Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Optimizing Efficiency of Mixed Traffic through Reinforcement Learning: A Topology-Independent Approach and Benchmark

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A decentralized reinforcement learning policy that only observes nearby vehicles' relative position and velocity can control mixed traffic at intersections and roundabouts of many shapes, outperforming traffic-light control at high…

desk verdict The benchmark is a genuine contribution, but the headline numbers in Table III are arithmetically impossible and need correction before the efficiency claim can be accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16728 v1 pith:YH7LASL3 submitted 2025-01-28 cs.RO

Chuyang Xiao , Dawei Wang , Xinzheng Tang , Jia Pan , Yuexin Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords mixedtrafficcontrolreinforcementlearningSoftActor-Criticefficiencydecentralizedintersectionandroundaboutbenchmarkautonomousvehiclestopologygeneralization
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

This paper argues that a single reinforcement learning policy can manage mixed traffic—cars driven by humans plus a portion of robot vehicles—across a wide variety of real-world intersections and roundabouts without relying on traffic lights. The policy is decentralized: each robot vehicle independently decides its own acceleration from a local view of nearby vehicles, with no explicit coordination or map-specific geometry. The authors support this with a new benchmark of 444 scenarios drawn from 20 countries and 111 distinct road topologies, and report that at high robot-vehicle penetration rates the policy reduces average waiting time by about 74% and increases throughput by about 64% compared to a traffic-light baseline. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that topology-independent, locally-observed RL control of unsignalized mixed traffic is feasible and scalable.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a decentralized Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) policy trained under a centralized-training, decentralized-execution paradigm. The observation is a fixed-length vector of the relative positions and velocities of up to ten nearest vehicles ahead and five behind within a fixed local region, which makes the policy agnostic to the road geometry. The action is a single continuous longitudinal acceleration in [-10, 10] m/$s^{2}$; lane changes are left to the SUMO simulator. The reward combines normalized throughput, collision-avoidance, and waiting-time terms, with waiting-time bounds derived from traffic-light-controlled performance in each scenario.

What would settle it

Compare the road topologies of the 72 test scenarios against the 372 training scenarios by their network IDs or map hashes. If any test topology appears in training, re-run the evaluation on a strictly disjoint subset; if the performance gap versus traffic lights disappears or reverses on such a split, the topology-independent generalization claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the same trained policy, using only relative positions and velocities of nearby vehicles within a fixed 50-meter front, 20-meter rear, and 5-meter-wide observation area, generalizes to unseen complex road geometries. On the whole test set, the method at 100% robot-vehicle penetration reaches an average wait time of 130.79 seconds and throughput of 17.5×$10^{-3}$, against 503.06 seconds and 10.65×$10^{-3}$ for traffic lights. It also outperforms the prior intersection-specific and roundabout-specific RL policies on their respective benchmark subsets. The authors interpret this as demonstrating that explicit topology representation is unnecessary: a local interaction rule learned through Soft Actor-Critic, trained with centralized information but executed in a decentralized way, can replace signal control across diverse real-world layouts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 372 training scenarios and 72 test scenarios are drawn such that the policy must handle road topologies it never saw during training; the paper does not state whether test topologies are disjoint from training topologies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single RL policy can control unsignalized mixed traffic across both intersections and roundabouts, implying traffic-light infrastructure may be replaceable by autonomous-vehicle coordination even in complex real-world geometries.
  • Performance improves with robot-vehicle penetration rate, and at rates above 40% the policy already outperforms no-signal control and becomes competitive with or better than traffic lights.
  • The released benchmark of 444 scenarios from 20 countries provides a shared, reproducible evaluation suite, and training on more scenarios yields near-linear performance gains, suggesting the benchmark can grow to further improve policies.
  • At high traffic demands (3000–5000 vehicles per hour), the method sustains throughput where traffic-light and no-signal baselines degrade, pointing to robustness under congestion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the train–test split is not topology-disjoint, the claimed generalization to unseen geometries may be weaker than stated; the paper needs a clear topology-based split or cross-validation to substantiate topology independence.
  • The observation design—relative states of nearby vehicles with no explicit map features—suggests the policy learns a local interaction rule that could transfer to other road networks or even non-road multi-agent coordination tasks with similar local dynamics.
  • Restricting actions to longitudinal acceleration while leaving lane changes to a simulator default may cap performance in dense, multi-lane traffic; extending the action space to include lateral decisions is a natural testable extension.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a decentralized Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) policy for mixed-traffic control in which each robot vehicle (RV) observes only nearby vehicles within a fixed local rectangle and outputs a longitudinal acceleration. The authors also introduce a benchmark of 444 simulated scenarios derived from 111 real-world road topologies in 20 countries, spanning intersections and roundabouts. Experiments compare the method with fixed-time traffic-light control (TL), a no-signal baseline (NoTL), and two topology-specific prior methods (Wang et al. and Jang et al.), reporting throughput and average waiting time. The central claim is that the proposed policy achieves better efficiency than these baselines across all test scenarios, with a reported 74% wait-time reduction and 64% throughput increase over TL at 100% RV penetration.

