Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Cooperative Platoon Routing and Dispatching via Edge-Assisted Hybrid Quantum Optimization

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A stability-gated QUBO formulation of cooperative platoon routing cuts simulated urban fleet energy demand by 18.5% and can be sampled on shallow quantum circuits.

desk verdict Real QPU evidence and a clean small-instance verification, but the headline 18.5% energy saving is not physically supported: the drag mechanism in Eq. (1) can account for only a few kWh of the claimed 66.3 kWh. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00524 v1 pith:ZLMSJV3B submitted 2026-08-01 quant-ph cs.ET

Talha Azfar , Ruimin Ke This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ET
keywords connectedautonomousvehiclesplatooningvehicleroutingproblemQUBOQAOAedgecomputingtrafficstabilitygatingquantumhardwarebenchmark
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 sets out to show that platooning-aware vehicle routing can be made both tractable and physically safe by writing it directly as a QUBO model, where pairwise platooning savings are native quadratic terms, and by letting roadside perception gate those rewards to road segments with stable traffic flow. In a 24-hour microscopic simulation of an urban network, the resulting cooperative routes reduce fleet tractive-energy demand by 18.5% relative to a non-cooperative baseline. On a real 25-qubit quantum processor, Linear-Chain QAOA cuts two-qubit CNOT depth by 66.7% versus dense QAOA and samples the exact classical optimum with a feasible-sampling probability of 38.6%. If correct, the work gives a concrete closed-loop architecture in which roadside sensing, stability gating, and shallow quantum optimization cooperate for CAV dispatch.

What carries the argument

The central object is the QUBO Hamiltonian H_total = H_cost - H_platoon + gamma H_constraints. Platooning savings are carried by quadratic terms s_{e,k,l} x_{e,k} x_{e,l}, which map natively onto Ising ZZ couplings; the coefficient s is nonzero only when a roadside unit reports stable flow (gate y_e=1) and the two vehicles' predicted segment-entry times differ by at most 3 seconds. Constraints are quadratic penalties, with Miller-Tucker-Zemlin order variables binary encoded, and gamma=50 is set to guarantee exact ground-state equivalence to the classical MILP solution.

What would settle it

Re-run the 24-hour microscopic simulation with drag-reduction coefficients varied over a physically plausible range (follower 10-30%, leader 0-10%) and with background traffic that reacts to the dispatched routes; if the fleet energy saving drops below a meaningful threshold under any realistic setting, the 18.5% claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that multi-vehicle routing with cooperative platooning can be formulated directly as a QUBO Hamiltonian: every pairwise platooning interaction becomes an off-diagonal Ising term, eliminating the auxiliary binary variables that classical MILP linearizations require. Route feasibility is enforced through quadratic penalties, including binary-encoded Miller-Tucker-Zemlin subtour constraints, and the penalty scale is chosen so the QUBO ground state exactly matches a classical exact solver. The paper validates the equivalence by exhaustive enumeration of all 25-bit states on small instances, then executes the model on a physical 25-qubit processor. There, Linear-Chain QAOA at

