Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 68 references

ACCESS-AV: Adaptive Communication-Computation Codesign for Sustainable Autonomous Vehicle Localization in Smart Factories

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adaptive wake-up timing for the MUSIC localization algorithm can hold delivery-vehicle error under 0.3 m while cutting onboard energy by 43.09%.

desk verdict A sensible integration of 5G SSB-based localization with PID-gated MUSIC scheduling, but the headline energy and accuracy claims are not actually demonstrated against the right baseline or under the conditions the adaptivity is meant for. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20399 v1 pith:SLDM7FIP submitted 2025-07-27 eess.SY cs.ARcs.NIcs.ROcs.SYeess.SP

Rajat Bhattacharjya , Arnab Sarkar , Ish Kool , Sabur Baidya , Nikil Dutt This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.ARcs.NIcs.ROcs.SYeess.SP
keywords 5GSynchronizationSignalBlockMUSICAngleofArrivalVehicle-to-InfrastructureAutonomousdeliveryvehicleLocalizationenergyefficiencyAdaptivePIDwake-uptime
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that autonomous delivery vehicles in a 5G-equipped factory can locate themselves using only the synchronization signals the network already broadcasts, with no dedicated roadside units and no extra sensors. Its system, ACCESS-AV, still runs the angle-of-arrival estimator MUSIC, but replaces fixed periodic execution with an adaptive wake-up time: a PID controller decides when to run MUSIC based on current signal-to-noise ratio and vehicle speed. The paper's central result is that this gating cuts average onboard energy by 43.09% compared with fixed-schedule MUSIC, ESPRIT, and Root-MUSIC baselines, while simulated worst-case localization error stays below 0.3 m. If true, the result matters because it would extend delivery-vehicle battery life and make factory automation cheaper and more sustainable without new infrastructure.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the adaptive wake-up time (WT): a PID controller with proportional, integral, and derivative gains takes a weighted combination of normalized SNR error and velocity error, updates an integral and a derivative term, and outputs a correction to a base interval, clamped to [$t_{\text{base}}$, $t_{\text{max}}$]. $t_{\text{base}}$ is the platform's hardware-constrained minimum MUSIC interval; $t_{\text{max}}$ is set by a user-chosen position-uncertainty bound (240 ms for a 1 m margin at 15 km/h). This single timing decision carries the whole argument: it decides when the expensive eigenvalue-decomposition step runs, skipping estimates under poor signal or motion conditions that would produce unreliable angles and wasted energy.

What would settle it

Repeat the same adaptive MUSIC experiments in a channel simulator that adds realistic factory shadowing, non-line-of-sight intervals, and intermittent SSB reception, then check worst-case localization error and energy per trajectory; if worst-case error exceeds 0.3 m or energy saving falls far below 43.09% at the same power modes, the central claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an adaptive communication-computation code-sign can make MUSIC-based V2I localization both accurate and energy-efficient: instead of computing at every 20 ms SSB arrival or at a fixed hardware-limited rate, the vehicle computes only when the PID controller's weighted SNR and velocity error says the estimate is worth computing. In software simulation of a 300 m factory track under a line-of-sight Rician channel, this scheme kept worst-case position error within 0.3 m in both X and Y directions across all eight power modes of the embedded platform, while hardware energy measurements across the entire trajectory showed 43.09% average savings against the fixed baselines. The same design also removes the need for roadside units and yields a 130-fold onboard sensor cost reduction.

