Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 80 references

The State-of-the-Art of Coordinated Ramp Control with Mixed Traffic Conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coordinated ramp control can be extended to mixed traffic of human drivers and automated vehicles.

desk verdict A competent survey with a sensible conceptual architecture, but the abstract oversells both the novelty of the framework and the absence of prior mixed-traffic ramp-control work. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00573 v1 pith:PNCYQZKU submitted 2019-08-01 eess.SY cs.SY

Zhouqiao Zhao , Ziran Wang , Guoyuan Wu , Fei Ye , Matthew J. Barth This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords rampmeteringmixedtrafficconnectedandautomatedvehiclescooperativemergingstateestimationdrivingbehaviormodelinghierarchicalcontrolcorridor-level
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that system-wide ramp control has been designed either for human-driven vehicles alone or for fully connected and automated vehicles, leaving the long transition period of mixed traffic largely unaddressed. It proposes a hierarchical control architecture that couples corridor-level ramp metering with ramp-level centralized trajectory planning for automated vehicles, and it reviews the state of the art for each building block. The authors' core claim is that such a system is feasible if the corridor-level metering rate is treated as a constraint for the ramp-level controller, and if the trajectory planner accounts for predicted behavior of human-driven vehicles. A sympathetic reader would care because the architecture gives a concrete target for research and deployment while both vehicle types share the road.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hierarchical control architecture itself: a real-time data processor feeding a corridor-level ramp metering module, a ramp-level centralized CAV trajectory planner, and a lower-level trajectory tracking controller. The load-bearing mechanism is the constraint coupling: the corridor-level metering rate from the upper level is passed down as the boundary condition for the ramp-level controller, while the ramp-level controller uses driving behavior models such as car-following and time-to-arrival order prediction to make room for unpredictable human-driven vehicles. The paper names a two-step centralized scheme for the ramp level: first predict vehicle order at the merge point, then compute safe, efficient CAV trajectories that respect the predicted human behaviors. This coupling is what distinguishes the proposal from CAV-only cooperative merging and from conventional ramp metering.

What would settle it

A combined simulation or field test that implements the two-level control as specified, with corridor-level metering computed from macroscopic estimates and ramp-level trajectory planning that must respect that rate, and records how often the lower-level planner finds no collision-free, rate-respecting solution within the control interval. If infeasibility occurs frequently under realistic demand, moderate CAV penetration, and non-ideal communication, the central claim that the architecture closes the mixed-traffic gap would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a system-wide coordinated ramp control can work in mixed traffic by organizing control into three levels: a corridor-level ramp metering algorithm that computes system-optimal inflow rates for each on-ramp from macroscopic traffic state estimates; a ramp-level centralized controller that coordinates the maneuvers of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) at the merging area, using the corridor rate as a boundary constraint; and a vehicle-dynamics-level controller for trajectory tracking. The ramp-level controller first predicts the merging order by time-to-arrival and then computes CAV trajectories subject to predictions of human-driven vehicle behavior from car-following and related models. The paper further claims, based on its review, that streaming-data-driven traffic state estimation is especially promising for the partial-penetration setting, and that learning-based ramp metering can provide coordinated, real-time corridor-level control. All reviewed components are positioned as evidence that the proposed architecture is not a speculative sketch but a synthesis of workable pieces.