Load-bearing premise

The headline saving assumes highway-truck platoon drag-reduction coefficients (20% follower, 5% leader) transfer to passenger electric vehicles at 1-2 m urban gaps, and that background traffic does not react to the dispatcher's routes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ground-state equivalence holds beyond the small validated instances, platoon routing can be solved without the O(|E| K^2) auxiliary variables of MILP linearization, shrinking the constraint matrix and enabling faster dispatch.
  • Stability gating means platooning rewards are only active on laminar road segments, so turbulent traffic automatically suppresses close-gap coordination and reduces unsafe disengagements.
  • Depth-compressed Linear-Chain QAOA provides a hardware-viable path: on 25 qubits it samples the exact optimum at p=2, while dense QAOA fails under gate noise.
  • The 18.5% fleet-energy reduction, if reproduced in physical operation, implies that dispatch software watching traffic stability and coordinating routes can deliver substantial operational savings without changing the vehicles themselves.
  • The architecture supports a closed loop in which roadside observations update stability flags, rewards, and re-optimization as traffic evolves, with optimized routes fed back into the traffic simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 18.5% saving is likely driven mostly by the stability-gated reward structure rather than by the quantum solver; the marginal value of quantum execution would be isolated by solving the same gated QUBO with a classical optimizer.
  • Editorial inference: because the simulation treats background traffic as exogenous, the result is a one-shot policy response; a reactive-traffic model could erode platoon windows and shrink the saving.
  • Editorial inference: the drag-reduction coefficients come from highway heavy-truck platooning, while the simulated fleet consists of passenger EVs at 1-2 m urban gaps; field measurements of urban EV platoon aerodynamics would be the natural test of the energy model.
  • Editorial inference: the same stability-gated QUBO pattern could transfer to other spatiotemporal coordination problems, such as signal-priority transit or depot-based truck platooning, wherever a perception layer can gate the reward.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cyber-physical pipeline for platooning-aware vehicle routing: roadside-unit video perception extracts kinematic features, a stability gate selectively enables platooning rewards, the multi-vehicle VRP with cooperative platooning is written as a QUBO with native quadratic pair terms, and the QUBO is solved by LC-QAOA on IBM quantum hardware. The authors claim exact ground-state equivalence with MILP on small instances, a 66.7% CNOT-depth reduction on a 25-qubit ibm_boston benchmark with P_feas=38.6% and P_opt=14.2% at p=2, and an 18.5% (66.3 kWh) fleet tractive-energy reduction in a 24-hour SUMO simulation of Troy, NY.

