Optimizing Age-of-Information in Piggyback Networks with Recurrent Data Generation

Ching-Chi Lin; Jian-Jia Chen; Mario G\"unzel

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 20 references

Optimizing Age-of-Information in Piggyback Networks with Recurrent Data Generation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Planning a drone patrol route that minimizes the worst-case age of collected data is NP-complete, but two polynomial-time algorithms guarantee routes within 1.5 times the optimal maximum age.

desk verdict Clean MAI-patrol theory with a model boundary; tightness and evaluation need polish. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14968 v1 pith:OGEWMOJJ submitted 2025-05-20 cs.DS

Ching-Chi Lin , Mario Günzel , Jian-Jia Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.DS MSC 68Q1768W2590C27

keywords maximumage-of-informationpatrollingdronepiggybacknetworkstore-carry-forwardapproximationalgorithmNP-completetravelingsalesmanproblemrouteplanning

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

This paper studies a patrol drone that visits stationary IoT devices, collects data packets they generate recurrently, and delivers them to a server. The goal is to choose a cyclic patrol route that minimizes the Maximum Age-of-Information (MAI), the oldest data that can arrive at the server. The paper proves that deciding whether a route exists with MAI at most a given threshold is NP-complete, and then offers two approximation algorithms, SRTT and Enforced, each proven to return a route whose MAI is at most 1.5 times the optimal MAI on metric complete graphs. The key structural insight is that the worst-case age of any route is always set by the first device visited, which reduces the problem to a structured variant of the traveling salesman problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the first-node lemma: for a route $R$, $\mathrm{MAI}_R = T_R + T_R(1,0)$, so the maximum age is always at the first visited data node. Writing this as $2T_R - T_R(0,1)$ reveals the counterintuitive mechanism--extending the first leg out of the server can reduce the MAI even when it increases total route length. The approximation proofs then use the triangle inequality together with the standard 1.5-approximation for the traveling salesman problem, constructed from a minimum spanning tree plus a minimum-weight perfect matching, to bound the round trip time of the produced route against the optimal TSP tour, which in turn bounds the MAI.

What would settle it

Run the exact dynamic programming algorithm for optimal MAI on a small metric complete graph, generate the SRTT and Enforced routes, and compare the ratios; the theorems assert the ratio never exceeds 1.5, so any instance with a ratio above 1.5 would refute the approximation claim. A complementary check is to set up a simulation where data upload time is nonzero and grows with accumulated data; the predicted MAI formula would then systematically underestimate the measured maximum age.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for a patrolling drone collecting recurrently generated data, the Maximum Age-of-Information of a route obeys a simple identity: $\mathrm{MAI}_R = T_R + T_R(1,0)$, where $T_R$ is the round trip time and $T_R(1,0)$ is the travel time from the first data node visited back to the server. Because the return time from the first node is the largest among all nodes, this identity localizes the worst-case age to the first leg of the route. From it the paper derives that the decision version of the route-planning problem is NP-complete by a reduction from Hamiltonian Path, and that two polynomial-time heuristics--Shortest Round Trip Time, built on the standard 1.5-approximation algorithm for the traveling salesman problem, and Edge Enforcement, which tries every possible first edge--both guarantee an MAI within a factor of 1.5 of the optimum. The paper further shows empirically that the shortest round trip time route is not necessarily the freshest route, and that combining Enforced with a state-of-the-art TSP solver produces near-optimal MAI in most test scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the drone can offload all accumulated data at a node instantly, so the age of delivered data depends only on travel times and not on the volume of data being transferred.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The first-node lemma reduces MAI route planning to choosing a first device and then finding the shortest Hamiltonian path back to the server, so exact optimization is possible only for small instances.
A shorter round trip time can increase the worst-case data age, so freshness-aware routes must be planned with a different objective than classic TSP.
Both proposed algorithms run in polynomial time and carry a certified worst-case guarantee of 1.5, making them deployable for route updates when nodes are relocated.
The hybrid of Enforced and a TSP solver reached the optimal MAI in at least 66% of the 8-node and 30% of the 20-node test scenarios, indicating near-optimal practical performance.

Reading between the lines

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

The asymmetry of the MAI objective under route reversal is reminiscent of minimum-latency problems, and the first-node decomposition may extend to other freshness metrics such as average age or peak age under different arrival processes.
If per-visit data transfer time grows with the volume accumulated, the model becomes a joint routing and scheduling problem; the identity here suggests that the first-leg tradeoff would persist but the 1.5 approximation would need re-derivation.
Because the tightness ratio for Enforced is only shown to be at least 1.375, a refined analysis could possibly improve the approximation guarantee within the same algorithmic framework.

