PHY-Layer Modeling and Throughput-Driven Adaptation for Batteryless V2X Networks

Liu Cao; Lyutianyang Zhang; Ruikang Li; Xiangkai Wang; YuKun Pan; Zhaoyu Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 16 references

PHY-Layer Modeling and Throughput-Driven Adaptation for Batteryless V2X Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A legacy DSRC packet can simultaneously carry a batteryless passive downlink, and a MARL-based controller choosing attenuation depth, embedded bit rate, and MCS raises average throughput by roughly 15%.

desk verdict The overlay idea has promise, but Eqs. (1)-(2) contradict the Manchester decoder (10)-(13), so the simulated PER gains lack a stated physical basis. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01928 v1 pith:6WX4OQQF submitted 2026-08-03 eess.SY cs.SY

Zhaoyu Liu , Ruikang Li , Liu Cao , YuKun Pan , Xiangkai Wang , Lyutianyang Zhang This is my paper

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords batterylessV2XpassiveoverlaycommunicationDSRCPHY-layeradaptationsum-throughputoptimizationmulti-agentreinforcementlearningamplitudeattenuationManchesterdecoding

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 prove that a standard DSRC/Wi-Fi vehicle packet can be reused as a carrier for a batteryless passive downlink: the transmitter applies controlled amplitude attenuation to embed extra bits while keeping the legacy host packet decodable. The authors develop a PHY-layer model in which attenuation depth Δ, embedded-bit rate Rb, and legacy MCS m jointly determine host-link PER, passive-link PER, and whether the passive frame fits inside the packet duration. They formulate Problem 1, a constrained sum-throughput maximization, and solve it with a multi-agent reinforcement learning controller that selects the tuple (Δ, Rb, m) from lookup-table-driven PHY evaluations. Simulation results show the controller converges and improves average sum throughput from about 4.5 to 5.15 Mbps, a 15% gain. The wider claim is that these three PHY parameters cannot be optimized independently in batteryless V2X overlay communication.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the PHY evaluation module PHYEval(k, Δ, Rb, m), which returns the PER pair (P_e,D, P_e,G) for each fixed-SINR environment k. Eq. (17) is the throughput expression that combines legacy effective rate R_D(m)(1 - P_e,D) with passive effective rate R_b(1 - P_e,G). Constraint (14) encodes embedding feasibility: the preamble plus K_coded/Rb must fit within the host packet duration. The MARL solver uses a decomposed global Q-function Q_tot = sum of local Q-functions, reward exp(η R_sum) - λ M(t)^2, and ϵ-greedy action selection over the discrete action space A_Δ × A_Rb × A_MCS; PHY evaluation is moved offline into lookup tables, so online adaptation is only a finite searc

What would settle it

Run the same MARL controller with a standard IEEE 802.11p PER-versus-SINR abstraction (or measurements from a software-defined radio) instead of the paper's LUT. If the PER pairs returned for the same (Δ, Rb, m) tuples do not match the paper's figures, or if the converged sum throughput does not improve by roughly 15%, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a packetized overlay architecture in which one DSRC packet simultaneously carries conventional V2X data and a passive payload through controlled amplitude attenuation. The paper models the legacy host as a MIMO-OFDM link with a common scalar attenuation applied across antennas, models the passive receiver as an envelope detector followed by Manchester decoding, and reduces the embedding problem to a constrained sum-throughput maximization: R_sum = R_D(m)(1 - P_e,D) + R_b(1 - P_e,G), with PER constraints on both links and a packet-duration feasibility constraint. A multi-agent reinforcement learning controller searches the discrete action space of Δ, Rb, and m using a

Load-bearing premise

The entire result rests on the PHY evaluation module accurately reproducing real 802.11p/DSRC and envelope-detector packet error rates, but the paper does not ship the simulator, the lookup tables, or a comparison against measured PER curves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, the same spectrum that already carries V2X traffic can also deliver low-rate downlink data to batteryless tags and sensors without any additional airtime.
Because a higher MCS shortens packet duration and reduces passive embedding feasibility, MCS selection must account for the passive link; choosing MCS solely for host rate can kill the overlay.
The PER constraints in Problem 1 mean the controller will reject high-Rb or high-Δ settings that violate reliability, so the achieved throughput gain is compatible with both legacy and passive PER budgets.
The offline LUT plus online RL split implies that expensive PER calculation is done once; when channel statistics change, the controller only needs to re-query the LUT, keeping adaptation lightweight.
The reward structure penalizes PER violations, so the learned policy tends to favor operating points where both links stay within their error budgets; the paper reports that such points exist and yield the 15% gain.

