Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 39 references

Predictor-Feedback CACC for Vehicular Platoons with Actuation and Communication Delays Based on a Multiple-Predecessor-Following CTH Nominal Strategy

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-10 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Predictor feedback stabilizes vehicle platoons for any actuation delay.

desk verdict This paper gives a predictor-feedback CACC design built on an MPF constant-time-headway law that claims string stability for any actuation delay via frequency-domain conditions, but the multi-path interconnections in MPF may not be fully bounded by the stated analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.05667 v1 submitted 2026-04-07 eess.SY cs.SY

Amirhossein Samii (1) , Dimitrios Angelopoulos (1) , Nikolaos Bekiaris-Liberis (1) ((1) Department of Electrical , Computer Engineering , Technical University of Crete , Chania , 73100 , Greece) This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords CACCvehicularplatoonspredictorfeedbackstringstabilityactuationdelaycommunicationmultiple-predecessor-followingtrafficthroughput
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquationFoundation.DimensionForcing
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 develops a cooperative adaptive cruise control design for platoons of heterogeneous vehicles subject to both actuation and vehicle-to-vehicle communication delays. It combines a predictor that compensates the actuation delay with a multiple-predecessor-following nominal law to guarantee stability of each vehicle, string stability across the platoon, and zero steady-state errors in speed and spacing. These properties hold for arbitrary actuation delay values and are proved via frequency-domain input-output analysis. The guarantees matter because they support denser traffic flow in realistic conditions where delays arise from hardware and communication, as illustrated in ten-vehicle simulations and tests driven by real trajectory data.

What carries the argument

The predictor-feedback controller that compensates the actuation delay in the third-order dynamics, based on the multiple-predecessor-following topology for the nominal delay-free law.

What would settle it

A platoon simulation or experiment that shows growing oscillations or nonzero steady-state spacing error under the controller for some positive actuation delay value would disprove the stability and regulation claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The design combines a predictor to compensate actuation delay with a multiple-predecessor-following constant-time-headway CACC law. For third-order linear vehicle models, the closed-loop system achieves stability of each vehicle, string stability of the platoon, and regulation to desired constant speeds and spacings, independently of the actuation delay magnitude. These results are derived using an input-output frequency-domain approach and are verified through numerical illustrations and simulations including NGSIM data.

Load-bearing premise

Vehicle dynamics are exactly described by a third-order linear system and frequency-domain input-output analysis fully captures closed-loop behavior under the multiple-predecessor-following topology.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Platoons maintain string stability independently of actuation delay size.
  • Zero steady-state errors hold for both speed and inter-vehicle spacing.
  • Traffic throughput increases compared with single-predecessor designs.
  • The guarantees extend to heterogeneous vehicles and real leading-vehicle trajectories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The derived string-stability conditions on parameters can guide gain selection in hardware implementations.
  • Linear-model results may approximate behavior in vehicles with mild nonlinearities around constant-speed operation.
  • Realistic deployment would require precise knowledge of actuation delay values.
  • The multiple-predecessor approach may allow even denser platoons if communication range permits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a predictor-feedback CACC design for heterogeneous vehicular platoons subject to actuation and communication delays. The approach uses a multiple-predecessor-following (MPF) topology built on a nominal delay-free CACC law for third-order linear vehicle dynamics. It claims to achieve individual vehicle stability, string stability, and zero steady-state speed/spacing errors for arbitrary actuation delay values, with explicit parameter conditions obtained via an input-output frequency-domain analysis that exploits the delay-compensating property of the predictor. Theoretical results are illustrated numerically, and simulations for a ten-vehicle platoon (including NGSIM leader trajectories) are presented to show throughput gains relative to a single-predecessor predictor-feedback baseline.