Significance. The benchmark itself is a potentially valuable community resource: it is substantially larger and more geographically diverse than prior mixed-traffic control datasets, and the authors have released code and videos. The algorithmic idea of a topology-independent, decentralized policy with a fixed local observation area is also attractive and in line with current trends toward scalable mixed-autonomy control. If the empirical claims are substantiated, the work would demonstrate a practical path to controlling unsignalized real-world intersections and roundabouts without traffic-light infrastructure. However, the current evidence is not yet reliable: the headline comparison rests on an internally inconsistent table, an ambiguous train/test split, and weak baselines that may exaggerate the method's advantage. The paper's usefulness as a benchmark paper is therefore currently limited by the need for corrected, reproducible evaluation protocols.

major comments (5)
  1. [Table III] The whole-test-set average waiting times for NoTL (513.27 s) and TL (503.06 s) are outside the interval spanned by the corresponding intersection and roundabout subset averages (NoTL: 588.61 s and 537.08 s; TL: 467.83 s and 205.21 s). Since the whole test set is the union of the two subsets, its average must be a weighted average of the subset averages, which is impossible here. The paper's headline claims (74% wait-time reduction and 64% throughput increase over TL) derive from these numbers, so they are not reproducible from Table III as presented. Please provide corrected aggregate values, per-scenario results, or a clear explanation of the discrepancy.
  2. [Section IV] The train/test split is specified only by scenario counts (372 training, 72 testing) and not by whether the 111 underlying road topologies are partitioned disjointly. If a test scenario shares a topology with a training scenario and differs only in traffic demand, the 'topology-independent' generalization claim is not established; the policy may be memorizing geometry rather than adapting to new geometries. Please state the split procedure (e.g., by topology ID) and report the number of distinct topologies in the training and test sets.
  3. [Section IV.A.1] The NoTL baseline is generated by both disabling traffic signals and eliminating SUMO's inherent right-of-way policy for vehicles, as stated in Section IV.A.1. This removes the yield/stop rules that govern real unsignalized intersections, making the NoTL baseline unrealistically chaotic and inflating the observed advantage of the learned policy. Similarly, the TL baseline uses Static Timed Regulation, a fixed-time, non-adaptive signal plan. These weak baselines do not represent 'existing traffic control methods' as claimed in the abstract and conclusions. Please compare against a stronger traffic-light controller (e.g., actuated or adaptive) and a right-of-way-respecting NoTL baseline, or explicitly reframe the claims as comparisons against these particular baselines.
  4. [Equation (4), Section III.B.3] The reward function's waiting-time term uses Wl and Wh that are 'determined by collecting the average waiting times of all vehicles when the scenario is controlled by traffic lights.' This means the reward target is calibrated to the TL baseline's performance, partially baking the comparison into the training objective. The paper should disclose this TL-dependence more prominently and, ideally, test sensitivity to Wl and Wh (e.g., using fixed values not derived from the TL baseline) to show the method's advantage is not simply a consequence of reward shaping toward the baseline's operating point.
  5. [Section V.B] The evaluation repeats each run five times but reports only the average, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or per-scenario breakdowns. Given the stochasticity of RL training and traffic simulation, this does not establish that reported differences are statistically meaningful. In addition, although the reward includes a collision penalty (Eq. 3) and the claim is to improve both efficiency and safety, no collision counts or safety outcomes are reported anywhere in the paper. Please report uncertainty estimates and at least the total number and rate of collisions for each method.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table II] The penetration-rate set is printed as '{0.4, 0.5.0.7.0.8, 0.9, 1.0}'; the second entry should presumably be '0.5, 0.7, 0.8' with commas.
  2. [References] Reference [11] contains a mis-encoded character in 'S˜ao Paulo'; please fix the encoding.
  3. [Section III.B.2] The observation space is described as having size (Nf + Nb)*4, but the four components per vehicle are not explicitly listed; please state whether they are relative x, relative y, relative vx, and relative vy, and clarify how the fixed-length vector is ordered and padded.
  4. [Section III.C, Eq. (1)] The loss in Equation (1) uses γ^{t+1} as an exponent on the discount factor; this appears to be a nonstandard notation. Please define γ and clarify why the discount is time-dependent in the TD target.
  5. [Section III.B.3] The waiting time definition says the timer 'is reset to zero whenever the vehicle accelerates and its speed exceeds 0.1 m/s again'; the word 'again' is unclear—does the timer reset on any speed increase above 0.1 m/s, or only after a period of standing still?

