pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13424 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Integrated Routing and Intersection Control for Mixed Traffic

Filippos N. Tzortzoglou , Pengbo Zhu , Andreas A. Malikopoulos This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 13:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords mixed trafficconnected automated vehiclesrouting optimizationintersection controlhierarchical frameworktraffic simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hierarchical framework combines network routing for automated vehicles with intersection control to boost mixed traffic performance.

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

The paper establishes a two-layer approach where an upper level uses aggregated data to guide connected automated vehicles along routes that minimize total travel time, while a lower level uses local vehicle information to adjust traffic signals and individual trajectories at intersections. This setup targets both network-scale efficiency and local delay reduction in environments mixing human-driven cars with automated ones. Simulations on a standard benchmark network indicate that running both layers together produces higher throughput and less congestion than operating either layer by itself.

Core claim

The integration of macroscopic routing optimization at the network level with microscopic vicinity control at signalized intersections yields significantly better performance compared to applying either layer in isolation, improving network throughput and reducing congestion.

What carries the argument

A hierarchical framework with an upper layer providing proactive routing guidance from aggregated traffic data and a lower layer jointly optimizing traffic light phases and connected automated vehicle trajectories from local states.

If this is right

  • CAVs receive network-wide routing that accounts for overall travel time rather than local conditions alone.
  • Traffic signals and vehicle paths at intersections are adjusted together to shorten delays and lower energy use.
  • The combined layers produce measurable gains in throughput and congestion relief on benchmark networks.
  • Performance improves when both macroscopic and microscopic decisions operate in coordination instead of separately.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could adapt to varying penetration rates of automated vehicles by adjusting how much routing guidance is issued.
  • Similar layering might apply to other network problems such as dynamic tolling or incident response.
  • Energy savings at intersections could compound with routing choices to affect total emissions across the network.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation model accurately captures real driver behavior, communication delays, and interactions in mixed traffic without unmodeled conflicts between the routing and control layers.

What would settle it

Running the framework on a real urban corridor with live connected vehicles and human drivers, then measuring throughput and congestion against a baseline without the integrated layers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13424 by Andreas A. Malikopoulos, Filippos N. Tzortzoglou, Pengbo Zhu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Hierarchical control framework for CAVs in mixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sioux Falls Network: Junction Types and Signal Phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of the crossing time selection logic Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of total vehicles in the network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of network performance under different control configurations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The rapid development of cyber-physical systems is driving a transition toward mixed traffic environments comprising both human-driven and connected and automated vehicles (CAVs). This shift presents a unique opportunity to leverage the efficient operation of CAVs to improve overall network throughput. This paper introduces a hierarchical framework designed to bridge macroscopic routing optimization at the network level with microscopic vicinity control at signalized intersections. The upper layer utilizes aggregated traffic information to provide proactive routing guidance for CAVs, aiming to minimize total travel time. The lower layer leverages local vehicle states to jointly optimize traffic light phases and individual CAV trajectories, aiming to reduce intersection crossing delays and optimize energy consumption, respectively. The effectiveness of the proposed framework is validated through SUMO on the Sioux Falls benchmark network. Results demonstrate that the integration of these macroscopic and microscopic layers yields significantly better performance compared to applying either layer in isolation, significantly improving network throughput and reducing congestion.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hierarchical framework for mixed traffic management consisting of human-driven vehicles and CAVs. The upper layer uses aggregated network-level information for proactive routing optimization of CAVs to minimize total travel time. The lower layer performs local joint optimization of traffic signal phases and individual CAV trajectories at intersections to reduce crossing delays and energy consumption. Effectiveness is demonstrated via SUMO simulations on the Sioux Falls benchmark network, with claims of superior network throughput and reduced congestion relative to applying either layer in isolation.