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, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the paper delivers: NP-completeness for the MAI-minimizing patrol route and two 1.5-approximation algorithms, all within the stated travel-time-only model. Second, that model boundary is real—the paper states it in Section III-A, but the abstract's unqualified 'near-optimal' invites over-reading.

The central idea is clean. Lemma 1 shows the worst-case AoI is always at the first visited node, so MAI = 2·T_R − t_{0,first}. That turns the problem into 'find a TSP tour and orient it to maximize the longer server edge.' It's a nice twist on TSP, and the paper correctly demonstrates that minimizing round trip time alone is not the same as minimizing MAI (Figure 3). The NP-hardness reduction from Hamiltonian Path is standard but sound. The lower bound OPT_MAI ≥ W_TSP + W_MST and the 1.5-ratio proof are coherent; the Enforced variant, which tries each edge out of the server and takes the best, is a sensible exploitation of Lemma 1.

Soft spots, in proportion. The tightness example for SRTT (Section IV-B, Figure 2) contains off-by-one errors: with N data nodes plus the server, the MST has N edges of weight 1, so W_MST = N, not N−1 as written. The matching weight and the limiting ratio inherit the same issue. The upper bound still stands, but the claim that 1.5 is tight is not established as written. The evaluation section gives no code, seeds, or variance—just average normalized MAI over 100 synthetic instances. That's tolerable for a theory paper, but it doesn't substantiate 'near-optimal' in a strong sense.

The stress-test concern about upload time is valid as a boundary condition, not a flaw in the proofs. If upload time scales with accumulated data, MAI becomes coupled with the route, and Lemma 1 plus the 1.5 guarantees would need rework. The paper does disclose the assumption; a follow-up with positive service times would be the natural next step.

Who this is for: people working on UAV patrolling with AoI constraints, and anyone studying how TSP-style objectives diverge from latency-oriented ones. The paper deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review with a request to fix the tightness calculation and to make the evaluation reproducible by releasing code and seeds.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies route planning for a patrolling data-collection drone that recurrently visits IoT devices and delivers their data to a server, with the objective of minimizing the maximum age-of-information (MAI). The system is modeled as a complete metric graph, routes are Hamiltonian circuits through the server and all data nodes, and the paper derives that the MAI of a route is the round-trip time plus the return travel time from the first visited data node. It proves that the decision version of the problem is NP-complete by a reduction from Hamiltonian Path, and it proposes two approximation algorithms, SRTT and Enforced, each with a claimed 1.5 approximation ratio for MAI. The paper also reports simulation results on synthetic 8-node and 20-node scenarios, comparing the proposed methods against dynamic programming and the LKH TSP solver.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a clean complexity classification and constant-factor approximation algorithms for an AoI-aware patrol-routing problem, a useful contribution for applications where data freshness, rather than throughput, is the primary concern. The theoretical development is mostly self-contained and relies on standard ingredients: the Hamiltonian Path reduction, Christofides' TSP algorithm, the Held-Karp dynamic program, and standard metric-graph arguments. The empirical study is also meaningful because it compares against an exact DP baseline and the state-of-the-art LKH solver. The central 1.5 approximation bound is simple and appears sound, although the scope of the model and one tightness proof need clarification before the paper is fully convincing.

major comments (2)

[Section III-A, Eqs. (1)-(4), and Lemma 1] The derivation of MAI_R(i) = T_R + T_R(i,0) and the proof of Lemma 1 depend on the assumption that the drone can offload all accumulated data instantaneously, so that travel times are the only route cost. If the offload time at a node is non-negligible and node-dependent, for example proportional to the data accumulated since the previous visit with different generation rates, then the service time at a node becomes route-dependent, the MAI expression gains a node-dependent upload term, and Lemma 1 need not hold. Consequently, the lower bound OPT_MAI >= W_TSP + W_MST used in Theorem 4 is not justified in that more general model. The assumption is stated in Section III-A, but the abstract and conclusion present the 1.5 guarantees without this qualification. I recommend that the authors state explicitly in the theorem statements, abstract, and conclusion that the guarantees are for the instantaneous-offload model, and add a short discussion of what changes when upload times are not negligible.
[Section IV-B, tightness example] The tightness argument has a logical slip in the direction of the inequality. To prove a lower bound of 1.5 on the approximation ratio, the MAI of the SRTT route on the constructed instance must be lower-bounded, but the text says 'the MAI of this route is at most (N-2)(1+epsilon)+2N-1' and then treats this quantity as the numerator of a ratio that is 'at least' the displayed limit. An upper bound in the numerator can only give an upper bound on the ratio, so the proof of tightness is invalid as written. In addition, the example defines N as the number of data nodes, while W_MST is reported as N-1; if W_MST is taken over the graph that includes the server, the MST has N edges, not N-1. The asymptotic 1.5 limit may be recoverable, but the argument needs to be rewritten with correct lower bounds and consistent node counts.