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RL policy's efficiency gain is established by direct comparison with external TL/NoTL baselines, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is an empirical RL pipeline: a decentralized SAC policy is trained on a reward combining throughput, collision avoidance, and waiting time, and then evaluated on held-out scenarios against traffic-light (TL), no-traffic-light (NoTL), and prior-method baselines. I find no equation or step where an output quantity is definitionally equal to an input quantity or where a fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The reward bound description (Wl=20, Wh=30, Table II, 'determined by collecting the average waiting times ... when the scenario is controlled by traffic lights') is opaque, but it is not circular: the target interval [20,30] s is far below the reported TL whole-test average wait (503.06 s, Table III), and the achieved wait at 100% RV (130.79 s) is neither the target nor the TL value, so the comparison is not forced by construction. References to the authors' prior work (e.g., Wang et al. [5], [25]-[27]) are used as related work or as an empirically trained baseline; no self-cited uniqueness theorem or ansatz is invoked to rule out alternatives. Two non-circular concerns should be noted for the correctness verdict: the train/test split is stated only by scenario counts, so topology-disjointness is unverified, and the whole-test wait times for NoTL/TL (513.27 s, 503.06 s) lie outside the intervals spanned by the reported subset values, making Table III arithmetically inconsistent. These are reproducibility issues, not circularity, and do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim (topology-independent generalization) rests on several hand-chosen observation parameters, reward weights, and a wait-time target derived from the traffic-light baseline. None of these are varied in sensitivity analyses, and the benchmark's train/test construction is not fully specified. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • df (front observation distance) = 50 m
    Chosen by hand 'based on empirical knowledge' in Section III-B2; no optimization shown.
  • db (rear observation distance) = 20 m
    Hand-selected in Section III-B2.
  • d (lateral observation half-width) = 5 m
    Hand-selected in Section III-B2.
  • Nf (max front observed vehicles) = 10
    Section III-B2 says the values are 'derived from the average vehicle count observed in these areas through repeated simulation experiments.'
  • Nb (max rear observed vehicles) = 5
    Same derivation as Nf.
  • Reward weights alpha, beta, gamma = 1, 2, 5
    Set in Table II with no sensitivity analysis.
  • Wl, Wh (waiting-time reward bounds) = 20 s, 30 s
    Section III-B3: 'determined by collecting the average waiting times of all vehicles when the scenario is controlled by traffic lights.'
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption IDM adequately models human-driven vehicle behavior in mixed traffic.
    Section IV.2: HVs 'follow the Intelligent Driver Model (IDM) [34], which is widely accepted to simulate human driving behaviors.' The policy's influence on HVs rides on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Disabling traffic signals and right-of-way policies in SUMO produces a valid unsignalized control setting.
    Section IV.1: 'we disabled the traffic signals and eliminated the simulation's inherent right-of-way policy for vehicles.' This removes regulatory structure that real HVs would respect.
  • ad hoc to paper The fixed observation rectangle (50m front, 20m rear, 5m half-width) is sufficient for topology-independent coordination.
    Section III-B2: the distance and count limits are justified qualitatively; no evidence is provided that this representation preserves the information needed to resolve conflicts at roundabouts and multi-legged intersections.
  • domain assumption SUMO netconvert faithfully converts OSM maps into drivable networks representing real-world topologies.
    Section IV.1 describes the conversion but provides no validation of the resulting networks against field conditions.
invented entities (1)
  • None
    purpose: The paper introduces no new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities.
    The method uses existing Robot Vehicle (RV) and Human-driven Vehicle (HV) concepts from prior mixed-traffic literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Efficiency of Mixed Traffic through Reinforcement Learning: A Topology-Independent Approach and Benchmark." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YH7LASL3

