Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 8 minor 28 references

Joint Routing and Control Optimization in VANET

T0 review · 6 major / 8 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 This paper claims that routing and platoon control in vehicular networks can be jointly optimized through one shared packet-delivery model, yielding higher throughput, lower delay, and safe platoon spacing under packet loss.

desk verdict The paper has a plausible idea—trajectory-aware link metrics feeding a joint routing/control search—but the core joint optimization is never actually defined, so the reported gains don't trace to the claimed method. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08038 v1 pith:QCOH5BTE submitted 2025-06-05 eess.SY cs.MAcs.SY

Chen Huang , Dingxuan Wang , Ronghui Hou This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.MAcs.SY
keywords vehicleplatooningjointroutingandcontrolmulti-objectiveoptimizationmodelpredictivebarrierfunctionsstochasticpacketdeliveryV2VcommunicationNSGA-II
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

Vehicle platoons in a VANET face two problems at once: data packets between cars must find reliable routes while the cars themselves must keep safe, stable spacing. Traditional schemes solve these separately; DynaRoute is a framework that solves them together, using one stochastic link-quality model as the hinge between routing decisions and control updates. The paper argues that if the same packet-delivery probability enters both the routing path metric and the control update, then better route selection directly steadies the platoon, and better control predictions guide route choice. Simulation results over two four-car platoons show throughput and end-to-end delay improving over a baseline router while inter-vehicle distance stays positive and string stability is claimed. The payoff, if correct, is that communication-aware driving and safety-critical formation control stop competing for resources and reinforce each other.

What carries the argument

The central object is the per-slot link success probability, Eq. (17)-(18): an exponential formula giving the chance that a packet crossing link (i,j) in slot k is received, as a function of data volume, the number of competing nodes, channel bandwidth, slot length, a normalized SINR-related power parameter, and the time-varying relative distance between vehicles. This single probability is used twice: it scales the routing path metric Δ_path in Eq. (19), and it sets the Bernoulli variable δ_ij that decides whether vehicle i receives vehicle j's state in the control update Eq. (13) and (23a). It is therefore the mechanism that makes routing and control co-interact rather than run in isolation.

What would settle it

Send known volumes of data between vehicles at measured distances, velocities, and channel contention in a real V2V testbed, record the delivery rate over many slots, and compare it to Eq. (17)-(18); a systematic mismatch beyond the noise floor would falsify the link model on which the entire joint optimization rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper introduces DynaRoute, a dual-objective optimization scheme that simultaneously maximizes transmission performance and minimizes formation oscillation. Routing is scored by a path metric combining link staying time, direction alignment, velocity variance, node weight, and the total probability that packets arrive; platoon control is a distributed model predictive controller with control barrier functions and a self-deviation constraint to ride out packet loss. The load-bearing link is the per-slot delivery probability, which appears both in the path metric and as the random success variable inside the control state update. The author's claim is that this coupling, solved with NSGA-II, maintains control and transmission performance in complex scenarios and significantly improves throughput and reliability compared to traditional approaches.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the unvalidated model of how likely a packet is to get through a link (Eqs. (17)-(18)); if that formula is wrong, the claimed coupling and the reported performance gains do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the paper's simulations, the joint scheme sustains positive inter-vehicle distances and keeps acceleration disturbances within ±1 to ±2 m/s^2 even under packet loss, which is the paper's evidence for platoon safety and string stability.
  • Because the routing path metric includes the same delivery probability as the control update, any route that survives the NSGA-II selection also improves the information the controller can rely on, so the two objectives reinforce rather than trade off.
  • The framework operates from locally available vehicle states rather than a centralized traffic model, which the paper argues makes it adaptive to topology changes.
  • If the claim holds, the DMPC controller can tolerate higher packet loss without violating the control barrier functions, since route selection actively reduces loss on the links the controller depends on.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the framework's premise would compare Eq. (17)-(18) predictions against measured delivery rates in a real V2V testbed; if the formula is off, the reported gains may shrink or vanish.
  • The same coupling could be extended beyond platooning, to any vehicular task where link selection and formation decisions depend on each other, such as cooperative merging, intersection crossing, or collaborative perception.
  • The NSGA-II solver is a heuristic; the Pareto set it returns is not proven optimal, so a tighter solver or a convex relaxation could reveal how much the two objectives really trade off.
  • The paper's simulations exercise one scenario of two four-car platoons; scaling to denser traffic with several interfering platoons would test whether the contention term N in the delivery model captures real interference.
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

6 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes DynaRoute, a framework for jointly optimizing platoon control and V2V/V2I routing in vehicular ad hoc networks. The routing side defines a path metric based on staying time, direction ratio, velocity variance, and a stochastic link success probability, while the control side uses a distributed model predictive controller with control barrier function safety constraints. The claimed contribution is a dual-objective optimization that maximizes transmission performance and minimizes formation oscillation, solved with NSGA-II. Simulation results compare DynaRoute with an AI-based emergency routing protocol on throughput, delay, and platoon spacing, velocity, and acceleration.