Load-bearing premise

The stated accuracy and energy numbers depend on the simulation's assumption that the vehicle always keeps a clear, strong line-of-sight signal from the 5G tower with only mild fading; on a real factory floor with shadowing, stronger multipath, and interrupted synchronization broadcasts, the controller's decisions would differ and the 0.3 m claim would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Factories with private 5G can get vehicle localization without buying roadside units, since the SSBs already transmitted by remote radio heads serve as the signal source.
  • Adaptive scheduling keeps worst-case error under 0.3 m across all tested power modes, so operators can pick a low-power mode and still meet accuracy needs.
  • Energy savings scale: a single vehicle in the highest-power mode saves about 398.84 kJ per 24-hour day, and a 100-vehicle fleet about 39.884 MJ per day.
  • Fixed-schedule algorithms accumulate position error over time, while the adaptive controller defers computation under poor conditions and thereby avoids those cumulative errors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to gate other computation-heavy perception steps with the same PID-style SNR and velocity wake-up logic, since the energy-saving lever is deciding when to compute, not the MUSIC algorithm itself.
  • If the channel model were changed from always-line-of-sight Rician fading to include shadowing and intermittent SSB reception, the controller would likely defer more computations at low SNR, and the 0.3 m worst-case bound would need to be re-validated; the paper does not make that claim.
  • The 130x sensor cost comparison counts only the radio receiver versus a LiDAR and ignores the embedded compute board, so the full cost picture for a factory operator is less favorable than the headline ratio.
  • The design-space view of accuracy versus energy per power mode suggests the same framework could be used to auto-select a power mode at runtime based on current energy budget and accuracy requirement, which the paper does not implement.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ACCESS-AV, a localization framework for autonomous delivery vehicles (ADVs) in smart factories that uses 5G Synchronization Signal Blocks (SSBs) from existing remote radio heads (RRHs) instead of dedicated roadside units. An onboard MUSIC algorithm estimates angle-of-arrival (AoA), and a PID controller adaptively schedules wake-up times (WT) based on SNR and velocity to reduce energy consumption. The authors evaluate accuracy in a Python simulation of a 300 m track and energy on an NVIDIA Jetson AGX Xavier across eight power modes. They report worst-case localization error below 0.3 m and average energy savings of 43.09% relative to fixed-interval baselines of vanilla MUSIC, ESPRIT, and Root-MUSIC, plus roughly a 130x reduction in onboard sensor cost.

Significance. The main strength is the energy study, which uses real hardware and compares the adaptive controller against fixed baselines; this part is not circular. The system concept—opportunistic use of SSBs and adaptive computation-scheduling—is timely and relevant for edge-autonomous systems. If the accuracy and energy claims held under realistic factory radio conditions, the contribution would be useful. However, the accuracy evidence currently relies on a nearly constant, high-SNR, LoS-only simulated channel, and the energy comparison does not isolate the benefit of adaptation over simply using the maximum allowable wake-up time.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.2 and Section 7.1, Figure 5] The simulation always assumes LoS with Rician fading and the SNR trace stays within 39.2–40.6 dB. Consequently, the SNR-error term in Algorithm 1 is effectively constant, and the robustness behavior claimed in Section 4 (deferring MUSIC at low SNR) is never exercised. Add experiments that vary SNR across a realistic range (e.g., 0–30 dB) and include NLOS or shadowing; report accuracy and energy under those conditions.
  2. [Section 7.2 and Table 1] The energy savings of 43.09% are computed relative to the hardware-constrained baselines (65–150 ms), not a fixed schedule at the adaptive upper bound tmax=240 ms. Since Algorithm 1 clamps WT to [tbase, 240 ms], a non-adaptive MUSIC executed every 240 ms would already cut the computation count by a similar factor. Compare the adaptive policy against fixed schedules at both tbase and tmax to demonstrate that adaptivity itself provides energy gain beyond simply increasing the wake-up interval.
  3. [Section 6 and Algorithm 1] The paper does not state how the vehicle position is propagated during a deferred wake-up (i.e., when WT > tbase). If the last MUSIC fix is held until the next update, the vehicle can move approximately 1 m at 15 km/h during 240 ms, and that uncompensated motion is not in the error model. Specify the propagation method (e.g., odometry/kinematic model) and include its noise when computing the reported errors.
  4. [Section 7.1] Accuracy results are reported as averages over 100 runs without error bars or worst-case statistics. In a Rician fading channel, MUSIC errors vary run-to-run; provide distributions (e.g., min/max or 95th percentile) to support the repeated 'worst-case below 0.3 m' claim.
  5. [Section 6] The PID gains (0.75, 0.08, 0.195), weights (0.6, 0.4), and tmax=240 ms are hand-chosen for this track. No sensitivity analysis is provided, so it is unclear whether the claimed accuracy/energy trade-off is robust to these choices. A sensitivity study (e.g., varying Kp, w_snr, and tmax by ±50%) would support generalizability.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2.2] The statement 'fading is multiplied with a standard deviation of 3 dB' is ambiguous for Rician fading; Rician fading is parameterized by the K-factor and total power, not a dB standard deviation. Clarify the K-factor and how shadowing is (not) modeled.
  2. [Section 7.1] The sentence 'the worst-case error is 0.8 m on average across vanilla MUSIC, ESPRIT, and Root-MUSIC' is unclear; 'worst-case on average' is contradictory. State the metric precisely.
  3. [Figure 5] The raw data and smoothed SNR are nearly flat; state explicitly that this is the best-case scenario or add a lower-SNR scenario to represent realistic factory conditions.
  4. [Section 7.4] The cost comparison of a $30.71 receiver versus a $4,000 LiDAR is presented as a 130x reduction, but the replacement of LiDAR by a single 5G receiver assumes the localization task remains equally safe; the comparison would be stronger if it included the full sensor suite cost of a typical ADV.
  5. [Algorithm 1] The PID controller updates the integral term with a fixed Δt, but the wake-up time varies; clarify whether Δt is the SSB period (20 ms) or the current WT.
  6. [Table 1] Modes 1, 2, and 3 have identical CPU frequencies but the table lists the same base wake-up time for each; explain the differences between these modes (e.g., other DVFS domains or memory settings).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the adaptive wake-up-time policy is evaluated against fixed baselines on a simulated track, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction.

