Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Predictive Control over Low-Altitude Wireless Networks: Joint Trajectory Design and Resource Allocation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A drone that jointly plans its trajectory, transmit power, and control commands can keep automated guided vehicles tracking precisely over short-packet wireless links with finite-blocklength outages.

desk verdict Useful engineering recipe for drone-assisted wireless control, but the certainty-equivalence gap in the cost derivation means the optimality claim needs a major fix before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02374 v3 pith:E4UXTBMV submitted 2025-07-03 eess.SP

Haijia Jin , Jun Wu , Weijie Yuan , Ruizhi Ruan , Jiacheng Wang , Dusit Niyato , Dong In Kim , Abbas Jamalipour This is my paper
classification eess.SP
keywords low-altitudewirelessnetworksmodelpredictivecontrolfiniteblocklengthtransmissionoutageprobabilitytrajectoryoptimizationpowerallocationautomatedguidedvehiclesalternating
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

The paper tries to establish that one aerial drone can serve as the remote controller for several automated guided vehicles whose only command link is a short-packet wireless channel, and that the right way to run such a system is to optimize the drone's flight path, its transmit power split, and the control commands as a single problem. Using model predictive control over a prediction horizon, the authors fold the probability of a packet outage into the expected next state of each vehicle, so the optimizer automatically spends scarce power and drone motion on the vehicles whose links or tracking errors are worst. The non-convex joint problem is then split into a quadratic program for control increments, projected gradient descent for power, and successive convex approximation for the trajectory, with a monotone-convergence argument. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete recipe for closing the loop between communication reliability and control action in latency-critical low-altitude networks, whereas most prior designs treat the two layers separately.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the expected-state dynamics of Eq. (18), which replaces the Bernoulli outage event with its probability: the next state is the nominal open-loop update plus the control contribution scaled by $(1-P_k[n])$. Because that scaling appears quadratically in the MPC cost through $G_k[n] = (1-P_k[n])^2 F_k^T Q_4 F_k + Q_5$, outage probability and control effort become directly coupled, and the control block reduces to a quadratic program. Around this core, the solution alternates three blocks: a standard QP for the control-increment sequence, projected gradient descent with backtracking for power (needed because the outage function is non-convex in power), and successive convex approximation by first-order Taylor expansion for the drone position. The convergence argument is that no block update increases the objective, and the objective is bounded below, so the iterates settle at a sub-optimal point.

What would settle it

Run Monte Carlo simulations of the closed loop with true Bernoulli drops, as in Eq. (17), under the parameters of Fig. 5, and compare the realized average control cost with the cost predicted by the mean-field model; if the gap grows as outage probability increases, the mean-field substitution is the failure point. An optimizer that explicitly accounts for the covariance term $\operatorname{tr}(Q_4\operatorname{Cov}(x))$ would beat the proposed policy whenever that gap is material.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the jointly optimized control increments, transmit powers, and drone position obtained from problem (19), in its QP form (40), achieve lower control cost and lower tracking root-mean-square error than predictive PID, predictive LQR, equal-power allocation, and straight-flight drone baselines, including under abrupt AGV turns and under channel-estimation error. The mechanism is the closed-form outage probability of Nakagami-m fading with a finite-blocklength rate threshold: it enters the MPC cost through the expected-state dynamics, making the objective a sum of a quadratic term in the control block and nonlinear terms in power and position. The paper further claims the alternating algorithm converges monotonically to a sub-optimal solution with stated per-block complexity, and that a high-fidelity simulator with adverse weather reproduces the qualitative tracking advantage.

