Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Statistical Analysis and End-to-End Performance Evaluation of Traffic Models for Automotive Data

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Seven fitted probability distributions for LiDAR frame sizes can replace real sensor traces in V2X network simulations, yielding nearly identical end-to-end latency and throughput while cutting run time by roughly 18 times.

desk verdict Useful distribution fits and a released ns-3 module, but the end-to-end validation is too weak to support the 'high accuracy' claim—the metrics are insensitive to distribution shape. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14017 v1 pith:VSI3EVX4 submitted 2025-04-18 cs.NI stat.AP

Marcello Bullo , Amir Ashtari Gargari , Paolo Testolina , Michele Zorzi , Marco Giordani This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NIstat.AP
keywords LiDARpointcloudsstatisticaltrafficmodelingV2XcommunicationKolmogorov-Smirnovtestbootstrapresampling5GNRcloudcompressionnetworksimulation
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 aims to establish that the size of LiDAR point clouds, the dominant data load in cooperative perception for autonomous driving, can be replaced inside network simulations by a small set of fitted probability distributions without changing conclusions about latency or throughput. It fits seven distributions to frame-size data, under raw and compressed configurations produced by a semantic compression pipeline, and validates each with a bootstrap-corrected Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. It then compares end-to-end network metrics when a simulator draws frame sizes from the fitted distributions versus when it replays the real sensor frames. The curves almost perfectly overlap, the runtime drops by an average factor of about 18, and even the one model that fails the statistical goodness-of-fit test produces matching network metrics. If the claim holds, researchers can run large V2X simulation campaigns without storing, loading, and compressing multi-gigabyte sensor datasets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a parametric bootstrap-corrected Kolmogorov–Smirnov test applied to maximum-likelihood-fitted candidate distributions. Because the parameters are estimated from the same sample that is later tested, the standard KS statistic is no longer distribution-free; the paper draws one thousand bootstrap resamples from each fitted model, recomputes the KS statistic on each, and uses the 0.99 percentile of those resampled statistics as the critical value. This procedure selects the seven reported distributions, and the same fitted distributions are then encoded into a custom application-layer traffic generator so that sampled frame sizes are injected into a full-stack millimeter-wave V2X simulation alongside the real-data replay baseline.

What would settle it

Run the same end-to-end simulator with frame sizes drawn from the fitted distributions on one side and frame sizes extracted from a LiDAR dataset that was not used in fitting (different sensor, scene, weather, or with jittered generation times) on the other; if the throughput or latency distributions diverge beyond the tolerances reported in the paper's KS tables, the claim that statistical models can replace real automotive data fails for that setting. A cheaper check is to apply the same bootstrap KS test to the reported distribution families against a second dataset's empirical frame-size CDF.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a handful of parametric families—tLocationScale for raw frames and for one compressed setting, plus Normal, Gamma, Nakagami, and Logistic for the others—captures the frame-size distribution of LiDAR point clouds closely enough to be statistically interchangeable with real traces at the network level. Six of the seven fitted models pass the bootstrap Kolmogorov–Smirnov test at significance level 0.01; the raw-data model fails that test, yet in end-to-end simulation its throughput and latency still match the real-data baseline. The paper concludes that the statistical traffic model is a valid alternative to trace replay, preserving accuracy while delivering substantial simulation speedup, and that the only visible divergence appears beyond roughly 150 meters, where the radio channel is largely non-line-of-sight and statistically unstable.

