Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

How Roadside Units Enhance Intersection Safety? Cooperative Autonomous Driving System Design and A Proof of Concept

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Putting a reinforcement-learning digital twin on a roadside unit removes intersection blind spots and beats onboard autonomy, cutting decision latency to 42 ms and extending pedestrian stopping distance to 8.5 m in trials.

desk verdict A coherent RSU-centric V2I2V architecture with a genuine mixed-reality PoC, but the multi-CAV safety numbers rest on a virtual second vehicle and the simulation comparisons lack statistical grounding. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09144 v1 pith:2OBR32SP submitted 2026-08-10 eess.SY cs.SY

Taoyuan Yu , Kui Wang , Zongdian Li , Tao Yu , Walid Saad , Kei Sakaguchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords digitaltwinroadsideunitV2I2Vhierarchicalreinforcementlearningintersectionsafetyconnectedandautomatedvehiclesself-attentionmechanismproofofconcept
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

Intersections are the deadliest part of urban roads because no single vehicle can see around corners, into the blind spot that hides a pedestrian or cyclist about to cross. This paper argues that the fix is to take decision-making off the vehicle and put it on the roadside: a LiDAR-equipped roadside unit builds a bird's-eye digital replica of the intersection, including pedestrians, cyclists, and human-driven cars, and centrally emits control commands to every connected automated vehicle in its service area. The controller is a two-stage hierarchical reinforcement learning system, pre-trained on real-world intersection trajectories and fine-tuned online in an open urban driving simulator, with a reward design that weights collision avoidance, time-to-collision safety margins, progress, and smoothness. In simulation across three unseen real Japanese intersection layouts the system beats distributed and rule-based baselines on travel time, conflict rate, and deceleration smoothness, and in proof-of-concept trials it records about 42 ms decision latency and an 8.5 m stopping distance to a pedestrian entering a blind spot, versus 3.2 m for the onboard baseline. If the system is right, intersections can be made safer not by smarter cars alone but by infrastructure that sees for everyone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the RSU-centric V2I2V loop built on a local digital twin: a roadside 64-layer LiDAR, fused with vehicle-uploaded perception, yields a global bird's-eye-view state of the intersection; a centralized hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL) policy maps that state to joint control commands; and a split communication architecture (a C-plane for cloud-level guidance and a D-plane for low-latency local exchange) carries the loop. The HRL controller is the second piece: offline pre-training with conservative Q-learning and behavior-cloning regularization over maneuver-split buffers supplies a conservative prior, while online fine-tuning with MAPPO, multi-head self-attention, masked variable-agent attention, a three-stage curriculum, and success-rate-scaled learning rates adapts it. The third piece is the mixed-reality validation rig, in which a virtual CAV inside the digital twin shares the same control interface as the physical CAV, so the RSU exercises multi-vehicle coordination without a second physical car.

What would settle it

Run the same RSU loop at the same intersection with two physical CAVs and no virtual substitution, and record the minimum stopping distance when a pedestrian steps into the blind spot plus the end-to-end decision latency over repeated trials; the central claim fails if the stopping distance falls back toward the 3.2 m baseline or latency approaches the 500–1000 ms V2X bound under real multi-vehicle coordination. A second check targets generalization: physically deploy at a fourth, never-seen intersection layout, or rebuild one of the three simulated sites, and compare conflict rate and travel time against the distributed baseline; a large performance drop would falsify the transfer claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a vehicle-to-infrastructure-to-vehicle (V2I2V) control loop can serve as the primary intersection decision-maker: the roadside unit fuses its own LiDAR perception with data uploaded by vehicles into a local digital twin, a real-time bird's-eye-view state that explicitly includes vulnerable road users hidden in blind spots, and a centralized policy on the RSU outputs the joint longitudinal and lateral acceleration commands for every CAV in the 25 m service area. The policy is trained in two stages. Offline pre-training uses conservative Q-learning with a behavior-cloning regularizer over maneuver-split replay buffers (left, straight, right) built from a real-world intersection dataset to obtain a stable initial policy; online fine-tuning then runs multi-agent proximal policy optimization (MAPPO) whose actor and critic use three stacked multi-head self-attention layers with masked attention over a variable number of vehicles, supported by generalized advantage estimation, a three-stage exploration curriculum, dynamic KL thresholds, and success-rate-scaled learning rates. The authors report that the complete framework converges in about 250 episodes versus over 800 for online-only training, and that it transfers to three different real intersection geometries reconstructed in simulation, holding the lowest average travel time, conflict rate, and deceleration-to-avoid-crash values against a distributed onboard autonomy stack and a rule-based local controller. Real-world validation is a mixed-reality proof of concept on a university campus: one physical CAV and one virtual CAV instantiated inside the local digital twin are coordinated by the same pipeline, yielding a decision latency of about 42 ms (against a 74 ms baseline, and far below the 500–1000 ms V2X requirement), a minimum pedestrian stopping distance of 8.5 m versus 3.2 m, a 33.8% shorter stop waiting time, and a 20.4% shorter total passing time.