Load-bearing premise

The whole optimization treats the random outage process as if each slot were deterministic: Eq. (18) replaces the Bernoulli drop with its expectation, so the cost being minimized is $J(\mathbb{E}[x])$ rather than the stated $\mathbb{E}[J(x)]$, and the paper provides no bound on the difference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a receding horizon, only the first control increment is actually sent, and the paper reports that the per-slot computation stays within the sampling interval in its high-fidelity simulator.
  • Control cost falls as blocklength grows and saturates at the infinite-blocklength limit, so the finite-blocklength model acts as a smooth bridge to Shannon-based designs rather than a separate regime.
  • Higher rate thresholds or lower power budgets raise the outage probability, which directly inflates control cost; the paper quantifies this tradeoff at a representative time slot.
  • Under equal power or a fixed drone path, tracking degrades most at sharp turns, because those baselines cannot shift resources to high-demand AGVs; the proposed joint design specifically targets those regions.
  • The method preserves its advantage when channel estimation is imperfect, with the gap over baselines widening as normalized estimation error grows toward 0.3.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper optimizes the expected state rather than the expected cost, so the true objective differs by an unquantified variance term; a Monte Carlo comparison with Bernoulli drops would reveal whether the gap is small in the simulated regime.
  • Closed-loop stochastic stability is not established; a natural next claim is bounded mean-square error under the receding-horizon policy, which would require a Lyapunov argument over the outage random process.
  • The same alternating QP structure would extend to other fading models, including Rayleigh fading with $m=1$, and to imperfect uplink estimation, provided the relevant outage or drop probability can be written in closed form.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies downlink wireless control of multiple AGVs by a single drone under finite-blocklength transmission. It models transmission outages as Bernoulli events, replaces the stochastic state update by its expectation, and formulates a joint MPC problem over control increments, transmit powers, and drone trajectory with power and mobility constraints. The non-convex problem is transformed into a quadratic program, solved by alternating optimization using projected gradient descent and successive convex approximation, and validated by simulations and AirSim experiments. The paper claims that the proposed framework achieves robust AGV tracking and consistently outperforms Predictive PID, Predictive LQR, equal-power allocation, and straight-flight baselines.

Significance. If the technical gaps were repaired, the paper would be a useful practical contribution: it gives a closed-form Nakagami-m outage expression under FBL transmission, integrates that reliability metric into an MPC cost, and demonstrates the joint control/communication design in both synthetic simulation and AirSim. The AO decomposition into three QP-type subproblems and the reported complexity estimates are valuable for implementation. However, the central optimality claim currently rests on a certainty-equivalence step that changes the objective actually minimized, and the convergence chain is incomplete as written. These are load-bearing issues, not presentation details.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-B, Eqs. (17)–(19) and (32)–(39)] Problem (19a) states the objective as E(J_n), but the derivation actually minimizes the cost evaluated at the expected state trajectory. Because the outage event multiplies the control input, the predicted state is random even at fixed power and trajectory. For a fixed control sequence, E[(χ_k−χ_{k,ref})ᵀQ4(χ_k−χ_{k,ref})] equals (E[χ_k]−χ_{k,ref})ᵀQ4(E[χ_k]−χ_{k,ref}) + tr(Q4 Cov(χ_k)), where Cov(χ_k) depends on products of Bernoulli outage/success indicators across the prediction horizon. Substituting (32) into (35) silently drops tr(Q4 Cov(χ_k)), and the factor (1−P_k)² in (37) does not capture this variance contribution. Hence problem (40) and Algorithm 2 minimize J(E[x]), not E[J(x)] as claimed in (19a), and no bound on the gap is provided. The paper should either explicitly reformulate the objective as a mean-field/certainty-equivalence cost and adjust the claims, or include the variance penalty and show how the resulting objective is optimized.
  2. [§IV-C, Eq. (58)] The convergence argument is not valid as written. First, the second inequality in (58) has the wrong direction if η2 denotes the objective value at p^ι: since p^ι solves problem (42), the objective value at p^ι should be no larger than the value at p^{ι−1}; if η2 instead denotes the minimal value of problem (42), then the displayed arguments (p^ι, q^{ι−1}) are misleading. Second, inequality 3 asserts that solving the linearized surrogate in (55)/(57) does not increase the original objective, but for a general non-convex function a first-order Taylor expansion is not a global upper bound. Without a proximal/regularization term or a proof of a sufficient-decrease property, the SCA step can increase J_n. Thus Eq. (58) does not establish monotone convergence of Algorithm 2 to a suboptimal solution, and the convergence claim in Section IV-C should be repaired or softened.
  3. [§IV-B, Proposition 1 and Eq. (27)] The outage threshold in Eq. (27) omits the bandwidth normalization. Since R_k[n] in (4) has units of bps with sub-channel bandwidth B, the equation R_k[n] = R_k^th has a solution of the form Γ_k^th = 2^{(R_k^th/B + κ*/2)}−1 (depending on the intended definition of κ*), not the expression with R_k^th alone; likewise κ* in (24) should be defined with the normalized rate R_k^th/B. In the simulations B = 1 MHz and R_k^th = 1 Mbps, so the numerical error is masked, but the claimed closed form is dimensionally wrong for general bandwidths and needs correction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Algorithm 2, line 8] The termination criterion says 'fractional increase of the objective value is below ε'; for a minimization problem this should be 'fractional decrease'.
  2. [§IV-B, Eq. (24)] The generalized function W(ω1,ω2;μ) in (24)–(26) is used without stating the domain of convergence or how the infinite series is truncated; a brief implementable definition would make the closed form reproducible.
  3. [§V-A, Fig. 3] The channel-estimation-error experiment is not connected to the problem formulation; the paper states that perfect CSI is assumed afterwards. Please clarify whether the MMSE error model affects the outage probability and the optimization, or whether Fig. 3 is only a sensitivity check.
  4. [Section II, footnotes 2 and 3] The assumptions of ideal uplink and zero process noise should be listed explicitly as limitations in the conclusions, since the claimed robustness under 'abrupt trajectory variations' is otherwise validated only in simulation.
  5. [§IV-B, footnote 4] The Nakagami shape parameter m is restricted to positive integers; the paper should state whether Proposition 1 extends to non-integer m or justify why the restriction is acceptable for LAWN channels.
  6. [Throughout] Please proofread for typographical errors such as 'Algoithm 1' in Algorithm 2 and 'reformulated' for 'reformulates' in Section IV; these do not affect the technical content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's derivation uses external FBL/Nakagami results and standard optimization tools, and its self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce any claimed prediction or first-principles result to its own inputs. The closed-form outage probability in Proposition 1 is derived from the standard finite-blocklength rate expression [28] and the Nakagami-m outage result [39], both external and independently established. The QP reformulation in Eqs. (36)-(39) is an algebraic substitution of the expected predicted-state dynamics of Eq. (32) into the quadratic cost of Eq. (35); it is a model transformation, not a definitional identity that makes the output equal to the input. The MPC terminal cost in Eq. (13) is the standard discrete Riccati equation cited from [16], and the PGD and SCA solution steps cite external references [43] and [45]. Self-citations [3], [4], [21], and [23] appear only in contextual statements, such as low-altitude network surveys and the fixed-altitude assumption; none of them carries the derivation's load-bearing weight. The possible mismatch between E[J_n] and J(E[x_n]) noted in Eq. (35) is a substantive modeling or correctness concern, but it is not circularity: the algorithm optimizes the well-defined surrogate cost, and the paper does not claim that surrogate is identical to the true expected cost by construction. The claimed performance gains are validated against external benchmarks in simulation and AirSim experiments, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Thus, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citations, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on several domain simplifications (integer Nakagami m, ideal uplink, no control noise) and two tractability assumptions that are not rigorously justified: the mean-field replacement of the outage process and the SCA surrogate as a descent step. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are hand-chosen algorithm weights and horizon lengths.