Load-bearing premise

The models assume that LiDAR source traffic is fully characterized by frame size at a constant generation interval, and the end-to-end test reuses the same dataset the distributions were fitted to, so the claim of negligible impact has not been shown to extend to other sensors, scenes, or variable frame timing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can replace trace replay with the fitted distributions in V2X and cooperative-perception studies, obtaining comparable end-to-end latency and throughput while cutting simulation run time by an average factor of 18.
  • Raw LiDAR at 10 Hz consumes about 256 Mbps at the source, beyond the capacity of legacy V2X links, while the compressed configurations reduce the source rate to as low as about 1.3 Mbps, so the models allow fast exploration of the compression versus network-load trade-off.
  • The latency stays below the 100 ms autonomous-driving requirement for all configurations except the one that adds semantic-segmentation inference to moderately compressed frames, and only at distances beyond about 100 meters.
  • Even a model that fails a distributional goodness-of-fit test can yield accurate network-level metrics, so protocol designers can select traffic models by their end-to-end impact rather than by distributional fit alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fitted distribution families are derived from a single LiDAR dataset, so a natural next test is to refit the same families on data from a different sensor, weather condition, or urban layout and check whether the families persist with only parameter changes or entirely different families are needed.
  • The paper assumes a constant generation interval, so extending the model to include a stochastic inter-burst process would test whether the network-level equivalence survives variable frame timing, jitter, or dropped frames.
  • The reported average 18x speedup arises in a workflow where real data must be read from disk and compressed during the simulation; the advantage of statistical models would shrink if traces were preprocessed and preloaded, meaning the speedup is a property of that workflow rather than an intrinsic label for the models.
  • Because the raw-data distribution fails the KS test yet still matches network metrics, a simpler or cheaper distribution than the heavy-tailed tLocationScale might suffice for workload generation, suggesting an experiment that measures how much distributional accuracy is actually needed for faithful network results.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes statistical distribution models for the size of LiDAR point clouds, covering one raw configuration and six HSC compression configurations derived from the SemanticKITTI dataset. The fitting procedure uses maximum likelihood estimation followed by a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with parametric bootstrap resampling; six of the seven fitted models pass the distribution-level test, while the raw-data model D0/S0 fails. The authors implement the selected distributions in an ns-3 module called StatisticalTraffic and evaluate end-to-end throughput and latency against real SemanticKITTI traces in a 28 GHz NR V2X uplink scenario. They report near-identical network metrics, an 18x average simulation speedup, and conclude that the statistical traffic models are a valid alternative to real data while maintaining high accuracy.