Reading between the lines

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

If the PHY evaluation module were replaced with measured 802.11p PER curves and a hardware-calibrated envelope detector, the same MARL framework could be applied directly, but the 15% number would likely change; the paper gives no measured validation.
The architecture assumes a single passive receiver and a single legacy receiver; a natural extension is multiple passive devices or multiple legacy users sharing the same overlay, which would complicate the feasibility constraint and the SINR coupling.
The state is only the previous step's sum throughput, so the controller has no memory of channel dynamics; a state enriched with SINR history, Doppler, or vehicle kinematics could improve tracking in non-stationary vehicular channels.
Because the reward maximizes average throughput, it may not capture worst-case safety constraints; a safety-critical V2X deployment might need a bound on per-packet passive PER or detection delay rather than averaging over time.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper has a direction worth examining, but a load-bearing internal inconsistency makes the numerical results unverifiable as stated. The idea of reusing DSRC packets for batteryless downlink via Glaze-style amplitude modulation is a sensible extension to V2X, and the joint treatment of attenuation depth, embedded bit rate, and MCS is the right set of tradeoffs.

The problem is that the transmit model and the receiver model do not match. Eq. (1) sets s_n(t) = a(b_k(n)) x_n(t), a single amplitude factor per host packet. The passive receiver in (10)-(13) decodes Manchester bits by comparing average envelopes of the first and second halves of an embedding interval. With a constant amplitude over the whole packet, those two averages are equal up to noise, so D_k carries no signal and the passive PER should be about 0.5 for all Delta, Rb, MCS. Feasibility (14) also demands K_coded bits inside a single packet, which would require the attenuation to switch at rate Rb within the packet, not something Eq. (1) can express. So the PER curves in Figs. 2-3 and the claimed 15% gain do not follow from the stated equations. Problem 1 also writes argmin where it should be argmax, a sign that the formalization was not checked.

What is genuinely new: applying Glaze to packetized DSRC with a MARL-based controller. The idea is plausible and the decomposition into host and passive throughput is reasonable. The citations to Glaze and backscatter work are appropriate. But the paper ships no code or data, and the PHY evaluation module is an unspecified simulator or LUT, so none of the numerical claims can be independently checked.

If the model were fixed, e.g., by defining the amplitude modulation as a time-varying pattern within each packet, the paper could be a useful simulation study. As it stands, the central results are not supported by the presented model. This is the kind of paper I would send to a referee to force the authors to reconcile the equations with the simulation, but I would not rely on any of its numbers until that happens.

Recommendation: send to peer review with a request for major revision, or desk reject if the venue prioritizes immediate correctness. The idea deserves another look, but only after the model is fixed.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a batteryless V2X overlay architecture in which a DSRC/Wi-Fi packet is simultaneously used for legacy host communication and passive downlink delivery. The passive payload is embedded by controlled amplitude attenuation at depth Δ and rate Rb; the passive receiver uses envelope detection and Manchester decoding. The authors develop a PHY abstraction (effective SINR with an overlay impairment term, envelope sampling model), formulate a constrained sum-throughput maximization over (Δ, Rb, MCS) as Problem 1, and solve it with a MARL controller over LUT-based PHY evaluations. Simulation results (Figs. 2–4) claim joint parameter dependencies and a roughly 15% average throughput gain from 4.5 to 5.15 Mbps.

Significance. If the results were supported, the paper would address an important problem—delivering low-rate downlink data to batteryless V2X endpoints without occupying additional spectrum—and the joint optimization of attenuation, embedded-bit rate, and MCS is a reasonable design goal. The authors should be credited for formulating a constrained optimization (Problem 1) with explicit PER and embedding-feasibility constraints and for making the LUT-driven MARL pipeline concrete. However, as detailed below, the transmitted-signal model is inconsistent with the Manchester receiver model, so the passive-link PER results do not follow from the stated equations, and the simulation pipeline is neither validated nor reproducible. These issues undermine the central claims.

major comments (3)

