pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.07643 · v1 · pith:LUP3MX3Pnew · submitted 2019-07-17 · 💻 cs.NI · cs.SY· eess.SY

Cooperative Intersection Crossing over 5G

Luca Maria Castiglione , Paolo Falcone , Alberto Petrillo , Simon Pietro Romano , Stefania Santini This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 19:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.NI cs.SYeess.SY
keywords autonomous vehicles5G networkscooperative intersection crossingfinite-time convergencevehicle communicationurban traffic control
0
0 comments X

The pith

A control framework over 5G networks enables finite-time convergence for cooperative autonomous vehicle intersection crossing.

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

The paper presents a control algorithm and communication paradigm for autonomous vehicles to negotiate and safely cross urban intersections using 5G. It establishes that the framework converges in finite time while the supporting software minimizes communication delays under guaranteed network reliability. The system was implemented and tested with three vehicles successfully traversing a 235 square meter intersection at a proving ground. This matters for extending vehicle perception beyond onboard sensors in safety-critical scenarios like junctions.

Core claim

The proposed control framework has been shown to converge in a finite time and the supporting communication software has been designed with the objective of minimising communication delays. At the same time, the underlying network guarantees reliability of the communication. The proposed framework has been successfully deployed and tested, in partnership with Ericsson AB, at the AstaZero proving ground in Goteborg, Sweden. In our experiments, three autonomous vehicles successfully drove through an intersection of 235 square meters in a urban scenario.

What carries the argument

The control algorithm for cooperative intersection negotiation paired with a low-delay 5G communication paradigm that supports finite-time convergence.

If this is right

  • Vehicles can resolve crossing order and timing without relying on physical traffic infrastructure.
  • The finite-time property ensures negotiations complete quickly enough for real-time urban driving.
  • The approach supports safe multi-vehicle coordination at junctions when the network meets its reliability guarantees.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method could extend to larger numbers of vehicles if communication load remains manageable.
  • Integration with onboard sensors might provide fallback if 5G reliability temporarily drops.
  • Similar negotiation logic could apply to other cooperative tasks such as lane merging or platooning.

Load-bearing premise

The 5G network always delivers reliable communication with no packet losses and delays that stay within the controller's tolerance.