Significance. The co-design of routing and platoon control is a relevant and timely problem, and the paper identifies a concrete gap in the existing literature. However, the central mathematical object of the paper, the joint optimization problem in Eq. (25), is never fully specified: the objective Y(u,v,p) is undefined, the mapping from the routing decision variables to continuous variables is missing, and the proposed scalarization is asserted without justification. In addition, the control barrier function definition in Definition 3.3 is incorrect as written, and the stochastic link model in Eqs. (17)-(18) is unvalidated. The simulation study does not include an ablation that isolates the joint-optimization contribution, and no code or data are provided. If the formulation were completed and the link model validated, the topic could be significant; in its current form, the headline claims are not supported by the supplied text.

major comments (6)
  1. [V-D, Eq. (25)] The joint optimization problem is not actually specified. The objective Y(u,v,p) appears only in Eq. (25), in the sentence following it, and in Algorithm 2, but it is never defined. The only explicitly formulated routing objective, Eq. (24a), is a function of binary variables y_l^{gk}, so it is unclear how it becomes a continuous objective Y(u,v,p). The scalarization 'max Y(u,v,p) - J(u)' is introduced without weights and without any argument that a maximizer is Pareto-optimal for the two stated objectives. Because of this, the throughput, delay, and stability results in Section VI cannot be traced back to the claimed dual-objective joint optimization.
  2. [III-B, Definition 3.3 and constraints (23b), (25)] The control barrier function condition is written as h(x) >= alpha h(x), which is not the standard CBF condition and, for h(x) >= 0 and alpha in [0,1], is automatically satisfied; it imposes no restriction on the control input. The safety constraints h_{i,j}(p_i,p_j) >= -alpha(h_{i,j}) in Eq. (23b) and Eq. (25) are therefore vacuous or ill-posed. A derivative-based condition of the form dot h(x) >= -alpha h(x) is required for the safety claims made in the paper.
  3. [V-A, Eqs. (17)-(18)] The stochastic link success probability is the bridge between routing and control: it enters the path metric Delta_path in Eq. (19) and determines the random variable delta_ij in the control update in Eqs. (13) and (23a). Yet its functional form is introduced without derivation, citation, or validation. The expression mixes data volume, contention count N, bandwidth B, slot length tau_l, and a normalized power parameter varpi_ij without a clear unit analysis, and no parameter fitting or comparison with standard V2V link models is given. The numerical conclusions therefore rest on an untested modeling assumption.
  4. [Algorithm 1] There is a sign inconsistency in the control optimization. The text states that 'the optimal solution is obtained as u* = arg min_{u in U} J(u)', but the iteration step b of Algorithm 1 sets u*_i(t) <- arg max_{c in candidates_i(t)} J(c). This inverts the control objective: as written, the algorithm selects the candidate that maximizes the cost J rather than minimizing it.
  5. [IV-B, Eq. (9) and the paragraph after it] The safety-distance definitions D2 and D3 are self-referential and dimensionally inconsistent. D2 = sqrt((Delta p_{i f_i} - l_w^i)^2 + D1) adds a squared distance and a distance under a single square root, and D3 is defined as sqrt((Delta p_{i f_i} - l_w^i)^2 + D2 + D3), which refers to itself on the right-hand side. This makes the barrier function h_{i,f_i} and the safety constraints built on it ill-defined.
  6. [VI, Experimental evaluation] The experimental section does not isolate the joint-optimization contribution. The only comparison is against an AI-based emergency routing protocol; there is no ablation comparing DynaRoute against routing-only optimization with fixed control, control-only optimization with fixed routing, or the sequential approach of reference [16]. Without such an ablation, even the simulation results cannot establish that simultaneous joint optimization, rather than the new path metric alone, causes the reported improvements.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'DynaRoute equires predefined traffic models' appears to be missing a negation (likely 'does not require'), and there are several other typographical errors that should be corrected.
  2. [III-A, Definition 3.1] The notation k in T is undefined for the continuous-time system in Eq. (1); if T is intended to be a time set, it should be specified.
  3. [IV-C, Eq. (14)] The staying time sdi_j divides by |v_i - v_j|, so the equal-velocity case is not handled; when velocities are equal the staying time is either infinite or undefined.
  4. [V-A, Eq. (15)] The direction ratio uses the symbols Delta p_z^j and Delta p_s^z that are not formally defined, and the relationship of this ratio to dDelta p_ij in Eq. (19) is unclear.
  5. [V-A, Eq. (16)] The velocity variance formula omits the squares on (v_i - v_bar v) and uses an unclear index range; it should be written as a standard standard deviation with proper summation indices.
  6. [V-A, Eq. (20)] The weights kappa1, kappa2, and kappa3 are introduced as free parameters, but no values, tuning procedure, or sensitivity analysis is reported.
  7. [VI, Experimental results] The text cites 'Fig. 11' in the discussion of case 2, but the figure list contains only Figs. 1-10; also, no error bars or repeated-run statistics are provided for the presented curves.
  8. [References] References [21] and [23] are the same paper; one duplicate should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported results are not reduced by construction to the paper's own inputs, though the joint objective in Eq. (25) is under-specified.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain consists of newly stated modeling definitions (link success probability in Eqs. (17)-(18), path metric in Eq. (19), control cost in Eq. (21)) and externally cited building blocks (CBF definitions [18], Markov packet-loss DMPC [21]/[23], NSGA-II [25]). No parameter is fitted to the simulation outcomes and then relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim is justified solely by a self-citation chain: the authors do not cite their own prior work for the central mechanism. The weakest points are formulation-level rather than circular: Eq. (25) introduces Y(u,v,p) without ever defining it, and Algorithm 1 states u* = arg min J(u) but its iteration selects u_i^*(t) = arg max J(c). An undefined objective and an inconsistent arg min/arg max are omissions or correctness defects; they do not make the claimed throughput, delay, or stability results equivalent to the model inputs by construction. Because no specific equation or citation reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input or to an author-imposed uniqueness theorem, the appropriate circularity finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