Significance. The paper contains several genuine strengths: an exhaustive 2^25-bitstring verification against CPLEX, transparent decoupling of the optimization objective H_total from the physical energy metric E_physical, a real QPU execution with raw sampling statistics, and an explicit stability-gating mechanism that connects edge perception to the QUBO rewards. If the energy result were mechanically explained, the contribution would be a useful demonstration of an edge-assisted hybrid quantum dispatch loop. However, the headline 18.5% fleet energy saving is not supported by the stated physical mechanism, and the baseline ablation is internally suspicious. The QUBO/hardware portion is more defensible but is not the paper's headline claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§VII.A, Table III; §III.B, Eq. (1)] The headline energy saving is not explained by the platooning drag mechanism. From Table III, mean fleet speed is 1420.5 km / 48.2 h = 8.19 m/s. Using Eq. (1), baseline aero power at this speed is about 0.5*1.225*0.30*2.4*8.19^3 ≈ 242 W per vehicle, giving about 11.7 kWh of aero dissipation over 48.2 vehicle-hours (≈13.3 kWh after the η_elec=0.88 in Eq. (2)). Even applying a 20% drag reduction to every vehicle yields at most ≈2.7 kWh, and the paper's actual follower/leader split averages 12.5%, giving ≈1.7 kWh. The reported saving is 66.3 kWh, an order of magnitude larger. Table III also shows 35.3 km less distance and 6.1 h less travel time in the cooperative case, so the saving must come from route/trajectory differences or an unreported mechanism. Please provide a decomposition into aero, rolling, and inertia contributions, and a sensitivity sweep over η_drag; without this the abstrac
  2. [§IV.B, §IV.C, §VII.A] The baseline ablation appears internally inconsistent. Both baseline and cooperative policies are stated to use the same VRP model with the same H_cost (Eq. (6)), where c_ij is defined in §IV.C.a as per-vehicle energy. The platooning reward s_e,k,l in Eq. (7)/§IV.C.b is the aerodynamic drag saving, which at urban speeds is a few Wh per km per pair, far smaller than the per-vehicle energy cost (≈0.25 kWh/km implied by Table III). A perturbation of this size cannot change the optimal route by 35 km and 6.1 h; if anything, adding negative rewards on shared segments should make longer/shared routes more attractive, not shorter routes. Either the baseline is not the H_cost-minimizing solution of the same model, or the implemented reward weights are not the physical values in §IV.C.b. Please report the optimized route sets, the reward magnitudes, and a direct comparison of baseline and coopera
  3. [§IV.C.c, §V.A] The claim that γ=50.0 'mathematically guarantees exact ground-state equivalence with classical MILP solvers' is stronger than the evidence presented. §V.A reports exhaustive search only on 4- and 5-node instances; a finite set of instances does not establish a general penalty bound. Please either provide a theorem showing the required γ in terms of N, K, c_ij, s_e, and the binary-encoding ranges, or revise the wording to 'verified on the reported instances.' This matters because exact ground-state equivalence is stated as a main contribution.
  4. [§VII.A, §VIII] The exogenous-traffic assumption is acknowledged in §VII.A and the Conclusion, but its load-bearing role for the energy result is underemphasized. Because candidate routes do not mutate SUMO background traffic, travel times and platoon feasibility windows are fixed, and the model cannot capture congestion shifts caused by dispatch decisions. The 18.5% figure should be presented as an estimate under fixed background traffic, with a discussion of the likely direction and magnitude of bias; otherwise readers may treat it as a deployment prediction rather than an upper-bound-style policy ablation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV.C.a] The definition of c_ij contains a dimensional inconsistency: the term 'ma' appears as a force multiplied by distance, but in Eq. (1) ma is instantaneous power. If a is a representative acceleration, clarify how it is obtained from the SUMO trajectory and why it is not integrated over the segment.
  2. [Table IV] The column 'QUBO Energy Cost (kWh)' is confusing: CPLEX has QUBO value -2.333 and cost 16.8, while QPU rows with P_feas=0 report repaired candidates. Define the relation between the QUBO value, the decoded route cost, and the kWh units.
  3. [§VI.A.3, Table II] The stability thresholds (CV_v ≤ 0.12, σ²_a ≤ 0.5 m/s²) are presented as fixed constants with no calibration or sensitivity analysis. A brief sensitivity table or a reference for these values would strengthen the claim that the gating mechanism is robust.
  4. [Fig. 3] The curve 'Hourly Platooned Distance (%)' is not defined in the caption or text: is it the fraction of fleet vehicle-km in platoon, or the fraction of candidate platoonable distance occupied? Please define and state the scale.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; self-citations are method lineage, not load-bearing proof; the energy result is a policy ablation, not a tautology.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is anchored to external evidence. (1) The platooning drag-reduction coefficients η_drag = 0.20/0.05 are taken from the experimental literature ([1], [2]), not fitted from the paper's own energy results. (2) The QUBO ground-state claim is checked by exhaustive state-space search against CPLEX, an independent exact solver. (3) The QAOA/LC-QAOA claims are measured on the real IBM device ibm_boston via raw QPU sampling primitives, so the depth-compression and sampling probabilities are freshly benchmarked hardware data, not assertions imported from self-citations. (4) The 18.5% energy saving is presented as a policy ablation: baseline and cooperative runs use the same VRP model, with H_platoon disabled versus enabled, in the same exogenous SUMO environment. Although the platooning reward s_e,k,l is derived from the same aerodynamic-drag formula as the physical energy metric, the reported saving is not merely the bookkeeping of that reward: at the reported fleet-average speed the drag-mediated saving is only a few kWh, while the reported saving is 66.3 kWh, so the headline number is not a tautological consequence of the reward term. The exogenous-traffic assumption and the lack of an energy decomposition are modeling/correctness concerns, not circularity. The self-citations [16] and [18] describe the generic VRP-QUBO mapping and the LC-QAOA ansatz, but the load-bearing quantitative results here are independently validated against CPLEX and physical QPU execution.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on: (i) an unvalidated extrapolation of highway truck platoon drag coefficients to urban passenger EVs, (ii) an exogenous-traffic assumption that prevents dispatch decisions from changing the traffic environment in which they are evaluated, and (iii) hand-set gating thresholds and a penalty weight that shape the 18.5% figure. The QUBO encoding itself is standard. No invented physical entities. These ledger entries mean the headline energy number is best read as a conditional model output, while the hardware sampling claims are anchored by physical QPU execution.