full rationale

ACCESS-AV's central claim is an experimental comparison, not a derivation from its own inputs. Algorithm 1 defines WT as a bounded PID function of weighted SNR and velocity errors, and the reported accuracy and energy values in Section 7 are measured outcomes from a Python simulation and Jetson hardware runs; they are not assumed in the definition of WT. The PID gains and weights are admittedly hand-tuned ('based on iterative tuning and empirical testing'), but the paper does not fit those gains to reproduce the specific 0.3 m or 43.09% numbers, so the result is not equivalent to the fit by construction. The only self-citation, [12] (MUSIC-Lite), supports the uncontroversial statement that MUSIC is CPU-intensive and is not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked. Two experimental weaknesses are real but are not circularity: comparing against tbase rather than a fixed 240 ms schedule leaves the adaptive mechanism's marginal energy benefit unproven, and the LoS/Rician high-SNR channel ('we always assume a Line of Sight (LoS) component along with Rician fading') leaves the low-SNR robustness claim untested, with NLOS deferred to future work in Section 9. These are threats to external validity and baseline fairness, not reductions of the claimed result to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a small set of hand-tuned parameters and several domain assumptions about the factory radio channel and vehicle motion model. The PID gains, weights, and tmax are fitted choices; the LoS/Rician channel and high SNR are assumed. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • PID gains (Kp, Ki, Kd) = 0.75, 0.08, 0.195
    Set in Section 6 'based on iterative tuning and empirical testing'; they directly determine how the wake-up time responds to SNR and velocity errors, so the reported accuracy and energy savings are partly fitted to the simulated track.
  • SNR and velocity weights (w_snr, w_vel) = 0.6, 0.4
    Chosen in Section 6 to balance signal quality and motion stability; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • tmax (maximum wake-up time) = 240 ms
    Selected in Section 6 so that at 15 kmph the vehicle travels 1 m in one interval; this user-defined bound shapes the adaptive interval and therefore the energy-accuracy tradeoff.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MUSIC with a 4-element ULA and 20 snapshots resolves AoA accurately at SNR ~40 dB in a LoS/Rician channel.
    Invoked throughout Section 7; the accuracy results depend on the algorithm achieving the simulated AoA errors, but no closed-form or experimental error model is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The factory radio channel is LoS-dominated Rician fading with 3 dB fading standard deviation and no shadowing or stronger multipath.
    Section 3.2.2 states 'we always assume a Line of Sight (LoS) component along with Rician fading' for an 'isolated environment'; this is a strong simplification for a factory floor and is load-bearing for the sub-30 cm accuracy claim.
  • ad hoc to paper The vehicle's odometer and kinematic model give accurate velocity and heading propagation with negligible noise between MUSIC updates.
    Section 3.1.2 derives AoH and position propagation from odometer data; no odometer noise model is included, yet dead-reckoning over up to 240 ms is part of the localization pipeline.
  • standard math The SSB signals are received periodically at 20 ms with the assumed numerology and can be used as a localization waveform without extra signaling.
    Based on 3GPP SSB structure cited from [20,32]; reasonable standard assumption, though actual SSB-based ranging/AoA quality depends on receiver implementation.
  • ad hoc to paper SNR near 40 dB is maintained along the trajectory via RF planning.
    Section 7.1 says 'in practical deployments, however, this decline is mitigated through effective RF planning'; Figure 5 shows a smoothed SNR profile around 40 dB, an assumed rather than measured condition that the accuracy results depend on.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ACCESS-AV: Adaptive Communication-Computation Codesign for Sustainable Autonomous Vehicle Localization in Smart Factories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLDM7FIP