[Section II-B, Eqs. (1)–(2) vs. Eqs. (10)–(13)] The transmitted waveform in packet n is s_n(t)=a(b_k(n)) x_n(t) with a(b) equal to either 1 or a(Δ). Thus the whole packet is scaled by a single constant. The Manchester decoder compares the average envelopes of the two halves of a bit interval, D_k = S_{k,2}−S_{k,1}. With a constant-amplitude packet these averages are equal up to noise, so b̂_k is essentially random and the passive PER is about 0.5 independent of Δ, Rb, and MCS. This contradicts Figs. 2(c) and 3 and the claimed 15% throughput gain. Moreover, feasibility condition (14) requires K_coded/R_b ≤ T_data(n), i.e., an entire frame of coded overlay bits inside a single host packet, which cannot be represented by a single per-packet scalar. The model must be changed to a time-varying, per-Manchester-bit amplitude waveform, and all subsequent derivations and simulations redone.
[Section IV, PHYEval and Figs. 2–4] The PER values driving the design insights (Figs. 2–3) and the throughput comparison (Fig. 4) are obtained from an unshipped PHY simulator or lookup table. No closed-form Pe,W or Pe,G is derived; σ_ovl(Δ,Rb;H_n) in Eq. (6) is an unspecified overlay impairment term; and the envelope detector model, Eqs. (9)–(13), contains residual noise η_n and no specified statistics. The paper does not compare its PER curves against measured or standard 802.11p PER-versus-SINR abstractions, and the LUT contents are not reported. Consequently the central numerical claims are not reproducible, and the validation loop is self-contained: the same simulator supplies the PER values used both to generate the design insights and to compute the 15% gain.
[Problem 1, Section III-A] The objective is written as argmin of R̄_sum while the surrounding text and Eq. (17) define R̄_sum as a throughput to maximize. This is a load-bearing formal error in the optimization statement. Additionally, constraint C3 uses T_data(k) but the available embedding duration should depend on the selected MCS m (or be written T_data^{(k)}(m)); as written the feasibility constraint is not well-defined. These issues require correction before the problem formulation can be used.

minor comments (5)

[Section II-B] The system is described as packetized MIMO-OFDM, but DSRC (802.11p) is SISO OFDM; please clarify whether the legacy link is 802.11p or a MIMO variant and adjust the model accordingly.
[Eq. (15)] The detection threshold τ and missed-detection probability P_MD(τ) are introduced but never modeled or used in the subsequent optimization; either define their role in the PHY evaluation or remove them.
[Section III-B] What is called MARL is a collection of independent DQN agents, one per fixed-SINR environment, trained with a shared/global reward. This is not multi-agent in the usual sense of cooperating or competing agents; please re-label the method or justify the terminology.
[Figs. 2–4] Add axis labels, legends, and confidence intervals. Table I lists 10,000 simulation runs per SNR, but no error bars or confidence intervals are reported for the PER or throughput curves.
[Throughout] Please proofread the mathematical notation and editorial presentation. Examples include the argmin/argmax error in Problem 1, inconsistent use of b_k(n) vs b_k, and undefined symbols such as R_D(m) in Eq. (17).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the 15% throughput gain in Fig. 4(b) is the MARL training objective itself, so the simulation's headline result reduces to an in-sample reward improvement.

fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Fig. 4(b); Eqs. (20), (22), (23)]
"Fig. 4(b) shows that the average throughput increases from about4.5Mbps to approximately5.15Mbps during training, corresponding to an improvement of about15%. This demonstrates that the proposed MARL controller can effectively optimize the PHY parameter tuple and achieve a higher throughput."

The throughput plotted in Fig. 4(b) is Rsum from Eq. (20), averaged over environments in Eq. (22). The MARL reward in Eq. (23) is an increasing function of this same Rsum: R(t)=exp(η Rsum(t))−λM^2(t). The controller is trained by the TD loss (25) to maximize this reward, using PER values returned by PHYEval on the same LUT. Thus the observed 15% improvement is the training objective improving on the training environments. It is not an independent prediction: the reported 'higher throughput' is the fitted reward, so the claim reduces by construction to successful reward optimization on the same unvalidated simulator that generated the design-insight curves.

full rationale

The derivation chain from the PHY abstraction (Eqs. (1)-(17)) to Problem 1 is not circular: the throughput expression is a definitional sum of host and passive rates weighted by PER, and the MARL is a straightforward solver for the discrete action search. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; the Glaze overlay concept is cited to external prior work [11], and self-references [8], [9], [15] are peripheral. The circular element is confined to the quantitative validation. The PHYEval module (a simulator/LUT that is not shipped) generates the PER data for Figs. 2-3 and also supplies the PER values used in Eq. (20). The reward in Eq. (23) is an increasing transform of the same Rsum, and Algorithm 1 trains the Q-networks to maximize it. Fig. 4(b) then reports the improvement of this same objective as the paper's headline 15% gain. That claim therefore reduces to 'the fitted policy improved the fitted objective,' which is an in-sample optimization result, not an independent test of the PHY model. This is partial circularity. Separately, the consistency issue between Eq. (1)-(2) (constant per-packet attenuation) and Manchester decoding (10)-(13), the missing simulator, and the argmin/argmax typo in Problem 1 are correctness/reproducibility concerns, not circularity, and do not raise the circularity score further.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on an unshipped PHY evaluation module, an abstract effective SINR model with an unspecified overlay distortion term, an unspecified detector noise model, and hand-chosen MARL reward weights. These are the main free parameters/assumptions. No new entities are invented, but the domain assumptions are strong and unvalidated.