@misc{pith2026250116728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Efficiency of Mixed Traffic through Reinforcement Learning: A Topology-Independent Approach and Benchmark},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YH7LASL3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16728}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a mixed traffic control policy designed to optimize traffic efficiency across diverse road topologies, addressing issues of congestion prevalent in urban environments. A model-free reinforcement learning (RL) approach is developed to manage large-scale traffic flow, using data collected by autonomous vehicles to influence human-driven vehicles. A real-world mixed traffic control benchmark is also released, which includes 444 scenarios from 20 countries, representing a wide geographic distribution and covering a variety of scenarios and road topologies. This benchmark serves as a foundation for future research, providing a realistic simulation environment for the development of effective policies. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness and adaptability of the proposed method, achieving better performance than existing traffic control methods in both intersection and roundabout scenarios. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first project to introduce a real-world complex scenarios mixed traffic control benchmark. Videos and code of our work are available at https://sites.google.com/berkeley.edu/mixedtrafficplus/home

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Benchmark Scenarios Visualization To deal with real-world complex traffic scenarios, we introduced a model-free RL approach to manage large￾scale traffic flow at various road topologies. In our method, each RV collects data about its surrounding vehicles within and around the intersection via its local perception system and then encodes the data into fixed-length representations. arXiv:2501.16728v1 [cs.RO] 28 Jan 20… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of our method is illustrated as follows. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our scenario dataset is categorized by major topology [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An evaluation of our policy’s performance, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Neural network vehicle models for high-performance automated driving,

    N. A. Spielberg, M. Brown, N. R. Kapania, J. C. Kegelman, and J. C. Gerdes, “Neural network vehicle models for high-performance automated driving,” Science robotics , vol. 4, no. 28, p. eaaw1975, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Using online verification to prevent autonomous vehicles from causing accidents,

    C. Pek, S. Manzinger, M. Koschi, and M. Althoff, “Using online verification to prevent autonomous vehicles from causing accidents,” Nature Machine Intelligence , vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 518–528, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Dense reinforcement learning for safety validation of autonomous vehicles,

    S. Feng, H. Sun, X. Yan, H. Zhu, Z. Zou, S. Shen, and H. X. Liu, “Dense reinforcement learning for safety validation of autonomous vehicles,” Nature, vol. 615, no. 7953, pp. 620–627, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Reinforcement learning for mixed autonomy in- tersections,

    Z. Yan and C. Wu, “Reinforcement learning for mixed autonomy in- tersections,” in IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, 2021, pp. 2089–2094