@misc{pith2026250720399,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ACCESS-AV: Adaptive Communication-Computation Codesign for Sustainable Autonomous Vehicle Localization in Smart Factories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLDM7FIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20399}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous Delivery Vehicles (ADVs) are increasingly used for transporting goods in 5G network-enabled smart factories, with the compute-intensive localization module presenting a significant opportunity for optimization. We propose ACCESS-AV, an energy-efficient Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) localization framework that leverages existing 5G infrastructure in smart factory environments. By opportunistically accessing the periodically broadcast 5G Synchronization Signal Blocks (SSBs) for localization, ACCESS-AV obviates the need for dedicated Roadside Units (RSUs) or additional onboard sensors to achieve energy efficiency as well as cost reduction. We implement an Angle-of-Arrival (AoA)-based estimation method using the Multiple Signal Classification (MUSIC) algorithm, optimized for resource-constrained ADV platforms through an adaptive communication-computation strategy that dynamically balances energy consumption with localization accuracy based on environmental conditions such as Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and vehicle velocity. Experimental results demonstrate that ACCESS-AV achieves an average energy reduction of 43.09% compared to non-adaptive systems employing AoA algorithms such as vanilla MUSIC, ESPRIT, and Root-MUSIC. It maintains sub-30 cm localization accuracy while also delivering substantial reductions in infrastructure and operational costs, establishing its viability for sustainable smart factory environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20399 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A Smart Factory Infrastructure Powered by Private 5G: Autonomous Delivery Vehicles (ADVs) transport [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Vehicle trajectory and track model with MUSIC flow used for AoA ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Communication-Computation Codesign Framework of ACCESS-AV. We select an MPSoC (NVIDIA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: In this study, ACCESS-AV operates with an MPSoC (the NVIDIA Jetson AGX Xavier) as its hardware platform ( 2 ) . As mentioned in Section 3.3, MPSoCs offer superior power efficiency, compact size, and reduced hardware complexity [38], in addition to executing end-to-end …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experimental Setup of ACCESS-AV. At the software level, all cases, i.e., [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) trend across the vehicle’s trajectory over time. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Accuracy Analysis (across both Y and X directions) for MUSIC (in black), ESPRIT (in red), Root-MUSIC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Accuracy Analysis (across both Y and X directions) for MUSIC (in black), ESPRIT (in red), Root-MUSIC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Energy consumption (in Joules) for the hardware-constrained baselines of MUSIC (in black), ESPRIT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Design space exploration for accuracy vs. energy consumption analysis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Private 5g networks for vertical industries: Deployment and operation models

    Ahmad Rostami. Private 5g networks for vertical industries: Deployment and operation models. In 2019 IEEE 2nd 5G World Forum (5GWF), pages 433–439, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    https://www.hplcindia.com/

    High purity laboratory chemicals private limited. https://www.hplcindia.com/. Accessed: Nov. 14, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    https://www.kwm.com/au/en/insights/latest-thinking/epa-victoria-consults-on-new- separation-distance-guideline-and-landfill-buffer-guideline.html

    Separation distance guidelines (epa). https://www.kwm.com/au/en/insights/latest-thinking/epa-victoria-consults-on-new- separation-distance-guideline-and-landfill-buffer-guideline.html. Accessed: Nov. 14, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    https://www.uisee.com/en/product-delivery-uibox.html

    Autonomous delivery vehicle. https://www.uisee.com/en/product-delivery-uibox.html. Accessed: Nov. 14, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    A primer on the factories of the future

    Noble Anumbe, Clint Saidy, and Ramy Harik. A primer on the factories of the future. Sensors, 22(15), 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Energy efficiency of connected autonomous vehicles: A review

    Hamed Faghihian and Arman Sargolzaei. Energy efficiency of connected autonomous vehicles: A review. Electronics, 12(19), 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Calafate

    Abderrahim Guerna, Salim Bitam, and Carlos T. Calafate. Roadside unit deployment in internet of vehicles systems: A survey. Sensors, 22(9), 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Jones, and Peipei Zhou