free parameters (5)

eta (reward scaling factor) = Not specified
Eq. (23): reward R(t) = exp(eta * Rsum(t)) - lambda * M^2(t); eta and lambda are hand-chosen penalty/scaling weights for the MARL reward, no tuning procedure or sensitivity analysis is given.
lambda (constraint penalty weight) = Not specified
Eq. (23): the penalty weight lambda on PER-constraint violations M^2(t) is not specified in Table I or the text, yet it directly shapes the learned policy.
Overlay impairment term sigma^2_ovl(delta, Rb; Hn) = Not specified
Eq. (6): effective SINR is modeled as Pn / (N0 + sigma^2_ovl(delta, Rb; Hn)); the functional form of sigma^2_ovl is never given, so the host PER depends on an unspecified fitted/abstract term.
Envelope detector residual noise eta_n = Not specified
Eq. (9): the observation z_n = |r_n| + eta_n introduces eta_n as residual detector noise with no distribution or variance specification; passive PER curves depend on it.
Effective channel gain g_n for the passive link = Not specified
Eq. (8): r_n = g_n x_n + v_n models the passive-link channel with g_n, an apparently scalar effective gain whose statistics are not specified beyond simulations.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The packet-level effective SINR abstraction (post-equalization, MIMO-OFDM) represents the true DSRC host-link behavior.
Eq. (6)-(7): the host PER is obtained as f_W(gamma_W_n, m) with an abstract function f_W. The paper does not validate this abstraction against an 802.11p PHY simulator or measured PER curves.
domain assumption Envelope detection with two half-interval averages and a sign decision produces Manchester decoding with bit error rate fully captured by D_k = S_k,2 - S_k,1.
Eq. (10)-(13): passive decoding is modeled this way; the impact of imperfect synchronization, clock offset, and fading is not modeled, and the detector noise model eta_n is unspecified.
domain assumption The overlay attenuation applies a common scalar factor across all transmit antennas and is treated by the legacy receiver as tolerable distortion affecting only the effective SINR.
Eq. (4)-(6): this is the core modeling choice that lets the overlay be analyzed without simulation of the full receiver chain; the paper does not test its validity against a full PHY simulation.
ad hoc to paper The PHY evaluation module (simulator or LUT) used for Figs. 2-3 accurately reproduces real DSRC/Glaze PER values.
Section III-B and Section IV: the central numerical claims depend on PHYEval(k, delta, Rb, m), whose implementation, channel model, and calibration are not disclosed.
domain assumption Each host packet carries exactly one overlay bit, so passive throughput can be written as R_b * (1 - Pe,G), as in Eq. (17).
Section II-B: "We associate each host packet n with one overlay bit b_k(n)", combined with Eq. (17) and Eq. (14), assumes independence between bits and that the passive frame structure (preamble + coded bits) fits in host packets without modeling MAC-level scheduling or synchronization acquisition.

invented entities (1)

No new physical entity introduced
purpose: None
The paper introduces no new particle, force, dimension, or mediator; it reuses the Glaze amplitude-attenuation overlay concept with an envelope-detection receiver.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PHY-Layer Modeling and Throughput-Driven Adaptation for Batteryless V2X Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6WX4OQQF

