Cooperative Cruising: Reinforcement Learning-Based Time-Headway Control for Increased Traffic Efficiency

Daniel Urieli; Han Wang; Maria Laura Delle Monache; Sharon Hornstein; Yaron Veksler

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 45 references

Cooperative Cruising: Reinforcement Learning-Based Time-Headway Control for Increased Traffic Efficiency

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A reinforcement-learning controller that tells adaptive cruise control cars to widen their following distance near bottlenecks raises average speed by up to 7 percent in realistic multi-lane simulations (and 13 percent in single-lane…

desk verdict Solid simulation study with a plausible narrow result; the sweeping 'first' and real-world framing outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02520 v3 pith:52EJVD2V submitted 2024-12-03 cs.MA cs.AIcs.LGcs.SYeess.SY

Yaron Veksler , Sharon Hornstein , Han Wang , Maria Laura Delle Monache , Daniel Urieli This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.MAcs.AIcs.LGcs.SYeess.SY

keywords adaptivecruisecontroltime-headwayreinforcementlearningtrafficcongestionmixedautonomyhighwaybottlenecksimulation

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 claims that a centralized, reinforcement-learning-based system can reduce highway congestion by dynamically telling adaptive cruise control (ACC) vehicles to use longer time-headways as they approach a bottleneck. The system only increases headways above the default value, so it works through existing safety-certified ACC hardware and low-bandwidth vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, without needing precise lane-change prediction or direct control of individual vehicles. In realistic SUMO simulations of a four-lane highway merge with human-like traffic, the RL controller outperforms both simulated human driving and a fixed-headway controller across all tested automated-vehicle penetration rates, achieving up to 7% higher average speed in multi-lane and 13% in single-lane scenarios. A sympathetic reader would care because this is, the authors argue, the first method to improve traffic efficiency over human-like traffic in realistic multi-lane simulated scenarios while relying only on capabilities available in current vehicles.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the RL policy mapping a low-dimensional traffic state (average speed and density across 21 road segments) to desired time-headway values for automated vehicles in the two segments immediately before the bottleneck. These headway commands are executed by ACC systems, modeled in the simulator as IDM car-following with an adjustable time-headway parameter, and the policy is trained with proximal policy optimization. The supporting metric is a delay-aware average speed, which counts time that vehicles spend waiting outside the simulated road network, closing the loophole where a controller could appear to improve speeds simply by blocking vehicle entry.

What would settle it

Re-run the same controller on a simulator calibrated with real trajectory data from the I-24 merge (or an equally congested site), matching both car-following and lane-change distributions to observation, and check whether the RL headway policy still produces a 7% average-speed gain at 100% penetration; if the calibrated human baseline no longer congests in the same way, or the gain disappears, the claim would be falsified. A complementary field test would deploy the controller on a small fleet of ACC vehicles and measure average speeds against a control day.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that spatio-temporal traffic density near a merge bottleneck can be managed effectively by a policy that outputs desired time-headways for each road segment, rather than by predicting individual lane changes or issuing speed limits. The authors show that a constant time-headway command maintains low downstream density for an arbitrary duration, whereas a constant speed-limit command only does so temporarily. Their RL-based controller, trained with proximal policy optimization on a reward that approximates average time delay, learns to issue time-headway commands (between 1.5 and 6 seconds) to vehicles in two segments before the bottleneck, based on measured segment speeds and densities. In multi-lane scenarios, this dynamic headway control beats both human-driven traffic and a tuned fixed-headway baseline at all tested CAV penetration rates (20–100%), with the largest gains at full penetration.

Load-bearing premise

The central result assumes that the simulated human-driven traffic (IDM car-following with lane-change parameters tuned by visual inspection) faithfully reproduces the congestion-generating dynamics of real multi-lane highway merges; if the human baseline is unrealistically unstable, the speed gains from larger headways may be an artifact of the simulator rather than a real-world improvement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If applied at scale, a centralized system that only adjusts ACC time-headways near known bottlenecks could raise average highway speeds by up to 7 percent in multi-lane and 13 percent in single-lane traffic, compared with human driving, at the same traffic demand.
The method works at low automated-vehicle penetration rates (20% in multi-lane, 40% in single-lane for RL gains), meaning partial adoption of ACC could still yield measurable congestion relief.
Because the system only increases headways above the default, it rides on the safety guarantees of existing ACC systems and requires no new onboard sensing or direct vehicle control.
The approach is local and modular: each bottleneck can be controlled independently, suggesting it could be deployed junction-by-junction without global coordination.
The proposed delay-aware average-speed metric corrects a known measurement flaw in open-road simulations, making reported speed gains comparable across studies.