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Learning to Control and Coordinate Mixed Traffic Through Robot Vehicles at Complex and Unsignalized Intersections

    D. Wang, W. Li, L. Zhu, and J. Pan, “Learning to control and coordi- nate mixed traffic through robot vehicles at complex and unsignalized intersections,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.05294 , 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Simulation to scaled city: zero-shot policy transfer for traffic control via autonomous vehicles,

    K. Jang, E. Vinitsky, B. Chalaki, B. Remer, L. Beaver, A. A. Ma- likopoulos, and A. Bayen, “Simulation to scaled city: zero-shot policy transfer for traffic control via autonomous vehicles,” in Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, 2019, pp. 291–300

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Flow: A modular learning framework for mixed autonomy traffic,

    C. Wu, A. R. Kreidieh, K. Parvate, E. Vinitsky, and A. M. Bayen, “Flow: A modular learning framework for mixed autonomy traffic,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1270–1286, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    A survey on intelligent traffic lights,

    L. J ´acome, L. Benavides, D. Jara, G. Riofrio, F. Alvarado, and M. Pesantez, “A survey on intelligent traffic lights,” in 2018 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Automation/XXIII Congress of the Chilean Association of Automatic Control (ICA-ACCA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6

    work page 2018

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    A survey on traffic signal control methods,

    H. Wei, G. Zheng, V . Gayah, and Z. Li, “A survey on traffic signal control methods,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08117 , 2019

    1904 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Traffic light control design approaches: a systematic literature review

    N. E. Mohamed and I. I. Radwan, “Traffic light control design approaches: a systematic literature review.” International Journal of Electrical & Computer Engineering (2088-8708), vol. 12, no. 5, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    A protocol for mixed autonomous and human-operated vehicles at intersections,

    G. Sharon and P. Stone, “A protocol for mixed autonomous and human-operated vehicles at intersections,” in Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: AAMAS 2017 Workshops, Best Papers, S˜ao Paulo, Brazil, May 8-12, 2017, Revised Selected Papers 16 . Springer, 2017, pp. 151–167

    2017

  4. [12]

    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, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Controllability analysis and optimal controller synthesis of mixed traffic systems,

    J. Wang, Y . Zheng, Q. Xu, J. Wang, and K. Li, “Controllability analysis and optimal controller synthesis of mixed traffic systems,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1041–1047

    2019

  6. [14]

    Coop- erative merging control via trajectory optimization in mixed vehicular traffic,

    M. Karimi, C. Roncoli, C. Alecsandru, and M. Papageorgiou, “Coop- erative merging control via trajectory optimization in mixed vehicular traffic,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 116, p. 102663, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Summit: A simulator for urban driving in massive mixed traffic,

    P. Cai, Y . Lee, Y . Luo, and D. Hsu, “Summit: A simulator for urban driving in massive mixed traffic,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020, pp. 4023–4029

    2020

  8. [16]

    Towards a systematic computational framework for modeling multi-agent decision-making at micro level for smart vehicles in a smart world,

    Q. Dai, X. Xu, W. Guo, S. Huang, and D. Filev, “Towards a systematic computational framework for modeling multi-agent decision-making at micro level for smart vehicles in a smart world,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 144, p. 103859, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    A general approach to smoothing nonlinear mixed traffic via control of autonomous vehicles,

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

    2023

  10. [18]

    Cooperative driving in mixed traffic of manned and unmanned vehicles based on human driving behavior understanding,

    J. Lu, S. Hossain, W. Sheng, and H. Bai, “Cooperative driving in mixed traffic of manned and unmanned vehicles based on human driving behavior understanding,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 3532–3538

    2023

  11. [19]

    Cooperation for scalable supervision of autonomy in mixed traffic,

    C. Hickert, S. Li, and C. Wu, “Cooperation for scalable supervision of autonomy in mixed traffic,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    A survey on urban traffic control under mixed traffic environment with connected automated vehicles,