Significance. If the frequency-domain string-stability conditions rigorously extend to the MPF interconnection, the work would provide a useful advance in delay-robust CACC by removing dependence on actuation delay magnitude while retaining explicit, checkable parameter bounds and demonstrating practical benefits over single-predecessor designs.

major comments (2)
  1. [string stability derivation] The string-stability analysis (input-output frequency-domain section) must explicitly derive the closed-loop transfer function from leader to the k-th vehicle under the MPF topology. Because each vehicle receives information from multiple predecessors, the relevant transfer function is a sum over parallel paths rather than a simple product chain; it is unclear whether the stated parameter conditions bound the cumulative gain of these paths for heterogeneous vehicle parameters.
  2. [stability proofs] The claim that the design yields string stability 'for any value of the actuation delay' rests on the predictor reducing the system to a delay-free equivalent whose frequency-domain bounds hold uniformly. The manuscript should verify that the MPF-specific interconnection matrix does not introduce additional delay-dependent modes or violate the |T(jω)| ≤ 1 bound when the individual vehicle parameters differ.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] Abstract: 'enables as to derive' should read 'enables us to derive'; the comma in 'zero, steady-state' is unnecessary.
  2. [numerical results] The numerical illustration of the string-stability conditions would benefit from an explicit table or plot overlaying the derived parameter bounds against the simulated frequency responses.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the insightful comments, which have helped us improve the rigor and clarity of the manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below and have made revisions to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The string-stability analysis (input-output frequency-domain section) must explicitly derive the closed-loop transfer function from leader to the k-th vehicle under the MPF topology. Because each vehicle receives information from multiple predecessors, the relevant transfer function is a sum over parallel paths rather than a simple product chain; it is unclear whether the stated parameter conditions bound the cumulative gain of these paths for heterogeneous vehicle parameters.

    Authors: We agree with the need for an explicit derivation of the leader-to-k-th vehicle transfer function under the MPF topology. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded Section IV to include a step-by-step derivation of this transfer function, accounting for the parallel paths in the MPF structure. The derivation shows that the overall transfer function is a weighted sum of the individual vehicle transfer functions, with weights determined by the MPF gains. We further prove that the parameter conditions ensuring |T_i(jω)| ≤ 1 for each heterogeneous vehicle i also ensure that the cumulative gain remains bounded by 1, leveraging the fact that the MPF topology uses convex combinations of predecessor information. This is supported by the input-output frequency-domain analysis presented. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The claim that the design yields string stability 'for any value of the actuation delay' rests on the predictor reducing the system to a delay-free equivalent whose frequency-domain bounds hold uniformly. The manuscript should verify that the MPF-specific interconnection matrix does not introduce additional delay-dependent modes or violate the |T(jω)| ≤ 1 bound when the individual vehicle parameters differ.

    Authors: The predictor-feedback controller is designed to exactly compensate the actuation delay for each vehicle individually, resulting in a closed-loop system equivalent to the nominal delay-free MPF CACC law. Therefore, the frequency-domain bounds derived for the delay-free case apply uniformly, independent of the actuation delay value. Regarding the MPF interconnection, since the communication delays are fixed and the analysis is performed on the compensated system, no additional delay-dependent modes are introduced by the interconnection matrix. In the revision, we have added a subsection verifying that for heterogeneous parameters, the |T(jω)| ≤ 1 bound holds for the overall system by showing that the spectral radius or the gain of the interconnection preserves the individual bounds. This verification uses the same input-output approach and confirms the string stability claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained frequency-domain analysis

full rationale

The paper presents a predictor-feedback design for CACC under MPF topology, reducing the delayed system to a nominal delay-free equivalent via standard predictor compensation. String stability and regulation are then established through explicit frequency-domain input-output conditions on the closed-loop transfer functions, which are derived from the third-order vehicle model and the chosen control law parameters without fitting to data or redefining the target metrics in terms of themselves. No self-citation chain is load-bearing for the central claims, and the MPF interconnection is handled directly in the transfer-function analysis rather than assumed away. The numerical illustrations and NGSIM simulations serve only as validation, not as inputs to the proofs. This is a standard, non-circular control-theoretic derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard linear control assumptions plus the specific modeling choice of third-order vehicle dynamics; no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Each vehicle is accurately modeled by a third-order linear system
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the basis for the platoon dynamics.
  • domain assumption Frequency-domain input-output analysis suffices to prove string stability under the chosen topology
    The abstract indicates that all stability and regulation proofs rely on this approach.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predictor-Feedback CACC for Vehicular Platoons with Actuation and Communication Delays Based on a Multiple-Predecessor-Following CTH Nominal Strategy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.05667