Significance. If the claims were fully established, the paper would provide a useful practical contribution: closed-form traffic models for automotive LiDAR data that remove the need to store and process an 80 GB dataset in ns-3 simulations. The statistical machinery is standard and correctly motivated: the parametric bootstrap KS procedure addresses the fact that parameters are estimated from the data, and the implementation validation against SciPy in Table III is a good practice. The public release of the code is also a strength. However, the end-to-end validation in Section VI does not, as designed, establish that the fitted distributions are accurate traffic models; it shows that the simulated network metrics are largely insensitive to the frame-size distribution. This distinction is central to the paper's main claim, so the validation argument needs reworking before the results can be accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VI-B2 and VI-B3; Figs. 6-7; Tables VII-VIII] The end-to-end agreement does not support the claim that the fitted distributions accurately model LiDAR traffic. The D0/S0 model fails the distribution-level KS test in Table I, yet its E2E throughput and latency curves still overlap the real-data baseline and its E2E KS test passes at nearly all distances. This is direct evidence that the network metrics are driven by aggregate quantities, namely the mean frame size and the fixed 100 ms inter-burst interval, rather than by the shape of the frame-size distribution. To make the claim load-bearing, the paper needs a sensitivity baseline: a constant-size model with the correct mean, or a deliberately misspecified distribution, should be run through the same E2E pipeline. If such a baseline also matches, then the conclusion in Sec. VI-B2, "replacing real data with statistical traffic models has a negligible impact on the network," supports network-metric robustness but not model accuracy. Without this baseline, the sentence in Sec. VI-B3 that the E2E KS results are "another demonstration of the accuracy of the selected models" is not justified.
  2. [Sec. IV and Sec. VI-A] The validation is a same-data consistency check: the distributions are fitted to SemanticKITTI in Sec. IV-B and the E2E baseline is the same SemanticKITTI traces in Sec. VI-A. There is no held-out portion of the dataset or independent data source, so the experiments do not establish generalization to other sensors, scenes, frame rates, or compression pipelines. Additionally, Sec. IV opens by assuming a constant generation interval and asserts that frame size is the most relevant traffic characteristic; temporal correlation and frame-timing jitter are not modeled. The paper should either add a held-out or cross-dataset evaluation, or explicitly restrict the claims to SemanticKITTI-like periodic LiDAR traffic. Without this, the word "comprehensive" in the conclusion overstates the scope of the characterization.
  3. [Sec. VI-B3; Tables VII and VIII] The E2E KS tests are not described with enough methodological detail. It is unclear whether the test compares paired simulation runs or aggregated distributions, how many simulation repetitions per distance are used, what significance level is adopted, and whether the parametric bootstrap recalibration from Sec. IV-A is applied. This matters because these tables are used to support the accuracy claim. Please specify the exact testing procedure, or alternatively present Tables VII and VIII as descriptive overlap indicators rather than formal goodness-of-fit results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. I, Fig. 1] The term "Kolmogorov-Smirnoff" should be corrected to "Kolmogorov-Smirnov" throughout.
  2. [Sec. IV-B] The text says the size of LiDAR point clouds can be represented by "Logicstic" distributions; this should be "Logistic."
  3. [Sec. VI-B2] The text refers to "IEEE 802.1p" when comparing peak nominal throughput; this appears to be a typo for "IEEE 802.11p."
  4. [Figs. 6 and 7] The figures show confidence intervals but the number of simulation runs and the random seed handling are not stated; please add these details for reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. V-B1] Equation (11) uses an infinite power series for the inverse CDF of the tLocationScale distribution; please state the truncation criterion or numerical tolerance used in the implementation.
  6. [Sec. VI-B2] The sentence "there is an almost perfect overlap between the two sets of curves" is stronger than the evidence supports, given that D0/S0 failed the distribution-level test; a more measured phrasing such as "the curves are visually similar" would be more appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity: the fitted distributions and the end-to-end network simulation are independent quantities, though the validation is in-sample.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The statistical models in Sec. IV are obtained by maximum likelihood estimation from SemanticKITTI frame sizes and then assessed with a KS test plus parametric bootstrap resampling; the network metrics in Sec. VI are produced by ns-3 simulations that take either the real SemanticKITTI traces or the fitted distributions as application-layer inputs. The network metrics (throughput, latency) are not used to fit the distribution parameters, so no equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction. The main caveat is that the end-to-end comparison uses the same SemanticKITTI dataset that was used for fitting, making it an in-sample consistency check rather than an out-of-sample prediction; this limits generality but is not circular. The paper itself highlights that D0/S0 failed the distribution-level KS test yet its E2E curves still overlap with the real-data baseline, which indicates that the E2E metrics are largely insensitive to the exact shape of the frame-size distribution. That observation weakens the claim that the E2E match demonstrates model accuracy, but it is a correctness/validity concern, not a circularity in the derivation. Self-citations to previous work (e.g., HSC in [18]) provide the compression pipeline and dataset choices, but no load-bearing argument relies on an unverified self-citation or a uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The central model is an empirical fit: seven distribution families with MLE parameters drawn from Table II. The main burden is the assumption that SemanticKITTI sizes and fixed 100 ms periodicity capture real LiDAR V2X traffic, and the network-level validation adds channel-model assumptions.

free parameters (7)
  • D0/S0 tLocationScale parameters (mu, sigma, nu) = mu=3172.74, sigma=64.41, nu=1.49
    Fitted by MLE to raw SemanticKITTI point-cloud sizes; used for the raw traffic model and in ns-3.
  • D0/S1 Normal parameters (mu, sigma) = mu=1458.7, sigma=455.36
    Fitted by MLE to D0/S1 compressed sizes; used in ns-3.
  • D0/S2 Gamma parameters (a, b) = a=1.87, b=131.97
    Fitted by MLE to D0/S2 compressed sizes; used in ns-3.
  • D11/S0 Nakagami parameters (mu, omega) = mu=9.31, omega=4914.06
    Fitted by MLE to D11/S0 compressed sizes; used in ns-3.
  • D14/S0 Logistic parameters (mu, sigma) = mu=197.54, sigma=8.96
    Fitted by MLE to D14/S0 compressed sizes; used in ns-3.
  • D14/S1 tLocationScale parameters (mu, sigma, nu) = mu=98.11, sigma=16.83, nu=4.08
    Fitted by MLE to D14/S1 compressed sizes; used in ns-3.
  • D14/S2 Gamma parameters (a, b) = a=2.81, b=6.06
    Fitted by MLE to D14/S2 compressed sizes; used in ns-3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SemanticKITTI (Velodyne HDL-64E, 22 sequences, 43,552 scans) is representative of automotive LiDAR traffic.
    Invoked in Sec. III-A; this is the sole data source for both fitting and network validation. No other sensor or dataset is tested.
  • domain assumption LiDAR frames are generated at a constant interval, and frame size is the only relevant traffic characteristic.
    Stated in Sec. IV opening; the model ignores temporal correlation and variable frame timing.
  • standard math The parametric bootstrap KS procedure yields valid p-values when parameters are estimated from the data.
    Relies on Babu and Rao [51] and Babu and Feigelson [52]; standard result for this setting.
  • domain assumption The selected QP, CL, and SL configurations represent the relevant HSC operating range.
    Selection in Sec. III-C is based on visual inspection of point clouds and PSNR/encoding-time curves, not on an objective criterion.
  • domain assumption The 3GPP TR 38.901 UMi-Street Canyon channel model represents real mmWave V2X propagation.
    Used for all ns-3 results (Table IV). Standard simulation choice but not validated against field measurements in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Statistical Analysis and End-to-End Performance Evaluation of Traffic Models for Automotive Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VSI3EVX4