Load-bearing premise

The architecture works only if the corridor-level inflow rate and the ramp-level CAV trajectories can be made jointly feasible in real time, which in turn requires that human-driven vehicle behavior can be predicted accurately enough to plan around.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deploying the architecture would let ramp meters regulate inflow at the corridor level even when only a fraction of vehicles are connected and automated, provided the state estimator can operate on partial data.
  • Ramp-level trajectory planning for CAVs would need to incorporate predicted human-driven vehicle trajectories as constraints, making driving behavior modeling a first-class component of ramp control rather than an optional extra.
  • Streaming-data-driven traffic state estimation, which relies only on real-time measurements and weak assumptions like conservation of vehicles, is identified as the most robust path for the proposed system under non-recurrent conditions.
  • Learning-based ramp metering algorithms, including reinforcement learning, are seen as capable of delivering coordinated system-wide benefits while maintaining real-time performance.
  • Under full CAV penetration the same architecture would reduce to a mostly automated merging coordination problem, so the framework also serves as a bridge from today's metering to full automation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The architecture implicitly assumes a centralized ramp-level planner can compute trajectories for all CAVs in the merging zone within a control interval; a natural extension the paper leaves open is to quantify the computational and communication load at high penetration rates and to specify when a decentralized fallback is needed.
  • The corridor-to-ramp constraint coupling resembles a leader-follower or bilevel optimization structure; testing the architecture could be framed as checking whether the two levels' feasible sets intersect, an approach the paper does not take.
  • Because the paper treats human behavior prediction as a component, its logic suggests that better prediction accuracy directly translates into tighter ramp-level coordination, implying a measurable relationship between prediction error and throughput loss that could be tested in simulation.
  • The same hierarchical design could be applied to signalized intersections in mixed traffic, where a network-level flow setpoint constrains local CAV trajectory planning, an extension the paper mentions only as a parallel consideration.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a hierarchical architecture for coordinated ramp control under mixed traffic conditions (coexistence of CAVs and human-driven vehicles) and reviews the state of the art in four component areas: traffic state estimation, ramp metering, driving behavior modeling, and coordination of CAVs. The authors argue that there is little existing research on system-wide ramp control in mixed traffic and position their proposed architecture as closing this gap. The survey is organized by component, covers recent learning-based and streaming-data-driven approaches, and concludes with four open research questions.

Significance. If the gap claim and the proposed architecture are accepted, the paper offers a useful roadmap for a practically important problem, given the expected long transition to full automation. The paper's strengths include a clear conceptual framing, an up-to-date narrative review (especially on reinforcement-learning ramp metering and streaming-data-based estimation), and an explicit enumeration of open questions. The architecture itself is a conceptual contribution rather than a tested controller, so the main risks are the unsubstantiated gap assertion and the unvalidated coupling between corridor-level metering and ramp-level trajectory planning.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II] The claim that the corridor-level metering rate 'serves as the constraint for boundary control at lower level' is load-bearing for the proposed architecture, but the paper provides no argument that a jointly feasible solution exists when the corridor-level rate is imposed on the ramp-level CAV trajectory planner. A macroscopic rate in veh/h must be translated into microscopic constraints such as vehicle ordering, time gaps, and merge slots, and this translation must remain feasible even when human-driven vehicles do not follow the schedule. The reviewed CAV coordination methods in Section VI treat merging as an objective rather than as a constraint inherited from an external metering rate, and Section VII explicitly lists 'How to realize a hybrid ramp control' as an open question, effectively conceding that the interface is not validated. The paper should either provide a feasibility argument or a small illustrative simulation, or temper the claim from 'closing the gap' to proposing a research agenda.
  2. [Abstract and Section I] The central motivation, stated in the abstract and Section I, is that 'there is little research on the system-wide ramp control with mixed traffic conditions,' but the paper gives no systematic search protocol or evidence for this gap: no databases, query strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or counts of examined studies. Because the claimed contribution ('closing this gap') rests on this assertion, the authors should either perform a reproducible systematic search or reframe the contribution as a survey plus a conceptual architecture, avoiding the unsupported gap-closing claim.
  3. [Section VI] Despite the paper's stated focus on mixed traffic, the review body in Section VI covers only CAV-only coordination; no reviewed protocol actually incorporates human-driven vehicles within the coordination logic. The proposed two-step scheme (TOA-based ordering followed by centralized trajectory planning) is described only at a high level, without discussing how human-driven vehicles enter the ordering or how noncompliant human behavior is handled. This omission weakens the conclusion that the reviewed literature 'plot[s] an extensive landscape' for the proposed mixed-traffic system and should be addressed directly, either by including relevant mixed-traffic coordination studies or by explicitly stating that the architecture's ramp-level component remains unsupported by the reviewed literature.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.C] There is a typo: 'streaming-date-driven' should be 'streaming-data-driven', and the phrase 'Without using neither empirical models nor historical data' contains a double negative.
  2. [Section V and VI.A] There are several language errors, including 'a artificial neural network' in Section V, 'Schimidt et el.' in Section VI.A, and 'Bekiaris-Liberis el al.' in Section III.C; these should be corrected.
  3. [Section II] Figure 1 is referenced but its content is not described in detail in the text; a short walk-through of the levels shown in the figure would make the architecture easier to follow.
  4. [References] Reference [5] appears incomplete (no volume or page numbers), and some references would benefit from DOIs or stable identifiers for reproducibility of the survey.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a survey plus conceptual architecture, and no prediction or derived result reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This manuscript does not derive quantitative results from fitted parameters or invoke an ansatz that is equivalent to its conclusion. Its central claims are (a) that little research exists on system-wide ramp control in mixed traffic and (b) that a hierarchical corridor-level/ramp-level architecture is a promising direction. Both claims are supported by the surveyed external literature rather than by the authors' own prior work. The only self-citations are references [78]–[80], which are listed as examples of distributed CAV coordination and agent-based simulation in the review section; they are not used to justify the gap claim or to force the architecture. The paper explicitly lists the validation of the corridor-to-ramp coupling as an open question, which is a stated limitation rather than a circular step. Because the content is a literature review with no fitted-parameter prediction chain and no self-citational load-bearing premise, the circularity burden is minimal and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a review and conceptual architecture paper, so it introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard background assumptions about traffic flow modeling, human driver behavior, and CAV control feasibility.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Traffic flow obeys the conservation law and can be described by macroscopic models such as LWR and CTM.
    Invoked in Section III to motivate model-based traffic state estimation and in Section IV for rule-based ramp metering like the ZONE algorithm.
  • domain assumption Human-driven vehicle behavior can be represented by car-following models (e.g., Gipps, IDM) and behavior prediction methods.
    Section V reviews these models as the foundation for predicting conventional vehicle trajectories in the proposed mixed-traffic architecture.
  • domain assumption CAVs can reliably execute centrally or distributed computed trajectories.
    Section VI reviews coordination algorithms assuming lower-level trajectory tracking is feasible; the paper explicitly excludes powertrain control from discussion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The State-of-the-Art of Coordinated Ramp Control with Mixed Traffic Conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PNCYQZKU

