Early Versus Late Traffic Management For Autonomous Agents

Ania Adil; Eric Feron; Salman Ghori

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Early Versus Late Traffic Management For Autonomous Agents

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 claims that for a centralized MILP-controlled single intersection, average delay decreases as the control-region radius grows up to about 120 m and then stays nearly flat while runtime continues to rise, so there is a finite…

desk verdict A sensible question with a clean hypothesis, but the printed safe-distance constraint is infeasible and the simulation evidence is one seed, so the result is not yet substantiated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19582 v2 pith:2PQS6XWP submitted 2024-11-29 eess.SY cs.SY

Salman Ghori , Ania Adil , Eric Feron This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords autonomousagentsintersectionmanagementcontrolregionradiusmixed-integerlinearprogrammingrecedinghorizoncentralizedtrafficdelayplatoonformation

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 tests how much advance notice a centralized controller needs before agents reach an intersection. It defines a circular control region of radius $R$ around the crossing and, using a receding-horizon mixed-integer linear program, measures average delay and solver runtime as $R$ is swept from 25 m to 180 m. The simulation of 302 agents on two perpendicular lanes finds that delay falls as $R$ grows to about 120 m and then stays quasi-constant, while runtime keeps increasing. The paper's conclusion is that there is an optimal intervention distance around 120 m for this intersection, and that 'early' management beyond that distance buys no further delay reduction.

What carries the argument

The control region—a circle of radius $R$ centered on the intersection—is the central object; it determines when a centralized controller first takes over an agent and when it stops managing it. The controller is a receding-horizon mixed-integer linear program (MILP) solved with a commercial MILP solver, whose objective maximizes total velocity while minimizing weighted state deviation, subject to dynamics, control and state limits, a safe-distance constraint between same-direction agents, and an intersection separation constraint between crossing agents. The argument is carried by a parameter sweep: fixing all other settings and varying only $R$, then comparing average delay and runtime across radii.

What would settle it

Run the same MILP with the printed safe-distance constraint enforced exactly as written; any two agents on the same path should make the problem infeasible, disproving that the printed model generated the results. Then rerun the radius sweep with, say, 20 different random seeds and check whether the average-delay minimum stays at about $R=120$ m; if the optimum shifts or disappears across seeds, the claimed threshold is an artifact of one traffic draw.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a saturating relationship between control-region size and performance. As the control radius increases, average delay gradually decreases until about $R=120$ m—a reduction of up to 12.52% compared with the smallest radius tested—and beyond that radius the average delay remains quasi-constant. Runtime, in contrast, rises monotonically with $R$. The same pattern holds when the intersection separation distance $s_{\mathrm{dist}}$ is increased from 4 m to 6 m: going from $R=40$ m to $R=120$ m reduces delay, but going from $R=120$ m to $R=180$ m does not. The paper also observes that larger control regions allow agents to decelerate more gently and form tighter platoons, which is the mechanism behind the delay reduction, and interprets this as supporting its Hypothesis 1 that increasing $R$ beyond a threshold yields diminishing returns.

Load-bearing premise

The entire delay curve rests on the assumption that the simulator's safety constraints are implemented in a workable form and that one random seed (20) represents typical traffic; if the code follows the printed safe-distance rule—which demands two opposite inequalities at once—no feasible trajectories exist, and if the seed is atypical the 120 m optimum may not reproduce.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the tested single-intersection scenario, there is no performance reason to set the control radius beyond about 120 m; a larger radius only adds solver runtime.
The optimal radius should be chosen as a tradeoff between delay and computational cost, not simply made as large as possible.
When safety separation requirements are tightened (larger $s_{\mathrm{dist}}$), the advantage of a 120 m radius over a 40 m radius persists, while an 180 m radius offers no further delay reduction.
Larger control regions enable smoother deceleration and tighter platoon formation before the intersection, linking 'early' intervention to the mechanism that lowers average delay.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that the saturation point likely depends on the arrival pattern, speed limit, horizon length, and safety distances; an analytical model of platoon formation could predict the optimal $R$ without sweeping simulations.
Because the result comes from one seed and one intersection geometry, a natural testable extension is whether the 120 m optimum persists across many random seeds, different approach speeds, or a network of intersections.
A runtime-aware controller could dynamically shrink $R$ when traffic is light and expand it during congestion, using the observed flat delay plateau to save computation without sacrificing performance.
The printed safe-distance constraint in Section III cannot be satisfied as written—it requires both $s_{p,i,x}-s_{q,i,x}\ge d_{\mathrm{safe}}$ and its reverse for the same pair—so the reported results should be read as coming from an implementation that differs from the displayed equations; a corrected, feasible formulation would be needed to reproduce them.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Colleague,