@misc{pith2026260405667,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predictor-Feedback CACC for Vehicular Platoons with Actuation and Communication Delays Based on a Multiple-Predecessor-Following CTH Nominal Strategy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.05667}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.05667}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a predictor-feedback cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) design relying on a multiple-predecessor-following (MPF) topology-based nominal delay-free CACC law. We consider vehicular platoons with heterogeneous vehicles, whose dynamics are described by a third-order linear system subject to actuation delay, along with vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication delay. The design achieves individual vehicle stability, string stability, and zero, steady-state speed/spacing tracking errors, for any value of the actuation delay. The proofs of individual vehicle stability, string stability, and regulation rely on employment of an input-output approach on the frequency domain, capitalizing on the delay-compensating property of the design, which enables as to derive explicit string stability conditions on control and vehicle models parameters. The theoretical guarantees of string stability and the respective conditions on parameters are illustrated also numerically. We present consistent simulation results, for a ten-vehicle platoon, illustrating the potential of the design in traffic throughput improvement, as compared with a predictor-feedback CACC design in which, each ego vehicle's controller utilizes information only from a single preceding vehicle. We also present simulation results in a realistic scenario in which the leading vehicle's trajectory is obtained from NGSIM data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05667 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Platoon of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Block diagram of the predictor-feedback control design. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The region to the right of the colored lines indicates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: depicts the set of parameter values for which both stability and string stability are satisfied, which is the region enclosed by the two red curves, for mi = 3 with τi = 0.2, control gains given by (27), communication delays Dc,i = 0.1, and for fixed actuation delay D …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Acceleration (top), speed (middle), and spacing (bot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Acceleration (top), speed (middle), and spacing (bot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Minimum time headway in platooning systems under the MPF topology for different wireless communication scenarios,

    E. Abolfazli, B. Besselink, and T. Charalambous, “Minimum time headway in platooning systems under the MPF topology for different wireless communication scenarios,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, pp. 4377-4390, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Linear systems with delayed controls: A reduction

    Z. Artstein, “Linear systems with delayed controls: A reduction”,IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 27, pp. 869-879, 1982

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    Predictor- based adaptive cruise control design,

    N. Bekiaris-Liberis, C. Roncoli, and M. Papageorgiou, “Predictor- based adaptive cruise control design,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 3181-3195, Oct. 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Bekiaris-Liberis and M

    N. Bekiaris-Liberis and M. Krstic,Nonlinear Control Under Noncon- stant Delays, SIAM, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Robust string stability and safety of CTH predictor- feedback CACC,

    N. Bekiaris-Liberis, “Robust string stability and safety of CTH predictor- feedback CACC,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Sys- tems, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 8209-8221, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Reducing time headway for platooning of connected vehicles via V2V communi- cation,

    Y . Bian, Y . Zheng, W. Ren, S. Eben Li, J. Wang, and K. Li, “Reducing time headway for platooning of connected vehicles via V2V communi- cation,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 102, pp. 87-105, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Analysis of traffic flow with mixed manual and semiautomated vehicles,

    A. Bose and P. A. Ioannou, “Analysis of traffic flow with mixed manual and semiautomated vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 4, pp. 173-188, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    On the resilience of autonomous connected vehicles platoon under DoS attacks: A predictor-based sampled data control,

    B. Caiazzo, D. G. Lui, A. Mungiello, A. Petrillo, and S. Santini, “On the resilience of autonomous connected vehicles platoon under DoS attacks: A predictor-based sampled data control,” inIEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Bilbao, Spain, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Method of compensation for the mechanical response of connected adaptive cruise control vehicles,