Reading between the lines

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

If validated on real roads, this result implies that a simple, low-bandwidth advisory message ('lengthen your following gap for the next 200 meters') could have congestion effects similar to more complex vehicle-to-vehicle cooperative schemes, without requiring inter-vehicle communication.
The mechanism effectively creates a moving density-reduction zone that propagates upstream, which may be a more tractable way to influence traffic than variable speed limits; a direct simulator comparison between the two under identical calibrated conditions would be a useful test.
A natural experimental extension is to run the same controller on an open-road testbed (as done for other CAV control methods) with a fleet of ACC vehicles, measuring whether real-world speed gains track the simulated 7% figure; the authors' own future-work section notes the need for real-world calibration of driving behavior.
The dependence on a visually tuned human-driver baseline suggests the reported gains could shrink or grow with more realistic lane-change models; a sensitivity study re-runing the experiments with lane-change parameters calibrated to trajectory data would clarify the practical ceiling.

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

The paper is worth a serious look, but take the headline claims with salt. The actual contribution is narrower and more credible than the abstract suggests: a centralized RL controller that sends time-headway commands to ACC vehicles per road segment, tested in a SUMO multi-lane merge against a human-driving baseline and a tuned fixed-headway baseline. The experimental core is honest work—hundreds of runs, 30 seeds per condition, confidence intervals, and a corrected speed metric that penalizes entry delay. That metric fix is a genuine small contribution, and the Appendix D reward derivation is coherent: the reward approximates the metric, which is standard RL practice, not circularity. The gains (up to 7% multi-lane, 13% single-lane) are modest but consistent at high penetration rates. The soft spots are where the paper overreaches. The central claim of being 'the first to improve highway traffic efficiency compared with human-like traffic in realistic multi-lane scenarios' is not supported by any quantitative comparison to the prior methods cited. The authors say those methods underperformed and were omitted—that is a red flag for a 'first' claim. Second, the human baseline is tuned by visual inspection (lcAssertive=3, tau=1.5), and the authors admit lane-change behavior significantly alters congestion dynamics. Since the controller works by increasing headways and damping lane-change disturbances, an unrealistically unstable baseline could manufacture the gains. That is an external validity risk, not an internal inconsistency, and the authors do acknowledge in Section 6 that real-world calibration is missing. Still, the abstract and conclusion do not carry that caveat. For a reader in CAV traffic control or simulation methodology, this is a useful data point: the segment-level headway idea is plausible, the metric correction is worth citing, and the negative result that fixed headways fail in multi-lane is informative. The paper deserves peer review, but it needs major revisions before acceptance: either include quantitative comparisons to prior RL/VSL methods or drop the 'first' claim, and tone down the deployability framing until the baseline is calibrated to real data. I would engage with it and would cite the metric and the headway-control concept, but not the 'first' claim.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a centralized reinforcement-learning controller that periodically sends desired time-headway values to ACC-equipped automated vehicles in road segments upstream of a highway merge, with the aim of reducing congestion and increasing average speed. The controller is evaluated in SUMO on a 2 km four-lane segment of I-24 and on a simplified single-lane merge, using IDM for human-driven vehicles and adjustable-headway IDM for automated vehicles. The authors introduce a corrected average-speed metric that penalizes entry delays, compare the RL policy against a human-only baseline and a fixed-headway baseline, and report up to 13% (single-lane) and 7% (multi-lane) average-speed improvements at 100% CAV penetration, with 30-seed confidence intervals.