free parameters (3)
  • Weighting matrices Q1, Q2 = identity matrices (Sec. V-A)
    Chosen by hand; they set the balance between tracking error and control effort and directly affect the reported control cost. No sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Nakagami fading parameter m = m = 2 (Sec. V-A); restricted to positive integer (footnote 4)
    Chosen for tractability to enable the closed-form outage series; the paper asserts the impact is negligible without a numerical study.
  • Prediction horizon Np = 10 (Sec. V-A)
    An algorithm design constant that affects the optimization size and performance; chosen following prior work [34], [37].
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Nakagami-m fading with integer m is a valid model for low-altitude A2G channels, and the outage series (20) holds only for integer m.
    Invoked in Eq. (20) and footnote 4; restricts generality to integer fading parameter.
  • domain assumption Ideal uplink channels and perfect state estimation at the drone.
    Stated in footnote 2; removes uplink errors and measurement noise from the problem, focusing only on downlink control command failures.
  • domain assumption Control system noise is neglected; Eq. (6) is deterministic.
    Footnote 3; the closed-loop analysis ignores process noise, which in practice affects tracking.
  • ad hoc to paper The Bernoulli outage process can be replaced by its expectation (1-P) in the state update (Eq. (18)), yielding J(E[x]) rather than E[J(x)].
    This is the central tractability approximation; its accuracy is not justified, especially for the quadratic cost with prediction horizon Np=10 where state covariance contributes to the true expected cost.
  • ad hoc to paper The first-order Taylor surrogate in Eq. (55) is an adequate convex surrogate for SCA, and its minimization does not increase the objective.
    Not proven; for non-convex J_n(q), a linearization is not generally an upper bound, so the descent property of the trajectory subproblem is asserted.
  • standard math The inversion result from [38] applies, i.e., Gamma^th = 2^{Rth + kappa*/2} - 1 with Rth normalized by B.
    Used in Proposition 1; the paper does not state the bandwidth normalization explicitly, which is why Eq. (27) appears dimensionally inconsistent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predictive Control over Low-Altitude Wireless Networks: Joint Trajectory Design and Resource Allocation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4UXTBMV