    J. Li, C. Yu, Z. Shen, Z. Su, and W. Ma, “A survey on urban traffic control under mixed traffic environment with connected automated vehicles,” Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, vol. 154, p. 104258, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Courteous behavior of automated vehicles at unsignalized intersections via re- inforcement learning,

    S. Yan, T. Welschehold, D. B ¨uscher, and W. Burgard, “Courteous behavior of automated vehicles at unsignalized intersections via re- inforcement learning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 191–198, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    La- grangian control through deep-rl: Applications to bottleneck deconges- tion,

    E. Vinitsky, K. Parvate, A. Kreidieh, C. Wu, and A. Bayen, “La- grangian control through deep-rl: Applications to bottleneck deconges- tion,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2018, pp. 759–765

    2018

  15. [23]

    Intelligent driving intelligence test for autonomous vehicles with naturalistic and adversarial environment,

    S. Feng, X. Yan, H. Sun, Y . Feng, and H. X. Liu, “Intelligent driving intelligence test for autonomous vehicles with naturalistic and adversarial environment,” Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Mixed-autonomy traffic control with proximal policy optimization,

    H. Wei, X. Liu, L. Mashayekhy, and K. Decker, “Mixed-autonomy traffic control with proximal policy optimization,” in 2019 IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

    2019

  17. [25]

    Hybrid traffic control and coordination from pixels,

    M. Villarreal, B. Poudel, J. Pan, and W. Li, “Hybrid traffic control and coordination from pixels,” in IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Analyzing emissions and energy efficiency in mixed traffic control at unsignalized intersections,

    M. Villarreal, D. Wang, J. Pan, and W. Li, “Analyzing emissions and energy efficiency in mixed traffic control at unsignalized intersections,” in IEEE Forum for Innovative Sustainable Transportation Systems (FISTS), 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Large-scale mixed traffic control using dynamic vehicle routing and privacy-preserving crowdsourcing,

    D. Wang, W. Li, and J. Pan, “Large-scale mixed traffic control using dynamic vehicle routing and privacy-preserving crowdsourcing,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Multi- objective optimal control for proactive decision making with temporal logic models,

    S. P. Chinchali, S. C. Livingston, M. Chen, and M. Pavone, “Multi- objective optimal control for proactive decision making with temporal logic models,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 38, no. 12-13, pp. 1490–1512, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Rainbow: Combining improvements in deep reinforcement learning,

    M. Hessel, J. Modayil, H. Van Hasselt, T. Schaul, G. Ostrovski, W. Dabney, D. Horgan, B. Piot, M. Azar, and D. Silver, “Rainbow: Combining improvements in deep reinforcement learning,” inProceed- ings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Discrete and continuous action representation for practical rl in video games,

    O. Delalleau, M. Peter, E. Alonso, and A. Logut, “Discrete and continuous action representation for practical rl in video games,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11077, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sumo’s lane-changing model,

    J. Erdmann, “Sumo’s lane-changing model,” in Modeling Mobility with Open Data: 2nd SUMO Conference 2014 Berlin, Germany, May 15- 16, 2014. Springer, 2015, pp. 105–123

    2014

  24. [32]

    Soft actor-critic: Off- policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,

    T. Haarnoja, A. Zhou, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Soft actor-critic: Off- policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2018, pp. 1861–1870

    2018

  25. [33]

    Sumo– simulation of urban mobility: an overview,

    M. Behrisch, L. Bieker, J. Erdmann, and D. Krajzewicz, “Sumo– simulation of urban mobility: an overview,” in Proceedings of SIMUL 2011, The Third International Conference on Advances in System Simulation. ThinkMind, 2011, pp. 63–68

    2011

  26. [34]

    Enhanced intelligent driver model to access the impact of driving strategies on traffic capacity,

    A. Kesting, M. Treiber, and D. Helbing, “Enhanced intelligent driver model to access the impact of driving strategies on traffic capacity,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , vol. 368, no. 1928, pp. 4585– 4605, 2010

    1928

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.