The paper asks the right question: for a centralized MILP intersection controller, is there a control-region radius beyond which you stop gaining? That is a useful design rule, and the 12.5% delay reduction between R=25 and R=120, with runtime climbing afterwards, is the kind of tradeoff a practitioner would want. The framing of 'early vs late' as circle radius is a legitimate extension of existing MILP intersection management, and the space-time plots showing platoon formation are nice visualization.

That said, the paper has a load-bearing problem. Constraint 5 in Section III, as printed, is infeasible for any instance. For same-direction pairs it demands both s_p,x - s_q,x >= d_safe and s_q,x - s_p,x >= d_safe, which add to 0 >= 2 d_safe. The y-inequalities are similarly contradictory. The text explicitly says the reported results come from 'the complete optimization formulation summarized in Section III.' So either the code implements a different constraint (e.g., an absolute-value separation via big-M) or the model as written cannot generate the delays in Figs. 2 and 3. The reader cannot reproduce or verify any of this without the code, which is not provided. This is not a minor typo; it undermines the paper's central claim.

Beyond that, the empirical support is thin: one traffic seed (20), no error bars or significance test, no baseline controller (the 12.5% is a relative improvement over R=25, not over an existing policy), and the delay metric is defined relative to ideal free-flow across the radius diameter. The paper candidly calls the results 'preliminary,' which is honest, but the current manuscript does not substantiate Hypothesis 1.

The core idea is worth exploring, and the flaws are addressable: fix the constraint notation, release the code, run multiple seeds, add a baseline. If that were done, the paper could be a solid empirical note for the traffic-management community. As it stands, I would not cite it, and I would not trust the 120m value. But I would send it to review with a request for major revision, because the question is legitimate and a referee could push the authors to fix the formulation and add evidence.

Recommended: engage with it as a 'fixable but not yet reliable' paper.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a single signal-less intersection crossed by two orthogonal flows of autonomous agents, modeled as point-mass double integrators, under centralized mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) control in a receding-horizon scheme. The authors introduce a circular control region of radius R around the intersection and ask whether intervening earlier (larger R) is better than intervening later (smaller R). Hypothesis 1 states that increasing R beyond a threshold yields diminishing returns. The evidence is a simulation over R in {25,40,60,90,120,150,180} m for one traffic realization of 302 agents (seed=20), reporting that average delay decreases up to about R=120 m and then stays quasi-constant, while runtime grows with R. The paper concludes that an optimal control-region radius exists and interprets the result in terms of platoon formation.