@misc{pith2026250702374,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predictive Control over Low-Altitude Wireless Networks: Joint Trajectory Design and Resource Allocation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4UXTBMV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02374}
}
read the original abstract

Low-altitude wireless networks (LAWNs) have been envisioned as flexible and transformative platforms for enabling delay-sensitive control applications in Internet of Things (IoT) systems. In this work, we investigate the real-time wireless control over LAWNs, where an aerial drone is employed to serve multiple mobile automated guided vehicles (AGVs) via finite blocklength (FBL) transmission. Toward this end, we adopt the model predictive control (MPC) to ensure accurate trajectory tracking, while we analyze the communication reliability using the outage probability. Subsequently, we formulate an optimization problem to jointly determine control policy, transmit power allocation, and drone trajectory by accounting for the maximum travel distance and control input constraints. To address the resultant non-convex optimization problem, we first derive the closed-form expression of the outage probability under FBL transmission. Based on this, we reformulate the original problem as a quadratic programming (QP) problem, followed by developing an alternating optimization (AO) framework. Specifically, we employ the projected gradient descent (PGD) method and the successive convex approximation (SCA) technique to achieve computationally efficient sub-optimal solutions. Furthermore, we thoroughly analyze the convergence and computational complexity of the proposed algorithm. Extensive simulations and AirSim-based experiments are conducted to validate the superiority of our proposed approach compared to the baseline schemes in terms of control performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02374 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The considered LAWN comprises a mobile drone enabling wireless control for AGV path tracking. II. SYSTEM MODEL As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convergence of the proposed algorithm at different time slots with Pmax = 0 dBW, R th k = 1Mbps, and lk = 1024 bits. controller with a fixed feedback gain integrates predictive optimization to dynamically adjust power allocation and drone trajectory. (c) Equal power allocation (EPA): The total power budget Pmax is uniformly distributed among all AGVs, without dynamic power reallocation. (d) Drone-straight flight (SF… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Control performance versus normalized CE error variance under different benchmarks with n = 11, Pmax = 0 dBW, R th k = 1Mbps, and lk = 1024 bits. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 RMSE (m) 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 CDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Control cost versus bloclength of command signals under different scenarios with n = 11, Pmax = 0 dBW, and R th k = 1 Mbps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The simulation and AirSim-based validation of drone trajectory and AGVs tracking paths under different scenarios. reliability of command transmission and ultimately increasing the control cost. Moreover, the increase in control cost is more pronounced under lower power…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Low-Altitude Wireless Networks: A Comprehensive Survey

    eess.SP 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A comprehensive survey on low-altitude wireless network (LAWN) systems covering fundamentals, evolution of designs, performance metrics, privacy and security concerns, and airspace structuring for practical deployment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Low-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles-based internet of things services: Comprehensive survey and future perspectives,

    N. H. Motlagh, T. Taleb, and O. Arouk, “Low-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles-based internet of things services: Comprehensive survey and future perspectives,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 3, pp. 899–922, Dec

    work page

  2. [2]

    UA V-based IoT platform: A crowd surveillance use case,

    N. H. Motlagh, M. Bagaa, and T. Taleb, “UA V-based IoT platform: A crowd surveillance use case,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 128–134, Feb. 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    Low-altitude wireless networks: A survey,

    J. Wu, Y . Y ang, W. Y uan, W. Liu, J. Wang, T. Mao, L. Zhou, Y . Cui, F. Liu, G. Sun et al. , “Low-altitude wireless networks: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.11607 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    From ground to sky: Architectures, applications, and challenges shaping low-altitude wireless networks,

    W. Y uan, Y . Cui, J. Wang, F. Liu, G. Sun, T. Xiang, J. Xu, S. Jin, D. Niy- ato, S. Coleri et al. , “From ground to sky: Architectures, applications, and challenges shaping low-altitude wireless networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12308, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Generative AI-enabled wireless communi- cations for robust low-altitude economy networking,