free parameters (3)
  • Stability gating thresholds (CV_v, sigma^2_a) = CV_v <= 0.12; sigma^2_a <= 0.5 m/s^2
    Set by hand in Eq. 13 and presented as physical string-stability boundaries; they decide which road segments receive platooning rewards, directly shaping the 18.5% energy result, with no sensitivity analysis over them (Table II perturbs features, not thresholds).
  • Temporal synchronization window = 3.0 s
    Eq. 4 activates platooning rewards only when predicted segment-entry time differences are within 3 s; chosen by hand, with no stated justification or sensitivity analysis.
  • Constraint penalty weight gamma = 50.0
    Section IV.C.3 sets gamma > max_x(H_cost - H_platoon) and then gamma = 50; the bound is instance-dependent and only verified by exhaustive search on 4-node and 5-node instances (Section V.A), so the 'mathematical guarantee' wording is stronger than the evidence.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Aerodynamic drag reduction of 20% for followers and 5% for leaders from highway heavy-truck experiments transfers to homogeneous passenger EVs at 1-2 m gaps in urban traffic
    Section III.B, Eq. 1, Section IV.C: the entire fleet saving and the reward weights scale with eta_drag = 0.20/0.05 from [1], [2]; no urban passenger-EV validation or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • domain assumption Exogenous traffic: CAV route choices and platoon formation do not alter the traffic states used to predict segment-entry times and to compute energy
    Section IV.A states candidate routes are evaluated without mutating background traffic; the Conclusion lists online route feedback as future work, so platooning feasibility windows and travel times are computed in an environment that does not respond to the dispatch decisions.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic video trajectories follow Y(t) = Y_start + (Y_end - Y_start)(t/dT)^1.5, so detection ground truth is exact and traffic-representative
    Section VI.A.1: the perception pipeline is never run on real or synthetic frames, and the robustness study injects Gaussian noise on features directly, so this power-law trajectory model is the only validation anchor for the gating chain.
  • standard math Binary-encoded MTZ subtour elimination with slack variables and quadratic penalty expansion yields a QUBO whose ground state equals the MILP optimum when gamma is large enough
    Eq. 11 and Section V.A: a standard technique from the Ising-formulation literature (Lucas 2014 not cited), verified here by exhaustive enumeration only for 4/5-node instances, not proven in general.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cooperative Platoon Routing and Dispatching via Edge-Assisted Hybrid Quantum Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZLMSJV3B

@misc{pith2026260800524,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cooperative Platoon Routing and Dispatching via Edge-Assisted Hybrid Quantum Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZLMSJV3B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00524}
}
abstract

Cooperative platooning can reduce the energy use of Connected and Autonomous Vehicle (CAV) fleets, but the routing problem becomes difficult when vehicles must meet on the same road segments at compatible times while moving through unstable urban traffic. This paper develops an edge-assisted, closed-loop evaluation pipeline for platooning-aware vehicle routing. Roadside Units estimate local traffic kinematics from video, classify segment-level flow stability, and activate platooning rewards only on road segments where close-gap coordination is physically appropriate. The resulting multi-vehicle routing problem is written directly as a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) model, so pairwise platooning interactions are represented as native quadratic Ising terms instead of requiring auxiliary MILP linearization variables. We evaluate the framework using a 24-hour microscopic SUMO simulation of Troy, NY, together with localized IBM Quantum hardware benchmarks. The SUMO study shows an $18.5\%$ reduction in fleet tractive-energy demand relative to a non-cooperative baseline. On 25-active-qubit benchmark instances executed on $\texttt{ibm_boston}$, Linear-Chain QAOA reduces two-qubit CNOT depth by $66.7\%$ compared with dense QAOA and samples the exact classical ground state with $P_{\text{feas}} = 38.6\%$ and $P_{\text{opt}} = 14.2\%$ at $p=2$. These results suggest that edge perception and shallow quantum optimization can work together as a useful component of closed-loop CAV platoon dispatching.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00524 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Four-tier cyber-physical architecture: SUMO traffic is monitored by RSU camera telemetry (YOLOv11), converted into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Physical quantum hardware validation using 25 ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Microscopic SUMO simulation results over the Troy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Michael P Lammert, Adam Duran, Jeremy Diez, Kevin Burton, and Alex Nicholson. Effect of platooning on fuel consumption of class 8 vehicles over a range of speeds, following distances, and mass.SAE International Journal of Commercial Vehicles, 7(2014-01-2438):626–639, 2014. 6

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    An experimental study on the fuel reduction potential of heavy duty ve- hicle platooning

    Assad Al Alam, Ather Gattami, and Karl Henrik Johansson. An experimental study on the fuel reduction potential of heavy duty ve- hicle platooning. In13th international IEEE conference on intelligent transportation systems, pages 306–311. IEEE, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Integer programming formulation of traveling salesman problems.Journal of the ACM (JACM), 7(4):326–329, 1960

    Clair E Miller, Albert W Tucker, and Richard A Zemlin. Integer programming formulation of traveling salesman problems.Journal of the ACM (JACM), 7(4):326–329, 1960

    work page 1960

  4. [4]

