A Resilience Perspective on C-V2X Communication Networks under Imperfect CSI

Mingzhe Chen; Tingyu Shui; Walid Saad

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

A Resilience Perspective on C-V2X Communication Networks under Imperfect CSI

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes an analytical framework that defines, quantifies, and analyzes C-V2X network resilience under imperfect CSI through two new dimensions—remediation capability and adaptation performance—and reveals a tradeoff between…

desk verdict A coherent but incremental application of deconvolution estimation and hazard-rate metrics to C-V2X resilience; the framework is useful, yet the 'first time' and 'superiority' claims outrun the standard math and internal-only validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10925 v1 pith:A7WBOCAY submitted 2024-11-17 cs.IT math.IT

Tingyu Shui , Walid Saad , Mingzhe Chen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ITmath.IT

keywords C-V2XresilienceimperfectCSIdeconvolutionestimationhazardrateadaptationpowerallocationremediationcapabilityQoS

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 argues that resilience of a cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) network against imperfect channel state information (CSI) can be measured before the network fully recovers, during the adaptation phase when the base station is still learning the error in its CSI. To do this, the paper defines two quantities: remediation capability, the mean-square accuracy of a deconvolution-based estimate of the unknown CSI error distribution, and adaptation performance, how close violated quality-of-service stays to its requirement, captured by a hazard rate. The central result is an upper bound on the estimation error (Theorem 1) showing that improving remediation capability—by raising V2I adaptation power or lowering V2V adaptation power—degrades QoS during adaptation, while a longer adaptation window improves remediation. The paper claims these are the first quantitative definitions of C-V2X resilience along adaptation and remediation, and shows by simulation that the two metrics correctly rank adaptation power schemes, with one scheme (PA II) dominating another (PA I) on both dimensions. If the framework is right, network operators can choose adaptation power profiles that trade short-term QoS against how well the system will recover.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a deconvolution estimator plus a hazard-rate metric. In an adaptation phase of $T$ slots, the base station collects samples $z_t$ in (6) that equal the unknown CSI error $e_{nm,t}$ plus an exponential noise $Y$ whose parameter $\lambda_Y$ is known from the adaptation powers; because $Z = e_{nm} + Y$ is a convolution, the PDF of $e_{nm}$ is recovered by Fourier division, approximated by the empirical characteristic function in (9) and a truncated inverse transform in (10). Theorem 1's MSE bound in (11) is the object that defines remediation capability and exposes its dependence on the adaptation power ratio and $T$. On the adaptation-performance side, equations (12)-(13) define hazard rates as conditional densities of QoS at the requirement boundary, and Lemma 1 evaluates them in closed form.

What would settle it

Simulate the adaptation phase with a time-varying error distribution, for example a Gaussian mixture whose component means shift every few slots, and compare the estimated PDF against the true one: if the empirical mean square error exceeds the Theorem 1 bound or the remediation phase misses its delay target, the stationarity of $E$ is the breaking point. Separately, recompute the hazard-rate formulas in Lemma 1 by direct Monte Carlo simulation of the definitions (12)-(13); a mismatch would expose the omitted proof as a substantive gap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that resilience of a C-V2X network facing arbitrary, unknown CSI error can be decomposed into remediation capability and adaptation performance, both quantifiable without knowing the error distribution in advance. Remediation capability is defined as the mean square error of the estimated PDF of the unknown error $E$, and Theorem 1 bounds this MSE by a term depending on the tail of $E$'s Fourier transform plus a term that grows with the ratio $o = K\pi(1-\delta_m^2) P_m^a L_m^a / (P_n^a L_n^a)$, so larger V2I adaptation power, smaller V2V adaptation power, and longer adaptation windows improve remediation. Adaptation performance is defined through hazard rates $\Lambda_V^+$ and $\Lambda_I^-$ in (14)-(15), which measure, conditional on a QoS violation, the likelihood that the violated QoS stays near the target; the weighted sum $\Lambda$ in (16) is proposed as a single adaptation-performance metric. The paper then claims the two dimensions are in tension: the power choices that maximize estimation accuracy are the ones that most hurt adaptation-phase QoS, and the simulations show PA II dominates PA I on both dimensions, validating the framework's ability to guide adaptation power design.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the unknown error distribution $E$ stays the same over the $T$ adaptation slots, so the collected samples all come from one fixed distribution and the deconvolution estimator in (10) is valid; the paper itself notes $E$ may be time-varying in a highly dynamic environment, and if it drifts, the mean-square-error bound that defines remediation capability no longer holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Adaptation power can be designed from Theorem 1: raising $P_n^a$ and lowering $P_m^a$ reduces the MSE bound and thereby improves remediation capability, at the price of worse V2V QoS during adaptation.
A longer adaptation phase $T$ lowers the MSE bound, so the network can compensate for an unfavorable power ratio by collecting more samples before remediating.
The hazard rate gives a finer characterization of adaptation-phase QoS than outage probability, distinguishing a system whose violated delays stay just above $\tau_0$ from one whose delays are far worse.
PA II dominates PA I in both remediation capability and adaptation performance in the simulations, showing resilience can be improved without sacrificing estimation accuracy by choosing the right power pair.
The weighted hazard rate $\Lambda$ in (16) provides an explicit objective for future optimization of the adaptation power scheme balancing V2I and V2V priorities.