    C. Zhao, J. Wang, R. Zhang, D. Niyato, G. Sun, H. Du, D. I. Kim, and A. Jamalipour, “Generative AI-enabled wireless communi- cations for robust low-altitude economy networking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18118, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    On the interplay between sensing and communications for UA V trajectory design,

    J. Wu, W. Y uan, and L. Bai, “On the interplay between sensing and communications for UA V trajectory design,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 10, no. 23, pp. 20 383–20 395, Dec. 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    When UA Vs meet ISAC: Real- time trajectory design for secure communications,

    J. Wu, W. Y uan, and L. Hanzo, “When UA Vs meet ISAC: Real- time trajectory design for secure communications,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 16 766–16 771, Dec. 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Uav-relay-aided secure maritime networks coexisting with satellite networks: Robust beamforming and trajectory optimization,

    Y . Y ao, W. Xiao, P . Miao, G. Chen, H. Y ang, C.-B. Chae, and K.-K. Wong, “Uav-relay-aided secure maritime networks coexisting with satellite networks: Robust beamforming and trajectory optimization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , p. 11, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/twc.2025.3596136

    work page arXiv 2025

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Mobile unmanned aerial vehicles (UA Vs) for energy-efficient internet of things communica- tions,

    M. Mozaffari, W. Saad, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Mobile unmanned aerial vehicles (UA Vs) for energy-efficient internet of things communica- tions,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 7574–7589, Nov. 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Joint trajectory and resource allocation design for energy-efficient secure UA V communica- tion systems,

    Y . Cai, Z. Wei, R. Li, D. W. K. Ng, and J. Y uan, “Joint trajectory and resource allocation design for energy-efficient secure UA V communica- tion systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 4536–4553, Jul. 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Random 3D mobile UA V networks: Mobility modeling and coverage probability,

    P . K. Sharma and D. I. Kim, “Random 3D mobile UA V networks: Mobility modeling and coverage probability,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 2527–2538, May 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Smart and flexible manufacturing systems using autonomous guided vehicles and the internet of things,

    I. Vlachos, R. M. Pascazzi, M. Ntotis, K. Spanaki, S. Despoudi, and P . Repoussis, “Smart and flexible manufacturing systems using autonomous guided vehicles and the internet of things,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 62, no. 15, pp. 5574–5595, Oct. 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Path tracking of an autonomous ground vehicle with different payloads by hierarchical improved fuzzy dynamic sliding-mode control,

    C.-L. Hwang, C.-C. Y ang, and J. Y . Hung, “Path tracking of an autonomous ground vehicle with different payloads by hierarchical improved fuzzy dynamic sliding-mode control,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 899–914, Apr. 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    A comparative study of stanley, LQR and MPC controllers for path tracking application (ADAS/AD),

    V . K, M. Ambalal Sheta, and V . Gumtapure, “A comparative study of stanley, LQR and MPC controllers for path tracking application (ADAS/AD),” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Green Technology (ICISGT) , 2019, pp. 67–674

    2019

  7. [15]

    Mobile robot path tracking using a robust PID controller,

    J. E. Normey-Rico, I. Alcalá, J. Gómez-Ortega, and E. F. Camacho, “Mobile robot path tracking using a robust PID controller,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 1209–1214, 2001

    2001

  8. [16]

    A predictive controller for autonomous vehicle path tracking,

    G. V . Raffo, G. K. Gomes, J. E. Normey-Rico, C. R. Kelber, and L. B. Becker, “A predictive controller for autonomous vehicle path tracking,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 92–102, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Path planning and tracking for vehicle collision avoidance based on model predictive control with multiconstraints,

    J. Ji, A. Khajepour, W. W. Melek, and Y . Huang, “Path planning and tracking for vehicle collision avoidance based on model predictive control with multiconstraints,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 952–964, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Path tracking control for autonomous vehicles based on an improved MPC,

    H. Wang, B. Liu, X. Ping, and Q. An, “Path tracking control for autonomous vehicles based on an improved MPC,” IEEE access , vol. 7, pp. 161 064–161 073, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Effect of fuzzy PID con- troller on feedback control systems based on wireless sensor network,