@misc{pith2026190800573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The State-of-the-Art of Coordinated Ramp Control with Mixed Traffic Conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PNCYQZKU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00573}
}
read the original abstract

Ramp metering, a traditional traffic control strategy for conventional vehicles, has been widely deployed around the world since the 1960s. On the other hand, the last decade has witnessed significant advances in connected and automated vehicle (CAV) technology and its great potential for improving safety, mobility and environmental sustainability. Therefore, a large amount of research has been conducted on cooperative ramp merging for CAVs only. However, it is expected that the phase of mixed traffic, namely the coexistence of both human-driven vehicles and CAVs, would last for a long time. Since there is little research on the system-wide ramp control with mixed traffic conditions, the paper aims to close this gap by proposing an innovative system architecture and reviewing the state-of-the-art studies on the key components of the proposed system. These components include traffic state estimation, ramp metering, driving behavior modeling, and coordination of CAVs. All reviewed literature plot an extensive landscape for the proposed system-wide coordinated ramp control with mixed traffic conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00573 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demonstration of the System Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ramp meter- ing: A proven, cost-effective operational strategy,

    A. Mizuta, K. Roberts, L. Jacobsen, and N. Thompson, “Ramp meter- ing: A proven, cost-effective operational strategy,” U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Tech. Rep., October 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Automatic vehicle guidance and control—a state of the art survey,

    R. E. Fenton, “Automatic vehicle guidance and control—a state of the art survey,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 153–161, Feb 1970

    work page 1970

  3. [3]

    Traffic state estimation on highway: A comprehensive survey,

    T. Seo, A. M. Bayen, T. Kusakabe, and Y . Asakura, “Traffic state estimation on highway: A comprehensive survey,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 43, pp. 128–151, jan 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    ALINEA: A local feedback control law for on-ramp metering,