Significance. If the claimed effect is real, the result has a useful design implication: a centralized intersection controller does not need to take control arbitrarily far from the intersection, and a radius around 120 m in this setup balances delay and runtime. The paper also gives a concrete, falsifiable hypothesis and a reproducible seed, which are strengths. However, the current support is entirely empirical, with one traffic seed, no error bars or significance tests, no comparison against a baseline controller, and no independent analytical check. More seriously, the printed safety constraint in Section III is infeasible as written, so the reported simulation results cannot be reproduced from the published formulation. With a corrected constraint and stronger statistical evidence, this would be a worthwhile preliminary study, but the central claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Constraint 5] The printed safe-distance constraint is infeasible for any positive dsafe. For a same-direction pair p<q, the constraint requires both sp,i,x - sq,i,x >= dsafe and sq,i,x - sp,i,x >= dsafe at every time step; adding these two inequalities yields 0 >= 2 dsafe, which is false for dsafe = 3 m. The identical y-inequalities are also contradictory for agents on the same lane. Since Section IV states that the formulation of Section III is solved with Gurobi, the reported delays in Figs. 2 and 3 cannot come from the constraint as printed. The authors must state the actually implemented constraint (for example, a disjunctive separation constraint |sp,i,x - sq,i,x| >= dsafe using binary variables and a big-M reformulation), provide the code or a precise linearization, and confirm that the reported results are generated with that corrected constraint.
[Section IV-A, Fig. 2] The central empirical claim rests on a single traffic seed (seed = 20) and a single arrival realization. The 120 m knee and the 12.52% delay reduction are reported without error bars, confidence intervals, or any sensitivity analysis over random seeds or arrival-model parameters. Because the arrival process is stochastic, the result may be realization-specific. The authors should rerun the experiment over multiple seeds and report the distribution of delay and the location of the knee, or otherwise justify why one realization is representative.
[Section IV-A, delay metric and baseline] The delay metric compares actual crossing time with ideal free-flow crossing over the control-region diameter, but there is no baseline controller in the comparison. In particular, the paper does not compare the MILP controller against, for example, a fixed-time signal, a first-come-first-served reservation policy, or a no-control rule with the same safety constraints. Without such a baseline, it is unclear whether the observed delay reduction with increasing R is due to earlier intervention per se or to other features of the receding-horizon MILP. A baseline would also clarify whether the reported delays are substantial in absolute terms.

minor comments (5)

[Section III, Constraint 6] The intersection separation constraint uses absolute values |sp,i - xc| and |sq,i - yc| inside a MILP, but the linearization with binary variables is not specified. Please state the auxiliary variables and constraints used to implement the norm-1 condition.
[Section IV, arrival process] The arrival process is described as a modulo operation over a random integer from 1 to 7 multiplied by a random step L, but Table I only lists L = 3 and does not give the distribution of the random integer or the exact formula. Please specify the generative process precisely so that the experiment is reproducible.
[Section IV-A, Fig. 2] The axis labels in Fig. 2 are confusing: the x-axis is labeled 'Radius [m]', but an additional 'Average Delay [s]' label appears above the plot, and the runtime legend uses 'Run-Time [min]' with purple squares. Please clean up the labels and add a legend or direct annotation matching the curves.
[Section IV, GitHub repository] The text states that a GIF is available in the GitHub repository README, but no repository URL or DOI is given anywhere in the manuscript. Including a link or a data/code availability statement would help reproducibility.
[Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including 'this sections III', 'safe dsaf e', and inconsistent spacing in the constraint blocks. A careful proofread is needed before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimal-radius claim is an emergent simulation output, not a fitted or definitional input, and the self-citations are standard, non-load-bearing background.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Hypothesis 1: increasing the control region radius R beyond a threshold yields diminishing returns) is supported by a parameter sweep of the MILP simulator. The radius is not fitted to produce the result; the optimum near 120 m is read from the simulation output rather than imposed as a model input or objective. The MILP objective maximizes velocity and minimizes state deviation, not delay, and delay is defined post hoc as actual minus ideal crossing time over the control-region diameter. While this metric partially explains why delay saturates for large radii, because unconstrained segments are traversed at Vmax and cancel against the ideal-time term, the saturation threshold is an emergent result of the simulation, not an algebraic identity. The citations to Feron's earlier MILP and receding-horizon work ([32], [34]-[36], [38]) are standard methodological background and are not load-bearing for the optimal-radius claim. The paper itself calls the evidence 'preliminary results' and defers an analytical model to future work, which limits inferential strength but is not circularity. The printed safe-distance constraint 5 is internally inconsistent (adding the two x-inequalities gives 0 >= 2 dsafe), so the reported delays cannot be reproduced from the published formulation; this is a serious correctness and reproducibility flaw, but it is distinct from circular reasoning because no claimed prediction reduces to its own inputs by construction or by fitted parameter. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The control region circle is a design variable, not a postulated physical entity; no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main assumptions are standard MPC/centralized-control simplifications plus the ad hoc assumption that the printed (and infeasible) constraint set is what the code actually implements.