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

The framework inherits most of its mathematics from cited papers: CBF and velocity obstacles from [18], DMPC with Markov packet loss from [21] and [23], scheduling constraints from [24], and NSGA-II from [25]. The paper's own contributions are the heuristic path metric and the undefined combined objective; the ledger lists the unstated or hand-chosen quantities on which the reported results depend.

free parameters (5)
  • kappa1, kappa2, kappa3 = not specified in text or Table I
    Node weight coefficients in Eq (20) determine path value Delta_path; simulation results depend on them, but no values, tuning procedure, or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Cost matrices R, F, G in Eq (21) = not specified
    The MPC cost J and hence the control behavior depend on these positive definite matrices; they are never assigned or justified.
  • gamma_i (self-deviation scale) = not specified
    Constraint (22) uses gamma_i to limit state deviation; no value or derivation is provided.
  • alpha (CBF gain) = not specified
    Safety constraint h_i,j >= -alpha(h_i,j) in Eq (23b) and Eq (25) requires a class-K function or constant alpha; it is not defined or chosen.
  • NSGA-II hyperparameters = not specified
    Algorithm 2 requires population size N, maximum generations GenMax, and crossover/mutation settings; no values, seeds, or convergence criteria are provided.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The control barrier function condition from [18] is assumed to hold under discrete-time MPC updates.
    Safety constraints in Eq (23b) rely on CBF theory; the paper does not prove discrete-time invariance or the required Lipschitz conditions for its discretized dynamics.
  • domain assumption The Markov packet loss model from [21] accurately describes V2V transmission success.
    delta_ij in Eq (13) and all control updates assume this model, with no experimental validation or parameter estimation from real traces.
  • domain assumption Eq (17)-(18) correctly model per-slot and end-to-end link success probability as products of independent terms.
    The routing metric Delta_path uses P_ij; slot independence and the exponential functional form are assumed without derivation or validation.
  • ad hoc to paper The undefined objective Y(u,v,p) in Eq (25) exists and can be combined with -J(u) as a scalar objective for NSGA-II.
    The joint optimization problem is the central claim, but Y is never defined, so this is an implicit postulate of the paper.
  • domain assumption All V2V and V2I channels follow the LoS path-loss model in Eq (10).
    No NLoS, shadowing, or Doppler effects are modeled, even though the paper claims robustness in complex high-mobility scenarios.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint Routing and Control Optimization in VANET." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QCOH5BTE