Load-bearing premise

The claims rest on the assumption that the open urban driving simulator's replica of the test intersection is a faithful closed-loop proxy for the physical site: the policy is fine-tuned there, the generalization results come from reconstructed layouts, and the real-world trial substitutes a virtual vehicle for a second physical car, so if simulator-to-real fidelity is not representative, the safety and efficiency gains are unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One roadside decision-maker can protect all road users at once: pedestrians and cyclists entering the blind spot are visible to the digital twin, and coordinated early braking replaces each vehicle's independent late braking, with the 8.5 m stopping distance as the concrete expression of that shift.
  • The expensive sensing and computing move to shared infrastructure, so individual CAVs need less onboard capability; the loop runs over commodity Wi-Fi and still stays far below the 500–1000 ms V2X decision-latency boundary.
  • The two-stage HRL recipe transfers across intersection geometries: the same pipeline fine-tuned on one site holds lower conflict rates and travel times than distributed or rule-based baselines on three unseen real layouts under 50 ms of simulated communication delay.
  • Control handover stays safe: vehicles keep their onboard stack until the RSU link is established and resume autonomy after leaving the 25 m service area, making the cooperative loop an incremental overlay on existing traffic systems rather than a replacement.
  • Because the benefit compounds with the number of cooperating vehicles, intersection performance should improve as CAV penetration rises instead of degrading under mixed traffic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the transfer results hold, the same pre-trained policy could plausibly be fine-tuned cheaply at any new intersection from local simulation alone, turning the RSU into a portable safety upgrade rather than a bespoke per-site installation; the paper does not run that test.
  • The central multi-agent benefit is asserted, not yet demonstrated with real hardware: the PoC pairs one physical CAV with one virtual one, so a two-physical-vehicle trial at the same intersection is the pointed next experiment, especially for the attention-based coordination in the blind-spot scenario.
  • The loop's latency budget (about 42 ms of 500–1000 ms allowed) leaves room to reuse the same digital twin pipeline for adjacent tasks such as signal timing, emergency-vehicle preemption, or platoon formation without new hardware.
  • An economic corollary the paper leaves implicit: if one RSU serves every CAV in an area, per-vehicle autonomy cost at intersections drops, which could accelerate deployment in mixed traffic with human-driven vehicles.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a V2I2V cooperative driving system for smart intersections, built on a cloud-based global digital twin and an RSU-based local digital twin. The RSU fuses LiDAR-based BEV perception with vehicle-reported data, constructs a real-time local digital twin, and runs a hierarchical reinforcement learning controller that combines offline pre-training with CQL and behavior cloning and online fine-tuning with MAPPO and self-attention. The system is evaluated in CARLA simulations of three reconstructed Japanese intersections and in a real-world mixed-reality proof-of-concept on the Institute of Science Tokyo campus, where one physical CAV and one virtual CAV are coordinated by the RSU. The paper reports lower conflict rates and travel times in simulation and, in the PoC, a decision latency of about 42 ms, an 8.5 m stopping distance to pedestrians, and shorter stop and passing times compared with a non-cooperative Autoware baseline.