Reading between the lines

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

If the error distribution $E$ is time-varying, as the paper admits it may be, the i.i.d. assumption behind the deconvolution estimator fails and the Theorem 1 bound no longer applies; a natural extension would replace the empirical characteristic function with a drifting-window or online deconvolution estimator.
The same two-metric template—deconvolution-based learning accuracy plus hazard-rate closeness of violated QoS—transfers to other wireless systems that must learn an unknown additive disturbance, such as jamming, hardware impairment, or channel aging, during an adaptation phase.
The closed-form hazard rates in Lemma 1 are stated without proof, so a Monte Carlo verification of (14)-(15) under the simulation's Gaussian mixture error would settle whether the omitted derivation is correct before the metric is used for power design.
Although the paper stops at analyzing the tradeoff, its two metrics are ready-made objectives for a constrained optimization that selects $P_n^a, P_m^a, T$ to maximize remediation capability subject to a minimum acceptable adaptation-phase hazard rate.

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

Quick take: this paper is a legitimate, if incremental, extension of two known tools—deconvolution density estimation and hazard-rate analysis—to the C-V2X resilience problem. The framework is coherent and the tradeoff story is convincing. It is not a breakthrough, and the paper oversells its novelty, but it is a useful contribution for the V2X resource-management subfield.

What is actually new: the mapping of adaptation-phase QoS to a hazard rate, and the use of a deconvolution MSE bound as a 'remediation capability' metric. Theorem 1 is a correct bias-variance decomposition; the variance term genuinely shows how the power split between V2I and V2V links trades estimation accuracy against QoS during adaptation. The three simulation power schemes illustrate that tradeoff cleanly.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. Lemma 1—the explicit hazard-rate formulas—is stated without proof. For a paper whose contribution is partly analytical, omitting the proof of the backbone result is a serious gap. The notation in Eq. (10) is genuinely ambiguous: e_nm is used as both the evaluation point and the unknown error, which makes the estimator hard to parse. The stationarity assumption is the deepest issue: Sec. II.C admits E may be time-varying, yet the whole estimator (8)-(10) requires a fixed E for the empirical characteristic function to be consistent. If E drifts over the T slots, the estimated PDF is a time average, not the distribution needed for (5). This is not a nitpick—the paper motivates itself with highly dynamic environments—but it is also a common modeling restriction. The fix is to state explicitly that the framework applies to quasi-stationary windows, and to validate that with a time-varying simulation. The validation is otherwise internal: only PA I-III are compared, no prior robust or model-based baseline, so 'superiority' is not demonstrated. Minor: the text says PA II outperforms PA I in both dimensions, but Fig. 2a shows identical remediation capability.

Who should read this: people working on V2X resource allocation with imperfect CSI. They will find a clear conceptual framework and a transferable estimation recipe. It deserves a serious referee; the missing proof and the stationarity issue need addressing before it can be relied upon, but that is exactly what peer review is for.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an analytical framework for studying the resilience of C-V2X networks under imperfect CSI. The framework focuses on an adaptation phase during which the base station estimates the PDF of an unknown additive CSI error via a deconvolution estimator based on RSS samples. The MSE of this estimator is defined as the network's remediation capability, and an upper bound is derived in Theorem 1. Adaptation performance is quantified by a hazard-rate metric, and a tradeoff between remediation capability and adaptation performance is claimed. The paper is illustrated with simulations comparing three adaptation power schemes.