@misc{pith2026250608038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint Routing and Control Optimization in VANET},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QCOH5BTE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08038}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce DynaRoute, an adaptive joint optimization framework for dynamic vehicular networks that simultaneously addresses platoon control and data transmission through trajectory-aware routing and safety-constrained vehicle coordination. DynaRoute guarantees continuous vehicle movement via platoon safety control with optimizing transmission paths through real-time trajectory prediction and ensuring reliable data. Our solution achieves three key objectives: (1) maintaining platoon stability through accurate data transmission, (2) enabling adaptive routing based on vehicle movement patterns, and (3) enhancing overall intelligent transportation system performance. DynaRoute equires predefined traffic models and adapts to dynamic network conditions using local vehicle state information. We present comprehensive simulation results demonstrating that DynaRoute maintains control and transmission performance in multiple complex scenarios while significantly improving throughput and reliability compared to traditional approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08038 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Throughput under different network load levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. End to end delay under different network load levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Throughput under different packet interval levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: End to end delay under different packet interval levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: interval distance in case1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: interval distance in case2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Hong and H

    C. Hong and H. Shan and M. Song and W. Zhuang and Z. Xiang and Y . Wu, ”A Joint Design of Platoon Communication and Control Based on LTE-V2V ,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 15893-15907, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Platoon control of connected multivehicle systems under V2X communications: Design and experiments,

    Y . Li and W. Chen and S. Peeta and Y .Wang, “Platoon control of connected multivehicle systems under V2X communications: Design and experiments,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1891–1902, 2020

    work page 1902

  3. [2]

    Analysis of low cost communication technologies for V2I applications,

    A. Mart ´ınez and E. ca ˜nibano and J. Romo, “Analysis of low cost communication technologies for V2I applications,” Applied Science, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1249, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Robustly string stable longitudinal control for vehicle platoons under communication failures: A generalized extended state observer-based control approach,

    Q. Chen, Y . Zhou, S. Ahn, J. Xia, and S. Li, “Robustly string stable longitudinal control for vehicle platoons under communication failures: A generalized extended state observer-based control approach,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 159–171, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Fooladi and P

    V . Fooladi and P. Azmi and N. Mokari and H. Saeedi, ”Innovative Segmentation-Based Routing in V ANETs: Leveraging the Advantages of TD-ISAC,” TechRxiv, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.techrxiv.org/users/883240/articles/1262533-innovative- segmentation-based-routing-in-vanets-leveraging-the-advantages-of-td- isac

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [5]

    Zhao and L

    C. Zhao and L. Cai and P. Cheng, ”Stability Analysis of Vehicle Platooning With Limited Communication Range and Random Packet Losses,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 262-277, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Zhao and X

    C. Zhao and X. Duan, L. Cai and P. Cheng, ”Vehicle Platooning With Non-Ideal Communication Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 18-32, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Dynamic event- triggered platooning control of automated vehicles under random com- munication topologies and various spacing policies,

    S. Xiao and X. Ge and Q.-L. Han and Y . Zhang, “Dynamic event- triggered platooning control of automated vehicles under random com- munication topologies and various spacing policies,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 52,no. 11, pp. 11477–11490, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    Dynamic event triggered scheduling and platooning control co-design for automated vehicles over vehicular ad-hoc networks,

    X. Ge and S. Xiao and Q.-L. Han and X.-M. Zhang and D. Ding, “Dynamic event triggered scheduling and platooning control co-design for automated vehicles over vehicular ad-hoc networks,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 31–46, 2022

    2022

  2. [9]

    Communication topology assignment and control co-design for vehicle platoons in LTE-V2V network,

    S. Wen and G. Guo, “Communication topology assignment and control co-design for vehicle platoons in LTE-V2V network,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 12462–12476, 2021

    2021

  3. [10]

    Zhu and Y

    H. Zhu and Y . Zhou and X. Luo and H. Zhou, ”Joint Control of Power, Beamwidth, and Spacing for Platoon-Based Vehicular Cyber-Physical Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 8615-8629, 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    Duan and Y