Significance. A well-validated hierarchical integration of routing and intersection control could advance practical cyber-physical traffic systems by leveraging CAV capabilities without requiring full automation. The approach of separating macroscopic and microscopic layers is conceptually sound and addresses a relevant problem in transitioning traffic networks. However, the absence of detailed quantitative metrics, statistical validation, or sensitivity analysis in the reported results limits the ability to assess the magnitude, robustness, or generalizability of the claimed improvements.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and simulation results section] The central performance claim (integration yields significantly better throughput and congestion reduction than isolated layers) is supported only by qualitative statements in the abstract and simulation description. No specific quantitative metrics (e.g., percentage throughput gains, average delay reductions, or statistical significance) or error bars are referenced, weakening the empirical foundation. Please provide detailed results from the Sioux Falls SUMO experiments, including baseline comparisons and variability measures.
  2. [Validation and assumptions in simulation setup] The validation assumes that SUMO's default mixed-traffic models, zero-delay V2X communication, and perfect translation of aggregated routing guidance to CAV paths accurately represent real dynamics without introducing unmodeled layer conflicts or sensitivity to human driver variability. This assumption is load-bearing for the superiority claim; the manuscript should include sensitivity tests or discussion of how deviations (e.g., communication jitter or non-compliant human behavior) would affect the reported gains.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Framework description] Clarify the exact interface between layers: how aggregated routing outputs are converted into specific CAV path instructions without feedback from microscopic delays.
  2. [Simulation setup] Ensure all simulation parameters (e.g., CAV penetration rates, optimization horizons, objective weights) are explicitly listed for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for recognizing the conceptual value of our hierarchical framework for mixed traffic management. We address the major comments below, agreeing where revisions are needed to strengthen the quantitative presentation and robustness discussion.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and simulation results section] The central performance claim (integration yields significantly better throughput and congestion reduction than isolated layers) is supported only by qualitative statements in the abstract and simulation description. No specific quantitative metrics (e.g., percentage throughput gains, average delay reductions, or statistical significance) or error bars are referenced, weakening the empirical foundation. Please provide detailed results from the Sioux Falls SUMO experiments, including baseline comparisons and variability measures.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative metrics would better support the claims. While the full manuscript includes comparative simulation results via figures in Section V, the abstract and textual summaries are primarily qualitative. In the revised manuscript, we will update the abstract with specific performance gains (e.g., percentage improvements in network throughput and average travel time reductions for the integrated framework versus isolated layers) and expand the simulation results section to detail the Sioux Falls SUMO metrics, baseline comparisons, and variability from repeated runs where available. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Validation and assumptions in simulation setup] The validation assumes that SUMO's default mixed-traffic models, zero-delay V2X communication, and perfect translation of aggregated routing guidance to CAV paths accurately represent real dynamics without introducing unmodeled layer conflicts or sensitivity to human driver variability. This assumption is load-bearing for the superiority claim; the manuscript should include sensitivity tests or discussion of how deviations (e.g., communication jitter or non-compliant human behavior) would affect the reported gains.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the simulations employ standard SUMO models and idealized assumptions on communication and compliance, which are typical for initial framework validation. To strengthen the work, the revised manuscript will add a dedicated discussion on these assumptions and their potential effects, including qualitative analysis of impacts from communication delays or variable human behavior. We will also incorporate limited sensitivity analysis results if feasible within the revision timeline. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: hierarchical framework validated by external SUMO simulation

full rationale

The paper proposes a two-layer architecture (macroscopic routing minimization of total travel time using aggregated data; microscopic joint signal/trajectory optimization) whose performance claims are established by comparative SUMO runs on the Sioux Falls network against isolated-layer baselines. No equations, parameters, or uniqueness theorems are shown to reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or author-only citations; the derivation chain consists of standard optimization formulations whose outputs are tested against an independent simulator rather than being tautological with the modeling assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Insufficient information in the abstract to enumerate specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the framework likely relies on standard traffic flow models and optimization assumptions whose details are not provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5454 in / 1134 out tokens · 38750 ms · 2026-05-10T13:11:40.804780+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Control of connected and automated vehicles: State of the art and future challenges,

    J. Guanetti, Y . Kim, and F. Borrelli, “Control of connected and automated vehicles: State of the art and future challenges,”Annual reviews in control, vol. 45, pp. 18–40, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Teaching cars to drive,