Significance. If the reported improvements are robust to modeling uncertainties, the proposed system is a practical and scalable contribution: it relies on existing sensing and connectivity, only increases ACC headways above default values, and avoids per-vehicle control. The paper's strengths include the corrected entry-delay-aware metric, the large number of seeded simulations with confidence intervals, and the publicly available code. The main caveat is that the simulated human baseline is not calibrated against real driving data, so the magnitude of the improvement over 'human-like traffic' is uncertain and the load-bearing claim is stronger than the evidence provided.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2, Appendix C, Figure 1b] The central claim that the controller improves traffic efficiency compared with human-like traffic rests on the realism of the simulated human baseline, but that baseline is not validated against empirical data. Lane-change aggressiveness was 'adjusted through visual inspection' (Section 3.2), the IDM tau was tuned to match a maximum inflow of 1800 veh/h/lane (Appendix C), and Figure 1b shows that changing lcAssertive from 3 to 5 materially changes congestion patterns. Since the controller acts primarily by increasing headways and damping lane-change perturbations, the reported 7-13% gains could be artifacts of a baseline that is unrealistically unstable or unrealistically timid. The authors acknowledge in Section 6 that calibration with real-world data is needed, but this limitation is load-bearing for the abstract's claim, so a robustness analysis across plausible parameter ranges or a calibration to real trajectory data should be added before the claim is stated as established.
[Section 5, baseline selection; Abstract; Section 6] The statement that previous methods 'underperformed compared to human-driven traffic and were therefore omitted' is the only evidence offered for the abstract and Section 6 claim that the controller 'outperforms both baselines and alternative approaches.' No quantitative results, scenario definitions, or parameter settings for VSL or distributed controllers are provided, so the reader cannot verify this comparison. Either include the omitted results or soften the claim to 'outperforms the two baselines evaluated here.'
[Section 4.1, Eq. (2)] The evaluation metric is not fully specified for vehicles that have not exited the simulated road by Tsim. Equation (2) uses L(i), 'the distance driven by vehicle i,' together with min(Tf, Tsim), but it does not define L(i) when Tf > Tsim. If L(i) is the distance accumulated by time Tsim, then the metric mixes complete and partial trajectories; if L(i) is the full route length, the denominator is incorrect for unfinished trips. The definition should be clarified and the bias introduced by partial trips should be discussed.

minor comments (3)

[Appendix D, Eq. (10)] The displayed derivation omits a factor of dt in the integrand; the final expression is correct if the term is read as ai(t)(1 - vi(t)/v_free(xi(t))) dt. Please fix the formula to remove the dimensional inconsistency.
[Section 4.4 and Figure 3] The fixed-value headway baseline is described as optimized by a parameter sweep, but the swept values, the selection criterion, and the chosen headway values are not reported. Providing these details would improve reproducibility.
[Section 4.5] The state representation includes average speed and density over 21 road segments, but the paper does not explain how density is estimated from the simulator (e.g., loop detectors, vehicle counts, or occupancy). A brief clarification would help readers assess the deployability argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reward-to-metric alignment is standard RL objective design, and the improvement over the simulated human baseline is not entailed by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The RL reward (Eq. 3) is explicitly designed as an immediate surrogate for the performance metric (Eq. 1), with Appendix D showing that maximizing the accumulated reward approximates maximizing the weighted relative average-speed improvement over the human baseline. This is objective alignment, not circularity: the baseline human-traffic comparisons in Figure 3 are produced by independent simulations, and nothing in the definition of the reward forces the measured 7-13% gains. The fixed-value controller is tuned by a parameter sweep, but it is a baseline, not a disguised prediction, and the RL controller's advantage over it is an empirical result. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Cui et al. 2021, Zhang et al. 2023a, Lee et al. 2024) support background claims about prior distributed methods and sensing availability; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or as the justification for the proposed controller's effectiveness. The acknowledged limitation that real-world deployment requires calibration with real-world data and real-world testing (Section 6) is an external-validity caveat, not an indication that the simulated results reduce to their inputs. No step in the derivation chain equates a fitted parameter with a prediction, and no result is forced by self-citation or by definition.