    X. Duan and Y . Zhao and D. Tian and J. Zhou, L. Ma and L. Zhang, ”Joint Communication and Control Optimization of a UA V- Assisted Multi-Vehicle Platooning System in Uncertain Communication Environment,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol.73, no.3, pp.3177-3190, 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    Zhang and D

    P. Zhang and D. Tian and J. Zhou and X. Duan and Z. Sheng and D. Zhao, ”Joint Optimization of Platoon Control and Resource Scheduling in Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure System,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no.6, pp. 3629-3646, 2023

    2023

  6. [13]

    Zhou and M

    J. Zhou and M. Wang and D. Tian and X. Duan and Y . Shao and Z. Sheng, ”Joint Fuel-Efficient Vehicle Platooning and Data Transmission Scheduling for MEC-Enabled Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Sys- tems,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 26, no....

    2024

  7. [14]

    Mei and K

    J. Mei and K. Zheng and L. Zhao and L. Lei and X. Wang, ”Joint Radio Resource Allocation and Control for Vehicle Platooning in LTE- V2V Network,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 12218-12230, 2018

    2018

  8. [15]

    Zeng and O

    T. Zeng and O. Semiari and W. Saad and M. Bennis, ”Joint Communica- tion and Control for Wireless Autonomous Vehicular Platoon Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 7907-7922, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Haraldsen and M

    A. Haraldsen and M. S. Wiig and A. D. Ames and K. Y . Pattersen, ”Safety-Critical Control of Nonholonomic Vehicles in Dynamic Environ- ments Using Velocity Obstacles,” in 2024 American Control Conference (ACC), IEEE, 2024, pp. 3152-3159

    2024

  10. [18]

    Black and M

    M. Black and M. Jankovic and A. Sharma and D. Panagou, ”Future- Focused Control Barrier Functions for Autonomous Vehicle Control,”in 2023 American Control Conference (ACC), IEEE, pp. 3324-3331, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Xu and J

    Y . Xu and J. Zha and J. Ren and X. Jiang and H. Zhang and X. Chen, ”Scalable Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Effective UA V Scheduling in Multi-Hop Emergency Networks,”in Proceedings of the 30th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (ACM Mo...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Zhu and S

    Y . Zhu and S. B. Andersson, ”Safety Guaranteed Optimal Control Policy for Multi-agent Data Harvesting using a CLF-CBF approach,” in 2023 American Control Conference (ACC), IEEE, 2023, pp. 2123-2128,

    2023

  13. [22]

    Keshari and D

    N. Keshari and D. Singh, ”TCV-D: : An Approach for Path Selection in Vehicular Task Offloading,” Vehicular Communications, V ol. 47, 2024, 100700

    2024

  14. [23]

    Bian and X

    Y . Bian and X. Wang and Y . Tan and M. Hu, C. Du and Z. Sun, ”Distributed Model Predictive Control of Connected and Automated Ve- hicles With Markov Packet Loss,” IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 6368-6379, 2025

    2025

  15. [24]

    Tsanikidis and J

    C. Tsanikidis and J. Ghaderi, ”Scheduling Stochastic Traffic With End- to-End Deadlines in Multi-hop Wireless Networks,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, Vancouver(INFOCOM), IEEE, 2024, pp. 651-660

    2024

  16. [25]

    Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Al- gorithms

    Kalyanmoy Deb. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Al- gorithms. Wiley Press. 2001

    2001

  17. [26]

    Song and M

    S. Song and M. Fan, ”Emergency Routing Protocol for Intelligent Trans- portation Systems Using IoT and Generative Artificial Intelligence,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems(Early Access), [Online]. Available: doi: 10.1109/TITS.2025.3546340

  18. [27]

    Tang and J

    C. Tang and J. Ding and L. Zhang, ”LEO Satellite Downlink Distributed Jamming Optimization Method Using a Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm,” Remote Sensing, 2024, 16, 1006

    2024

  19. [28]

    Sisi Shi and Xinyan Zhang and Zhihao Wang, ”An Improved NSGA-II Algorithm Based on DCD and a-tDX, ”Computer Simulation, 2019, vol. 36, no. 12, pp: 257-262

    2019

  20. [29]

    Jian Gong and Carlos Murguia and Anggera Bayuwindra and Jinde Cao, ”Resilient Controller Synthesis Against DoS Attacks for Vehicular Platooning in Spatial Domain” in arXiv:2307.15874

    arXiv

Pith tools

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