What would settle it

An experiment in which packet losses or excessive delays prevent finite-time convergence or cause a collision during intersection crossing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.07643 by Alberto Petrillo, Luca Maria Castiglione, Paolo Falcone, Simon Pietro Romano, Stefania Santini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Connection among road users and Ericsson pre-5G PoC infrastructure 802.11p happens to be more suitable in modern cities than 802.11a. In this specification the cyclic prefix length is doubled by halving the bandwidth, which in turn gives more resilience to large delay spreads. However, 4G+/5G is preferable over Wi-FI, in this context, as it has been proved to be more reliable, as well as more sustainable i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A possible traffic junction scenario (µ = 4). Self-driving connected cars cooperate for crossing the Conflicting Area (CA). Once inside the Cooperative Zone (CZ), the vehicle i may choose one of the possible trajectories ti,pq starting from the road p where it is initially located. communication in order to share information about their own trajectory and their local state (e.g., see [13] and references th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: CIC. a): autonomous vehicles approaching the traffic junction b): recast into a virtual platoon problem (on the base of the position from the centre pi(t). common velocity. Specifically, the desired distances among virtual platoon members, say p ? ij (∀(i, j) ∈ EN ), have to be selected so to ensure that real vehicles access exclusively the CA, while the achievement of a common velocity guarantees that the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hermes High Level Architecture In order to add an additional level of reliability to the communication, messages between clients and traffic manager are exchanged over TCP rather than UDP. With this choice we actually traded slightly decreased network responsiveness for improved communication reliability and this is justified by the critical nature of the application. In fact, even though in 5G networks th… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental Setup: a) Outside Equipment of the Volvo XC90; b) Inside Equipment of the Volvo XC90; c) Picture of the Volvo Truck FH16; d) Schematic overview of the software architecture executed on OpenDLV. ground AstaZero, is equipped with an ADB Pedal Robot [28] that controls the longitudinal vehicle motion by acting on its throttle/brake pedals. The robot can be controlled through a proprietary interfac… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Equipment of the Volvo S90: a) Detail of the ADB Pedal Robot; b) Details of the on-board equipment; c) Schematic overview of the software architecture executed on the dSpace MicroAutobox. Radio modem for RTK corrections). B. Volvo Car S90 The S90 leverages the ADB Pedal Robot (shown in Fig. 6a) for actuating the finite-time cooperative protocol. The con￾troller action is on-board computed via the dSpace Mi… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The City Area at AstaZero  N  N  N  N  N  N CZ $*5: "3&"  N  N  N  N  N  N $*5: "3&" CA Volvo Truck FH16 Volvo Car XC90 Volvo Car S90 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Map of the City Area at AstaZero experimental runs were performed in different driving condi￾tions. In what follows we will first describe how we performed preliminary trials in a so-called multilane scenario allowing us to safely simulate a real-world intersection. We will then move to the actual street junction scenario, for which we will report some of the experimental results related to the case when t… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: First Person View from Volvo Car XC90: the truck stays hidden until the very last second due to the shape of the urban area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Contributions to measured delays is a small part of the RTT we measured. Finally, a sequence number analysis has been conducted via the Stevenson graph (omitted for sake of brevity) suggesting that there are no rel￾evant packet delays in the communication. From this analysis it is reasonable to assume that the performance offered by the network, including delay, meets control constraints and potentially e… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Nine TCP traces recorded during the experiments: a) average TCP Round Trip Time (RTT); b) RTT Standard Deviation normalized to Nsample−1; c) average Time From Previous Frame (TTP); d) TTP Standard Deviation normalized to Nsample−1. 0 2 4 6 8 10 Packet Number 104 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Time [s] (a) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Packet Number 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Time [s] (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Round Trip Time TCP Delay during two of the nine TCP traces we have recorded: a) Trace 1; b)Trace 8. 0 500 1000 1500 Packet Number 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Delay [ms] (a) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Packet Number 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Delay [ms] (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: State RTT: a) for one experiment; a) for a series of experiments conducted in the real intersection scenario. control action is indeed estimated using, as input, the latest neighbours’ state received. To this extent, the safety of the control algorithm must be proved against this value. For this 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Packet Number 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Delay [ms] 5G Traffic 4G Traffic [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Snapshots of autonomous crossing over 5G 5 10 15 20 25 Time [s] -200 -150 -100 -50 0 Distance from Intersection Center [m] Volvo FH16 Volvo XC90 Volvo S90 (a) 5 10 15 20 Time [s] 5 7 9 11 13 Velocity [m/s] Volvo FH16 Volvo XC90 Volvo S90 (b) 5 10 15 20 Time [s] -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Acceleration (m/s 2) Volvo FH16 Volvo XC90 Volvo S90 (c) 5 10 15 20 Time [s] -15 -10 -5 0 5 Error Position [m] p 1 -p2 -p12 * p 1… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Experimental Results: a) Time history of the position (beginning and end of the CA: solid horizontal lines); b) Time history of the vehicle velocity; c) Time history of the vehicle acceleration; d) Time history of the position errors w.r.t. desired inter-vehicle gaps; e) Position of the 2 nd vehicle and the 3 rd vehicle, vs position of the 1 st vehicle (colliding area: rectangular area; theoretical trajec… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Autonomous driving is a safety critical application of sensing and decision-making technologies. Communication technologies extend the awareness capabilities of vehicles, beyond what is achievable with the on-board systems only. Nonetheless, issues typically related to wireless networking must be taken into account when designing safe and reliable autonomous systems. The aim of this work is to present a control algorithm and a communication paradigm over 5G networks for negotiating traffic junctions in urban areas. The proposed control framework has been shown to converge in a finite time and the supporting communication software has been designed with the objective of minimising communication delays. At the same time, the underlying network guarantees reliability of the communication. The proposed framework has been successfully deployed and tested, in partnership with Ericsson AB, at the AstaZero proving ground in Goteborg, Sweden. In our experiments, three autonomous vehicles successfully drove through an intersection of 235 square meters in a urban scenario.