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

The simulation-based claim rests on the fidelity of the IDM human-driver model and SUMO lane-change behavior, both of which are tuned rather than calibrated to real highway data. No new physical entities are introduced; the main free parameters are the default time-headway and lane-change settings that shape the baseline against which improvements are measured.

free parameters (5)

tau (default time-headway) = 1.5 s
Empirically tuned in Appendix C so the maximum incoming flow reaches 1800 veh/hr/lane; sets the baseline car-following behavior for all vehicles.
lane-change behavior parameters (lcAssertive=3, lcSpeedGain=5, lcKeepRight=0) = lcAssertive=3, lcSpeedGain=5, lcKeepRight=0
Adjusted through visual inspection of time-space diagrams to reduce spurious disturbances and align with real-world driving; directly shapes the baseline congestion.
fixed-value headway baseline value = not reported in text; selected by sweep
The fixed baseline controller uses the best-performing headway found by sweep, so comparisons are against a tuned baseline; exact value is not given.
action range for time-headway commands = [1.5, 6] seconds
Chosen by hand to reflect realistic headway values and to keep the RL action space small; the minimum equals the default headway to preserve safety.
number of control segments = 2
Chosen after testing 2-5 segments; performance was similar while 2 segments trained faster. This affects the action space but not the reported gains significantly.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The IDM car-following model with the chosen parameters represents human driving behavior faithfully.
Section 3.2 uses IDM with constant time-headway for all human-driven vehicles; realism of the human baseline is the benchmark for all improvements.
domain assumption SUMO's lane-change model with visually tuned parameters reproduces realistic multi-lane congestion dynamics.
Section 3.2 and Appendix C adjust lcAssertive, lcSpeedGain, and lcKeepRight by visual inspection; these parameters control the disturbance level the controller must overcome.
domain assumption The 2 km I-24 segment is a representative highway merge geometry.
Section 3.2 states it was chosen as representative; conclusions about multi-lane scenarios generalize from this single geometry.
domain assumption Safety-certified ACC will enforce a safe following distance for any headway command above the default.
Section 4.3 argues safety by sending only increases to a certified ACC; this assumes the certification covers all commanded values under all traffic conditions encountered.
domain assumption No crashes occurring in SUMO implies the system is safe in operation.
Section 4.5 notes "no crashes occurred in our experiments" as safety evidence; this treats the simulator's collision model and the ACC safety layer as sufficient for real-world safety.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cooperative Cruising: Reinforcement Learning-Based Time-Headway Control for Increased Traffic Efficiency." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/52EJVD2V

@misc{pith2026241202520,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cooperative Cruising: Reinforcement Learning-Based Time-Headway Control for Increased Traffic Efficiency},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/52EJVD2V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02520}
}

read the original abstract

The proliferation of connected automated vehicles represents an unprecedented opportunity for improving driving efficiency and alleviating traffic congestion. However, existing research fails to address realistic multi-lane highway scenarios without assuming connectivity, perception, and control capabilities that are typically unavailable in current vehicles. This paper proposes a novel AI system that is the first to improve highway traffic efficiency compared with human-like traffic in realistic, simulated multi-lane scenarios, while relying on existing connectivity, perception, and control capabilities. At the core of our approach is a reinforcement learning based controller that dynamically communicates time-headways to automated vehicles near bottlenecks based on real-time traffic conditions. These desired time-headways are then used by adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems to adjust their following distance. By (i) integrating existing traffic estimation technology and low-bandwidth vehicle-to-infrastructure connectivity, (ii) leveraging safety-certified ACC systems, and (iii) targeting localized bottleneck challenges that can be addressed independently in different locations, we propose a potentially practical, safe, and scalable system that can positively impact numerous road users.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02520 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Centralized Time-headway control for multi-lane highway congestion reduction: (a) The analyzed scenario. An RL-based controller sends time-headway commands to CAVs near bottlenecks, based on measured traffic speed and density. (b) Lane-changing behavior simulation results. Aggressive lane-changing behavior significantly impacts traffic dynamics. Gymnasium API (Towers et al. 2024), enabling the training of controller… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Time-headway control motivation: (a) Aggressive lane-change may cause excessive speed and throughput decrease (top). Preemptively increasing headway can reduce the negative effect (bottom). (b) Analysis of constant speed-limit command dynamics. Low downstream density is maintained for a limited duration (blue). (c) Simulation results for constant speed and time-headway signals. Constant time-headway signals maintain… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** presents results from hundreds of experiments under varying percentages of controlled vehicles. We used maximal vehicle inflow, which is the most sensitive to traffic disturbances. Each scenario configuration was run 30 times with different random seeds, enabling the computation of 95% confidence intervals. We focused on two scenario types: a simplified merge into a single-lane road and a complex merge into a mul… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Alasiri, F.; Zhang, Y.; and Ioannou, P. A. 2023. Per-lane variable speed limit and lane change control for congestion management. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems

work page 2023
[4]