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the architecture is a meaningful step toward infrastructure-coordinated intersection safety: it combines RSU-side LiDAR BEV perception, local and global digital twins, and an HRL controller with offline pre-training and online fine-tuning, and it demonstrates a complete closed loop at 42 ms decision latency. The proof-of-concept, despite its mixed-reality limitation, is valuable as an early deployment study and provides concrete latency and stopping-distance measurements. The multi-intersection simulation study spans three real Japanese intersection geometries, which is a useful generalization test. The main limitations are the virtual second CAV in the PoC and the lack of statistical rigor in the simulation comparisons; neither invalidates the system concept, but both must be addressed before the strong claims in Sections I.C and VI can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V.B / Section VI / Table IV] The real-world PoC uses one physical CAV (#1) and one virtual CAV (#2) that is instantiated inside the local digital twin (Section V.B, Fig. 9). CAV #2 has no real perception, communication, or actuation latency and is perfectly known to the RSU; Eq. (28) reports T_perc, T_trans, and T_exec only for the physical loop. The Table IV improvements (stopping distance 8.5 m vs. 3.2 m, stop waiting time 4.5 s vs. 6.8 s, passing time 12.1 s vs. 15.2 s) are therefore measured in a mixed-reality setting, not between two physical CAVs. Section VI's statement that the PoC demonstrates 'substantial improvements in multiple CAVs coordination ... in real-world traffic environments' is stronger than the evidence supports. Please either deploy a second physical CAV or explicitly scope all real-world multi-CAV claims to mixed-reality validation and state which numbers involve the virtual agent.
  2. [Section IV.B, Fig. 6] The multi-intersection simulation evaluation reports average travel time, cumulative conflict rate, and DRAC over '2000 CAV passages' but gives no number of independent seeds, no confidence intervals, and no statistical tests. Fig. 6 shows single curves per condition, so the claims of 'consistently lowest' performance and 'lowest mean and variance of DRAC' are not supported with quantified uncertainty. Please report the number of independent runs, show error bars or percentile bands, and state whether the 2000 passages are one continuous correlated run or independent episodes.
  3. [Section IV.B / Section I.C / Table I] The paper claims generalization to 'unseen real-world intersection layouts' (Section I.C) and marks 'Transferability' in Table I, but Section IV.B does not state whether the policy is fine-tuned on each of the three reconstructed intersections via Algorithm 2. If online fine-tuning is performed per intersection, then the layouts are not unseen; if the same pre-trained policy is applied without per-scenario fine-tuning, that should be stated explicitly. Please clarify the protocol and, if fine-tuning is used, report zero-shot transfer results as well.
  4. [Section III.C, Table II] The reward coefficients (alpha_succ, alpha_p, alpha_s, beta, alpha_c, alpha_sm) are hand-tuned with safety prioritized, and the reported safety metrics (conflict rate, stopping distance) are aligned with the reward components. A sensitivity analysis over at least the safety and collision coefficients would demonstrate that the qualitative conclusions are not an artifact of a single tuning. Please add such an analysis or state the tuning procedure in enough detail to be reproducible.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains inconsistent spacing in 'CA Vs' (for example in the abstract and Section I), and the author affiliation line on page 1 renders 'T Y' instead of 'T. Yu'; these formatting errors should be corrected.
  2. [References, [7]] Reference [7] concerns Hall micro thrusters and appears unrelated to the intersection-safety context; please remove or replace it with an appropriate citation.
  3. [Algorithm 1 / Eq. (12)-(13)] Algorithm 1 refers to 'Compute TD target using Eq. (12)', but Eq. (12) is the smoothness reward; the TD target is defined later in Eq. (13). The equation numbering and cross-references should be reconciled.
  4. [Table IV] The row 'Stopping Distance to Pedestrian' is ambiguous: a larger value is presented as an improvement, but 'stopping distance' usually refers to the distance traveled while braking. Please clarify that the metric is the distance from the pedestrian at the fully stopped position, or rename the metric accordingly.
  5. [Section V.B] The virtual CAV #2 is said to have 'identical control interfaces', but its dynamics model, state update rate, and synchronization with the RSU are not described; please add a brief specification so that the mixed-reality experiment is reproducible.
  6. [Section VI, last paragraph] The paragraph beginning 'The SAE J2735 and J2945 [52], [53] are closely related...' reads like a dangling note; please integrate it into the introduction or a standards subsection rather than leaving it at the end of the results section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is self-contained and independently grounded, with only acknowledged experimental limitations that do not reduce the claims to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The POMDP formulation and composite reward (Eqs. 6-12) are standard RL design elements; although the reward coefficients in Table II are empirically tuned, the reported success metrics (stopping distance, stop waiting time, total passing time, DRAC, conflict rate) are physical or externally defined quantities and are not identical to the reward terms. Offline pre-training uses the external InD dataset, and online fine-tuning is performed in CARLA; the multi-intersection evaluation uses three real-world Japanese sites reconstructed from Google Street View, which are not the training site, providing an independent generalization check. The real-world PoC compares against a non-cooperative Autoware baseline and measures physical latencies and distances, so the headline safety/efficiency numbers come from direct experimentation rather than from the paper's own assumptions. The paper explicitly acknowledges the mixed-reality limitation: 'this paper adopts a mixed-reality validation approach that integrates one physical and one virtual CA V,' and its future-work statement confirms that multi-CAV validation remains open; this weakens the breadth of the real-world claim but is not a circular derivation step. Self-citations to prior work on digital twins, V2X handover, and dual-plane architectures support implementation choices but are not load-bearing for the central safety/efficiency results, which are benchmarked against external baselines and physical trials. No equation or fitted parameter was found to be equivalent, by construction, to the conclusion it is used to support.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central feasibility claim depends mainly on tuned reward weights and simulator choices, not on a new physical entity. The digital twins are system components with in-paper evidence only.