    L. C. Davis, “Method of compensation for the mechanical response of connected adaptive cruise control vehicles,”Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 562, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Cooperative adaptive cruise control for heterogeneous platoons with delays: Controller design and experiments,

    R. de Haan, T. P. J. van der Sande, E. Lefeber, and I. J. M. Besselink, “Cooperative adaptive cruise control for heterogeneous platoons with delays: Controller design and experiments,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1361-1371, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Platooning of heterogeneous vehicles with actuation delays: Experimental results,

    R. de Haan, L. Redi, T. van der Sande, and E. Lefeber, “Platooning of heterogeneous vehicles with actuation delays: Experimental results,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 58, no. 27, pp. 131-136, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Observer based cooperative adaptive cruise control for heterogeneous vehicle platoons with actuator delay,

    R. de Haan, T. van der Sande, and E. Lefeber, “Observer based cooperative adaptive cruise control for heterogeneous vehicle platoons with actuator delay,” inIEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systemspp. 5204-5209, Bilbao, Spain, 2023. SUBMITTED TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Dynamics of connected vehicle systems with delayed acceleration feedback,

    J. I. Ge and G. Orosz, “Dynamics of connected vehicle systems with delayed acceleration feedback,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 46, pp. 46-64, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Autonomous intelligent cruise control with actuator delays,

    S. Huang and W. Ren, “Autonomous intelligent cruise control with actuator delays,”Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 27-43, 1998

    1998

  7. [15]

    Vehicle platooning with multiple vehicle look-ahead information,

    S. Konduri, P. R. Pagilla, and S. Darbha, “Vehicle platooning with multiple vehicle look-ahead information,”IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 5768-5773, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Delay Compensation for Nonlinear, Adaptive, and PDE Systems,

    M. Krstic, “Delay Compensation for Nonlinear, Adaptive, and PDE Systems,”Birkh ¨auser Boston, MA, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Application of predictor feedback to compensate time delays in connected cruise control,

    T. G. Molnar, W. B. Qin, T. Insperger, and G. Orosz, “Application of predictor feedback to compensate time delays in connected cruise control,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 545-559, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Trajectory data reconstruction and simulation-based validation against macroscopic traffic patterns,

    M. Montanino and V . Punzo, “Trajectory data reconstruction and simulation-based validation against macroscopic traffic patterns,”Trans- portation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 80, pp. 82–106, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Safety-critical control with input delay in dynamic environment,

    T. G. Molnar, A. K. Kiss, A. D. Ames, and G. Orosz, “Safety-critical control with input delay in dynamic environment,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1507-1520, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Cooperative adaptive cruise control: Network-aware analysis of string stability,

    S. Onc ¨u, J. Ploeg, N. van de Wouw, and H. Nijmeijer, “Cooperative adaptive cruise control: Network-aware analysis of string stability,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1527-1537, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Dynamics and Control of Connected Vehicles,

    G. Orosz and T. G. Moln ´ar, “Dynamics and Control of Connected Vehicles,”Springer , Cham, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    String-stable platooning control of connected automated vehicles under non-uniform stochastic communication delays,

    D. Pan, X. Ge, D. Ding, and X.-M. Zhang, “String-stable platooning control of connected automated vehicles under non-uniform stochastic communication delays,”International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, pp. 1–18, 2026

    2026

  15. [23]

    Adaptive multi- agent synchronization for collaborative driving of autonomous vehicles with multiple communication delays,

    A. Petrillo, A. Salvi, S. Santini, and A. S. Valente, “Adaptive multi- agent synchronization for collaborative driving of autonomous vehicles with multiple communication delays,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 86, pp. 372-392, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Lp string stability of cas- caded systems: Application to vehicle platooning,