@misc{pith2026250414017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Statistical Analysis and End-to-End Performance Evaluation of Traffic Models for Automotive Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VSI3EVX4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14017}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous driving is a major paradigm shift in transportation, with the potential to enhance safety, optimize traffic congestion, and reduce fuel consumption. Although autonomous vehicles rely on advanced sensors and on-board computing systems to navigate without human control, full awareness of the driving environment also requires a cooperative effort via Vehicle-To-Everything (V2X) communication. Specifically, vehicles send and receive sensor perceptions to/from other vehicles to extend perception beyond their own sensing range. However, transmitting large volumes of data can be challenging for current V2X communication technologies, so data compression represents a crucial solution to reduce the message size and link congestion. In this paper, we present a statistical characterization of automotive data, focusing on LiDAR sensors. Notably, we provide models for the size of both raw and compressed point clouds. The use of statistical traffic models offers several advantages compared to using real data, such as faster simulations, reduced storage requirements, and greater flexibility in the application design. Furthermore, statistical models can be used for understanding traffic patterns and analyzing statistics, which is crucial to design and optimize wireless networks. We validate our statistical models via a Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test implementing a Bootstrap Resampling scheme. Moreover, we show via ns-3 simulations that using statistical models yields comparable results in terms of latency and throughput compared to real data, which also demonstrates the accuracy of the models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14017 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the system model. An autonomous vehicle generates 3D LiDAR point clouds, which may be compressed via Hybrid Semantic Compression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of unique points U and p2p-PSNR after compression vs. QP. Above, random point clouds from SemanticKITTI after compression for QP ∈ {8, 9, 10, 12}. time. Assuming that, for lossy compression, the main source of distortion is quantization, we investigate the effect of QP on the compressed point clouds, and study the encoding and decoding time as a function of CL. 1) Compression quality analysis: The semantic un… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average file size and encoding/decoding time vs. CL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fitting plots: data histogram (light grey), empirical CDF (dashed red), fitted PDF (light blue), fitted CDF (orange), and QQ-plots (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SINR and LoS probability (based on the model in [62]) vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean throughput and confidence intervals (shaded areas) vs. 200 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average run time for different HSC compression configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Toward 6G Networks: Use Cases and Technologies,

    M. Giordani, M. Polese, M. Mezzavilla, S. Rangan, and M. Zorzi, “Toward 6G Networks: Use Cases and Technologies,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 55–61, March 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations,

    D. J. Fagnant and K. Kockelman, “Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations,” Trans- portation Research Part A: Policy and Practice , vol. 77, pp. 167–181, Jul. 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Connected vehicles: Solutions and challenges,

    N. Lu, N. Cheng, N. Zhang, X. Shen, and J. W. Mark, “Connected vehicles: Solutions and challenges,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 289–299, Aug. 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    LiDAR for autonomous driving: The principles, challenges, and trends for automotive LiDAR and perception systems,

    Y . Li and J. Ibanez-Guzman, “LiDAR for autonomous driving: The principles, challenges, and trends for automotive LiDAR and perception systems,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 50–61, Jul. 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Deep multi-modal object detection and semantic segmentation for autonomous driving: Datasets, methods, and challenges,