    The truck dispatching problem

    George B Dantzig and John H Ramser. The truck dispatching problem. Management Science, 6(1):80–91, 1959

    work page 1959

  5. [5]

    Scheduling of vehicles from a central depot to a number of delivery points.Operations research, 12(4):568– 581, 1964

    Geoff Clarke and John W Wright. Scheduling of vehicles from a central depot to a number of delivery points.Operations research, 12(4):568– 581, 1964

    work page 1964

  6. [6]

    A distributed framework for coordinated heavy-duty vehicle platooning.IEEE Trans- actions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16(1):419–429, 2014

    Jeffrey Larson, Kuo-Yun Liang, and Karl H Johansson. A distributed framework for coordinated heavy-duty vehicle platooning.IEEE Trans- actions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16(1):419–429, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    The identical-path truck platooning problem.Transportation Research Part B: Methodolog- ical, 109:26–39, 2018

    Nils Boysen, Dirk Briskorn, and Stefan Schwerdfeger. The identical-path truck platooning problem.Transportation Research Part B: Methodolog- ical, 109:26–39, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Collaborative platooning and routing for mixed fleets of electric auto- mated vehicles and conventional trucks.International Transactions in Operational Research, 2025

    Nadia Pourmohammad-Zia, Rudy R Negenborn, and Frederik Schulte. Collaborative platooning and routing for mixed fleets of electric auto- mated vehicles and conventional trucks.International Transactions in Operational Research, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Vehicle routing problem model with practicality.Processes, 11(3):654, 2023

    SeJoon Park, Chunghun Ha, and Hyesung Seok. Vehicle routing problem model with practicality.Processes, 11(3):654, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    Edward Farhi, Jeffrey Goldstone, and Sam Gutmann. A quantum approximate optimization algorithm.arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz.Algo- rithms, 12(2):34, 2019

    Stuart Hadfield, Zhihui Wang, Bryan O’Gorman, Eleanor G Rieffel, Davide Venturelli, and Rupak Biswas. From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz.Algo- rithms, 12(2):34, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond

    John Preskill. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    A hybrid solution method for the capacitated vehicle routing problem using a quantum annealer.Frontiers in ICT, 6:13, 2019

    Sebastian Feld, Christoph Roch, Thomas Gabor, Christian Seidel, Flo- rian Neukart, Isabella Galter, Wolfgang Mauerer, and Claudia Linnhoff- Popien. A hybrid solution method for the capacitated vehicle routing problem using a quantum annealer.Frontiers in ICT, 6:13, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Space-efficient binary optimization for variational quantum computing.npj Quantum Information, 8(1), 2022

    Adam Glos, Krawiec Aleksandra, and Zimbor ´as Zolt ´an. Space-efficient binary optimization for variational quantum computing.npj Quantum Information, 8(1), 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Formulating and solving routing problems on quantum computers.IEEE transactions on quantum engineering, 2:1–17, 2021

    Stuart Harwood, Claudio Gambella, Dimitar Trenev, Andrea Simonetto, David Bernal Neira, and Donny Greenberg. Formulating and solving routing problems on quantum computers.IEEE transactions on quantum engineering, 2:1–17, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Quantum-assisted vehicle routing: Realizing QAOA- based approach on gate-based quantum computer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01614, 2025

    Talha Azfar, Osama Muhammad Raisuddin, Ruimin Ke, and Jos ´e Holgu´ın-Veras. Quantum-assisted vehicle routing: Realizing QAOA- based approach on gate-based quantum computer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01614, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Power of data in quantum machine learning.Nature communications, 12(1):2631, 2021

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Michael Broughton, Masoud Mohseni, Ryan Bab- bush, Sergio Boixo, Hartmut Neven, and Jarrod R McClean. Power of data in quantum machine learning.Nature communications, 12(1):2631, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Shallow and robust qaoa: Improving fea- sibility and hardware performance via linear-chain and ramp schedules,

    Talha Azfar and Ruimin Ke. Shallow and robust qaoa: Improving fea- sibility and hardware performance via linear-chain and ramp schedules,

  11. [19]

    Bias-field digitized counterdiabatic quantum optimization.Physical Review Research, 7(2):L022010, 2025