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents a control algorithm and communication paradigm over 5G networks for cooperative negotiation of urban traffic junctions by autonomous vehicles. It asserts that the proposed control framework converges in finite time, that the supporting communication software is designed to minimize delays, that the underlying 5G network guarantees communication reliability, and that the framework was successfully deployed and tested with three autonomous vehicles crossing a 235 m² intersection at the AstaZero proving ground.

Significance. If the finite-time convergence result and safety guarantees hold under realistic 5G conditions, the work would constitute a concrete demonstration of 5G-enabled cooperative control for intersection management, bridging control-theoretic guarantees with a field deployment in partnership with Ericsson. The explicit emphasis on delay minimization and network reliability as design objectives is a positive feature that could inform subsequent 5G-V2X control designs.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the finite-time convergence claim is stated without any control law, stability derivation, or admissible bounds on packet loss, delay, or jitter. The skeptic correctly notes that the guarantee is load-bearing on the assumption of perfect 5G reliability; without quantified tolerance intervals the safety argument for intersection crossing cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the experimental claim that 'three autonomous vehicles successfully drove through an intersection' is reported without network traces, measured loss/delay statistics, or stress-test results under urban 5G conditions. This omission prevents verification that the controller operated inside the (unstated) tolerance region during the AstaZero trial.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below. The points raised highlight opportunities to improve clarity in the abstract regarding the control guarantees and experimental validation, and we will revise accordingly while preserving the accuracy of our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the finite-time convergence claim is stated without any control law, stability derivation, or admissible bounds on packet loss, delay, or jitter. The skeptic correctly notes that the guarantee is load-bearing on the assumption of perfect 5G reliability; without quantified tolerance intervals the safety argument for intersection crossing cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: The abstract is intended as a concise summary of the contributions. The control law, finite-time convergence proof, and analysis of communication effects are provided in full in Sections III and IV of the manuscript. The design assumes the reliability guarantees of the 5G network as stated, with the communication software explicitly minimizing delays. We agree that the abstract would benefit from a brief reference to the admissible bounds on delay and loss (as derived in the stability analysis) to make the safety argument more self-contained. We will revise the abstract to include this reference. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the experimental claim that 'three autonomous vehicles successfully drove through an intersection' is reported without network traces, measured loss/delay statistics, or stress-test results under urban 5G conditions. This omission prevents verification that the controller operated inside the (unstated) tolerance region during the AstaZero trial.

    Authors: Section V of the manuscript describes the AstaZero field trial in detail, including the three-vehicle intersection crossing and the 5G setup in partnership with Ericsson. The abstract summarizes the outcome. We acknowledge that additional quantitative network performance data (traces, loss/delay statistics) would strengthen verifiability. We will expand the experimental section with available measured statistics from the trial and clarify how the observed conditions align with the tolerance region from the analysis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation and validation remain independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper states that its control framework converges in finite time and that the 5G network guarantees reliability, then reports an AstaZero experiment with three vehicles. No equations, derivation steps, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the supplied text that would reduce any claimed result to its own inputs by construction. The finite-time claim is presented as previously shown under the stated network assumption; the experiment supplies external empirical content rather than a tautological restatement. Per the required rules, absence of quotable reductions to self-definition or fitted inputs yields score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Ledger populated from abstract claims only; no numerical parameters or new entities are named.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The control framework converges in finite time
    Stated as shown but no proof or conditions supplied in abstract
  • domain assumption The 5G network guarantees communication reliability
    Invoked to support safety but treated as given rather than measured

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5693 in / 1189 out tokens · 20597 ms · 2026-05-24T19:54:39.508294+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