    D. Feng, C. Haase-Sch ¨utz, L. Rosenbaum, H. Hertlein, C. Glaeser, F. Timm, W. Wiesbeck, and K. Dietmayer, “Deep multi-modal object detection and semantic segmentation for autonomous driving: Datasets, methods, and challenges,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1341–1360, Mar. 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Enhancements of V2X communication in support of cooperative autonomous driving,

    L. Hobert, A. Festag, I. Llatser, L. Altomare, F. Visintainer, and A. Kovacs, “Enhancements of V2X communication in support of cooperative autonomous driving,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 64–70, Dec. 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Value- anticipating V2V communications for cooperative perception,

    T. Higuchi, M. Giordani, A. Zanella, M. Zorzi, and O. Altintas, “Value- anticipating V2V communications for cooperative perception,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) , Jun. 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    SELMA: SEmantic Large-Scale Multimodal Acquisitions in Variable Weather, Daytime and Viewpoints,

    P. Testolina, F. Barbato, U. Michieli, M. Giordani, P. Zanuttigh, and M. Zorzi, “SELMA: SEmantic Large-Scale Multimodal Acquisitions in Variable Weather, Daytime and Viewpoints,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 7012–7024, Jul. 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Toward Standardization of Millimeter-Wave Vehicle-to-Vehicle Networks: Open Challenges and Performance Evaluation,

    T. Zugno, M. Drago, M. Giordani, M. Polese, and M. Zorzi, “Toward Standardization of Millimeter-Wave Vehicle-to-Vehicle Networks: Open Challenges and Performance Evaluation,” IEEE Communications Maga- zine, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 79–85, Sep. 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Point cloud compression for efficient data broadcasting: A performance com- parison,

    F. Nardo, D. Peressoni, P. Testolina, M. Giordani, and A. Zanella, “Point cloud compression for efficient data broadcasting: A performance com- parison,” in IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    SemanticKITTI: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of LiDAR sequences,

    J. Behley, M. Garbade, A. Milioto, J. Quenzel, S. Behnke, C. Stachniss, and J. Gall, “SemanticKITTI: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of LiDAR sequences,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2019, pp. 9297–9307

    2019

  4. [12]

    An overview of ongoing point cloud compression standardization activities: Video-based (V-PCC) and geometry-based (G-PCC),

    D. Graziosi, O. Nakagami, S. Kuma, A. Zaghetto, T. Suzuki, and A. Tabatabai, “An overview of ongoing point cloud compression standardization activities: Video-based (V-PCC) and geometry-based (G-PCC),” APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing , vol. 9, p. e13, ...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Accuracy versus complexity for mmWave ray-tracing: A full stack perspective,

    M. Lecci, P. Testolina, M. Polese, M. Giordani, and M. Zorzi, “Accuracy versus complexity for mmWave ray-tracing: A full stack perspective,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 7826–7841, Dec. 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Stochastic models for generating synthetic HTTP source traffic,

    J. Cao, W. S. Cleveland, Y . Gao, K. Jeffay, F. D. Smith, and M. Weigle, “Stochastic models for generating synthetic HTTP source traffic,” in IEEE IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) , 2004

    2004

  7. [15]

    An ns-3 implementation of a bursty traffic framework for virtual reality sources,

    M. Lecci, A. Zanella, and M. Zorzi, “An ns-3 implementation of a bursty traffic framework for virtual reality sources,” in ACM Workshop on Ns-3, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Statistical mod- elling of measured automotive radar reflections,

    W. Buller, B. Wilson, L. van Nieuwstadt, and J. Ebling, “Statistical mod- elling of measured automotive radar reflections,” in IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC) , 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Statistical modelling of multi-sensor data fusion,

    M. Ahmadi-Pour, T. Ludwig, and C. Olaverri-Monreal, “Statistical modelling of multi-sensor data fusion,” in IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES) , 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Hybrid Point Cloud Semantic Compression for Automotive Sensors: A Performance Evaluation,

    A. Varischio, F. Mandruzzato, M. Bullo, M. Giordani, P. Testolina, and M. Zorzi, “Hybrid Point Cloud Semantic Compression for Automotive Sensors: A Performance Evaluation,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) , 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Application of bootstrap method in Kolmogorov-Smirnov test,