    Shixin Ji, Jinming Zhuang, Zhuoping Yang, Alex K. Jones, and Peipei Zhou. Amortizing embodied carbon across generations. In 2024 IEEE 15th International Green and Sustainable Computing Conference (IGSC), pages 64–66, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Carbon connect: An ecosystem for sustainable computing

    Benjamin C Lee, David Brooks, Arthur van Benthem, Udit Gupta, Gage Hills, Vincent Liu, Benjamin Pierce, Christopher Stewart, Emma Strubell, Gu-Yeon Wei, et al. Carbon connect: An ecosystem for sustainable computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13858, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chauffeur: Benchmark suite for design and end-to-end analysis of self-driving vehicles on embedded systems

    Biswadip Maity, Saehanseul Yi, Dongjoo Seo, Leming Cheng, Sung-Soo Lim, Jong-Chan Kim, Bryan Donyanavard, and Nikil Dutt. Chauffeur: Benchmark suite for design and end-to-end analysis of self-driving vehicles on embedded systems. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst., 20(5s), sep 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Avstack: An open-source, reconfigurable platform for autonomous vehicle development

    Robert Spencer Hallyburton, Shucheng Zhang, and Miroslav Pajic. Avstack: An open-source, reconfigurable platform for autonomous vehicle development. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (with CPS-IoT Week 2023), ICCPS ’23, page...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Music-lite: Efficient music using approximate computing: An ofdm radar case study

    Rajat Bhattacharjya, Arnab Sarkar, Biswadip Maity, and Nikil Dutt. Music-lite: Efficient music using approximate computing: An ofdm radar case study. IEEE Embedded Systems Letters, 16(4):329–332, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Low-frequency ultrasound thoracic signal processing based on music algorithm and emd wavelet thresholding

    Yinggang Zhou, Jifeng Li, Hua Yan, and Xin Yan. Low-frequency ultrasound thoracic signal processing based on music algorithm and emd wavelet thresholding. IEEE Access, 11:73912–73921, 2023. ACCESS-A V: Adaptive Communication-Computation Codesign for Sustainable Autonomous Vehi...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Localization of seismic events produced by avalanches using multiple signal classification

    M Heck, M Hobiger, A van Herwijnen, J Schweizer, and D Fäh. Localization of seismic events produced by avalanches using multiple signal classification. Geophysical Journal International, 216(1):201–217, 09 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Andrew Zhang, and Heng Yang

    Xu Chen, Zhiyong Feng, Zhiqing Wei, Xin Yuan, Ping Zhang, J. Andrew Zhang, and Heng Yang. Multiple signal classification based joint communication and sensing system. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 22(10):6504–6517, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    A localization algorithm based on v2i communications and aoa estimation

    Alessio Fascista, Giovanni Ciccarese, Angelo Coluccia, and Giuseppe Ricci. A localization algorithm based on v2i communications and aoa estimation. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 24(1):126–130, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Angle of arrival-based cooperative positioning for smart vehicles

    Alessio Fascista, Giovanni Ciccarese, Angelo Coluccia, and Giuseppe Ricci. Angle of arrival-based cooperative positioning for smart vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 19(9):2880–2892, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    B-aware: Blockage aware rsu scheduling for 5g enabled autonomous vehicles

    Matthew Szeto, Edward Andert, Aviral Shrivastava, Martin Reisslein, Chung-Wei Lin, and Christ Richmond. B-aware: Blockage aware rsu scheduling for 5g enabled autonomous vehicles. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst., 22(5s), September 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Optimal joint remote radio head selection and beamforming design for limited fronthaul c-ran

    Phuong Luong, François Gagnon, Charles Despins, and Le-Nam Tran. Optimal joint remote radio head selection and beamforming design for limited fronthaul c-ran. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 65(21):5605–5620, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Irukulapati, Hai Wang, and Henrik Sahlin

    Zhipeng Lin, Jingya Li, Yanli Zheng, Naga V . Irukulapati, Hai Wang, and Henrik Sahlin. Ss/pbch block design in 5g new radio (nr). In 2018 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), pages 1–6, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Enabling ai-based sensing with 5g networks at the edge

    Alexandra Gallyas-Sanhueza, Arun Paidimarri, Asaf Tzadok, Sara Garcia Sanchez, Atsutse Kludze, and Alberto Valdes Garcia. Enabling ai-based sensing with 5g networks at the edge. In ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Beamspace esprit-d for joint 3d angle and delay estimation for joint localization and communication at mmwave