free parameters (4)
  • Reward coefficients (alpha_succ, alpha_p, alpha_s, beta, alpha_c, alpha_sm) = 100.0, 0.5, 2.0, 3.0, 50.0, 0.1
    Hand-tuned in Table II with priority order safety, completion, efficiency; they encode the objective that later defines 'safe and efficient' performance.
  • RSU service radius = 25 m
    Chosen in Section V.A; determines which vehicles surrender control to the RSU and therefore bounds the coordination scope of the PoC.
  • Simulated communication delay = 50 ms
    Fixed value in Section IV.B to approximate real transmission plus decision delay; directly affects the closed-loop safety margin in simulation.
  • Curriculum and KL hyperparameters (eta_1..3, delta_0, kappa) = not stated numerically
    Eqs. 24-26 introduce three-stage phases and adaptive learning-rate scaling; values are not reported, so replication requires re-tuning.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The InD dataset (German intersections) provides a useful initialization for Japanese intersection driving, including left-hand traffic.
    Section III.D uses InD for offline pre-training, then fine-tunes under 'Japanese traffic rules'; if the behavioral prior is mismatched, the warm start could bias the policy.
  • domain assumption CARLA simulator fidelity is sufficient for safety-critical transfer.
    Section IV.B reconstructs the PoC and three real intersections in CARLA; the claim that policies generalize to the physical world assumes no unmodeled perception or dynamics gap.
  • domain assumption The RSU's fused BEV perception is complete and assumed error-free in the decision loop.
    Section II assumes the local DT eliminates blind spots via LiDAR fusion; no perception failure model is included in the POMDP or safety analysis.
  • standard math POMDP/RL formulation with centralized observation is a valid model for multi-CAV intersection control.
    Sections III.A-III.E treat the problem as a POMDP and use standard RL updates; this is a modeling choice, not a theorem.
invented entities (2)
  • Local digital twin on the RSU
    purpose: Real-time BEV replica of the intersection used for centralized decision-making
    Introduced as a system component; its benefit is evidenced only by the in-paper PoC and simulation, with no external falsifiable prediction.
  • Global digital twin in the cloud
    purpose: Macroscopic statistics and risk maps for long-term improvement
    Described architecturally (Section II) but not exercised as a decision input in any experiment; its value is asserted, not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Roadside Units Enhance Intersection Safety? Cooperative Autonomous Driving System Design and A Proof of Concept." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2OBR32SP

@misc{pith2026260809144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Roadside Units Enhance Intersection Safety? Cooperative Autonomous Driving System Design and A Proof of Concept},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2OBR32SP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09144}
}
read the original abstract