Significance. If the framework is correct, it is a useful conceptual contribution: it offers quantitative definitions of remediation capability and adaptation performance, and the derived MSE bound provides a principled basis for selecting adaptation powers. The paper addresses an important gap by explicitly considering QoS during the adaptation phase, which prior robust designs ignore. The deconvolution estimator and the hazard-rate formulation are sensible starting points. However, the framework is only valid under a quasi-stationarity assumption on the error distribution that is acknowledged but not handled, and the proof of the central hazard-rate lemma is omitted, so the strength of the claims is not fully supported.

major comments (3)

[Section II.C vs. Section III.A] Section II.C states that the error distribution E 'may be time-varying due to the highly dynamic environment,' but Section III.A assumes the samples Z in Eq. (8) are i.i.d. from a fixed random variable Z = e_nm + Y. If E drifts over the T adaptation slots, the empirical characteristic function in Eq. (9) estimates the characteristic function of a time-averaged mixture of distributions, not F{f_E} for any single E; consequently, the estimator in Eq. (10) does not target the PDF needed in the QoS probability (5), and Theorem 1's MSE bound, derived under an i.i.d. assumption, no longer applies. Since the paper motivates the work by the dynamic nature of vehicular environments, this is a load-bearing limitation. The authors should either explicitly restrict the framework to quasi-stationary windows with a justification and validation, or extend the analysis to non-stationary error distributions.
[Section III.A, Eq. (10) and Theorem 1] The symbol e_nm is used both as the unknown additive error term (e.g., Eq. (4) and Eq. (7)) and as the evaluation point of the estimated density in Eq. (10). This ambiguity carries into Theorem 1, where the first term of the bound in Eq. (11) contains e^{j w e_nm}; if e_nm is interpreted as the random error, the bound is not well-defined, and if it is the evaluation point, the bound is pointwise and should be written with a different symbol (e.g., x). Please clarify the notation and state explicitly whether the MSE is defined pointwise or as an integrated quantity.
[Lemma 1, Eqs. (14) and (15)] The hazard-rate formulas in Lemma 1 are a central component of the adaptation-performance analysis and of the claimed tradeoff, but the proof is omitted with the statement 'The proof was omitted due to space limitation,' and the formulas are not independently verified. Moreover, the displayed expressions contain ambiguous parentheses that make the denominator structure unclear. A proof or at least a derivation sketch should be provided, and the equations should be rewritten unambiguously.

minor comments (7)

[Table II and Section IV] The text states that the parameters of the three power schemes satisfy oI = oII = 1/2 oIII, but according to the definitions in Table II, PA III doubles P_m while halving P_n relative to PA I, which yields oIII = 4 oI; please check this relationship.
[Theorem 1] In the definition of o, the denominator is written as L_a^n, but Eq. (6) and the surrounding analysis use L_a^nm for the interference link; this is likely a typo and should be corrected for consistency.
[Section I] The phrase 'Pascal theorem' in the sentence before Eq. (9) is likely a typo for 'Parseval theorem' or 'Fourier inversion'; please correct.
[Throughout] The word 'adaption' is used in several places (e.g., 'adaption phase' in Section III.A and III.B); it should be 'adaptation'.
[Eq. (10)] The first equality in Eq. (10) should be an approximation because the truncated integral is introduced immediately after; furthermore, the role of the evaluation point should be made explicit.
[Fig. 2a] The figure plots the estimated densities for the three schemes but does not overlay the true GMM density, so the claim that PA I and PA II are 'more accurate' than PA III is not visually supported; please include the true PDF or an empirical MSE comparison.
[Section IV] The simulation description says results are averaged over 10,000 channel realizations with T = 1,000, but it is not specified whether the estimation is repeated across these realizations and how the empirical MSE is computed; please clarify the simulation procedure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytical framework is self-contained, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The target PDF f_E is unknown and is estimated from observed samples; no parameter is fitted to force the theorems. Theorem 1's MSE bound is derived from the deconvolution estimator in Eqs. (9)-(10), and the HR formulas in Lemma 1 are analytical consequences of the SINR/QoS model, even though the proof is omitted. The GMM error distribution is introduced only as a simulation test input, not as a fitted parameter, so agreement between Fig. 2a and the bound is a consistency check rather than a circular prediction. The power schemes PA I-III are compared using the same derived formulas, which is self-consistency, not circular reasoning. The paper's own caveat that E may be time-varying (Sec. II.C) is an assumption limitation that threatens the validity of Eqs. (8)-(10) under drift, but this is a correctness risk, not a circular step. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no known result is merely renamed as a prediction; the new metrics are defined from the model and then analyzed. Therefore the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analytical contribution rests on standard deconvolution and reliability tools plus domain assumptions about channel statistics. The only hand-chosen tunable in the bound is the truncation constant K. No new physical entities are postulated. The most fragile entry is the stationarity of E, which the paper itself flags as questionable.