    C. Wang, B. Zeng, and J. Shao, “Application of bootstrap method in Kolmogorov-Smirnov test,” in International Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering , 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Millimeter-wave vehicular communication to support massive automotive sensing,

    J. Choi, V . Va, N. Gonzalez-Prelcic, R. Daniels, C. R. Bhat, and R. W. Heath, “Millimeter-wave vehicular communication to support massive automotive sensing,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 160–167, Dec. 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Service requirements for enhanced V2X scenarios,

    3GPP, “Service requirements for enhanced V2X scenarios,” Technical Specifications (TS) 22.186, Apr. 2022, version 17.0.0

    2022

  14. [22]

    A SDN- based fine-grained measurement and modeling approach to vehicular communication network traffic,

    L. Huo, D. Jiang, X. Zhu, Y . Wang, Z. Lv, and S. Singh, “A SDN- based fine-grained measurement and modeling approach to vehicular communication network traffic,” International Journal of Communication Systems, vol. 35, no. 12, p. e4092, Jul. 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Network traffic characteristics of machine learning frameworks under the microscope,

    J. Zerwas, K. Aykurt, S. Schmid, and A. Blenk, “Network traffic characteristics of machine learning frameworks under the microscope,” in 17th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM), 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    A Survey on 5G Usage Scenarios and Traffic Models,

    J. Navarro-Ortiz, P. Romero-Diaz, S. Sendra, P. Ameigeiras, J. J. Ramos- Munoz, and J. M. Lopez-Soler, “A Survey on 5G Usage Scenarios and Traffic Models,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 905–929, Secondquarter 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    New Traffic Model of M2M Technology in 5G Wireless Sensor Networks,

    A. Bulashenko, S. Piltyay, A. Polishchuk, and O. Bulashenko, “New Traffic Model of M2M Technology in 5G Wireless Sensor Networks,” in IEEE 2nd International Conference on Advanced Trends in Information Theory (ATIT), 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    State modulated traffic models for machine type communications,

    O. N. Østerbø, D. Zucchetto, K. Mahmood, A. Zanella, and O. Grøndalen, “State modulated traffic models for machine type communications,” in International Teletraffic Congress (ITC 29) , 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Comparison of M2M traffic models against real world data sets,

    M. Sansoni, G. Ravagnani, D. Zucchetto, C. Pielli, A. Zanella, and K. Mahmood, “Comparison of M2M traffic models against real world data sets,” in IEEE 23rd International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD) , 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    A Survey of IoT Applications in Blockchain Systems: Architecture, Consensus, and Traffic Modeling,

    L. Lao, Z. Li, S. Hou, B. Xiao, S. Guo, and Y . Yang, “A Survey of IoT Applications in Blockchain Systems: Architecture, Consensus, and Traffic Modeling,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 53, no. 1, Feb. 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    A survey of VBR video traffic models,

    S. Tanwir and H. Perros, “A survey of VBR video traffic models,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1778–1802, Fourthquarter 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Adaptive LSTAR Model for Long-Range Variable Bit Rate Video Traffic Prediction,

    H. Kalbkhani, M. G. Shayesteh, and N. Haghighat, “Adaptive LSTAR Model for Long-Range Variable Bit Rate Video Traffic Prediction,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 999–1014, May 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Temporal characterization of XR traffic with application to predictive network slicing,

    M. Lecci, F. Chiariotti, M. Drago, A. Zanella, and M. Zorzi, “Temporal characterization of XR traffic with application to predictive network slicing,” in IEEE 23rd International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM) , 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Temporal characterization and prediction of VR traffic: A network slicing use case,

    F. Chiariotti, M. Drago, P. Testolina, M. Lecci, A. Zanella, and M. Zorzi, “Temporal characterization and prediction of VR traffic: A network slicing use case,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 3890–3908, May 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Coupled Markovian Arrival Process for Automotive Machine Type Communication traffic modeling,

    E. Grigoreva, M. Laurer, M. Vilgelm, T. Gehrsitz, and W. Kellerer, “Coupled Markovian Arrival Process for Automotive Machine Type Communication traffic modeling,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Network Traffic Prediction Based on Deep Belief Network and Spa- tiotemporal Compressive Sensing in Wireless Mesh Backbone Networks,