free parameters (8)

Maximum velocity Vmax = 15 m/s
Chosen in Table I; the ideal travel time and delay metric scale with it, and the optimal radius may shift with speed.
Safe distance dsafe = 3 m
Chosen safety margin; controls minimum spacing and affects platoon density and feasibility.
Intersection separation distance sdist = 4-7 m (varied)
Varied in Fig. 3; larger values increase delay and trigger platoon formation, so the plateau location may depend on it.
Horizon steps N = 60
Receding horizon length; a short horizon can make the controller myopic near the boundary and affect delay.
Random step L = 3
Used with modulo to generate arrival times; changes density and spacing of the 302-agent pattern.
Random seed = 20
Only one seed is used; all delay numbers could change with the arrival pattern.
Control radius sweep = [25,40,60,90,120,150,180] m
The claimed optimum of about 120 m is read from this discrete grid, so the true optimum is only bracketed.
Simulation duration T = 150 s
Determines how many agents (302) enter and whether steady-state behavior is captured.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Gurobi MILP solver returns a globally optimal solution for every receding-horizon instance.
No MIP gap or solver tolerance is reported; if instances are only locally or approximately solved, the delay data change.
domain assumption Point-mass double-integrator dynamics with the printed constraints represent vehicle motion well enough.
No acceleration limits, vehicle dimensions, or sensing errors are modeled; safety claims depend on this simplification.
domain assumption The controller has perfect and instantaneous state information about all agents.
Centralized MILP assumes noise-free positions and zero communication latency; real intersections violate this.
domain assumption The modulo-based random arrival process with seed 20 yields a representative high-density traffic pattern.
The paper calls 302 agents the densest pattern the simulator can handle, but provides no comparison with other densities or seeds.
domain assumption Receding horizon control with N=60 and execution of only the first input approximates the intended infinite-horizon optimization.
The paper follows the standard MPC practice but gives no stability or performance guarantee.
ad hoc to paper The printed safe-distance and intersection-separation constraints are implementable in MILP as written.
Constraint 5 is infeasible as stated (both >= inequalities for the same pair), and the absolute values in constraint 6 require a linearization that is not shown.
ad hoc to paper An optimal control radius exists and is stable across traffic conditions beyond the tested seed and radii.
Hypothesis 1 is asserted before the experiment and is only checked on one scenario; the 120 m knee is a grid point, not a derived optimum.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early Versus Late Traffic Management For Autonomous Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2PQS6XWP

@misc{pith2026241119582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early Versus Late Traffic Management For Autonomous Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2PQS6XWP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19582}
}

read the original abstract

Intersections pose critical challenges in traffic management, where maintaining operational constraints and ensuring safety are essential for efficient flow. This paper investigates the effect of intervention timing in management strategies on maintaining operational constraints at intersections while ensuring safe separation distance, avoiding collisions, and minimizing delay. We introduce control regions, represented as circles around the intersection, which refers to the timing of interventions by a centralized control system when agents approach the intersection. We use a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) approach to optimize the system's performance. To analyze the effectiveness of early and late control measures, a simulation study is conducted, focusing on the safe, efficient, and robust management of agent movement within the control regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19582 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Average delay for different sizes of control region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Space-time diagram for control region radius of 40m with ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Space-time diagram for control region radius of 90m with ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Assessing the role of autonomous vehicles in urban areas: A systematic review of literature,

H. Y . Makahleh, E. J. S. Ferranti, and D. Dissanayake, “Assessing the role of autonomous vehicles in urban areas: A systematic review of literature,” Future Transportation, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 321–348, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Cortina, Fostering synergy between Public Transportation and Autonomous Mobility on Demand: the prospects of regulation

M. Cortina, Fostering synergy between Public Transportation and Autonomous Mobility on Demand: the prospects of regulation . PhD thesis, École Nationale des Travaux Publics de l’État, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Under- standing autonomous vehicles,