Intersections remain one of the most hazardous locations in urban road networks, where heterogeneous traffic participants and limited visibility frequently lead to severe traffic conflicts. In this paper, a vehicle-to-infrastructure-to-vehicle (V2I2V) cooperative system is proposed for improving road safety and traffic efficiency by using digital twins (DTs) deployed on roadside units (RSUs) to eliminate blind spots and centrally coordinate connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) in smart intersections. The proposed system integrates cloud-based global DTs for macroscopic guidance and RSU-based local DTs for real-time operations. Within this architecture, a hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL) framework combines offline pre-training with online fine-tuning to achieve robust cooperative control. Experimental results show that the proposed system achieves substantial improvements in safety and efficiency in simulation experiments and real-world proof-of-concept (PoC) trials. In simulations, our system ensures high safety, efficiency, and smoothness under realistic communications and traffic constraints. In PoC trials, the RSU-centric control loop achieves a decision-making latency of approximately 42 ms and maintains a safe stopping distance of 8.5 m for pedestrians, while also shortening stop duration and overall traversal time. These results indicate that the proposed system provides robust and scalable performance at smart intersections.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09144 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. High-level architecture of the DT-based V2I2V at smart intersections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Offline reinforcement learning pre-training with ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Online reinforcement learning fine-tuning with actor–critic networks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Offline pre-training results; (b) comparison of training performance across different approaches in terms of average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Locations and aerial views of the three representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance comparison across three real-world intersection scenarios in terms of efficiency (top), safety (middle), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: System architecture of the PoC for cooperative driving platform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Experimental routes and cooperative driving range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of responses between the proposed ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mixed-reality blind spot scenario for V2I2V coopera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Study of the thrust response characteristics of hall micro thruster,

    L. Dong, S. Lu, N. Guo, S. Liang, J. Long, W. Luo, and L. Xu, “Study of the thrust response characteristics of hall micro thruster,” Results in Physics, vol. 57, p. 107338, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379724000202

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    (2025) Road traffic injuries

    World Health Organization. (2025) Road traffic injuries. [Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/health-topics/road-safety

    work page 2025

  3. [2]

    Efficient and energy-saving cooperative motion planning for multiple connected and autonomous vehicles at unsignalized intersections,

    Q. Wang, D. Tian, X. Duan, G. Qi, J. Zhou, and D. Zhao, “Efficient and energy-saving cooperative motion planning for multiple connected and autonomous vehicles at unsignalized intersections,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 7921–7938, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [3]

    The Impact of Building-Induced Visibility Restrictions on Intersection Accidents

    H. Tian, Y . Feng, W. Zhou, Anupriya, M. Quddus, Y . Demiris, and P. Angeloudis, “The impact of building-induced visibility restrictions on intersection accidents,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05706

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    S. Yoshida. (2024) Japan planning new 30 kph speed limit on narrow roads for safety. [Online]. Available: https://www.asahi.com/ ajw/articles/15287756

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Digital twin-based cooperative autonomous driving in smart intersections: A multi-agent reinforcement learning approach,

    T. Yu, K. Wang, Z. Li, T. Yu, K. Sakaguchi, and W. Saad, “Digital twin-based cooperative autonomous driving in smart intersections: A multi-agent reinforcement learning approach,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.15099 14

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    Augmented intelligence in smart inter- sections: Local digital twins-assisted hybrid autonomous driving,

    K. Wang, K. Nonomura, Z. Li, T. Yu, K. Sakaguchi, O. Hashash, W. Saad, C. She, and Y . Li, “Augmented intelligence in smart inter- sections: Local digital twins-assisted hybrid autonomous driving,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, pp. 1–15, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Exploring shared perception and control in cooperative vehicle-intersection systems: A re- view,

    E. Yazdani Bejarbaneh, H. Du, and F. Naghdy, “Exploring shared perception and control in cooperative vehicle-intersection systems: A re- view,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 15 247–15 272, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Reinforcement learning-based edge server placement in the intelligent internet of vehicles environment,

    Z. Zhou and J. Abawajy, “Reinforcement learning-based edge server placement in the intelligent internet of vehicles environment,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 1–11, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Smart mobility digital twin based automated vehicle navigation system: A proof of concept,

    K. Wang, Z. Li, K. Nonomura, T. Yu, K. Sakaguchi, O. Hashash, and W. Saad, “Smart mobility digital twin based automated vehicle navigation system: A proof of concept,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 4348–4361, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    An aiot-enabled digital twin cavs with a drl-based framework for trajectory planning,