    J. Ploeg, N. van de Wouw, and H. Nijmeijer, “Lp string stability of cas- caded systems: Application to vehicle platooning,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 22, pp. 786–793, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Robustness of string stability of linear predictor-feedback CACC to communication delay

    A. Samii and N. Bekiaris-Liberis, “Robustness of string stability of linear predictor-feedback CACC to communication delay”,IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Bilbao, Spain, pp. 5204–5209, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Simultaneous compensation of actuation and communication delays for heterogeneous platoons via predictor-feedback CACC with integral action,

    A. Samii and N. Bekiaris-Liberis, “Simultaneous compensation of actuation and communication delays for heterogeneous platoons via predictor-feedback CACC with integral action,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 9, pp. 5618-5630, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Exact predictor-feedback CACC of heterogeneous vehicular platoons with distinct actuation delays,

    A. Samii and N. Bekiaris-Liberis, “Exact predictor-feedback CACC of heterogeneous vehicular platoons with distinct actuation delays,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, to appear, 2026

    2026

  20. [28]

    Predictor-based CACC design for heterogeneous vehicles with distinct input delays,

    A. Samii and N. Bekiaris-Liberis, “Predictor-based CACC design for heterogeneous vehicles with distinct input delays,”IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 5, pp. 783-796, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Experimental im- plementation and validation of predictor-based CACC for vehicular platoons with distinct actuation delays,

    A. Samii, R. de Haan, and N. Bekiaris-Liberis, “Experimental im- plementation and validation of predictor-based CACC for vehicular platoons with distinct actuation delays,”IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Rio de Janeiro, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    The impact of cooperative adaptive cruise control on traffic-flow characteristics

    B. van Arem, C. J. G. van Driel and R. Visser, “The impact of cooperative adaptive cruise control on traffic-flow characteristics”,IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 7, pp. 429-436, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    Delay-compensating strategy to enhance string sta- bility of autonomous vehicle platoons,

    M. Wanget al., “Delay-compensating strategy to enhance string sta- bility of autonomous vehicle platoons,”Transportmetrica B: Transport Dynamics, vol. 6, pp. 211-229, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Practical string stability of platoon of adaptive cruise control vehicles,

    L. Xiao and F. Gao, “Practical string stability of platoon of adaptive cruise control vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1184-1194, 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    Smith predictor compensating for vehicle actuator delays in cooperative ACC systems,

    H. Xing, J. Ploeg, and H. Nijmeijer, “Smith predictor compensating for vehicle actuator delays in cooperative ACC systems,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 68, pp. 1106-1115, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Compensation of communication delays in a cooperative ACC system,

    H. Xing, J. Ploeg, and H. Nijmeijer, “Compensation of communication delays in a cooperative ACC system,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 69, pp. 1177-1189, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Longitudinal control of automated CHVs with significant actuator delays,

    D. Yanakiev and I. Kanellakopoulos, “Longitudinal control of automated CHVs with significant actuator delays,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1289-1297, 2001

    2001

  28. [36]

    Adaptive switched control for connected vehicle platoon with unknown input delays,

    H. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Wang, C. Huang, and H. Yan, “Adaptive switched control for connected vehicle platoon with unknown input delays,”IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 1511-1521, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Memory-anticipation strategy to compensate for communication and actuation delays for string-stable platooning,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Bai, J. Hu, D. Cao, and M. Wang, “Memory-anticipation strategy to compensate for communication and actuation delays for string-stable platooning,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 8, pp. 1145-1155, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Robust safety for mixed-autonomy traffic with de- lays and disturbances,

    C. Zhao and H. Yu, “Robust safety for mixed-autonomy traffic with de- lays and disturbances,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 16522-16535, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Stability and scalability of homogeneous vehicular platoon: Study on the influence of information flow topologies,

    Y . Zheng, S. Eben Li, J. Wang, D. Cao, and K. Li, “Stability and scalability of homogeneous vehicular platoon: Study on the influence of information flow topologies,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 17, pp. 14-26, 2016. Amirhossein Samiireceived the...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed May 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.