A. Faisal, M. Kamruzzaman, T. Yigitcanlar, and G. Currie, “Under- standing autonomous vehicles,” Journal of transport and land use , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 45–72, 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review,

S. Narayanan, E. Chaniotakis, and C. Antoniou, “Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 111, pp. 255–293, 2020

work page 2020
[5]

Reduce emissions and improve traffic flow through collaborative autonomy,

A. D. Patire, F. Dion, and A. M. Bayen, “Reduce emissions and improve traffic flow through collaborative autonomy,”UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies , 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Polling-systems-based autonomous vehicle coordination in traffic intersections with no traffic signals,

D. Miculescu and S. Karaman, “Polling-systems-based autonomous vehicle coordination in traffic intersections with no traffic signals,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 680–694, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

Multi-objective transportation system optimization using agent-based simulation—a study of cordon- and mileage-based congestion pricing,

J. Lazarus, M. Schwinn, L. Toulet, Z. Yu, A. Chen, X. Tang, T. Kasriel, and A. Bayen, “Multi-objective transportation system optimization using agent-based simulation—a study of cordon- and mileage-based congestion pricing,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 2270–2280, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Con- strained urban airspace design for large-scale drone-based delivery traffic,

M. Doole, J. Ellerbroek, V . L. Knoop, and J. M. Hoekstra, “Con- strained urban airspace design for large-scale drone-based delivery traffic,” Aerospace, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 38, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 39 references

[9]

Assessing integration between emerging and conventional operations in urban airspace,

P. D. Vascik and R. J. Hansman, “Assessing integration between emerging and conventional operations in urban airspace,” in AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, p. 3125, 2019

2019
[10]

Free flight in a crowded airspace?,

J. Hoekstra, R. Ruigrok, and R. Van Gent, “Free flight in a crowded airspace?,” Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics , vol. 193, pp. 533–546, 2001

2001
[11]

Towards high-density urban air mobility,

M. Lowry, “Towards high-density urban air mobility,” in 2018 aviation technology, integration, and operations conference , p. 3667, 2018

2018
[12]

Enabling airspace integration for high-density on-demand mobility operations,

E. R. Mueller, P. H. Kopardekar, and K. H. Goodrich, “Enabling airspace integration for high-density on-demand mobility operations,” in 17th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Con- ference, p. 3086, 2017

2017
[13]

A multiagent approach to autonomous intersection management,

K. Dresner and P. Stone, “A multiagent approach to autonomous intersection management,” Journal of artificial intelligence research , vol. 31, pp. 591–656, 2008

2008
[14]

Autonomous intersection management with pedestrians crossing,

W. Wu, Y . Liu, W. Hao, G. A. Giannopoulos, and Y .-J. Byon, “Autonomous intersection management with pedestrians crossing,” Transportation research part C: emerging technologies , vol. 135, p. 103521, 2022

2022
[15]

Intersection planning for multilane unmanned aerial vehicle traffic management,

S. R. Nagrare, A. Ratnoo, and D. Ghose, “Intersection planning for multilane unmanned aerial vehicle traffic management,” Journal of Aerospace Information Systems , vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 216–233, 2024

2024
[16]

Estimation of traffic density from drone-based delivery in very low level urban airspace,

M. Doole, J. Ellerbroek, and J. Hoekstra, “Estimation of traffic density from drone-based delivery in very low level urban airspace,” Journal of Air Transport Management , vol. 88, p. 101862, 2020

2020
[17]

A survey on intersection management of connected autonomous vehicles,

M. Khayatian, M. Mehrabian, E. Andert, R. Dedinsky, S. Choudhary, Y . Lou, and A. Shirvastava, “A survey on intersection management of connected autonomous vehicles,” ACM Transactions on Cyber- Physical Systems, vol. 4, aug 2020

2020
[18]

Analysis of airspace structure and capacity for decentralized separation using fast-time simulations,