minor comments (4)

[Section III-A, Eq. (1)] The notation T_R(i,j) is defined in Eq. (1) only for i < j along the route, but the paper frequently uses T_R(i,0) for i > 0. Please define T_R(i,0) explicitly as the travel time from node v_{R,i} to the server v0 along the remainder of the route.
[Section V-A and throughout] The abbreviation for the Lin-Kernighan-Helsgaun solver is written inconsistently as both LKH and LHK; please standardize to LKH.
[Section IV-C, Theorem 6 proof] The proof states that 'when Enforced enforces the shortest edge connected to the server node, it constructs the same spanning tree as SRTT.' If there are multiple shortest edges, this is only true for the particular edge selected by SRTT's Prim construction; since Enforced iterates over all server edges, the argument can be repaired, but the wording should be made precise.
[Section IV-C, Figure 3] The example uses the condition t_{0,3} > t_{1,3} and then claims t_{0,3} < 101 by the triangle inequality. This is correct, but the caption does not show the value of t_{0,3}; please add the relevant edge weights to the figure or caption so the example is self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained, uses standard external results (Hamiltonian Path NP-completeness, Christofides, Held-Karp), and is benchmarked against the DP optimum and LKH.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is not circular. The MAI objective is defined from the travel-time model in Equations (3)-(4), Lemma 1 follows arithmetically from that definition, and the NP-completeness proof is a standard reduction from Hamiltonian Path using an explicit edge-weight construction — the threshold 2N+1 is derived, not fitted. The 1.5-approximation results (Theorems 4 and 6) rest on Christofides' algorithm and the classical inequality W_MST <= W_TSP, which are external, machine-checkable or standard results; no parameter is fitted to the data being predicted. The empirical section compares SRTT, Enforced, and a hybrid against a dynamic-programming exact optimum and the LKH solver, so the reported near-optimality is checked against external benchmarks rather than being forced by construction. The only notable caveat is the instantaneous-offload assumption used in Section III-A, which limits the model's applicability if upload times are non-negligible, but this is an explicit modeling assumption and not a circular step: the approximation guarantees are stated for the model defined by that assumption. There is no self-citation chain that carries the load, no renamed known result, and no case where an output is equivalent to an input by definition. Thus the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

No free parameters or invented entities. The central claim rests on standard complexity and approximation facts plus three domain modeling choices: zero data-exchange time, worst-case generation immediately after departure, and metric symmetric travel times with exactly one visit per node per round. These are stated in Sections III-A and III-B but are not empirically validated; if they fail, the MAI formula and approximation guarantees need revision.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Data exchange time is negligible; the drone collects all accumulated packets immediately upon arrival.
Section III-A. Needed for the MAI formula to be purely travel-time based.
domain assumption For each node, the worst-case packet is generated immediately after the drone departs (Delta approaches 0).
Section III-B, Equations (3)-(4). Defines MAI as the worst-case AoI and makes MAI depend only on route timings.
domain assumption Edge weights are nonnegative, symmetric, and satisfy the triangle inequality.
Section III-A. Required for the Christofides approximation and for shortcutting Eulerian circuits.
domain assumption Routes are Hamiltonian circuits that start and end at the server, visiting each data node exactly once.
Section III-A. Restricts the problem to one visit per node per patrol round.
standard math Standard external results: Hamiltonian Path is NP-complete; Christofides gives a 1.5 TSP approximation; Held-Karp solves TSP in O(2^n n^2).
Used in Theorem 2, Section IV-B, and Section IV-C. The reduction and both algorithms rely on these results.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Age-of-Information in Piggyback Networks with Recurrent Data Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OGEWMOJJ

@misc{pith2026250514968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Age-of-Information in Piggyback Networks with Recurrent Data Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OGEWMOJJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14968}
}

read the original abstract

Age-of-information (AoI) is a critical metric that quantifies the freshness of data in communication systems. In the era of the Internet of Things (IoT), data collected by resource-constrained devices often need to be transmitted to a central server to extract valuable insights in a timely manner. However, maintaining a stable and direct connection between a vast number of IoT devices and servers is often impractical. The Store-Carry-Forward (SCF) communication paradigm, such as Piggyback networks, offers a viable solution to address the data collection and transmission challenges in distributed IoT systems by leveraging the mobility of mobile nodes. In this work, we investigate AoI within the context of patrolling data collection drones, where data packets are generated recurrently at devices and collected by a patrolling drone to be delivered to a server. Our objective is to design a patrolling route that minimizes the Maximum Age-of-Information (MAI) across the system. We demonstrate that determining whether a route with an MAI below a certain threshold can be constructed is NP-Complete. To address this challenge, we propose two approaches with approximation guarantees. Our evaluation results show that the proposed approaches can achieve near-optimal routes in reasonable time across various scenarios