@misc{pith2026260801928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PHY-Layer Modeling and Throughput-Driven Adaptation for Batteryless V2X Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6WX4OQQF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01928}
}

read the original abstract

Passive overlay communication for batteryless devices is an important enabling capability for next-generation vehicle-to-everything (V2X) networks. However, enabling reliable passive payload delivery without occupying additional spectrum remains challenging, since overlay signaling must be embedded into short and time-varying vehicular packets while preserving the decodability of the legacy host transmission. This paper investigates a packetized batteryless V2X overlay architecture in which a dedicated short-range communications (DSRC)-based packet simultaneously carries conventional V2X data and a passive overlay payload. A compact PHY-layer model is developed to characterize the coupled effects of attenuation depth, embedded-bit rate, and legacy modulation and coding scheme (MCS) on host-link and passive-link reliability, as well as packet-level embedding feasibility. We then formulate a sum-throughput maximization problem that jointly accounts for the legacy packet error rate and passive decoding error rate. We further propose a multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL)-based adaptive parameter-selection method. Simulation results show that the proposed MARL controller achieves stable convergence and improves the average throughput by 15\%, demonstrating the effectiveness of throughput-driven PHY adaptation for batteryless V2X overlay communications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01928 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Batteryless V2X System Architecture. embedded-bit rate, and legacy MCS, thereby improving the total delivered throughput under reliability constraints. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the system architecture and system model. Section III formulates the optimization problem and introduces the proposed adaptation method. Section IV provides the simulation results and discussion. Se… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** DSRC with Glaze System: DSRC PER Performance in terms of PHY Parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** DSRC with Glaze System: Glaze PER Performance in terms of PHY Parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The MARL for Adaptive Optimization. increases the passive-link PER. If Rb is too small, the required embedding duration becomes too long relative to the available packet time, which is also unfavorable for passive delivery. Therefore, Rb should be selected jointly with…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

Wireless access for V2X communi- cations: Research, challenges and opportunities,

J. Clancy, D. Mullins, B. Deegan, J. Horgan, E. Ward, C. Eising, P. Denny, E. Jones, and M. Glavin, “Wireless access for V2X communi- cations: Research, challenges and opportunities,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 2082–2119, 2024
[2]

Physical layer evaluation of V2X communications technologies: 5G NR-V2X, LTE-V2X, IEEE 802.11bd, and IEEE 802.11p,

W. Anwar, N. Franchi, and G. Fettweis, “Physical layer evaluation of V2X communications technologies: 5G NR-V2X, LTE-V2X, IEEE 802.11bd, and IEEE 802.11p,” in2019 IEEE 90th V ehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Fall), 2019, pp. 1–7

2019
[3]

Interworking of DSRC and cellular network technologies for V2X communications: A survey,

K. Abboud, H. A. Omar, and W. Zhuang, “Interworking of DSRC and cellular network technologies for V2X communications: A survey,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 9457–9470, 2016

2016
[4]

DSRC versus LTE-V2X: Empirical performance analysis of direct vehicular communication technologies,

E. Moradi-Pari, D. Tian, M. Bahramgiri, S. Rajab, and S. Bai, “DSRC versus LTE-V2X: Empirical performance analysis of direct vehicular communication technologies,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 4889–4903, 2023

2023
[5]

Joint use of DSRC and C-V2X for V2X communications in the 5.9 GHz ITS band,

K. Ansari, “Joint use of DSRC and C-V2X for V2X communications in the 5.9 GHz ITS band,”IET Intelligent Transport Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 213–224, 2021

2021
[6]

Backscatter communication meets practical battery-free internet of things: A survey and outlook,

T. Jiang, Y . Zhang, W. Ma, M. Peng, Y . Peng, M. Feng, and G. Liu, “Backscatter communication meets practical battery-free internet of things: A survey and outlook,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tu- torials, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 2021–2051, 2023

2021
[7]

Coding techniques for backscatter communications—a contemporary survey,

F. Rezaei, D. A. Loku Galappaththige, C. Tellambura, and S. Herath, “Coding techniques for backscatter communications—a contemporary survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1020–1058, 2023

2023
[8]

Data-driven batteryless channel sounding for wi-fi 8-inspired downlink mu-mimo,

M. Zhang, C. Zhang, Q. Xu, Z. Liu, L. Cao, L. Zhang, and M. Gan, “Data-driven batteryless channel sounding for wi-fi 8-inspired downlink mu-mimo,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29288

arXiv 2026

Show all 16 references

[9]

A lightweight coordinate-conditioned diffusion approach for 6g c-v2x radio environment maps,

L. Cao, Z. Liu, D. Wei, Y . Yang, Y . Pan, and L. Zhang, “A lightweight coordinate-conditioned diffusion approach for 6g c-v2x radio environment maps,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.22535

2025
[10]

Non-primary channel access in ieee 802.11 uhr: Comprehensive analysis and evaluation,

D. Wei, L. Cao, L. Zhang, X. Gao, and H. Yin, “Non-primary channel access in ieee 802.11 uhr: Comprehensive analysis and evaluation,” in2024 IEEE 100th V ehicular Technology Conference (VTC2024-Fall), 2024, pp. 1–6