    A. A. Hussien, M. J. Marie, and K. S. Gaeid, “Effect of fuzzy PID con- troller on feedback control systems based on wireless sensor network,” International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering , vol. 10, no. 3, p. 2416, Jun. 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Compensation of time-varying delay in networked control system over Wi-Fi network,

    H.-C. Yi, C.-J. An, and J.-Y . Choi, “Compensation of time-varying delay in networked control system over Wi-Fi network,” International Journal of Computers Communications & Control , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 415–428, 2017. 13

    2017

  13. [21]

    Co-design of sensing, communications, and control for low-altitude wireless networks,

    H. Jin, J. Wu, W. Y uan, F. Liu, and Y . Cui, “Co-design of sensing, communications, and control for low-altitude wireless networks,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. , pp. 1–13, Jun. 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Networked min–max model predictive control of constrained nonlinear systems with delays and packet dropouts,

    H. Li and Y . Shi, “Networked min–max model predictive control of constrained nonlinear systems with delays and packet dropouts,” Int. J. Control, vol. 86, no. 4, pp. 610–624, Nov. 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    Towards dual-functional LAWN: Control-aware system design for aerodynamics-aided UA V formations,

    J. Wu, W. Y uan, Q. Cheng, and H. Jin, “Towards dual-functional LAWN: Control-aware system design for aerodynamics-aided UA V formations,” submitted to IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Rate-cost tradeoffs in control,

    V . Kostina and B. Hassibi, “Rate-cost tradeoffs in control,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 64, no. 11, pp. 4525–4540, Nov. 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Control-oriented power allocation for integrated satellite-UA V networks,

    C. Lei, W. Feng, J. Wang, S. Jin, and N. Ge, “Control-oriented power allocation for integrated satellite-UA V networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett. , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 883–887, May 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Remote UGV control via practical wireless channels: A model predictive control approach,

    J. Cao, S. Khan, W. Liu, Y . Li, and B. Vucetic, “Remote UGV control via practical wireless channels: A model predictive control approach,” IEEE Trans. Intell. V eh., pp. 1–13, Oct. 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Optimizing resource allocation in urllc for real-time wireless control systems,

    B. Chang, L. Zhang, L. Li, G. Zhao, and Z. Chen, “Optimizing resource allocation in urllc for real-time wireless control systems,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 8916–8927, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,

    Y . Polyanskiy, H. V . Poor, and S. V erdu, “Channel coding rate in the finite blocklength regime,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2307–2359, May 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Joint optimization of user scheduling, rate allocation, and beamforming for RSMA finite blocklength transmission,

    J. Zhu, H. Jin, Y . He, F. Fang, W. Huang, and Z. Zhang, “Joint optimization of user scheduling, rate allocation, and beamforming for RSMA finite blocklength transmission,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 11, no. 17, pp. 27 904–27 915, Sep. 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Joint information- theoretic secrecy and covertness for UA V-assisted wireless transmission with finite blocklength,

    P . Liu, Z. Li, J. Si, N. Al-Dhahir, and Y . Gao, “Joint information- theoretic secrecy and covertness for UA V-assisted wireless transmission with finite blocklength,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 8, pp. 10 187–10 199, Aug. 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    UA V - Enabled secure communication with finite blocklength,

    Y . Wang, X. Zhou, Z. Zhuang, L. Sun, Y . Qian, J. Lu, and F. Shu, “UA V - Enabled secure communication with finite blocklength,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 16 309–16 313, Dec. 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Nonlinear EH-based UA V-assisted FD IoT networks: Infinite and finite blocklength analysis,

    P . Raut, K. Singh, C.-P . Li, M.-S. Alouini, and W.-J. Huang, “Nonlinear EH-based UA V-assisted FD IoT networks: Infinite and finite blocklength analysis,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 8, no. 24, pp. 17 655–17 668, Dec. 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    A study on co-simulation digital twin with MA TLAB and AirSim for future advanced air mobil- ity,

    L. Turco, J. Zhao, Y . Xu, and A. Tsourdos, “A study on co-simulation digital twin with MA TLAB and AirSim for future advanced air mobil- ity,” in 2024 IEEE Aerospace Conference , 2024, pp. 1–18

    2024

  26. [34]

    Path tracking control for autonomous vehicles based on an improved MPC,

    H. Wang, B. Liu, X. Ping, and Q. An, “Path tracking control for autonomous vehicles based on an improved MPC,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 161 064–161 073, Oct. 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Effect of channel estimation errors on M-QAM with MRC and EGC in nakagami fading channels,