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14968 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** A subfigure of the graph G used for the tightness analysis of the proposed approaches. The minimum spanning tree of G is shown in solid line. In this example, t0,1 = t0,2 = t1,2 = 1 and t1,3 = t2,3 = 100 v0 v1 v2 v3 1 100 100 1 (a) Shortest route v0 v1 v2 v3 1 100 t0,3 1 (b) Route with the minimum MAI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** An example where the shortest route has a larger MAI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: MAIs of the routes generated by different approaches in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: MAIs of the routes generated by different approaches in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Average computation time for route generation across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Wireless sub-thz communication system with high data rate,

S. Koenig, D. Lopez-Diaz, J. Antes, F. Boes, R. Henneberger, A. Leuther, A. Tessmann, R. Schmogrow, D. Hillerkuss, R. Palmer et al., “Wireless sub-thz communication system with high data rate,” Nature photonics, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 977–981, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

Terahertz band: Next frontier for wireless communications,

I. F. Akyildiz, J. M. Jornet, and C. Han, “Terahertz band: Next frontier for wireless communications,” Physical communication, vol. 12, pp. 16– 32, 2014

work page 2014
[3]

Uav data delivery and routing optimization in piggyback network,

S. Hasegawa, K. Kuwata, A. Li, Y . Watanabe, Y . Shoji, and M. Hasegawa, “Uav data delivery and routing optimization in piggyback network,” Nonlinear Theory and Its Applications, IEICE , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 66–77, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Piggy-back network to enable beyond 5g society sup- ported by autonomous mobilities: : Evaluation of end-to-end throughput on optimized piggy-back networks,

K. Kuwata, Y . Shoji, M. Hasegawa, Y . Ito, Y . Watanabe, A. Li, and S. Hasegawa, “Piggy-back network to enable beyond 5g society sup- ported by autonomous mobilities: : Evaluation of end-to-end throughput on optimized piggy-back networks,” in 24th International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications , 2021, pp. 1–5

work page 2021
[5]

Game theory approach for autonomous mobility-assisted piggyback network with mm-wave links,

D. Yamamoto, S. Hasegawa, Y . Shoji, and M. Hasegawa, “Game theory approach for autonomous mobility-assisted piggyback network with mm-wave links,” IEICE Communications Express , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 118–121, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Age of information: A new metric for information freshness,

Y . Sun, I. Kadota, R. Talak, and E. H. Modiano, “Age of information: A new metric for information freshness,” Synthesis Lectures on Com- munication Networks, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Aoi-oriented context-aware priority design and vehicle scheduling strategy in vehicular networks,

Q. Zhang, N. Cheng, R. Sun, and D. Zhang, “Aoi-oriented context-aware priority design and vehicle scheduling strategy in vehicular networks,” in 2022 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China (ICCC Workshops), 2022, pp. 233–238

work page 2022
[8]

Addressing disasters in smart cities through uavs path planning and 5g communications: A systematic review,

Z. Qadir, F. Ullah, H. S. Munawar, and F. Al-Turjman, “Addressing disasters in smart cities through uavs path planning and 5g communications: A systematic review,” Computer Communications , vol. 168, pp. 114–135, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140366421000116

work page 2021

Show all 20 references

[9]

Solution of a large-scale traveling-salesman problem,

G. Dantzig, R. Fulkerson, and S. Johnson, “Solution of a large-scale traveling-salesman problem,” Journal of the Operations Research Society of America , vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 393–410, 1954. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/166695

1954
[10]

The complexity of the travelling repairman prob- lem,

F. Afrati, S. Cosmadakis, C. H. Papadimitriou, G. Papageorgiou, and N. Papakostantinou, “The complexity of the travelling repairman prob- lem,” RAIRO-Theoretical Informatics and Applications , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 79–87, 1986

1986
[11]

The truck dispatching problem,

G. B. Dantzig and J. H. Ramser, “The truck dispatching problem,” Management Science, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 80–91, 1959

1959
[12]