    Alejandro Gomez Cadavid, Archismita Dalal, Anton Simen, Enrique Solano, and Narendra N Hegade. Bias-field digitized counterdiabatic quantum optimization.Physical Review Research, 7(2):L022010, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Quest: Quantum-enhanced shared transportation

    Chinonso Onah, Neel Misciasci, Carsten Othmer, and Kristel Michielsen. Quest: Quantum-enhanced shared transportation. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineer- ing (QCE), volume 1, pages 2149–2160. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Quantum and classical approaches to the optimization of highway platooning: the two-vehicle matching problem

    Chinonso Onah, Agneev Guin, Carsten Othmer, JA Monta ˜nez-Barrera, and Kristel Michielsen. Quantum and classical approaches to the optimization of highway platooning: the two-vehicle matching problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18919, 2026

    2026

  14. [22]

    Edge computing: Vision and challenges.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 3(5):637–646, 2016

    Weisong Shi, Jie Cao, Quan Zhang, Youhuizi Li, and Lanyu Xu. Edge computing: Vision and challenges.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 3(5):637–646, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Infrastructure assisted autonomous driv- ing: Research, challenges, and opportunities.IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology, 2025

    Roshan George, Joseph Clancy, Tim Brophy, Ganesh Sistu, William O’Grady, Sunil Chandra, Fiachra Collins, Darragh Mullins, Edward Jones, Brian Deegan, et al. Infrastructure assisted autonomous driv- ing: Research, challenges, and opportunities.IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Tec...

    2025

  16. [24]

    Cooperative perception for 3d object detection in driving scenarios using infrastructure sensors.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(3):1852–1864, 2020

    Eduardo Arnold, Mehrdad Dianati, Robert De Temple, and Saber Fallah. Cooperative perception for 3d object detection in driving scenarios using infrastructure sensors.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 23(3):1852–1864, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    F-cooper: Feature based cooperative perception for autonomous vehicle edge computing system using 3d point clouds

    Qi Chen, Xu Ma, Sihai Tang, Jingda Guo, Qing Yang, and Song Fu. F-cooper: Feature based cooperative perception for autonomous vehicle edge computing system using 3d point clouds. InProceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE Symposium on Edge Computing, pages 88–100, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Roadway surveillance video camera calibration using standard shipping container

    Ruimin Ke, Zewen Pan, Ziyuan Pu, and Yinhai Wang. Roadway surveillance video camera calibration using standard shipping container. In2017 International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Ultralytics YOLO11: State-of-the-art object detection and tracking

    Glenn Jocher and Jing Qiu. Ultralytics YOLO11: State-of-the-art object detection and tracking. https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    String stability of interconnected systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 41(3):349–357, 1996

    D Swaroop and J Karl Hedrick. String stability of interconnected systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 41(3):349–357, 1996

    1996

  21. [29]

    Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations.Physical review E, 62(2):1805, 2000

    Martin Treiber, Ansgar Hennecke, and Dirk Helbing. Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations.Physical review E, 62(2):1805, 2000

    2000

  22. [30]

    Virginia tech comprehensive power-based fuel consumption model: model development and testing.Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(7):492–503, 2011

    Hesham A Rakha, Kyoungho Ahn, Kevin Moran, Bart Saerens, and Eric Van den Bulck. Virginia tech comprehensive power-based fuel consumption model: model development and testing.Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(7):492–503, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Real-world carbon diox- ide impacts of traffic congestion.Transportation research record, 2058(1):163–171, 2008

    Matthew Barth and Kanok Boriboonsomsin. Real-world carbon diox- ide impacts of traffic congestion.Transportation research record, 2058(1):163–171, 2008

  24. [32]

    Streetdrive

    Github. Streetdrive. Accessed: Jul. 7, 2026. [Online]. Available: https: //github.com/ccoopq/StreetDrive

    2026

  25. [33]

    Recent development and applications of sumo-simulation of urban mobility

    Daniel Krajzewicz, Jakob Erdmann, Michael Behrisch, and Laura Bieker. Recent development and applications of sumo-simulation of urban mobility. InInternational Journal On Advances in Systems and Measurements, volume 5, pages 128–138, 2012. 7

    2012

  26. [2026]

    Preprint at Research Square, doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8297477/v1

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.