    M. Papageorgiou, H. Hadj-Salem, and J. Blosseville, “ALINEA: A local feedback control law for on-ramp metering,” Transportation Research Record, pp. 58–64, 1991

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    Optimizing Freeway Merge Opera- tions under Conventional and Automated Vehicle Traffic,

    A. Omidvar and M. Pourmehrab, “Optimizing Freeway Merge Opera- tions under Conventional and Automated Vehicle Traffic,” Transporta- tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , no. November, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Automated and cooperative vehicle merging at highway on-ramps,

    J. Rios-Torres and A. A. Malikopoulos, “Automated and cooperative vehicle merging at highway on-ramps,” IEEE Transactions on Intelli- gent Transportation Systems, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 780–789, April 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    A study of traffic capacity,

    B. Greenshields, J. Bibbins, W. Channing, and H. Miller, “A study of traffic capacity,” Highway Research Board proceedings , vol. 1935, 1935

    work page 1935

  8. [8]

    A simplified theory of kinematic waves in highway traffic, part i: General theory,

    G. Newell, “A simplified theory of kinematic waves in highway traffic, part i: General theory,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodolog- ical, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 281 – 287, 1993

    work page 1993

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    The cell transmission model: A dynamic represen- tation of highway traffic consistent with the hydrodynamic theory,

    C. F. Daganzo, “The cell transmission model: A dynamic represen- tation of highway traffic consistent with the hydrodynamic theory,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 269 – 287, 1994

    1994

  2. [10]

    On kinematic waves II. A theory of traffic flow on long crowded roads,

    M. Lighthill and G. Whitham, “On kinematic waves II. A theory of traffic flow on long crowded roads,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences , vol. 229, no. 1178, pp. 317–345, may 1955

    1955

  3. [11]

    Shock Waves on the Highway,

    P. I. Richards, “Shock Waves on the Highway,” Operations Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 42–51, feb 1956

    1956

  4. [12]

    Models of freeway traffic and control,

    H. Payne, “Models of freeway traffic and control,” Mathematical Models of Public Systems , no. 1, pp. 51–61, 1971

    1971

  5. [13]

    G. B. Whitham, Linear and Nonlinear Waves . John Wiley & Sons, 1974, vol. 42

    1974

  6. [14]

    Estimating travel times and vehicle trajectories on freeways using dual loop detectors,

    B. Coifman, “Estimating travel times and vehicle trajectories on freeways using dual loop detectors,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 351 – 364, 2002

    2002

  7. [15]

    Real-time freeway traffic state esti- mation based on extended kalman filter: a general approach,

    Y . Wang and M. Papageorgiou, “Real-time freeway traffic state esti- mation based on extended kalman filter: a general approach,” Trans- portation Research Part B: Methodological , vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 141 – 167, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Data-driven imputation method for traffic data in sectional units of road links,

    S. Tak, S. Woo, and H. Yeo, “Data-driven imputation method for traffic data in sectional units of road links,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1762–1771, June 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    On a variant of the mobile observer method,

    R. Florin and S. Olariu, “On a variant of the mobile observer method,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 441–449, Feb 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Highway traf- fic state estimation with mixed connected and conventional vehicles,

    N. Bekiaris-Liberis, C. Roncoli, and M. Papageorgiou, “Highway traf- fic state estimation with mixed connected and conventional vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 3484–3497, Dec 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Literature Review of Ad- vancements in Adaptive Ramp Metering,

    K. Shaaban, M. A. Khan, and R. Hamila, “Literature Review of Ad- vancements in Adaptive Ramp Metering,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 83, no. Ant, pp. 203–211, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Evaluation of On-ramp Control Algorithims,

    W. Jin and M. Zhang, “Evaluation of On-ramp Control Algorithims,” California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways , 2001

    2001

  13. [21]

    Advanced Coordinated Traffic Re- sponsive Ramp Metering Strategies,

    K. Bogenberger and A. D. May, “Advanced Coordinated Traffic Re- sponsive Ramp Metering Strategies,”California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways , 1999

    1999

  14. [22]