Dynamic programming treatment of the travelling sales- man problem,

R. Bellman, “Dynamic programming treatment of the travelling sales- man problem,” Journal of the ACM (JACM) , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 61–63, 1962

1962
[13]

Worst-case analysis of a new heuristic for the travelling salesman problem,

N. Christofides, “Worst-case analysis of a new heuristic for the travelling salesman problem,” in Operations Research Forum , vol. 3, no. 1. Springer, 2022, p. 20

2022
[14]

An effective heuristic algorithm for the traveling-salesman problem,

S. Lin and B. W. Kernighan, “An effective heuristic algorithm for the traveling-salesman problem,” Operations Research, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 498–516, 1973

1973
[15]

Ieee 802.11ay: Next-generation 60 ghz communication for 100 gb/s wi-fi,

Y . Ghasempour, C. R. C. M. da Silva, C. Cordeiro, and E. W. Knightly, “Ieee 802.11ay: Next-generation 60 ghz communication for 100 gb/s wi-fi,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 186–192, 2017

2017
[16]

R. M. Karp, Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems. Boston, MA: Springer US, 1972, pp. 85–103

1972
[17]

Lawler, The Travelling Salesman Problem: A Guided Tour of Combinatorial Optimization , ser

E. Lawler, The Travelling Salesman Problem: A Guided Tour of Combinatorial Optimization , ser. Wiley-Interscience series in discrete mathematics and optimization. John Wiley & Sons, 1985

1985
[18]

Shortest connection networks and some generalizations,

R. C. Prim, “Shortest connection networks and some generalizations,” The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1389–1401, 1957

1957
[19]

On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem,

J. B. Kruskal, “On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem,”Proceedings of the American Mathematical society, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 48–50, 1956

1956
[20]

An extension of the lin-kernighan-helsgaun tsp solver for constrained traveling salesman and vehicle routing problems,

K. Helsgaun, “An extension of the lin-kernighan-helsgaun tsp solver for constrained traveling salesman and vehicle routing problems,” Roskilde University, Tech. Rep., 2017

2017

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Wireless sub-thz communication system with high data rate,

S. Koenig, D. Lopez-Diaz, J. Antes, F. Boes, R. Henneberger, A. Leuther, A. Tessmann, R. Schmogrow, D. Hillerkuss, R. Palmer et al., “Wireless sub-thz communication system with high data rate,” Nature photonics, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 977–981, 2013

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Terahertz band: Next frontier for wireless communications,

I. F. Akyildiz, J. M. Jornet, and C. Han, “Terahertz band: Next frontier for wireless communications,” Physical communication, vol. 12, pp. 16– 32, 2014

work page 2014

[3] [3]

Uav data delivery and routing optimization in piggyback network,

S. Hasegawa, K. Kuwata, A. Li, Y . Watanabe, Y . Shoji, and M. Hasegawa, “Uav data delivery and routing optimization in piggyback network,” Nonlinear Theory and Its Applications, IEICE , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 66–77, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Piggy-back network to enable beyond 5g society sup- ported by autonomous mobilities: : Evaluation of end-to-end throughput on optimized piggy-back networks,

K. Kuwata, Y . Shoji, M. Hasegawa, Y . Ito, Y . Watanabe, A. Li, and S. Hasegawa, “Piggy-back network to enable beyond 5g society sup- ported by autonomous mobilities: : Evaluation of end-to-end throughput on optimized piggy-back networks,” in 24th International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications , 2021, pp. 1–5

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Game theory approach for autonomous mobility-assisted piggyback network with mm-wave links,

D. Yamamoto, S. Hasegawa, Y . Shoji, and M. Hasegawa, “Game theory approach for autonomous mobility-assisted piggyback network with mm-wave links,” IEICE Communications Express , vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 118–121, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Age of information: A new metric for information freshness,

Y . Sun, I. Kadota, R. Talak, and E. H. Modiano, “Age of information: A new metric for information freshness,” Synthesis Lectures on Com- munication Networks, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Aoi-oriented context-aware priority design and vehicle scheduling strategy in vehicular networks,

Q. Zhang, N. Cheng, R. Sun, and D. Zhang, “Aoi-oriented context-aware priority design and vehicle scheduling strategy in vehicular networks,” in 2022 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China (ICCC Workshops), 2022, pp. 233–238

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Addressing disasters in smart cities through uavs path planning and 5g communications: A systematic review,

Z. Qadir, F. Ullah, H. S. Munawar, and F. Al-Turjman, “Addressing disasters in smart cities through uavs path planning and 5g communications: A systematic review,” Computer Communications , vol. 168, pp. 114–135, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140366421000116

work page 2021