    A. M. Aslam, R. Chaudhary, and A. Bhardwaj, “An aiot-enabled digital twin cavs with a drl-based framework for trajectory planning,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 1–15, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Optimizing computational efficiency in autonomous vehicles: Integrative edge and cloud computing strategies in vehicular networks,

    T. Yu, “Optimizing computational efficiency in autonomous vehicles: Integrative edge and cloud computing strategies in vehicular networks,” inProceedings of the 2024 11th International Conference on Wireless Communication and Sensor Networks, ser. icWCSN ’24. New York, NY , US...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Non-cooperative and cooperative driving strategies at unsignalized intersections: A robust differential game approach,

    J. Huang, Z. Wu, W. Xue, D. Lin, and Y . Chen, “Non-cooperative and cooperative driving strategies at unsignalized intersections: A robust differential game approach,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 9535–9549, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Cooperative driving of connected autonomous vehicles in heterogeneous mixed traffic: A game theoretic approach,

    S. Fang, P. Hang, C. Wei, Y . Xing, and J. Sun, “Cooperative driving of connected autonomous vehicles in heterogeneous mixed traffic: A game theoretic approach,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.03563

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A virtual spring strategy for cooperative control of connected and automated vehicles at signal-free intersections,

    J. Gong, Y . Zhao, J. Cao, J. Guo, M. Abdel-Aty, and W. Huang, “A virtual spring strategy for cooperative control of connected and automated vehicles at signal-free intersections,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1430–1444, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Driving behavior model for multi-vehicle interaction at uncontrolled intersections based on risk field considering drivers’ visual field characteristics,

    Z. Wang, G. Lu, and H. Tan, “Driving behavior model for multi-vehicle interaction at uncontrolled intersections based on risk field considering drivers’ visual field characteristics,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 15 532–15 546, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Collaborative decision making with hybrid deep reinforcement learning for connected and autonomous vehicles in mixed traffic,

    B. Chen, J. Zheng, F. Guo, F. Wei, Y . Zhang, Y . Liu, Z. Chen, and S. Shen, “Collaborative decision making with hybrid deep reinforcement learning for connected and autonomous vehicles in mixed traffic,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 1–14, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Cooperative decision- making for cavs at unsignalized intersections: A marl approach with attention and hierarchical game priors,

    J. Liu, P. Hang, X. Na, C. Huang, and J. Sun, “Cooperative decision- making for cavs at unsignalized intersections: A marl approach with attention and hierarchical game priors,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 443–456, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Opencda-marl: A unified benchmarking framework for cooperative autonomous intersection man- agement with multi-agent reinforcement learning,

    L. Guo, L. Liu, J. Tang, B. Liu, and S. Cao, “Opencda-marl: A unified benchmarking framework for cooperative autonomous intersection man- agement with multi-agent reinforcement learning,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 4291–4298, 2026

    2026

  12. [20]

    Intnet: A communication- driven multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for cooperative autonomous driving,

    L. Parada, K. Yu, and P. Angeloudis, “Intnet: A communication- driven multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for cooperative autonomous driving,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2478–2485, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Actor-attention-critic for multi-agent reinforcement learning,

    S. Iqbal and F. Sha, “Actor-attention-critic for multi-agent reinforcement learning,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.02912

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Multi- lane unsignalized intersection cooperation strategy considering platoons formation in a mixed connected automated vehicles and connected human-driven vehicles environment,

    R. Wu, H. Jia, Q. Huang, J. Tian, H. Gao, and G. Wang, “Multi- lane unsignalized intersection cooperation strategy considering platoons formation in a mixed connected automated vehicles and connected human-driven vehicles environment,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transport...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Maximum platoon size for platoon-based cooperative signal-free control at intersections,

    Y . Zheng, M. Xu, S. Wu, and S. Wang, “Maximum platoon size for platoon-based cooperative signal-free control at intersections,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 20 854–20 871, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Cooperative longitu- dinal driving and lane assignment strategy for left-turn connected and autonomous vehicles at signalized intersections with a contraflow left- turn lane,