    Real-time metering algorithm for centralized control,

    L. Jacobson, K. Henry, and O. Mehyar, “Real-time metering algorithm for centralized control,” Transportation Research Record, no. 1732, pp. 20–32, 1989

    1989

  15. [23]

    System Wide Adaptive Ramp Metering (SW ARM),

    G. Paesani, J. Kerr, P. Perovich, and F. E. Khosravi, “System Wide Adaptive Ramp Metering (SW ARM),” in Merging the Transportation and Communications Revolutions. Abstracts for ITS America Seventh Annual Meeting and ExpositionITS America , 1997

    1997

  16. [24]

    Implementation of on-line zone control strategies for optimal ramp metering in the Minneapolis ring road,

    Y . Stephanedes, “Implementation of on-line zone control strategies for optimal ramp metering in the Minneapolis ring road,” Road Traffic Monitoring and Control , vol. 26-28, pp. 181–184, 1994

    1994

  17. [25]

    Fuzzy ramp metering: Design overview and simulation results,

    C. Taylor, D. Meldrum, and L. Jacobson, “Fuzzy ramp metering: Design overview and simulation results,” Transportation Research Record, vol. 1634, no. 1, pp. 10–18, 1998

    1998

  18. [26]

    Evaluation of a Fuzzy Logic Ramp Meter- ing Algorithm : a Comparative Study Among Three Ramp Metering Algorithms,

    C. Taylor and D. Meldrum, “Evaluation of a Fuzzy Logic Ramp Meter- ing Algorithm : a Comparative Study Among Three Ramp Metering Algorithms,” Washington State Department of Transportation, Tech. Rep. February, 2000

    2000

  19. [27]

    An Advanced real-time ramp metering system (ARMS): the system concept,

    J.-C. Liu, J. L. Kim, Y . Chen, Y . Hao, S. Lee, T. Kim, and M. Thomadakis, “An Advanced real-time ramp metering system (ARMS): the system concept,” Texas Department of Transportation, Texas, Tech. Rep. November, 1994

    1994

  20. [28]

    Development and Evaluation of a Dynamic Ramp Metering Control Model,

    O. J. Chen, A. F. Hotz, and M. E. Ben-Akiva, “Development and Evaluation of a Dynamic Ramp Metering Control Model,” IFAC Transportation Systems, 1997

    1997

  21. [29]

    A misapplication of the local ramp metering strategy alinea,

    M. Papageorgiou, E. Kosmatopoulos, I. Papamichail, and Y . Wang, “A misapplication of the local ramp metering strategy alinea,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 360–365, June 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    Modelling and Real-time Control of Traffic Flow on the Boulevard Peripherique in Paris,

    M. Papageorgiou, H. Hadj-Salem, J. Blosseville, and N. Bhouri, “Modelling and Real-time Control of Traffic Flow on the Boulevard Peripherique in Paris,” Transportation Research Part A: General , vol. 24, pp. 345 – 359, 1990

    1990

  23. [31]

    A flow- maximizing adaptive local ramp metering strategy,

    E. Smaragdis, M. Papageorgiou, and E. Kosmatopoulos, “A flow- maximizing adaptive local ramp metering strategy,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 251–270, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Local on-ramp queue management strategy with mainline speed recovery,

    R. Jiang, E. Chung, and J. Lee, “Local on-ramp queue management strategy with mainline speed recovery,” Procedia-Social and Behav- ioral Sciences, vol. 43, pp. 201–209, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Local ramp metering with distant downstream bottlenecks: A comparative study,

    Y . Kan, Y . Wang, M. Papageorgiou, and I. Papamichail, “Local ramp metering with distant downstream bottlenecks: A comparative study,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , vol. 62, pp. 149–170, jan 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    HERO coordinated ramp metering implemented at the Monash Freeway,

    I. Papamichail, M. Papageorgiou, V . V ong, and J. Gaffney, “HERO coordinated ramp metering implemented at the Monash Freeway,” Transportation Research Board, 89th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, pp. 10–14, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    Suboptimal control of linear systems by augmentation with application to freeway traffic regulation,

    L. Isaksen and H. Payne, “Suboptimal control of linear systems by augmentation with application to freeway traffic regulation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 210–219, June 1973