    F. N. Tzortzoglou and A. A. Malikopoulos, “Teaching cars to drive,” IEEE Potentials, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 15–24, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Optimal trajectory planning meets network-level routing: Integrated control framework for emerging mobility systems,

    H. Bang and A. A. Malikopoulos, “Optimal trajectory planning meets network-level routing: Integrated control framework for emerging mobility systems,”Automatica, vol. 179, p. 112389, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Routing and rebalancing inter- modal autonomous mobility-on-demand systems in mixed traffic,

    S. Wollenstein-Betech, M. Salazar, A. Houshmand, M. Pavone, I. C. Paschalidis, and C. G. Cassandras, “Routing and rebalancing inter- modal autonomous mobility-on-demand systems in mixed traffic,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 12263–12275, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    A congestion-aware routing scheme for autonomous mobility-on- demand systems,

    M. Salazar, M. Tsao, I. Aguiar, M. Schiffer, and M. Pavone, “A congestion-aware routing scheme for autonomous mobility-on- demand systems,” in2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), pp. 3040–3046, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Optimal time trajectory and coordination for connected and automated vehicles,

    A. A. Malikopoulos, L. E. Beaver, and I. V . Chremos, “Optimal time trajectory and coordination for connected and automated vehicles,” Automatica, vol. 125, no. 109469, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    A feasibility analysis at signal-free intersections,

    F. N. Tzortzoglou, L. E. Beaver, and A. A. Malikopoulos, “A feasibility analysis at signal-free intersections,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 8, pp. 2057–2062, 2024

    work page 2057

  8. [8]

    Real-time cooperative scheduling for cavs at signal-free intersections via dynamic graph analysis and tree search,

    X. Tan, Y . Ding, and S. Wang, “Real-time cooperative scheduling for cavs at signal-free intersections via dynamic graph analysis and tree search,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, p. 105427, 2026

    work page 2026

  9. [9]

    A gen- eral framework for decentralized safe optimal control of connected and automated vehicles in multi-lane signal-free intersections,

    H. Xu, W. Xiao, C. G. Cassandras, Y . Zhang, and L. Li, “A gen- eral framework for decentralized safe optimal control of connected and automated vehicles in multi-lane signal-free intersections,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 17382–17396, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Lane-free signal-free intersection crossing via model predictive control,

    M. Naderi, P. Typaldos, and M. Papageorgiou, “Lane-free signal-free intersection crossing via model predictive control,”Control Engineer- ing Practice, vol. 154, p. 106115, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    On mobility equity and the promise of emerging transportation systems,

    H. Bang, A. Dave, F. Tzortzoglou, S. Wang, and A. A. Malikopoulos, “On mobility equity and the promise of emerging transportation systems,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 26, pp. 10623–10637, 2024

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    On accessibil- ity fairness in intermodal autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,

    M. Salazar, S. B. Giraldo, F. Paparella, and L. Pedroso, “On accessibil- ity fairness in intermodal autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 327–333, 2024

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Automated vehicles and the rethinking of mobility and cities,

    A. Alessandrini, A. Campagna, P. Delle Site, F. Filippi, and L. Per- sia, “Automated vehicles and the rethinking of mobility and cities,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 5, pp. 145–160, 2015

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Routing autonomous vehicles in congested transportation networks: structural properties and coordination algorithms: F. rossi et al.,

    F. Rossi, R. Zhang, Y . Hindy, and M. Pavone, “Routing autonomous vehicles in congested transportation networks: structural properties and coordination algorithms: F. rossi et al.,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1427–1442, 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Dynamic lane reversal routing and scheduling for connected autonomous vehicles,

    K. F. Chu, A. Y . Lam, and V . O. Li, “Dynamic lane reversal routing and scheduling for connected autonomous vehicles,” in2017 International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Combined Optimal Routing and Coordination of Connected and Automated Vehicles,

    H. Bang, B. Chalaki, and A. A. Malikopoulos, “Combined Optimal Routing and Coordination of Connected and Automated Vehicles,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 2749–2754, 2022

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    A cov- erage control-based idle vehicle rebalancing approach for autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,