free parameters (1)

Truncation constant K = 10 (in simulations)
Introduced in Eq. (10)-(11) to make the inverse Fourier integral converge; the MSE bound depends on K, and K=10 is chosen by hand in Section IV, not fitted to data.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Rayleigh small-scale fading and Gauss-Markov model for V2V channel error (Eq. (3)-(4))
Used in Section II.C to express |g_m|^2 and |g_nm|^2; the deconvolution formulation relies on |e_m|^2 being exponential.
domain assumption Unknown error distribution E is stationary during the adaptation phase, so samples Z are i.i.d.
Stated after Eq. (8) in Section III.A; directly contradicted by the paper's own note in Section II.C that E may be time-varying.
domain assumption Large-scale fading parameters are known and invariant during the adaptation phase
Assumed at the start of Section III.A; needed to construct ideal RSS \hat r_t and the samples z_t in Eq. (6).
standard math The characteristic function of the exponential noise Y is invertible as F{f_Y}=1/(1+jw/λY)
Used in Eq. (9) for deconvolution; valid for exponential Y but requires F{f_Y} nonzero on the real line.
ad hoc to paper Hazard-rate closed forms in Lemma 1, Eqs. (14)-(15), are correct
The proof is omitted due to space limitation, yet the adaptation-performance analysis and simulation discussion of Figs. 3 and 4 depend on these formulas.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Resilience Perspective on C-V2X Communication Networks under Imperfect CSI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7WBOCAY

@misc{pith2026241110925,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Resilience Perspective on C-V2X Communication Networks under Imperfect CSI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7WBOCAY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10925}
}