    1973

  28. [36]

    A decentralized control strategy for freeway regulation,

    N. Goldstein and K. Kumar, “A decentralized control strategy for freeway regulation,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 279–290, aug 1982

    1982

  29. [37]

    Model predictive control for optimal coordination of ramp metering and variable speed limits,

    A. Hegyi, B. De Schutter, and H. Hellendoorn, “Model predictive control for optimal coordination of ramp metering and variable speed limits,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 185–209, jun 2005

    2005

  30. [38]

    Cooperative traffic control of a mixed network with two urban regions and a freeway,

    J. Haddad, M. Ramezani, and N. Geroliminis, “Cooperative traffic control of a mixed network with two urban regions and a freeway,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , vol. 54, pp. 17–36, aug 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Development of the Next Generation Stratified Ramp Metering Algorithm Based on Freeway Design,

    N. Geroliminis, A. Srivastava, and P. Michalopoulos, “Development of the Next Generation Stratified Ramp Metering Algorithm Based on Freeway Design,” Center for Transportation Studies. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, Tech. Rep., 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    Optimal perimeter control for two urban regions with macroscopic fundamental diagrams: A model predictive approach,

    N. Geroliminis, J. Haddad, and M. Ramezani, “Optimal perimeter control for two urban regions with macroscopic fundamental diagrams: A model predictive approach,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 348–359, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    Freeway ramp metering using artificial neural networks,

    H. M. Zhang and S. G. Ritchie, “Freeway ramp metering using artificial neural networks,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 273 – 286, 1997

    1997

  34. [42]

    Applying an artificial neural network model to freeway ramp metering control,

    C. Wei and K. Wu, “Applying an artificial neural network model to freeway ramp metering control,” Transportation Planning Journal , vol. 25, no. 3, 1996

    1996

  35. [43]

    A self-learning system for local ramp metering with queue management,

    C. Lu and J. Huang, “A self-learning system for local ramp metering with queue management,” Transportation Planning and Technology , vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 182–198, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Control for Ramp Metering,

    A. Fares and W. Gomaa, “Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Control for Ramp Metering,” in Progress in Systems Engineering . Springer, Cham, 2015, pp. 167–173

    2015

  37. [45]

    Coordinated Ramp Metering with Equity Consideration Using Reinforcement Learning,

    C. Lu, J. Huang, L. Deng, and J. Gong, “Coordinated Ramp Metering with Equity Consideration Using Reinforcement Learning,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems , 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Expert Level Control of Ramp Metering Based on Multi-Task Deep Reinforcement Learning,

    F. Belletti, D. Haziza, G. Gomes, and A. M. Bayen, “Expert Level Control of Ramp Metering Based on Multi-Task Deep Reinforcement Learning,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1198–1207, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Decentralised rein- forcement learning for ramp metering and variable speed limits on highways,

    T. Schmidt-Dumont and J. H. Van Vuuren, “Decentralised rein- forcement learning for ramp metering and variable speed limits on highways,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 14, no. 8, 2015

    2015

  40. [48]

    Car-following: a historical review,

    M. Brackstone and M. McDonald, “Car-following: a historical review,” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour , vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 181–196, 1999

    1999

  41. [49]

    Incorporating human-factors in car- following models: A review of recent developments and research needs,

    M. Saifuzzaman and Z. Zheng, “Incorporating human-factors in car- following models: A review of recent developments and research needs,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , vol. 48, pp. 379 – 403, 2014

    2014

  42. [50]

    A behavioural car-following model for computer simula- tion,

    P. Gipps, “A behavioural car-following model for computer simula- tion,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 105 – 111, 1981

    1981

  43. [51]

    Microscopic modeling of traffic flow: Investigation of collision free vehicle dynamics,

    S. Krauss, “Microscopic modeling of traffic flow: Investigation of collision free vehicle dynamics,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dt. Zentrum f ¨ur Luft-und Raumfahrt eV , Abt. Unternehmensorganisation und . . . , 1998

    1998

  44. [52]