    Yun Chen, Nuria González-Prelcic, Takayuki Shimizu, Hongshen Lu, and Chinmay Mahabal. Beamspace esprit-d for joint 3d angle and delay estimation for joint localization and communication at mmwave. In ICC 2024 - IEEE International Conference on Communications, pages 1915–1920, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Barabell

    A. Barabell. Improving the resolution performance of eigenstructure-based direction-finding algorithms. In ICASSP ’83. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, volume 8, pages 336–339, 1983

    1983

  16. [24]

    Optimized real-time music algorithm with cpu-gpu architecture

    Qinghua Huang and Naida Lu. Optimized real-time music algorithm with cpu-gpu architecture. IEEE Access, 9:54067–54077, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Saha and John M

    Rony K. Saha and John M. Cioffi. Dynamic spectrum sharing for 5g nr and 4g lte coexistence - a comprehensive review. IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, 5:795–835, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    A new paradigm in 5g maximum power extrapolation for human exposure assessment: Forcing gnb traffic toward the measurement equipment

    Marco Donald Migliore, Daniele Franci, Settimio Pavoncello, Enrico Grillo, Tommaso Aureli, Sara Adda, Riccardo Suman, Stefano D’Elia, and Fulvio Schettino. A new paradigm in 5g maximum power extrapolation for human exposure assessment: Forcing gnb traffic toward the measuremen...

    2021

  19. [27]

    R. Schmidt. Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 34(3), 1986

    1986

  20. [28]

    Some new characterizations of a hermitian matrix and their applications

    Yongge Tian. Some new characterizations of a hermitian matrix and their applications. Complex Analysis and Operator Theory, 18(1):2, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Connected/automated vehicle and infrastructure research [michigan mobility transformation facility (mtf)]

    James R Sayer et al. Connected/automated vehicle and infrastructure research [michigan mobility transformation facility (mtf)]. Technical report, University of Michigan. Transportation Research Institute, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    https://www.tecnalia.com/en/infrastructure/85-x-20-m-test-track-for-autonomous-driving

    Tecnalia test track. https://www.tecnalia.com/en/infrastructure/85-x-20-m-test-track-for-autonomous-driving. Accessed: Feb. 28, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    https://electrek.co/2024/10/16/serve-robotics-unveils-gen3-autonomous-delivery- robots-scale-across-us/

    Serve robotics gen3 autonomous delivery robots. https://electrek.co/2024/10/16/serve-robotics-unveils-gen3-autonomous-delivery- robots-scale-across-us/. Accessed: Feb. 28, 2025

    2024

  24. [32]

    5g evolution: A view on 5g cellular technology beyond 3gpp release 15

    Amitabha Ghosh, Andreas Maeder, Matthew Baker, and Devaki Chandramouli. 5g evolution: A view on 5g cellular technology beyond 3gpp release 15. IEEE Access, 7:127639–127651, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Zaidi, Robert Baldemair, Hugo Tullberg, Hakan Bjorkegren, Lars Sundstrom, Jonas Medbo, Caner Kilinc, and Icaro Da Silva

    Ali A. Zaidi, Robert Baldemair, Hugo Tullberg, Hakan Bjorkegren, Lars Sundstrom, Jonas Medbo, Caner Kilinc, and Icaro Da Silva. Waveform and numerology to support 5g services and requirements. IEEE Communications Magazine, 54(11):90–98, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    The principles of ofdm

    Louis Litwin and Michael Pugel. The principles of ofdm. RF signal processing, 2:30–48, 2001. ACCESS-A V: Adaptive Communication-Computation Codesign for Sustainable Autonomous Vehicle Localization in Smart Factories 26

    2001

  27. [35]

    Özgecan Özdogan, Emil Björnson, and Erik G. Larsson. Massive mimo with spatially correlated rician fading channels. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 67(5):3234–3250, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Radiometry and the friis transmission equation

    Joseph A Shaw. Radiometry and the friis transmission equation. American journal of physics, 81(1):33–37, 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/autonomous-machines/embedded-systems/jetson-xavier-series/

    Nvidia jetson xavier series. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/autonomous-machines/embedded-systems/jetson-xavier-series/. Ac- cessed: Nov. 14, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Adaptive localization for autonomous racing vehicles with resource-constrained embedded platforms