read the original abstract

Cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) networks provide a promising solution to improve road safety and traffic efficiency. One key challenge in such systems lies in meeting different quality-of-service (QoS) requirements of coexisting vehicular communication links, particularly under imperfect channel state information (CSI) conditions caused by the highly dynamic environment. In this paper, a novel analytical framework for examining the resilience of C-V2X networks in face of imperfect CSI is proposed. In this framework, the adaptation phase of the C-V2X network is studied, in which an adaptation power scheme is employed and the probability distribution function (PDF) of the imperfect CSI is estimated. Then, the resilience of C-V2X networks is studied through two principal dimensions: remediation capability and adaptation performance, both of which are defined, quantified, and analyzed for the first time. Particularly, an upper bound on the estimation's mean square error (MSE) is explicitly derived to capture the C-V2X's remediation capability, and a novel metric named hazard rate (HR) is exploited to evaluate the C-V2X's adaptation performance. Afterwards, the impact of the adaptation power scheme on the C-V2X's resilience is examined, revealing a tradeoff between the C-V2X's remediation capability and adaptation performance. Simulation results validate the framework's superiority in capturing the interplay between adaptation and remediation, as well as the effectiveness of the two proposed metrics in guiding the design of the adaptation power scheme to enhance the system's resilience.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10925 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** System model of the considered C-V2X network. the different use cases of vehicular communication links, the heterogeneous QoS requirements on V2I link n and V2V link m will be given by: Rm ≜ B log(1 + γn) ≥ R0, (1) τn ≜ D B log(1 + γm) ≤ τ0, (2) where B is the bandwidth of each RB, D is the V2V link packet size, and R0 and τ0 are respectively the given throughput and delay requirements. The power allocation problem,… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** shows the impact of adaptation power scheme on the C-V2X’s remediation capability. Table II lists three possible adaptation power schemes, PA I, PA II, and PA III, designed according to Theorem 1 with P max n = 23 dBm and P max m = 20 dBm. Specifically, based on (11), the MSE upper bound of PA I is equal to that of PA II, both of which are smaller than that of PA III. From Fig. 2a, we can observe that the estimation… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** QoS of V2V link during adaptation phase: a) ORF, b) CRF. system’s ability to meet QoS requirements, while the CRF reflects its capability to preserve the QoS within a range (close to the QoS requirements, from a resilience perspective). The HRs shown in Figs. 3 and 4 are given based on (14) and (15). In Fig. 3a, we can observe that the ORF is lower under PA III compared to PA I and PA II, for all cases of delay requ… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: QoS of V2I link during adaptation phase: a) ORF, b) CRF. met, the cases of extremely low throughput under PA II are less frequent. Finally, we can observe that PA II outperforms PA I in both remediation capability and adaptation performance, according to Figs. 2a, 3, …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Resilient Vehicular Communications under Imperfect Channel State Information
cs.IT 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A two-phase absorption and adaptation framework that estimates the distribution of CSI errors via deconvolution and uses it for power allocation improves QoS recovery in C-V2X networks under unknown imperfect CSI.
Resilient-Native and Intelligent Next-Generation Wireless Systems: Key Enablers, Foundations, and Applications
cs.NI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Resilience in wireless networks is formalized through recoverability and durability across four mathematical lenses and illustrated with simulation-based use cases.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

A Tutorial on 5G NR V2X Communications,

M. H. C. Garcia, A. Molina-Galan, M. Boban, J. Gozalvez, B. Coll- Perales, T. S ¸ahin, and A. Kousaridas, “A Tutorial on 5G NR V2X Communications,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1972–2026, 2021

work page 1972
[2]

Advancements in Vehicular Communication Technologies: C-V2X and NR-V2X Com- parison,

M. M. Saad, M. T. R. Khan, S. H. A. Shah, and D. Kim, “Advancements in Vehicular Communication Technologies: C-V2X and NR-V2X Com- parison,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 107–113, August 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Resource Allocation for D2D-Enabled Vehicular Communications,

L. Liang, G. Y . Li, and W. Xu, “Resource Allocation for D2D-Enabled Vehicular Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 3186–3197, July 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Robust Resource Allocation for Vehicular Communications With Imperfect CSI,

W. Wu, R. Liu, Q. Yang, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Robust Resource Allocation for Vehicular Communications With Imperfect CSI,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 5883– 5897, Sep. 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Resource Allocation for D2D- Based V2X Communication With Imperfect CSI,

X. Li, L. Ma, Y . Xu, and R. Shankaran, “Resource Allocation for D2D- Based V2X Communication With Imperfect CSI,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 3545–3558, April 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Fuzzy Matching Learning for Dynamic Resource Allocation in Cellular V2X Network,

C. Fan, B. Li, Y . Wu, J. Zhang, Z. Yang, and C. Zhao, “Fuzzy Matching Learning for Dynamic Resource Allocation in Cellular V2X Network,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 3479– 3492, April 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Learning-Based Robust Resource Allocation for Ultra-Reliable V2X Communications,

W. Wu, R. Liu, Q. Yang, H. Shan, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Learning-Based Robust Resource Allocation for Ultra-Reliable V2X Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 5199–5211, Aug 2021

work page 2021
[8]

Learning-Based Resource Allocation for Ultra-Reliable V2X Networks With Partial CSI,

G. Chai, W. Wu, Q. Yang, R. Liu, and F. R. Yu, “Learning-Based Resource Allocation for Ultra-Reliable V2X Networks With Partial CSI,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 6532– 6546, Oct 2022

work page 2022

Show all 16 references

[9]

Data-Driven Resource Allocation and Group Formation for Platoon in V2X Networks With CSI Uncertainty,

G. Chai, W. Wu, Q. Yang, and F. R. Yu, “Data-Driven Resource Allocation and Group Formation for Platoon in V2X Networks With CSI Uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 71, no. 12, pp. 7117–7132, Dec 2023