2024
[11]

Glaze: Overlay- ing occupied spectrum with downlink IoT transmissions,

Z. Kapetanovic, A. Saffari, R. Chandra, and J. R. Smith, “Glaze: Overlay- ing occupied spectrum with downlink IoT transmissions,”Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 137:1–137:21, 2019

2019
[12]

Saiyan: Design and implementation of a low-power demodulator for LoRa backscatter systems,

X. Guo, L. Shangguan, Y . He, N. Jing, J. Zhang, H. Jiang, and Y . Liu, “Saiyan: Design and implementation of a low-power demodulator for LoRa backscatter systems,” in19th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 22), 2022, pp. 437–451

2022
[13]

Performance analysis of the IEEE 802.11 distributed coor- dination function,

G. Bianchi, “Performance analysis of the IEEE 802.11 distributed coor- dination function,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 535–547, 2000

2000
[14]

Optimizing throughput for NR V2X message delivery with congestion control,

Q. Fu, J. Liu, J. Wang, and J. Kong, “Optimizing throughput for NR V2X message delivery with congestion control,” in2024 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2024, pp. 3805–3810

2024
[15]

Cross-layer channel sounding optimization toward next-gen wi-fi: From model driven to data driven,

L. Zhang, L. Cao, D. Wei, M. Chen, Z. Chen, and S. Cui, “Cross-layer channel sounding optimization toward next-gen wi-fi: From model driven to data driven,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 25, pp. 3319–3332, 2026

2026
[16]

V2X communication between connected and automated vehicles (CA Vs) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UA Vs),

O. Kavas-Torris, S. Y . Gelbal, M. R. Cantas, B. Aksun Guvenc, and L. Guvenc, “V2X communication between connected and automated vehicles (CA Vs) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UA Vs),”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 22, p. 8941, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Wireless access for V2X communi- cations: Research, challenges and opportunities,

J. Clancy, D. Mullins, B. Deegan, J. Horgan, E. Ward, C. Eising, P. Denny, E. Jones, and M. Glavin, “Wireless access for V2X communi- cations: Research, challenges and opportunities,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 2082–2119, 2024

[2] [2]

Physical layer evaluation of V2X communications technologies: 5G NR-V2X, LTE-V2X, IEEE 802.11bd, and IEEE 802.11p,

W. Anwar, N. Franchi, and G. Fettweis, “Physical layer evaluation of V2X communications technologies: 5G NR-V2X, LTE-V2X, IEEE 802.11bd, and IEEE 802.11p,” in2019 IEEE 90th V ehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Fall), 2019, pp. 1–7

2019

[3] [3]

Interworking of DSRC and cellular network technologies for V2X communications: A survey,

K. Abboud, H. A. Omar, and W. Zhuang, “Interworking of DSRC and cellular network technologies for V2X communications: A survey,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 9457–9470, 2016

2016

[4] [4]

DSRC versus LTE-V2X: Empirical performance analysis of direct vehicular communication technologies,

E. Moradi-Pari, D. Tian, M. Bahramgiri, S. Rajab, and S. Bai, “DSRC versus LTE-V2X: Empirical performance analysis of direct vehicular communication technologies,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 4889–4903, 2023

2023

[5] [5]

Joint use of DSRC and C-V2X for V2X communications in the 5.9 GHz ITS band,

K. Ansari, “Joint use of DSRC and C-V2X for V2X communications in the 5.9 GHz ITS band,”IET Intelligent Transport Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 213–224, 2021

2021

[6] [6]

Backscatter communication meets practical battery-free internet of things: A survey and outlook,

T. Jiang, Y . Zhang, W. Ma, M. Peng, Y . Peng, M. Feng, and G. Liu, “Backscatter communication meets practical battery-free internet of things: A survey and outlook,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tu- torials, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 2021–2051, 2023

2021

[7] [7]

Coding techniques for backscatter communications—a contemporary survey,

F. Rezaei, D. A. Loku Galappaththige, C. Tellambura, and S. Herath, “Coding techniques for backscatter communications—a contemporary survey,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1020–1058, 2023

2023

[8] [8]

Data-driven batteryless channel sounding for wi-fi 8-inspired downlink mu-mimo,

M. Zhang, C. Zhang, Q. Xu, Z. Liu, L. Cao, L. Zhang, and M. Gan, “Data-driven batteryless channel sounding for wi-fi 8-inspired downlink mu-mimo,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.29288

arXiv 2026