    Federico Gavioli, Gianluca Brilli, Paolo Burgio, and Davide Bertozzi. Adaptive localization for autonomous racing vehicles with resource-constrained embedded platforms. In 2024 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Robust and precise vehicle localization based on multi-sensor fusion in diverse city scenes

    Guowei Wan, Xiaolong Yang, Renlan Cai, Hao Li, Yao Zhou, Hao Wang, and Shiyu Song. Robust and precise vehicle localization based on multi-sensor fusion in diverse city scenes. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 4670–4677, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Using high-definition maps for precise urban vehicle localization

    Sven Bauer, Yasamin Alkhorshid, and Gerd Wanielik. Using high-definition maps for precise urban vehicle localization. In 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pages 492–497, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Near-field rss-based localization algorithms using reconfigurable intelligent surface

    Shubo Huang, Bo Wang, Yanping Zhao, and Mingan Luan. Near-field rss-based localization algorithms using reconfigurable intelligent surface. IEEE Sensors Journal, 22(4):3493–3505, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    C. Knospe. Pid control. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 26(1):30–31, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Cross-layer configuration optimization for localization on resource-constrained devices

    Sandra Hernández, José Araujo, Patric Jensfelt, Ioannis Karagiannis, Ananya Muddukrishna, and Bryan Donyanavard. Cross-layer configuration optimization for localization on resource-constrained devices. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems...

    2021

  36. [44]

    https://docs.nvidia.com/jetson/archives/r35.4.1/DeveloperGuide/text/SD/ PlatformPowerAndPerformance/JetsonXavierNxSeriesAndJetsonAgxXavierSeries.htmll

    Nvidia jetson agx xavier power modes. https://docs.nvidia.com/jetson/archives/r35.4.1/DeveloperGuide/text/SD/ PlatformPowerAndPerformance/JetsonXavierNxSeriesAndJetsonAgxXavierSeries.htmll. Accessed: Nov. 14, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/residents/save-energy/appliance-energy-use-chart

    Appliance energy use chart. https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/residents/save-energy/appliance-energy-use-chart. Accessed: Nov. 19, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Tonguz and Wantanee Viriyasitavat

    Ozan K. Tonguz and Wantanee Viriyasitavat. Cars as roadside units: a self-organizing network solution. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(12):112–120, 2013

    2013

  39. [47]

    Data centers on wheels: Emissions from computing onboard autonomous vehicles

    Soumya Sudhakar, Vivienne Sze, and Sertac Karaman. Data centers on wheels: Emissions from computing onboard autonomous vehicles. IEEE Micro, 43(1):29–39, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    https://www.geoweeknews.com/news/velodyne-cuts-vlp-16-lidar-price-4k

    Velodyne vlp-16 lidar. https://www.geoweeknews.com/news/velodyne-cuts-vlp-16-lidar-price-4k. Accessed: Feb. 06, 2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    https://www.amazon.com/Support-Quectel-Antennas-Aluminum-Heatsink/dp/B0BKWV5ZHZ

    5g network adapter. https://www.amazon.com/Support-Quectel-Antennas-Aluminum-Heatsink/dp/B0BKWV5ZHZ. Accessed: Mar. 23, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    Hydrafusion: Context-aware selective sensor fusion for robust and efficient autonomous vehicle perception

    Arnav Vaibhav Malawade, Trier Mortlock, and Mohammad Abdullah Al Faruque. Hydrafusion: Context-aware selective sensor fusion for robust and efficient autonomous vehicle perception. In2022 ACM/IEEE 13th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS), pages 68–79, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Fully onboard low-power localization with semantic sensor fusion on a nano-uav using floor plans

    Nicky Zimmerman, Hanna Müller, Michele Magno, and Luca Benini. Fully onboard low-power localization with semantic sensor fusion on a nano-uav using floor plans. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 11913–11919, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    A survey on localization for autonomous vehicles

    Debasis Kumar and Naveed Muhammad. A survey on localization for autonomous vehicles. IEEE Access, 11:115865–115883, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    De Souza, Claudine Badue, and Avelino Forechi

    Thiago Gonçalves Cavalcante, Thiago Oliveira-Santos, Alberto F. De Souza, Claudine Badue, and Avelino Forechi. Visual global localization based on deep neural netwoks for self-driving cars. In 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–7, 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    Learning visual semantic map-matching for loosely multi-sensor fusion localization of autonomous vehicles

    Zhihuang Zhang, Jintao Zhao, Changyao Huang, and Liang Li. Learning visual semantic map-matching for loosely multi-sensor fusion localization of autonomous vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 8(1):358–367, 2023. ACCESS-A V: Adaptive Communication-Computation C...