2023
[10]

Platoon Partition and Resource Allocation for Ultra-Reliable V2X Networks,

G. Chai, W. Wu, Q. Yang, M. Qin, Y . Wu, and F. R. Yu, “Platoon Partition and Resource Allocation for Ultra-Reliable V2X Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 147– 161, Jan 2024

2024
[11]

3GPP NR Sidelink Transmissions Toward 5G V2X,

S.-Y . Lien, D.-J. Deng, C.-C. Lin, H.-L. Tsai, T. Chen, C. Guo, and S.- M. Cheng, “3GPP NR Sidelink Transmissions Toward 5G V2X,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 35 368–35 382, 2020

2020
[12]

Adaptive estimation of linear functionals in the convolution model and applications,

C. Butucea and F. Comte, “Adaptive estimation of linear functionals in the convolution model and applications,” Bernoulli, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 69 – 98, 2009

2009
[13]

Deconvolving kernel density estima- tors,

L. A. Stefanski and R. J. Carroll, “Deconvolving kernel density estima- tors,” Statistics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 169–184, 1990

1990
[14]

Resilience and survivability in commu- nication networks: Strategies, principles, and survey of disciplines,

J. P. Sterbenz, D. Hutchison, E. K. C ¸ etinkaya, A. Jabbar, J. P. Rohrer, M. Sch ¨oller, and P. Smith, “Resilience and survivability in commu- nication networks: Strategies, principles, and survey of disciplines,” Computer Networks, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1245–1265, 2010

2010
[15]

D. C. Brody, L. P. Hughston, and A. Macrina, Beyond Hazard Rates: A New Framework for Credit-Risk Modelling . Boston, MA: Birkh ¨auser Boston, 2007, pp. 231–257

2007
[16]

Winner ii channel models,

P. Kyosti, “Winner ii channel models,” IST-WINNER II D, vol. 1, 2007

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A Tutorial on 5G NR V2X Communications,

M. H. C. Garcia, A. Molina-Galan, M. Boban, J. Gozalvez, B. Coll- Perales, T. S ¸ahin, and A. Kousaridas, “A Tutorial on 5G NR V2X Communications,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1972–2026, 2021

work page 1972

[2] [2]

Advancements in Vehicular Communication Technologies: C-V2X and NR-V2X Com- parison,

M. M. Saad, M. T. R. Khan, S. H. A. Shah, and D. Kim, “Advancements in Vehicular Communication Technologies: C-V2X and NR-V2X Com- parison,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 107–113, August 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Resource Allocation for D2D-Enabled Vehicular Communications,

L. Liang, G. Y . Li, and W. Xu, “Resource Allocation for D2D-Enabled Vehicular Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 3186–3197, July 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Robust Resource Allocation for Vehicular Communications With Imperfect CSI,

W. Wu, R. Liu, Q. Yang, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Robust Resource Allocation for Vehicular Communications With Imperfect CSI,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 5883– 5897, Sep. 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Resource Allocation for D2D- Based V2X Communication With Imperfect CSI,

X. Li, L. Ma, Y . Xu, and R. Shankaran, “Resource Allocation for D2D- Based V2X Communication With Imperfect CSI,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 3545–3558, April 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Fuzzy Matching Learning for Dynamic Resource Allocation in Cellular V2X Network,

C. Fan, B. Li, Y . Wu, J. Zhang, Z. Yang, and C. Zhao, “Fuzzy Matching Learning for Dynamic Resource Allocation in Cellular V2X Network,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 3479– 3492, April 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Learning-Based Robust Resource Allocation for Ultra-Reliable V2X Communications,

W. Wu, R. Liu, Q. Yang, H. Shan, and T. Q. S. Quek, “Learning-Based Robust Resource Allocation for Ultra-Reliable V2X Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 5199–5211, Aug 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Learning-Based Resource Allocation for Ultra-Reliable V2X Networks With Partial CSI,

G. Chai, W. Wu, Q. Yang, R. Liu, and F. R. Yu, “Learning-Based Resource Allocation for Ultra-Reliable V2X Networks With Partial CSI,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 6532– 6546, Oct 2022

work page 2022