    Q. Liu, J. Wang, W. Wang, X. Hua, and Y . Du, “Cooperative longitu- dinal driving and lane assignment strategy for left-turn connected and autonomous vehicles at signalized intersections with a contraflow left- turn lane,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Infrastructure-assisted cooperative driving and intersection management in mixed traffic conditions,

    J. Ying and Y . Feng, “Infrastructure-assisted cooperative driving and intersection management in mixed traffic conditions,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 158, p. 104443, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Arow: V2x- based automated right-of-way algorithm for cooperative intersection management,

    G. Shah, D. Tian, E. Moradi-Pari, and Y . P. Fallah, “Arow: V2x- based automated right-of-way algorithm for cooperative intersection management,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 10 983–10 999, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Digital twin empowered cooperative trajectory planning of platoon vehicles for collision avoidance with unexpected obstacles,

    H. Du, S. Leng, J. He, K. Xiong, and L. Zhou, “Digital twin empowered cooperative trajectory planning of platoon vehicles for collision avoidance with unexpected obstacles,”Digital Communications and Networks, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1666–1676, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://w...

    2024

  20. [28]

    A digital twins- assisted multi-autonomous vehicle distributed collaborative path plan- ning algorithm with fidelity guarantee,

    L. Tang, J. Dai, Z. Cheng, H. Zhang, and Q. Chen, “A digital twins- assisted multi-autonomous vehicle distributed collaborative path plan- ning algorithm with fidelity guarantee,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 19 904–19 916, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    A digital twin framework for physical-virtual integration in v2x- enabled connected vehicle corridors,

    K. Wu, P. Li, Y . Cheng, S. T. Parker, B. Ran, D. A. Noyce, and X. Ye, “A digital twin framework for physical-virtual integration in v2x- enabled connected vehicle corridors,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 14 407–14 420, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Digital twin-based driver risk-aware predictive mobility analytics for real-time situational awareness through cooperative sens- ing,

    T. Li, Z. Bian, H. Lei, F. Zuo, Y .-T. Yang, Q. Zhu, Z. Li, Z. Chen, and K. Ozbay, “Digital twin-based driver risk-aware predictive mobility analytics for real-time situational awareness through cooperative sens- ing,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vo...

    2025

  23. [31]

    Internet of federated digital twins: Connecting twins beyond borders for society 5.0,

    T. Yu, Z. Li, O. Hashash, K. Sakaguchi, W. Saad, and M. Debbah, “Internet of federated digital twins: Connecting twins beyond borders for society 5.0,”IEEE Internet of Things Magazine, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 64–71, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Enhanced cooperative perception for autonomous vehicles using imperfect communication,

    A. Sarlak, H. Alzorgan, S. P. H. Boroujeni, A. Razi, and R. Amin, “Enhanced cooperative perception for autonomous vehicles using imperfect communication,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2404.08013

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Architecting digital twins for intelligent transportation systems,

    H. Bhatt, Sahil, K. Vaidhyanathan, R. Biju, D. Gangadharan, R. Trestian, and P. Shah, “Architecting digital twins for intelligent transportation systems,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17646

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Resilient mmwave multi-hop multi-user massive relay mimo for 6g networks,

    S. Ke, K. Sakaguchi, and G. Khanh Tran, “Resilient mmwave multi-hop multi-user massive relay mimo for 6g networks,” in2025 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  27. [35]

    Digital twins for anomaly detection in the industrial internet of things: Conceptual architecture and proof-of-concept,

    A. De Benedictis, F. Flammini, N. Mazzocca, A. Somma, and F. Vitale, “Digital twins for anomaly detection in the industrial internet of things: Conceptual architecture and proof-of-concept,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 11 553–11 563, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Sa-marl: Novel self-attention-based multi-agent reinforcement learning with stochastic gradient descent,

    R. Younas, H. M. Raza Ur Rehman, I. Lee, B.-W. On, S. Yi, and G. S. Choi, “Sa-marl: Novel self-attention-based multi-agent reinforcement learning with stochastic gradient descent,”IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 35 674–35 687, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Towards safe automated driving: Design of software-defined dynamic mmwave v2x networks and poc implementation,

    Z. Li, T. Yu, R. Fukatsu, G. K. Tran, and K. Sakaguchi, “Towards safe automated driving: Design of software-defined dynamic mmwave v2x networks and poc implementation,”IEEE Open Journal of Vehicular Technology, vol. 2, pp. 78–93, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Optimal control of markov processes with incomplete state information,