    P. Zhu, I. I. Sirmatel, G. Ferrari-Trecate, and N. Geroliminis, “A cov- erage control-based idle vehicle rebalancing approach for autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1839–1853, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Mobility-aware charging scheduling for shared on-demand electric vehicle fleet using deep reinforcement learning,

    Y . Liang, Z. Ding, T. Ding, and W.-J. Lee, “Mobility-aware charging scheduling for shared on-demand electric vehicle fleet using deep reinforcement learning,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1380–1393, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Sharing the road: Autonomous vehicles meet human drivers,

    K. DRESNER, “Sharing the road: Autonomous vehicles meet human drivers,” inProc. of 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2007, pp. 1263–1268, 2007

    work page 2007

  20. [20]

    Development and evaluation of an adaptive traffic signal control scheme under a mixed- automated traffic scenario,

    M. A. S. Kamal, T. Hayakawa, and J.-i. Imura, “Development and evaluation of an adaptive traffic signal control scheme under a mixed- automated traffic scenario,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 590–602, 2019

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Safe and efficient coexistence of autonomous vehicles with human-driven traffic at signalized intersections,

    F. N. Tzortzoglou, L. E. Beaver, and A. A. Malikopoulos, “Safe and efficient coexistence of autonomous vehicles with human-driven traffic at signalized intersections,” in64th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 2146–2151, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Cotv: Cooperative control for traffic light signals and connected autonomous vehicles using deep rein- forcement learning,

    J. Guo, L. Cheng, and S. Wang, “Cotv: Cooperative control for traffic light signals and connected autonomous vehicles using deep rein- forcement learning,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 10501–10512, 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Traffic signal timing and trajectory optimization in a mixed autonomy traffic stream,

    M. Tajalli and A. Hajbabaie, “Traffic signal timing and trajectory optimization in a mixed autonomy traffic stream,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, pp. 6525–6538, 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Optimization-based coordination and control of traffic lights and mixed traffic in multi-intersection environments,

    N. Suriyarachchi, R. Quirynen, J. S. Baras, and S. Di Cairano, “Optimization-based coordination and control of traffic lights and mixed traffic in multi-intersection environments,” in2023 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 3162–3168, IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Distributed optimization for traffic light control and connected automated vehicle coordination in mixed- traffic intersections,

    V .-A. Le and A. A. Malikopoulos, “Distributed optimization for traffic light control and connected automated vehicle coordination in mixed- traffic intersections,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    An integrated opti- mization framework for connected and automated vehicles and traffic signals in urban networks,

    M. Liu, Y . Li, X. Liu, Y . Chen, and R. Hao, “An integrated opti- mization framework for connected and automated vehicles and traffic signals in urban networks,”Systems, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 224, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Real- time network-level traffic signal and trajectory optimization with connected automated and human-driven vehicles,

    R. Niroumand, F. Kafashan, L. Hajibabai, and A. Hajbabaie, “Real- time network-level traffic signal and trajectory optimization with connected automated and human-driven vehicles,”Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 40, no. 30, pp. 5891–5907, 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Large-scale dynamic systems: Stability and structure [book reviews],

    V . Lakshmikantham, “Large-scale dynamic systems: Stability and structure [book reviews],”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 26, pp. 976–977, 1981

    work page 1981

  29. [29]

    Hierarchical control of heterogeneous large-scale urban road networks via path assignment and regional route guidance,

    M. Yildirimoglu, I. I. Sirmatel, and N. Geroliminis, “Hierarchical control of heterogeneous large-scale urban road networks via path assignment and regional route guidance,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 118, pp. 106–123, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Transporta- tion networks for research

    Transportation Networks for Research Core Team, “Transporta- tion networks for research.”https://github.com/bstabler/ TransportationNetworks. Accessed: 2024

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    A research and educational robotic testbed for real- time control of emerging mobility systems: From theory to scaled experiments,

    B. Chalaki, L. E. Beaver, A. M. I. Mahbub, H. Bang, and A. A. Malikopoulos, “A research and educational robotic testbed for real- time control of emerging mobility systems: From theory to scaled experiments,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 20– 34, 2022

    work page 2022