## 5 Methods and Materials
In the second iteration, there are two possibilities: (a) Cover _cell 2_ crossed by vehicle \(v_{1}\); (b) cover one of the cells crossed by vehicle \(v_{2}\) (_cell 3_, _cell 4_, or, _cell 5_). In case the strategy selects one of the cells crossed by vehicle \(v_{2}\) (let us say, _cell 3_), we notice vehicles \(v_{1}\) and \(v_{2}\) covered during 50% of the trip duration represented by point \(G\) in Figure 5b (red). In case the strategy covers _cell 2_, we notice vehicle \(v_{1}\) covered during 100% of the trip duration, and vehicle \(v_{2}\) covered during 25% of the trip duration. Thus, 100% of vehicles are covered during 25% of the trip duration (point \(E\)), and 50% of vehicles are covered during 100% of the trip duration (point \(F\)). Finally, the plot indicates that covering cells [1,2] leads to area = 0.625, while covering cells [1,3] leads to area = 0.500. Since the _balanced_ strategy focuses on maximizing the area, the strategy selects _cell 2_ for coverage. Figure 6 presents the performance of _dl versus balanced_ for scenarios where [5%, 10%, 15%] of the road network is covered. Each plot presents the percentage of trip duration under coverage (\(y\)-axis) _versus_ the share of vehicles receiving such coverage (\(x\)-axis). In fact, such measure is the Delta Network, showing how connectivity is distributed across the range of vehicles. The _balanced_ strategy (blue)  
Figure 5: Didactic example on how the _balanced_ strategy operates. (a) Presents the Delta Network after covering _cell 1_. (b) Presents the Delta Network considering two options: (a) Covering _cell 2_; (b) covering _cell 3_. Since covering _cell 2_ leads to a major area under the curve, _cell 2_ is selected. provides more coverage than the _dl_ strategy (red). As we increase the number of covered cells (from 5% up to 15%), we notice an increase in the area below both curves. The maximum area below the curves is 1 (square with both sides equal 1). The legend of each plot indicates the area achieved. When considering Figure 6a, _balanced_ reaches area = 0.35, while _dl_ reaches area = 0.27. Deploying roadside units in 100% of the road network allows 100% of vehicles meeting coverage during 100% of the trip duration, yielding area = 1. Figure 6d-f present the Differential Delta Network, i.e., they plot only the difference _\"balanced_ minus _dl\"_. As we can notice, all three plots are positive, also indicating that _balanced_ provides better coverage than _dl_. Figure 7 presents the layout of roadside units deployed by both strategies. Figure 7a shows the Cologne traffic. The darker is the area, the more intense is the flow. Figure 7b-e show the layout of roadside units deployed by _dl_ for covering 5%, 10%, and 15% (respectively) of the road network. Similarly, Figure 7f-i present the layout of roadside units deployed by _balanced_ for covering the same scenarios. When comparing the pairs of layouts considering the same scenario, we notice that _dl_ and _balanced_ follow a very distinct strategy. Since _dl_ follows popular locations, most roadside units are deployed lined up, following the flow of vehicles. On the other hand, _balanced_ follows a pattern based on circles emerging from the epicenter of traffic. Figure 6: Delta Network: _dl_ deploys roadside units at the most popular locations (red color), while _balanced_ assumes an uniform distribution of weights (color blue). The \(y\)-axis indicates the share of vehicles (\(\rho_{2}\)), while the \(x\)-axis indicates percentage of trip under coverage (\(\rho_{1}\)). (**a–c**) Consider coverage ranging from 5% up to 15% of the road network. (**d–f**) Represent the difference “_balanced_ minus _dl_”. Since the green area is positive, _balanced_ is always providing more coverage. Strategy direct: Distribution of Weights Directly Proportional to the Percentage of Trip Traveled under Coverage: An Alternative to Prioritize Vehicles with High Coverage  
Strategy _direct_ considers a different score computation.