    Derivation, properties, and simulation of a gas-kinetic-based, non-local traffic model,

    M. Treiber, A. Hennecke, and D. Helbing, “Derivation, properties, and simulation of a gas-kinetic-based, non-local traffic model,” Physical Review E, vol. 59, no. 1, p. 239, 1999

    1999

  45. [53]

    Comparative evaluation of microscopic car- following behavior,

    S. Panwai and H. Dia, “Comparative evaluation of microscopic car- following behavior,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 314–325, Sep. 2005

    2005

  46. [54]

    A new car-following model with the consideration of anticipation optimal velocity,

    G. han Peng and R. jun Cheng, “A new car-following model with the consideration of anticipation optimal velocity,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 392, no. 17, pp. 3563–3569, 2013

    2013

  47. [55]

    An anfis controller for the car-following collision preven- tion system,

    J. M. and, “An anfis controller for the car-following collision preven- tion system,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1106–1113, July 2001

    2001

  48. [56]

    A modified car-following model based on a neural network model of the human driver effects,

    A. Khodayari, A. Ghaffari, R. Kazemi, and R. Braunstingl, “A modified car-following model based on a neural network model of the human driver effects,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans , vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1440–1449, Nov 2012

    2012

  49. [57]

    Connections between classical car following models and artificial neural networks,

    F. Wu and D. B. Work, “Connections between classical car following models and artificial neural networks,” in 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) , Nov 2018, pp. 3191–3198

    2018

  50. [58]

    Evaluation of different vehicle following models under mixed traffic conditions,

    V . Kanagaraj, G. Asaithambi, C. N. Kumar, K. K. Srinivasan, and R. Sivanandan, “Evaluation of different vehicle following models under mixed traffic conditions,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , vol. 104, pp. 390–401, 2013, 2nd Conference of Transportation Re- searc...

    2013

  51. [59]

    A bayesian approach for driving behavior inference,

    G. Agamennoni, J. I. Nieto, and E. M. Nebot, “A bayesian approach for driving behavior inference,” in 2011 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), June 2011, pp. 595–600

    2011

  52. [60]

    Analysis of recur- rent neural networks for probabilistic modeling of driver behavior,

    J. Morton, T. A. Wheeler, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Analysis of recur- rent neural networks for probabilistic modeling of driver behavior,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1289–1298, May 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    Prediction-based eco-approach and departure at signalized intersec- tions with speed forecasting on preceding vehicles,

    F. Ye, P. Hao, X. Qi, G. Wu, K. Boriboonsomsin, and M. J. Barth, “Prediction-based eco-approach and departure at signalized intersec- tions with speed forecasting on preceding vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1378–1389, April 2019

    2019

  54. [62]

    Neural- network-based modeling and prediction of the future state of a stop amp;go behavior in urban areas,

    A. Ghaffari, A. Khodayari, A. Panahi, and F. Alimardani, “Neural- network-based modeling and prediction of the future state of a stop amp;go behavior in urban areas,” in 2012 IEEE International Confer- ence on Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES 2012) , July 2012, pp. 399–404

    2012

  55. [63]

    Integrated driv- ing behavior modeling,

    T. Toledo, H. N. Koutsopoulos, and M. Ben-Akiva, “Integrated driv- ing behavior modeling,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 96 – 112, 2007

    2007

  56. [64]

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

    M. T. Arne Kesting and D. Helbing, “Enhanced intelligent driver model to access the impact of driving strategies on traffic capacity,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , vol. 368(1928), p. 4585–4605, 2010

    1928

  57. [65]

    Stabilizing traffic flow via a single autonomous vehicle: Possibilities and limitations,

    S. Cui, B. Seibold, R. Stern, and D. B. Work, “Stabilizing traffic flow via a single autonomous vehicle: Possibilities and limitations,” in 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) , June 2017, pp. 1336–1341

    2017

  58. [66]

    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, May 2017

    2017

  59. [67]

    Control concepts for facilitating motor- way on-ramp merging using intelligent vehicles,

    R. Scarinci and B. Heydecker, “Control concepts for facilitating motor- way on-ramp merging using intelligent vehicles,” Transport Reviews, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 775–797, 2014