    2023

  47. [55]

    Localization of autonomous vehicles in tunnels based on roadside multi-sensor fusion

    Kongtao Zhu, Shitao Chen, Jiamin Shi, Ziyu Zhu, and Nanning Zheng. Localization of autonomous vehicles in tunnels based on roadside multi-sensor fusion. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, pages 1–13, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Ecolife: Carbon-aware serverless function scheduling for sustainable computing

    Yankai Jiang, Rohan Basu Roy, Baolin Li, and Devesh Tiwari. Ecolife: Carbon-aware serverless function scheduling for sustainable computing. In SC24: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 1–15, 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Toward reliable non-line-of-sight localization using multipath reflections

    Xianan Zhang, Lieke Chen, Mingjie Feng, and Tao Jiang. Toward reliable non-line-of-sight localization using multipath reflections. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., 6(1), March 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Vehicular node localization using received-signal-strength indicator.IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 56(6):3371–3380, 2007

    Ryan Parker and Shahrokh Valaee. Vehicular node localization using received-signal-strength indicator.IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 56(6):3371–3380, 2007

    2007

  51. [59]

    Estimation and tracking of lte signals time of arrival in a mobile multipath environment

    Marco Driusso, Fulvio Babich, Fabian Knutti, Mischa Sabathy, and Chris Marshall. Estimation and tracking of lte signals time of arrival in a mobile multipath environment. In 2015 9th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis (ISPA), pages 276–281, 2015

    2015

  52. [60]

    Fusion of tof and tdoa for 3gpp positioning

    Kamiar Radnosrati, Carsten Fritsche, Gustaf Hendeby, Fredrik Gunnarsson, and Fredrik Gustafsson. Fusion of tof and tdoa for 3gpp positioning. In 2016 19th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), pages 1454–1460, 2016

    2016

  53. [61]

    Ahmet M. Elbir. Deepmusic: Multiple signal classification via deep learning. IEEE Sensors Letters, 4(4):1–4, 2020

    2020

  54. [62]

    Shmuel, Julian P

    Dor H. Shmuel, Julian P. Merkofer, Guy Revach, Ruud J. G. van Sloun, and Nir Shlezinger. Deep root music algorithm for data-driven doa estimation. In ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1–5, 2023

    2023

  55. [63]

    Analysis and design of model predictive control frameworks for dynamic operation—an overview

    Johannes Köhler, Matthias A Müller, and Frank Allgöwer. Analysis and design of model predictive control frameworks for dynamic operation—an overview. Annual Reviews in Control, 57:100929, 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    Habeeb, Lipsy Gupta, and Pavithra Prabhakar

    P. Habeeb, Lipsy Gupta, and Pavithra Prabhakar. Approximate conformance checking for closed-loop systems with neural network controllers. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 43(11):4322–4333, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Building the computing system for autonomous micromobility vehicles: Design constraints and architectural optimizations

    Bo Yu, Wei Hu, Leimeng Xu, Jie Tang, Shaoshan Liu, and Yuhao Zhu. Building the computing system for autonomous micromobility vehicles: Design constraints and architectural optimizations. In 2020 53rd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO), pages 1...

    2020

  58. [66]

    Hardware accelerators for autonomous vehicles

    Junekyo Jhung, Ho Suk, Hyungbin Park, and Shiho Kim. Hardware accelerators for autonomous vehicles. In Artificial Intelligence and Hardware Accelerators, pages 269–317. Springer, 2023

    2023

  59. [67]

    A survey on sensor failures in autonomous vehicles: Challenges and solutions

    Francisco Matos, Jorge Bernardino, João Durães, and João Cunha. A survey on sensor failures in autonomous vehicles: Challenges and solutions. Sensors, 24(16):5108, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    Schooler, Uri Cummings, Rajit Manohar, Dawn Nafus, Robert Soulé, and Rick Taylor

    Noa Zilberman, Eve M. Schooler, Uri Cummings, Rajit Manohar, Dawn Nafus, Robert Soulé, and Rick Taylor. Toward carbon-aware networking. SIGENERGY Energy Inform. Rev., 3(3):15–20, October 2023. ACCESS-A V: Adaptive Communication-Computation Codesign for Sustainable Autonomous V...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.