    Y . Ma and J. Jin, “Effect of channel estimation errors on M-QAM with MRC and EGC in nakagami fading channels,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 56, no. 3, p. 12391250, May 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tvt.2007.895491

    2007

  28. [36]

    Performance analysis of amplify-and-forward cooperative communication systems with channel estimation errors over nakagami-m channels,

    L. Wang, Y . Cai, J. Hu, and W. Y ang, “Performance analysis of amplify-and-forward cooperative communication systems with channel estimation errors over nakagami-m channels,” in 2011 Third International Conference on Communications and Mobile Computing. IEEE, Apr. 2011, p. 31...

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    MPC based power allocation for reliable wireless networked control systems,

    K. Ishii, “MPC based power allocation for reliable wireless networked control systems,” IEEE Access , vol. 9, pp. 60 913–60 922, Mar. 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Beamforming design for multiuser urllc with finite blocklength transmission,

    S. He, Z. An, J. Zhu, J. Zhang, Y . Huang, and Y . Zhang, “Beamforming design for multiuser urllc with finite blocklength transmission,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. , vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 8096–8109, Dec. 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Outage analysis of RF energy harvesting cooperative communication systems over nakagami- m fading channels with integer and non-integer m,

    T. M. Hoang, B. C. Nguyen, P . T. Tran, and L. T. Dung, “Outage analysis of RF energy harvesting cooperative communication systems over nakagami- m fading channels with integer and non-integer m,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol. , vol. 69, no. 3, p. 27852801, Mar. 2020. [Online]. A...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Outage performance of decode-and-forward cooperative networks over nakagami-m fading with node blockage,

    G. T. Djordjevic, K. Kansanen, and A. M. Cvetkovic, “Outage performance of decode-and-forward cooperative networks over nakagami-m fading with node blockage,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 9, p. 58485860, Sep. 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/twc...

    2016

  33. [41]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical optimization . Springer, 1999

    1999

  34. [42]

    Convex optimization,

    S. Boyd, “Convex optimization,” Cambridge UP , 2004

    2004

  35. [43]

    Projected gradient methods for linearly constrained problems,

    P . H. Calamai and J. J. Moré, “Projected gradient methods for linearly constrained problems,” Math. Program. , vol. 39, pp. 93–116, Sep

  36. [44]

    A unified approach for learning the parameters of sum-product networks,

    H. Zhao, P . Poupart, and G. J. Gordon, “A unified approach for learning the parameters of sum-product networks,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    Cognitive UA V communication via joint maneuver and power control,

    Y . Huang, W. Mei, J. Xu, L. Qiu, and R. Zhang, “Cognitive UA V communication via joint maneuver and power control,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 7872–7888, Jul. 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 1.21,

    M. Grant, S. Boyd, and Y . Y . CVX, “Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 1.21,” CVX Research, 2011

    2011

  39. [47]

    Joint subcarrier and power allocation in NOMA: Optimal and approximate algorithms,

    L. Salaün, M. Coupechoux, and C. S. Chen, “Joint subcarrier and power allocation in NOMA: Optimal and approximate algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 68, pp. 2215–2230, Mar. 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    ISAC from the sky: UA V trajectory design for joint communication and target localization,

    X. Jing, F. Liu, C. Masouros, and Y . Zeng, “ISAC from the sky: UA V trajectory design for joint communication and target localization,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 12 857–12 872, Oct. 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    En- abling technologies for ultra-reliable and low latency communications: From phy and mac layer perspectives,

    G. J. Sutton, J. Zeng, R. P . Liu, W. Ni, D. N. Nguyen, B. A. Jayawick- rama, X. Huang, M. Abolhasan, Z. Zhang, E. Dutkiewicz et al. , “En- abling technologies for ultra-reliable and low latency communications: From phy and mac layer perspectives,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials...

    2019

  42. [50]

    Joint user scheduling and power allocation optimization for energy-efficient noma systems with imperfect CSI,

    F. Fang, H. Zhang, J. Cheng, S. Roy, and V . C. Leung, “Joint user scheduling and power allocation optimization for energy-efficient noma systems with imperfect CSI,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 2874–2885, Dec. 2017. Haijia Jin received the B.Eng. degree i...

    2017

  43. [1987]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02592073

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02592073

    doi

  44. [2016]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 17791330

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 17791330

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.