E. Sunil, J. Ellerbroek, J. Hoekstra, A. Vidosavljevic, M. Arntzen, F. Bussink, and D. Nieuwenhuisen, “Analysis of airspace structure and capacity for decentralized separation using fast-time simulations,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 38– 51, 2017

2017
[19]

Centralized and distributed utm in layered airspace,

L. Sedov and V . Polishchuk, “Centralized and distributed utm in layered airspace,” in 8th International Conference on Research in Air Transportation, pp. 1–8, 2018

2018
[20]

Supervisory control for intersection collision avoidance in the presence of uncontrolled vehicles,

H. Ahn, A. Colombo, and D. Del Vecchio, “Supervisory control for intersection collision avoidance in the presence of uncontrolled vehicles,” in 2014 American Control Conference , pp. 867–873, 2014

2014
[21]

Complexity management in the state estimation of multi-agent systems,

D. Del Vecchio and R. M. Murray, “Complexity management in the state estimation of multi-agent systems,” Cooperative Control of Distributed Multi-Agent Systems , pp. 377–407, 2007

2007
[22]

Semi-autonomous intersection collision avoidance through job-shop scheduling,

H. Ahn and D. Del Vecchio, “Semi-autonomous intersection collision avoidance through job-shop scheduling,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Con- trol, HSCC ’16, (New York, NY , USA), p. 185–194, Association for Computing Ma...

2016
[23]

Robust multi-agent collision avoidance through scheduling,

L. Bruni, A. Colombo, and D. Del Vecchio, “Robust multi-agent collision avoidance through scheduling,” in 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , pp. 3944–3950, 2013

2013
[24]

Cooperative autonomous traffic organi- zation method for connected automated vehicles in multi-intersection road networks,

Y . Wang, P. Cai, and G. Lu, “Cooperative autonomous traffic organi- zation method for connected automated vehicles in multi-intersection road networks,” Transportation research part C: emerging technolo- gies, vol. 111, pp. 458–476, 2020. Fig. 4: Space-time diagram for contro...

2020
[25]

Non-signalized intersection network management with connected and automated ve- hicles,

X. Chen, B. Xu, X. Qin, Y . Bian, M. Hu, and N. Sun, “Non-signalized intersection network management with connected and automated ve- hicles,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 122065–122077, 2020

2020
[26]

Traffic control via connected and automated vehicles: An open-road field experiment with 100 cavs,

J. W. Lee, H. Wang, K. Jang, A. Hayat, M. R. Bunting, A. Alanqary, W. Barbour, Z. Fu, X. Gong, G. Gunter, S. Hornstein, A. R. Kreidieh, N. Lichtlé, M. W. Nice, W. A. Richardson, A. Shah, E. Vinitsky, F. Wu, S. Xiang, S. Almatrudi, F. Althukair, R. Bhadani, J. Carpio, R. Chekro...

2024 arXiv
[27]

Autonomous and semiau- tonomous intersection management: A survey,

Z. Zhong, M. Nejad, and E. E. Lee, “Autonomous and semiau- tonomous intersection management: A survey,”IEEE Intelligent Trans- portation Systems Magazine , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 53–70, 2021

2021
[28]

Urban intersection management strategies for autonomous/connected/conventional vehicle fleet mixtures,

Z. Wu and B. Waterson, “Urban intersection management strategies for autonomous/connected/conventional vehicle fleet mixtures,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 12084–12093, 2022

2022
[29]

Intersection coordination with priority-based search for autonomous vehicles,

J. Li, E. Lin, H. L. Vu, S. Koenig, et al. , “Intersection coordination with priority-based search for autonomous vehicles,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 37, pp. 11578– 11585, 2023

2023
[30]

Autonomous intersection management: Multi-intersection optimization,

M. Hausknecht, T.-C. Au, and P. Stone, “Autonomous intersection management: Multi-intersection optimization,” in 2011 IEEE/RSJ In- ternational Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pp. 4581– 4586, 2011

2011
[31]

Multi-agent path finding for coopera- tive autonomous driving,

Z. Yan, H. Zheng, and C. Wu, “Multi-agent path finding for coopera- tive autonomous driving,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 12361–12367, 2024