Bandō, M.; Hasebe, K.; Nakayama, A.; Shibata, A.; and Sugiyama, Y. 1995. Dynamical model of traffic congestion and numerical simulation. Physical review. E, 51 2: 1035--1042

work page 1995
[5]

L.; Garavello, M.; Goatin, P.; and Piccoli, B

Bayen, A.; Delle Monache, M. L.; Garavello, M.; Goatin, P.; and Piccoli, B. 2022. Control problems for conservation laws with traffic applications: modeling, analysis, and numerical methods. Springer Nature

work page 2022
[6]

M.; Lee, J

Bayen, A. M.; Lee, J. W.; Piccoli, B.; Seibold, B.; Sprinkle, J. M.; and Work, D. B. 2020. CIRCLES : Congestion I mpacts R eduction via CAV -in-the-loop L agrangian E nergy S moothing. Presented at the 2020 Vehicle Technologies Office Annual Merit Review, Washington, DC (virtual)

work page 2020
[7]

CIRCLES. 2020. circles-consortium.github.io

work page 2020
[8]

Cui, J.; Macke, W.; Yedidsion, H.; Goyal, A.; Urieli, D.; and Stone, P. 2021. Scalable Multiagent Driving Policies For Reducing Traffic Congestion. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS)

work page 2021

Show all 45 references

[9]

L.; Liard, T.; Rat, A.; Stern, R.; Bhadani, R.; Seibold, B.; Sprinkle, J.; Work, D

Delle Monache, M. L.; Liard, T.; Rat, A.; Stern, R.; Bhadani, R.; Seibold, B.; Sprinkle, J.; Work, D. B.; and Piccoli, B. 2019. Feedback Control Algorithms for the Dissipation of Traffic Waves with Autonomous Vehicles, 275--299. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-03...

2019
[10]

Duan, Y.; Chen, X.; Houthooft, R.; Schulman, J.; and Abbeel, P. 2016. Benchmarking Deep Reinforcement Learning for Continuous Control. In Balcan, M. F.; and Weinberger, K. Q., eds., Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 48 of Proceedings ...

2016
[11]

A.; Morshed, S

Fattah, M. A.; Morshed, S. R.; and Kafy, A.-A. 2022. Insights into the socio-economic impacts of traffic congestion in the port and industrial areas of Chittagong city, Bangladesh. Transportation Engineering, 9: 100122

2022
[12]

Ferrara, A.; Sacone, S.; Siri, S.; et al. 2018. Freeway traffic modelling and control, volume 585. Springer

2018
[13]

Gao, Y.; and Levinson, D. 2023. Lane changing and congestion are mutually reinforcing. Communications in Transportation Research, 3

2023
[14]

Hall, F. L. 1996. Traffic stream characteristics. US Federal Highway Administration, 36

1996
[15]

Hegyi, A.; De Schutter , B.; and Hellendoorn, H. 2005. Model predictive control for optimal coordination of ramp metering and variable speed limits. Transportation Research Part C, 13(3): 185--209

2005
[16]

Hua, C.; and Fan, W. D. 2023. Dynamic speed harmonization for mixed traffic flow on the freeway using deep reinforcement learning. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 17(12): 2519--2530

2023
[17]

Kerner, B. S. 2016. Failure of classical traffic flow theories: Stochastic highway capacity and automatic driving. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 450: 700--747

2016
[18]

Krajzewicz, D.; Erdmann, J.; Behrisch, M.; and Bieker, L. 2012. Recent development and applications of SUMO-Simulation of Urban MObility. International journal on advances in systems and measurements, 5(3&4)