    L. Nie, X. Wang, L. Wan, S. Yu, H. Song, D. Jiang, and K. Zhang, “Network Traffic Prediction Based on Deep Belief Network and Spa- tiotemporal Compressive Sensing in Wireless Mesh Backbone Networks,” Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. , vol. 2018, Jan. 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Long short-term memory neural network for network traffic prediction,

    Q. Zhuo, Q. Li, H. Yan, and Y . Qi, “Long short-term memory neural network for network traffic prediction,” in 12th International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Knowledge Engineering (ISKE) , 2017. 13

    2017

  28. [36]

    LNTP: An End-to-End Online Prediction Model for Network Traffic,

    L. Zhang, H. Zhang, Q. Tang, P. Dong, Z. Zhao, Y . Wei, J. Mei, and K. Xue, “LNTP: An End-to-End Online Prediction Model for Network Traffic,” IEEE Network, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 226–233, Jan./Feb. 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    A Real- Time High-Definition Vehicular Sensor Data Sharing System using Millimeter Wave V2V Communications,

    C.-H. Wang, T. Shimizu, H. Muralidharan, and A. Yamamuro, “A Real- Time High-Definition Vehicular Sensor Data Sharing System using Millimeter Wave V2V Communications,” in IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC), 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Low-latency high-level data sharing for connected and autonomous vehicular networks,

    Q. Chen, S. Tang, J. Hochstetler, J. Guo, Y . Li, J. Xiong, Q. Yang, and S. Fu, “Low-latency high-level data sharing for connected and autonomous vehicular networks,” in IEEE International Conference on Industrial Internet (ICII) , 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    RangeNet ++: Fast and Accurate LiDAR Semantic Segmentation,

    A. Milioto, I. Vizzo, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “RangeNet ++: Fast and Accurate LiDAR Semantic Segmentation,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Draco 3D Data Compression,

    Google, “Draco 3D Data Compression,” 2017, [Online]. Available: https://github.com/google/draco

    2017

  33. [41]

    Graph Attention Convolution for Point Cloud Semantic Segmentation,

    L. Wang, Y . Huang, Y . Hou, S. Zhang, and J. Shan, “Graph Attention Convolution for Point Cloud Semantic Segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    SEGCloud: Semantic Segmentation of 3D Point Clouds,

    L. Tchapmi, C. Choy, I. Armeni, J. Gwak, and S. Savarese, “SEGCloud: Semantic Segmentation of 3D Point Clouds,” in International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) , 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Perturbed Self-Distillation: Weakly Supervised Large-Scale Point Cloud Semantic Segmentation,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Qu, Y . Xie, Z. Li, S. Zheng, and C. Li, “Perturbed Self-Distillation: Weakly Supervised Large-Scale Point Cloud Semantic Segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    PolarNet: An Improved Grid Representation for Online LiDAR Point Clouds Semantic Segmentation,

    Y . Zhang, Z. Zhou, P. David, X. Yue, Z. Xi, B. Gong, and H. Foroosh, “PolarNet: An Improved Grid Representation for Online LiDAR Point Clouds Semantic Segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    SqueezeSegV2: Improved Model Structure and Unsupervised Domain Adaptation for Road-Object Segmentation from a LiDAR Point Cloud,

    B. Wu, X. Zhou, S. Zhao, X. Yue, and K. Keutzer, “SqueezeSegV2: Improved Model Structure and Unsupervised Domain Adaptation for Road-Object Segmentation from a LiDAR Point Cloud,” in International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Effects of JPEG compression on image classification,

    W. Lau, Z. Li, and K. W. Lam, “Effects of JPEG compression on image classification,” International Journal of Remote Sensing , vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1535–1544, Jun. 2003

    2003

  39. [47]

    First Gradually, Then Suddenly: Understanding the Impact of Image Compression on Object Detection Using Deep Learning,

    T. Gandor and J. Nalepa, “First Gradually, Then Suddenly: Understanding the Impact of Image Compression on Object Detection Using Deep Learning,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 3, Feb. 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Impact of image compression on deep learning-based mammogram classification,