2024
[32]

Mixed integer programming for multi-vehicle path planning,

T. Schouwenaars, B. De Moor, E. Feron, and J. How, “Mixed integer programming for multi-vehicle path planning,” in 2001 European control conference (ECC), pp. 2603–2608, IEEE, 2001

2001
[33]

Miplib 2010,

T. Koch, T. Achterberg, E. Andersen, O. Bastert, T. Berthold, R. E. Bixby, E. Danna, G. Gamrath, A. Gleixner, S. Heinz, A. Lodi, H. Mittelmann, T. Ralphs, D. Salvagnin, D. Steffy, and K. Wolter, “Miplib 2010,” Tech. Rep. 10-31, ZIB, Takustr. 7, 14195 Berlin, 2010

2010
[34]

Implementation and flight test results of milp-based uav guidance,

T. Schouwenaars, M. Valenti, E. Feron, and J. How, “Implementation and flight test results of milp-based uav guidance,” in 2005 IEEE Aerospace Conference, pp. 1–13, IEEE, 2005

2005
[35]

Optimized escape path planning for commer- cial aircraft formations,

S. Saber and E. Feron, “Optimized escape path planning for commer- cial aircraft formations,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 2076–2091, 2023

2023
[36]

Space partition for conflict resolution of intersecting flows of mobile agents,

Z.-H. Mao, D. Dugail, and E. Feron, “Space partition for conflict resolution of intersecting flows of mobile agents,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 512–527, 2007

2007
[37]

Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey,

C. E. Garcia, D. M. Prett, and M. Morari, “Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey,” Automatica, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 335– 348, 1989

1989
[38]

Receding horizon path planning with implicit safety guarantees,

T. Schouwenaars, J. How, and E. Feron, “Receding horizon path planning with implicit safety guarantees,” in Proceedings of the 2004 American control conference, vol. 6, pp. 5576–5581, IEEE, 2004

2004
[39]

Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,” 2023

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Assessing the role of autonomous vehicles in urban areas: A systematic review of literature,

H. Y . Makahleh, E. J. S. Ferranti, and D. Dissanayake, “Assessing the role of autonomous vehicles in urban areas: A systematic review of literature,” Future Transportation, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 321–348, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Cortina, Fostering synergy between Public Transportation and Autonomous Mobility on Demand: the prospects of regulation

M. Cortina, Fostering synergy between Public Transportation and Autonomous Mobility on Demand: the prospects of regulation . PhD thesis, École Nationale des Travaux Publics de l’État, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Under- standing autonomous vehicles,

A. Faisal, M. Kamruzzaman, T. Yigitcanlar, and G. Currie, “Under- standing autonomous vehicles,” Journal of transport and land use , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 45–72, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review,

S. Narayanan, E. Chaniotakis, and C. Antoniou, “Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 111, pp. 255–293, 2020

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Reduce emissions and improve traffic flow through collaborative autonomy,

A. D. Patire, F. Dion, and A. M. Bayen, “Reduce emissions and improve traffic flow through collaborative autonomy,”UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies , 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Polling-systems-based autonomous vehicle coordination in traffic intersections with no traffic signals,

D. Miculescu and S. Karaman, “Polling-systems-based autonomous vehicle coordination in traffic intersections with no traffic signals,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 680–694, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Multi-objective transportation system optimization using agent-based simulation—a study of cordon- and mileage-based congestion pricing,

J. Lazarus, M. Schwinn, L. Toulet, Z. Yu, A. Chen, X. Tang, T. Kasriel, and A. Bayen, “Multi-objective transportation system optimization using agent-based simulation—a study of cordon- and mileage-based congestion pricing,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 2270–2280, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Con- strained urban airspace design for large-scale drone-based delivery traffic,

M. Doole, J. Ellerbroek, V . L. Knoop, and J. M. Hoekstra, “Con- strained urban airspace design for large-scale drone-based delivery traffic,” Aerospace, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 38, 2021

work page 2021