2012
[19]

R.; Wu, C.; and Bayen, A

Kreidieh, A. R.; Wu, C.; and Bayen, A. M. 2018. Dissipating stop-and-go waves in closed and open networks via deep reinforcement learning. In 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 1475--1480

2018
[20]

W.; Wang, H.; Jang, K.; Hayat, A.; Bunting, M.; Alanqary, A.; Barbour, W.; Fu, Z.; Gong, X.; Gunter, G.; Hornstein, S.; Kreidieh, A

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

2024 arXiv
[21]

Lomax, T.; Schrank, D.; and Eisele, B. 2021. 2021 Urban Mobility Report. https://mobility.tamu.edu/umr/

2021
[22]

Lu, X.-Y.; and Shladover, S. E. 2014. Review of Variable Speed Limits and Advisories: Theory, Algorithms, and Practice. Transportation Research Record, 2423(1): 15--23

2014
[23]

M.; and Bhaskar, A

Mohammadian, S.; Zheng, Z.; Haque, M. M.; and Bhaskar, A. 2021. Performance of continuum models for realworld traffic flows: Comprehensive benchmarking. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 147: 132--167

2021
[24]

Ni, D.; and Leonard II, J. D. 2006. Direct methods of determining traffic stream characteristics by definition. Technical report, University of Massachusetts Amherst

2006
[25]

OpenStreetMap contributors . 2017. https://www.openstreetmap.org

2017
[26]

Pang, M.; and Huang, J. 2022. Cooperative Control of Highway On-Ramp with Connected and Automated Vehicles as Platoons Based on Improved Variable Time Headway. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems, 148(7): 04022034

2022
[27]

Puterman, M. L. 2014. Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming. John Wiley & Sons

2014
[28]

F.; Mcquade, S

Samaei, M.; Ameli, M.; Davis, J. F.; Mcquade, S. T.; Lee, J.; Piccoli, B.; and Bayen, A. M. 2023. Bi-Level Optimization Model for DTA Flow and Speed Calibration . In The 9th International Symposium on Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA2023). Chicago, United States

2023
[29]

Schulman, J.; Wolski, F.; Dhariwal, P.; Radford, A.; and Klimov, O. 2017. Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms. arXiv:1707.06347

2017 arXiv
[30]

E.; Cui, S.; Delle Monache , M

Stern, R. E.; Cui, S.; Delle Monache , M. L.; Bhadani, R.; Bunting, M.; Churchill, M.; Hamilton, N.; Haulcy, R.; Pohlmann, H.; Wu, F.; Piccoli, B.; Seibold, B.; Sprinkle, J.; and Work, D. B. 2018. Dissipation of stop-and-go waves via control of autonomous vehicles: Field exper...

2018
[31]

Sugiyama, Y.; Fukui, M.; Kikuchi, M.; Hasebe, K.; Nakayama, A.; Nishinari, K.; ichi Tadaki, S.; and Yukawa, S. 2008. Traffic jams without bottlenecks—experimental evidence for the physical mechanism of the formation of a jam. New Journal of Physics, 10(3): 033001

2008
[32]

S.; and Barto, A

Sutton, R. S.; and Barto, A. G. 2018. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA, USA: A Bradford Book. ISBN 0262039249

2018
[33]

U.; Cola, G

Towers, M.; Kwiatkowski, A.; Terry, J.; Balis, J. U.; Cola, G. D.; Deleu, T.; Goulão, M.; Kallinteris, A.; Krimmel, M.; KG, A.; Perez-Vicente, R.; Pierré, A.; Schulhoff, S.; Tai, J. J.; Tan, H.; and Younis, O. G. 2024. Gymnasium: A Standard Interface for Reinforcement Learning...