    2014

  60. [68]

    A two-layer control scheme for merging of automated vehicles,

    G. K. Schmidt and B. Posch, “A two-layer control scheme for merging of automated vehicles,” in The 22nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 1983, pp. 495–500

    1983

  61. [69]

    A microscopic simulation model for merging control on a dedicated-lane automated highway system,

    B. Ran, S. Leight, and B. Chang, “A microscopic simulation model for merging control on a dedicated-lane automated highway system,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 369 – 388, 1999

    1999

  62. [70]

    Optimal traffic merging strategy for communication- and sensor-enabled vehicles,

    T. Awal, L. Kulik, and K. Ramamohanrao, “Optimal traffic merging strategy for communication- and sensor-enabled vehicles,” in 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2013), Oct 2013, pp. 1468–1474

    2013

  63. [71]

    Merge algorithms for intelligent vehicles,

    G. Raravi, V . Shingde, K. Ramamritham, and J. Bharadia, “Merge algorithms for intelligent vehicles,” in Next Generation Design and Verification Methodologies for Distributed Embedded Control Systems, S. Ramesh and P. Sampath, Eds. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2007, pp. 51–65

    2007

  64. [72]

    Automated and cooperative vehicle merging at highway on-ramps,

    J. Rios-Torres and A. A. Malikopoulos, “Automated and cooperative vehicle merging at highway on-ramps,” IEEE Transactions on Intelli- gent Transportation Systems, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 780–789, Apr. 2017

    2017

  65. [73]

    Collaborative merging strategy for freeway ramp operations in a connected and autonomous vehicles environment,

    Y . Xie, H. Zhang, N. H. Gartner, and T. Arsava, “Collaborative merging strategy for freeway ramp operations in a connected and autonomous vehicles environment,” Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 136–147, 2017

    2017

  66. [74]

    A merging control algo- rithm based on inter-vehicle communication,

    A. Uno, T. Sakaguchi, and S. Tsugawa, “A merging control algo- rithm based on inter-vehicle communication,” in Proceedings 199 IEEE/IEEJ/JSAI International Conference on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems, Oct. 1999, pp. 783–787

    1999

  67. [75]

    Longitudinal control algorithm for auto- mated vehicle merging,

    X.-Y . Lu and K. J. Hedrick, “Longitudinal control algorithm for auto- mated vehicle merging,” in Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , vol. 1, Dec. 2000, pp. 450–455

    2000

  68. [76]

    Distributed platoon as- signment and lane selection for traffic flow optimization,

    T. Dao, C. M. Clark, and J. P. Huissoon, “Distributed platoon as- signment and lane selection for traffic flow optimization,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) , Jun. 2008, pp. 739–744

    2008

  69. [77]

    Optimal vehicle trajectory planning with control constraints and recursive implementa- tion for automated on-ramp merging,

    Y . Zhou, M. E. Cholette, A. Bhaskar, and E. Chung, “Optimal vehicle trajectory planning with control constraints and recursive implementa- tion for automated on-ramp merging,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 1–12, 2018

    2018

  70. [78]

    Distributed consensus-based cooper- ative highway on-ramp merging using V2X communications,

    Z. Wang, G. Wu, and M. Barth, “Distributed consensus-based cooper- ative highway on-ramp merging using V2X communications,” in SAE Technical Paper, Apr. 2018

    2018

  71. [79]

    Agent- based modeling and simulation of connected and automated vehi- cles using game engine: A cooperative on-ramp merging study,

    Z. Wang, B. Kim, H. Kobayashi, G. Wu, and M. J. Barth, “Agent- based modeling and simulation of connected and automated vehi- cles using game engine: A cooperative on-ramp merging study,” arXiv:1810.09952, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Cooperative ramp merging system: Agent-based modeling and simulation using game engine,

    Z. Wang, G. Wu, K. Boriboonsomsin, M. J. Barth, K. Han, B. Kim, and P. Tiwari, “Cooperative ramp merging system: Agent-based modeling and simulation using game engine,” SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated Vehicles , vol. 2, no. 2, May 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.