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    On the fading and shadowing effects for wireless sensor networks,

    B. H. Liu, B. Otis, S. Challa, P. Axon, C. T. Chou, and S. Jha, “On the fading and shadowing effects for wireless sensor networks,” in 2006 IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Systems , Oct 2006, pp. 51–60

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    A survey on the coordination of connected and automated vehicles at intersections and merging at highway on-ramps,

    J. Rios-Torres and A. A. Malikopoulos, “A survey on the coordination of connected and automated vehicles at intersections and merging at highway on-ramps,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1066–1077, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    A linear programming formulation for autonomous intersection control within a dynamic traffic assignment and connected vehicle environment,

    F. Zhu and S. V . Ukkusuri, “A linear programming formulation for autonomous intersection control within a dynamic traffic assignment and connected vehicle environment,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 55, pp. 363–378, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    A vehicle-intersection coordination scheme for smooth flows of traffic without using traffic lights,

    M. A. S. Kamal, J.-i. Imura, T. Hayakawa, A. Ohata, and K. Aihara, “A vehicle-intersection coordination scheme for smooth flows of traffic without using traffic lights,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1136–1147, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Dis- tributed model predictive control for heterogeneous vehicle platoons under unidirectional topologies,

    Y . Zheng, S. E. Li, K. Li, F. Borrelli, and J. K. Hedrick, “Dis- tributed model predictive control for heterogeneous vehicle platoons under unidirectional topologies,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 899–910, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Distributed conflict resolution for connected autonomous vehicles,

    C. Liu, C.-W. Lin, S. Shiraishi, and M. Tomizuka, “Distributed conflict resolution for connected autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    An asynchronous algorithm for optimal vehicle coordination at traffic intersections,

    M. Zanon, S. Gros, H. Wymeersch, and P. Falcone, “An asynchronous algorithm for optimal vehicle coordination at traffic intersections,” in Conference: IFAC 2017 World Congress , 8 2017, [ONLINE A V AIL- ABLE] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzkv5beS4uk

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Primal decomposition of the optimal coordination of vehicles at traffic intersections,

    R. Hult, M. Zanon, S. Gros, and P. Falcone, “Primal decomposition of the optimal coordination of vehicles at traffic intersections,” in 2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 12 2016, [ON- LINE A V AILABLE] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzkv5beS4uk

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Chartrand, Introduction to graph theory

    G. Chartrand, Introduction to graph theory . Tata McGraw-Hill Educa- tion, 2006

    work page 2006

  10. [10]

    Finite-time distributed tracking control for multi-agent systems with a virtual leader,

    X. Lu, R. Lu, S. Chen, and J. Lu, “Finite-time distributed tracking control for multi-agent systems with a virtual leader,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers , vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 352–362, 2013

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Finite-time stability of continuous autonomous systems,

    S. P. Bhat and D. S. Bernstein, “Finite-time stability of continuous autonomous systems,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 751–766, 2000. 14 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Fig. 15: Snapshots of autonomous crossing over 5G 5 10 15 20 25 Time [s] -200 -150 -100 -50 0 Distance from Intersection Center [m] Volvo FH16 Volvo XC90 Volvo S9...

    work page 2000

  12. [12]

    Finite time distributed distance-constrained shape stabilization and flocking control for d- dimensional undirected rigid formations,

    Z. Sun, S. Mou, M. Deghat, and B. Anderson, “Finite time distributed distance-constrained shape stabilization and flocking control for d- dimensional undirected rigid formations,” International Journal of Ro- bust and Nonlinear Control , vol. 26, no. 13, pp. 2824–2844, 2016

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    All aboard the robotic road train,

    E. Coelingh and S. Solyom, “All aboard the robotic road train,” Ieee Spectrum, vol. 49, no. 11, 2012

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    Distributed mutual exclusion al- gorithms for intersection traffic control,

    W. Wu, J. Zhang, A. Luo, and J. Cao, “Distributed mutual exclusion al- gorithms for intersection traffic control,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 65–74, 2015