2024 arXiv
[34]

Treiber, M.; Hennecke, A.; and Helbing, D. 2000. Congested Traffic States in Empirical Observations and Microscopic Simulations. Physical Review E, 62: 1805--1824

2000
[35]

Vinitsky, E.; Lichtle, N.; Parvate, K.; and Bayen, A. 2023. Optimizing mixed autonomy traffic flow with decentralized autonomous vehicles and multi-agent RL. ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems

2023
[36]

Vinitsky, E.; Parvate, K.; Kreidieh, A.; Wu, C.; and Bayen, A. 2018. Lagrangian Control through Deep-RL: Applications to Bottleneck Decongestion. In 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC)

2018
[37]

Wang, H.; Fu, Z.; Lee, J.; Matin, H. N. Z.; Alanqary, A.; Urieli, D.; Hornstein, S.; Kreidieh, A. R.; Chekroun, R.; Barbour, W.; et al. 2024 a . Hierarchical speed planner for automated vehicles: A framework for lagrangian variable speed limit in mixed autonomy traffic. arXiv ...

2024 arXiv
[38]

Wang, J.; Zheng, Y.; Dong, J.; Chen, C.; Cai, M.; Li, K.; and Xu, Q. 2023 a . Implementation and experimental validation of data-driven predictive control for dissipating stop-and-go waves in mixed traffic. IEEE Internet of Things Journal

2023
[39]

W.; and Stern, R

Wang, S.; Shang, M.; Levin, M. W.; and Stern, R. 2023 b . A general approach to smoothing nonlinear mixed traffic via control of autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part C, 146: 103967

2023
[40]

Wang, S.; Wang, Z.; Jiang, R.; Zhu, F.; Yan, R.; and Shang, Y. 2024 b . A multi-agent reinforcement learning-based longitudinal and lateral control of CAVs to improve traffic efficiency in a mandatory lane change scenario. Transportation Research Part C, 158: 104445

2024
[41]

M.; and Mehta, A

Wu, C.; Bayen, A. M.; and Mehta, A. 2018. Stabilizing Traffic with Autonomous Vehicles. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1–7. IEEE Press

2018
[42]

Yanakiev, D.; and Kanellakopoulos, I. 1995. Variable time headway for string stability of automated heavy-duty vehicles. In Proceedings of 1995 34th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, volume 4, 4077--4081 vol.4

1995
[43]

Yang, M.; Wang, X.; and Quddus, M. 2019. Examining lane change gap acceptance, duration and impact using naturalistic driving data. Transportation Research Part C, 104: 317--331

2019
[44]

Zhang, Y.; Macke, W.; Cui, J.; Hornstein, S.; Urieli, D.; and Stone, P. 2023 a . Learning a robust multiagent driving policy for traffic congestion reduction. Neural Computing and Applications, 1--14

2023
[45]

Zhang, Y.; Qui \ n ones-Grueiro, M.; Barbour, W.; Zhang, Z.; Scherer, J.; Biswas, G.; and Work, D. B. 2023 b . Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Large Scale Variable Speed Limit Control. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Smart Computing (SMARTCOMP), 149--156

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Alasiri, F.; Zhang, Y.; and Ioannou, P. A. 2023. Per-lane variable speed limit and lane change control for congestion management. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Bandō, M.; Hasebe, K.; Nakayama, A.; Shibata, A.; and Sugiyama, Y. 1995. Dynamical model of traffic congestion and numerical simulation. Physical review. E, 51 2: 1035--1042

work page 1995

[5] [5]

L.; Garavello, M.; Goatin, P.; and Piccoli, B

Bayen, A.; Delle Monache, M. L.; Garavello, M.; Goatin, P.; and Piccoli, B. 2022. Control problems for conservation laws with traffic applications: modeling, analysis, and numerical methods. Springer Nature

work page 2022

[6] [6]

M.; Lee, J

Bayen, A. M.; Lee, J. W.; Piccoli, B.; Seibold, B.; Sprinkle, J. M.; and Work, D. B. 2020. CIRCLES : Congestion I mpacts R eduction via CAV -in-the-loop L agrangian E nergy S moothing. Presented at the 2020 Vehicle Technologies Office Annual Merit Review, Washington, DC (virtual)

work page 2020

[7] [7]

CIRCLES. 2020. circles-consortium.github.io

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Cui, J.; Macke, W.; Yedidsion, H.; Goyal, A.; Urieli, D.; and Stone, P. 2021. Scalable Multiagent Driving Policies For Reducing Traffic Congestion. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS)

work page 2021