Building understanding of smart city initiatives,

    S. Alawadhi, A. Aldama-Nalda, H. Chourabi, J. R. Gil-Garcia, S. Leung, S. Mellouli, T. Nam, T. A. Pardo, H. J. Scholl, and S. Walker, “Building understanding of smart city initiatives,” inElectronic Government, H. J. Scholl, M. Janssen, M. A. Wimmer, C. E. Moe, and L. S. Flak, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 40–53, series Ti...

    work page 2012

  6. [5]

    Transformation from IoT to IoV for waste management in smart cities,

    G. K. Ijemaru, L. M. Ang, and K. P. Seng, “Transformation from IoT to IoV for waste management in smart cities,”Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 204, p. 103393, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Exploratory analysis of public transportation data in Curitiba,

    N. Kozievitch, T. Gadda, K. Fonseca, M. Rosa, L. Gomes, and M. Akbar, “Exploratory analysis of public transportation data in Curitiba,”43th Integrated Seminar of Software and Hardware (Porto Alegre, Brazil), pp. 1656–1666, 7 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    A systematic review on intelligent transport systems,

    T. Garg and G. Kaur, “A systematic review on intelligent transport systems,”Journal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering, pp. 1– 14, jun 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    P-AOMDV: An improved routing protocol for V2V communication based on public transport backbones,

    J. Alves Jr. and E. C. G. Wille, “P-AOMDV: An improved routing protocol for V2V communication based on public transport backbones,” Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1653–1663, 12 2016

    2016

  2. [9]

    Routing protocols for V ANETs: an approach based on genetic algorithms,

    E. C. Wille, H. I. Del Monego, B. V . Coutinho, and G. G. Basilio, “Routing protocols for V ANETs: an approach based on genetic algorithms,”KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems (TIIS), vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 542–558, 2016. 9

    2016

  3. [10]

    A review of Intelligent Transportation Systems from a communications technology perspective,

    A. Maimaris and G. Papageorgiou, “A review of Intelligent Transportation Systems from a communications technology perspective,” in19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: IEEE, 2016, pp. 54–59

    2016

  4. [11]

    Increasing connectivity in V ANETs using public transport backbones,

    J. Alves Jr. and E. C. G. Wille, “Increasing connectivity in V ANETs using public transport backbones,”IEEE Latin America Transactions, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 3421–3431, oct 2015

    2015

  5. [12]

    Performance of routing protocols for V ANETs: A realistic analysis format,

    B. V . Coutinho, E. C. G. Wille, and H. I. Del Monego, “Performance of routing protocols for V ANETs: A realistic analysis format,” in9th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, j...

    2015

  6. [13]

    Mobility analysis in vehicular ad hoc network (V ANET),

    L. Zhang, A. Lakas, H. El-Sayed, and E. Barka, “Mobility analysis in vehicular ad hoc network (V ANET),”Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1050–1056, 2013

    2013

  7. [14]

    Microscopic traffic simulation using SUMO,

    P. A. Lopez, M. Behrisch, L. Bieker-Walz, J. Erdmann, Y .-P. Fl¨otter¨od, R. Hilbrich, L. L ¨ucken, J. Rummel, P. Wagner, and E. Wießner, “Microscopic traffic simulation using SUMO,” in21st IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems. Maui, Hawaii, USA:...

    2018

  8. [16]

    Mobility models for vehicular ad hoc networks: A survey and taxonomy

    J. Harri, F. Filali, and C. Bonnet, “Mobility models for vehicular ad hoc networks: A survey and taxonomy.”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 19–41, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Comparison survey of mobility models in vehicular ad-hoc network (V ANET),

    J. Tian and F. Meng, “Comparison survey of mobility models in vehicular ad-hoc network (V ANET),” in3rd International Conference on Automation, Electronics and Electrical Engineering (AUTEEE). Shenyang, China: IEEE, 2020, pp. 337–342

    2020

  10. [18]

    Evaluation of MANET Performance in Presence of Obstacles,

    C. Kumar, B. Bhushan, and S. Gupta, “Evaluation of MANET Performance in Presence of Obstacles,”International Journal of Ad hoc, Sensor & Ubiquitous Computing (IJASUC), vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 37–46, 06 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    A survey of mobility models for ad hoc network research

    T. Camp, J. Boleng, and V . Davies, “A survey of mobility models for ad hoc network research.”Wireless communications mobile computing (WCMC): special issue on mobile ad hoc networking: research, trends and applications, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 483–502, 8 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    SKVR: scalable knowledge-based routing architecture for public transport networks,

    S. Ahmed and S. S. Kanere, “SKVR: scalable knowledge-based routing architecture for public transport networks,” inProceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Vehicular ad hoc networks. Los Angeles, CA, USA: ACM Press, 2006

    2006

  13. [21]

    Distance vector routing for public transportation vehicular networks: Performance evaluation on a real topology,

    S. Gaito, D. Maggiorini, E. Pagani, and G. P. Rossi, “Distance vector routing for public transportation vehicular networks: Performance evaluation on a real topology,” in2nd IFIP Wireless Days (WD). Paris, France: IEEE, dec 2009, pp. 1–5

    2009

  14. [22]

    Current map- matching algorithms for transport applications: state-of-the art and future research directions

    M. A. Quddus, W. Y . Ochieng, and R. B. Noland, “Current map- matching algorithms for transport applications: state-of-the art and future research directions.”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 312–328, 10 2007

    2007

  15. [23]

    Bus trajectory identification by map- matching,

    R. Raymond and T. Imamichi, “Bus trajectory identification by map- matching,” in23rd International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). Cancun, Mexico: IEEE, December 2016, pp. 1618–1623

    2016

  16. [24]

    Map-matching algorithm for applications in multimodal transportation network modeling,

    K. Perrine, A. Khani, and N. Ruiz-Juri, “Map-matching algorithm for applications in multimodal transportation network modeling,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 2537, no. 1, pp. 62–70, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    [Online]

    “Python,” Python Software Foundation, 12 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.python.org

    2021

  18. [26]

    A critical review of real-time map- matching algorithms: Current issues and future directions,

    M. Hashemi and H. A. Karimi, “A critical review of real-time map- matching algorithms: Current issues and future directions,”Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, vol. 48, pp. 153–165, Nov. 2014. [27]URBS – Integrated Network Public Data, Urbanizac ¸ ˜ao de Curitiba S/A, C...

    2014

  19. [28]

    Violin plots: A box plot-density trace synergism,

    J. L. Hintze and R. D. Nelson, “Violin plots: A box plot-density trace synergism,”American Statistical Association, 1998

    1998

  20. [29]

    IEEE 802.11p Performance Evaluation: Simulations vs. Real Experiments,

    T. T. Almeida, L. de C. Gomes, F. M. Ortiz, J. G. R. Junior, and L. H. M. K. Costa, “IEEE 802.11p Performance Evaluation: Simulations vs. Real Experiments,” in21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). Maui, HI, USA: IEEE, nov 2018, pp. 3840–3845

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.