    Y .-Y . Jo, Y . S. Choi, H. W. Park, J. H. Lee, H. Jung, H.-E. Kim, K. Ko, C. W. Lee, H. S. Cha, and Y . Hwangbo, “Impact of image compression on deep learning-based mammogram classification,” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 7924, Apr 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Geometric distortion metrics for point cloud compression,

    D. Tian, H. Ochimizu, C. Feng, R. Cohen, and A. Vetro, “Geometric distortion metrics for point cloud compression,” in IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , 2017

    2017

  42. [50]

    The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit,

    F. J. Massey Jr, “The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit,” Journal of the American statistical Association , vol. 46, no. 253, pp. 68–78, Apr. 1951

    1951

  43. [51]

    Goodness-of-fit tests when parameters are estimated,

    G. J. Babu and C. R. Rao, “Goodness-of-fit tests when parameters are estimated,” Sankhy¯a: The Indian Journal of Statistics , vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 63–74, Jan. 2004

    2004

  44. [52]

    Astrostatistics: Goodness-of-fit and all that!

    G. Babu and E. Feigelson, “Astrostatistics: Goodness-of-fit and all that!” in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV , vol. 351, 2006, p. 127

    2006

  45. [53]

    Network simulations with the ns-3 simulator,

    T. R. Henderson, M. Lacage, G. F. Riley, C. Dowell, and J. Kopena, “Network simulations with the ns-3 simulator,” SIGCOMM, 2008

    2008

  46. [54]

    MilliCar: An ns-3 module for mmWave NR V2X networks,

    M. Drago, T. Zugno, M. Polese, M. Giordani, and M. Zorzi, “MilliCar: An ns-3 module for mmWave NR V2X networks,” in Workshop on ns-3, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Recent development and applications of SUMO-Simulation of Urban MObility,

    D. Krajzewicz, J. Erdmann, M. Behrisch, and L. Bieker, “Recent development and applications of SUMO-Simulation of Urban MObility,” International journal on advances in systems and measurements , vol. 5, no. 3&4, Dec. 2012

    2012

  48. [56]

    Artificial Intelligence in Vehicular Wireless Networks: A Case Study Using ns-3,

    M. Drago, T. Zugno, F. Mason, M. Giordani, M. Boban, and M. Zorzi, “Artificial Intelligence in Vehicular Wireless Networks: A Case Study Using ns-3,” in ACM Workshop on Ns-3 , 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    An Open Framework for Analyzing and Modeling XR Network Traffic,

    M. Lecci, M. Drago, A. Zanella, and M. Zorzi, “An Open Framework for Analyzing and Modeling XR Network Traffic,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 129 782–129 795, Sep. 2021

    2021

  50. [58]

    End-to-end simulation of 5g mmwave networks,

    M. Mezzavilla, M. Zhang, M. Polese, R. Ford, S. Dutta, S. Rangan, and M. Zorzi, “End-to-end simulation of 5g mmwave networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 2237–2263, April 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    An LTE module for the ns-3 network simulator,

    G. Piro, N. Baldo, and M. Miozzo, “An LTE module for the ns-3 network simulator,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques , 2011

    2011

  52. [60]

    Sampling Student’s T distribution-use of the inverse cumulative distribution function,

    W. T. Shaw, “Sampling Student’s T distribution-use of the inverse cumulative distribution function,” Journal of Computational Finance , vol. 9, no. 4, p. 37, Jan. 2006

    2006

  53. [61]

    J.-Y . L. Boudec, Performance Evaluation of Computer and Communica- tion Systems. EFPL Press, 2011

    2011

  54. [62]

    Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,

    3GPP, “Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,” Technical Report (TR) 38.901, 2018

    2018

  55. [63]

    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 Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 9457– 9470, Dec. 2016

    2016

  56. [64]

    A reinforcement learning framework for PQoS in a teleoperated driving scenario,

    F. Mason, M. Drago, T. Zugno, M. Giordani, M. Boban, and M. Zorzi, “A reinforcement learning framework for PQoS in a teleoperated driving scenario,” in IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Federated Reinforcement Learning to Optimize Teleoperated Driving Networks,

    F. Bragato, M. Giordani, and M. Zorzi, “Federated Reinforcement Learning to Optimize Teleoperated Driving Networks,” in IEEE Global Communications Conference , 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.02312

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.