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Cooperative driving at blind crossings using in- 15 tervehicle communication,

    L. Li and F.-Y . Wang, “Cooperative driving at blind crossings using in- 15 tervehicle communication,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular technology, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 1712–1724, 2006

    work page 2006

  16. [16]

    Cooperative intersection control based on virtual platooning,

    A. I. M. Medina, N. van de Wouw, and H. Nijmeijer, “Cooperative intersection control based on virtual platooning,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2017

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    J.-J. E. Slotine, W. Li et al., Applied nonlinear control . Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991, vol. 199, no. 1

    work page 1991

  18. [18]

    Finite-time stability of homogeneous systems,

    S. P. Bhat and D. S. Bernstein, “Finite-time stability of homogeneous systems,” in American Control Conference, 1997. Proceedings of the 1997, vol. 4. IEEE, 1997, pp. 2513–2514

    work page 1997

  19. [19]

    Distributed finite-time tracking of multiple non-identical second-order nonlinear systems with settling time estimation,

    Y . Zhao, Z. Duan, G. Wen, and G. Chen, “Distributed finite-time tracking of multiple non-identical second-order nonlinear systems with settling time estimation,” Automatica, vol. 64, pp. 86–93, 2016

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

    NGA, “Online-available: https://web.archive.org/web/20120402143802/ https://www1.nga.mil/productsservices/geodesyandgeophysics/ worldgeodeticsystem/pages/default.aspx World Geodetic System website of the NGA (archived April 2012)”. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on April 2, 2012.”

    work page arXiv 2012

  21. [21]

    Wireless Access for Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communication (URLLC): Principles and Building Blocks

    P. Popovski, J. J. Nielsen, C. Stefanovic, E. de Carvalho, E. Str ¨om, K. F. Trillingsgaard, A.-S. Bana, D. M. Kim, R. Kotaba, J. Park et al., “Ultra-reliable low-latency communication (urllc): principles and building blocks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07862 , 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Tcp and udp performance over a wireless lan,

    G. Xylomenos and G. C. Polyzos, “Tcp and udp performance over a wireless lan,” in Proceedings of INFOCOM . IEEE, 1999, pp. 439– 446

    work page 1999

  23. [23]

    Online-available: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455rfc6455

    IETF, “Online-available: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455rfc6455.”

    work page

  24. [24]

    Marton, NODE.JS MONITORING, ALERTING & RELIABILITY 101

    P. Marton, NODE.JS MONITORING, ALERTING & RELIABILITY 101 . RingStack, 2017

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    An open continuous deployment infrastructure for a self- driving vehicle ecosystem,

    C. Berger, “An open continuous deployment infrastructure for a self- driving vehicle ecosystem,” in IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems. Springer, 2016, pp. 177–183

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Containerized develop- ment and microservices for self-driving vehicles: Experiences & best practices,

    C. Berger, B. Nguyen, and O. Benderius, “Containerized develop- ment and microservices for self-driving vehicles: Experiences & best practices,” in Software Architecture Workshops (ICSAW), 2017 IEEE International Conference on . IEEE, 2017, pp. 7–12

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    The best rated human– machine interface design for autonomous vehicles in the 2016 grand cooperative driving challenge,

    O. Benderius, C. Berger, and V . M. Lundgren, “The best rated human– machine interface design for autonomous vehicles in the 2016 grand cooperative driving challenge,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1302–1307, 2018

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    https://www.abdynamics.com/en/products/track-testing/driving-robots/ pedal-robots

    work page

  29. [29]

    Introduction to network rtk,

    L. Wanninger, “Introduction to network rtk,” IAG Working Group, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 2003–2007, 2004

    work page 2003

  30. [30]

    Docker: lightweight linux containers for consistent devel- opment and deployment,

    D. Merkel, “Docker: lightweight linux containers for consistent devel- opment and deployment,” Linux Journal, vol. 2014, no. 239, p. 2, 2014

    work page 2014