    K. ˚Astr¨om, “Optimal control of markov processes with incomplete state information,”Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 174–205, 1965. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022247X6590154X

    1965

  31. [39]

    The ind dataset: A drone dataset of naturalistic road user trajectories at german intersections,

    J. Bock, R. Krajewski, T. Moers, S. Runde, L. Vater, and L. Eckstein, “The ind dataset: A drone dataset of naturalistic road user trajectories at german intersections,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.07602

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Conservative q- learning for offline reinforcement learning,

    A. Kumar, A. Zhou, G. Tucker, and S. Levine, “Conservative q- learning for offline reinforcement learning,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04779

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network,

    D. A. Pomerleau, “Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, D. Touretzky, Ed., vol. 1. Morgan-Kaufmann, 1988. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper files/paper/ 1988/file/812b4ba287f5ee0bc9...

    1988

  34. [42]

    Carla: An open urban driving simulator,

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun, “Carla: An open urban driving simulator,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03938

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    The surprising effectiveness of ppo in cooperative, multi-agent games,

    C. Yu, A. Velu, E. Vinitsky, J. Gao, Y . Wang, A. Bayen, and Y . Wu, “The surprising effectiveness of ppo in cooperative, multi-agent games,”

  36. [44]

    High-dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation,

    J. Schulman, P. Moritz, S. Levine, M. Jordan, and P. Abbeel, “High-dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02438

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Multi- agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments,

    R. Lowe, Y . Wu, A. Tamar, J. Harb, P. Abbeel, and I. Mordatch, “Multi- agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments,”

  38. [46]

    Mixed motivation driven social multi-agent reinforcement learning for autonomous driving,

    L. Chen, P. Deng, L. Li, and X. Hu, “Mixed motivation driven social multi-agent reinforcement learning for autonomous driving,”IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1272–1282, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Worst 1: Hiyodor- igoe intersection,

    The General Insurance Association of Japan, “Worst 1: Hiyodor- igoe intersection,” https://www.sonpo.or.jp/about/useful/kousaten/2024/ 28/2801.html, 2024, accessed: 2025-10-06

    2024

  40. [48]

    Driving in shikoku: Safety tips and inter- section guide,

    Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Shikoku Re- gional Development Bureau, “Driving in shikoku: Safety tips and inter- section guide,” https://wwwtb.mlit.go.jp/shikoku/content/shikokumap jp 1-8.pdf, 2024, accessed: 2025-10-06

    2024

  41. [49]

    (2022, August) Nationwide worst no.1 dangerous intersection in fukuoka: A detailed investigation! Accessed: 2025-10-06

    RKB Mainichi Broadcasting Corporation. (2022, August) Nationwide worst no.1 dangerous intersection in fukuoka: A detailed investigation! Accessed: 2025-10-06. [Online]. Available: https://rkb.jp/article/127889/ #56aP5bKh5biC5p2x5Yy65L+h5Y+344GM44Gq44GE5Lqk5beu54K5

    2022

  42. [50]

    Het-sdvn: Sdn-based radio resource management of heterogeneous v2x for cooperative perception,

    Z. Li, K. Wang, T. Yu, and K. Sakaguchi, “Het-sdvn: Sdn-based radio resource management of heterogeneous v2x for cooperative perception,” IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 76 255–76 268, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Architecture enhancements for v2x services,

    “Architecture enhancements for v2x services,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Tech. Rep. TS 23.285, 2022, release 17. [Online]. Available: https://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23285.htm

    2022

  44. [52]

    V2x communications message set dictionary,

    SAE International, “V2x communications message set dictionary,” SAE Standard J2735 202409, Technical Standard, Sep. 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    On-board system requirements for v2v safety communications,

    ——, “On-board system requirements for v2v safety communications,” SAE Standard J2945/1 202004, Technical Standard, Apr. 2020. Taoyuan Yu(Student Member, IEEE) received the B.E. degree in electronic information engineering from Southwest University, Chongqing, China, in 2022, a...

    2020

  46. [2020]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02275

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02275

    arXiv

  47. [2022]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.01955 15

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.01955 15

    arXiv

Pith tools

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