Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Robustness of Reinforcement Learning-Based Traffic Signal Control under Incidents: A Comparative Study

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Current RL traffic-signal controllers are not robust to incidents, and no single method dominates across networks or robustness metrics.

desk verdict A useful incident-robustness benchmark, but the paper's own tables contradict its headline rankings; major revisions needed before the comparative claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13836 v1 pith:3QXVQYIS submitted 2025-06-16 cs.LG cs.AI

Dang Viet Anh Nguyen , Carlos Lima Azevedo , Tomer Toledo , Filipe Rodrigues This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords reinforcementlearningtrafficsignalcontrolincidentrobustnessmulti-agentsimulationbenchmarkingdistributionshiftreroutingmodelnetwork
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

Reinforcement-learning traffic signal control (RL-TSC) is usually trained and evaluated on stable, incident-free traffic, so its behavior under real disruptions such as lane-blocking incidents is largely unknown. This paper introduces T-REX, an open simulation framework that injects incidents into traffic networks with probabilistic driver rerouting, speed adaptation, and lane-changing, and uses it to compare four representative RL-TSC methods plus rule-based baselines across five networks. The central finding is that robustness is not a property of any one RL paradigm: independent value-based and decentralized pressure-based methods converge quickly and perform well under normal conditions but degrade sharply under incident-driven distribution shifts, while hierarchical coordination is more stable in large, irregular networks at the cost of slower convergence. A secondary result is that training with incident exposure does not improve test-time performance unless the method explicitly accounts for the uncertainty behind incidents. If these results hold, current RL-TSC methods are not yet reliable for deployment under disruptions, and robustness must be designed in rather than assumed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is T-REX itself: a simulation framework that deploys incidents as blocking vehicles at chosen edges and then models driver behavior through three coupled modules—an Information Comply Model for probabilistic rerouting (awareness via radio, roadside signs, online sources, and direct observation, followed by a logistic rerouting choice), a Stopping Sight Distance-based speed adaptation that makes vehicles slow to about 8 km/h near the incident, and modified lane-changing that makes drivers move away from blocked lanes early. These modules produce network-level congestion propagation, including rerouting and queue spillback, that simpler capacity-reduction incident models miss. The robustness evaluation also rests on a suite of metrics—Learning Stability Index, Final Performance Deviation, Convergence Rate, Area Under the Curve, Relative AUC Difference, and Performance Degradation Index—that measure learning stability and generalization beyond raw travel time.

What would settle it

Compare T-REX's predicted network response to a real incident of known location and duration, or to a high-fidelity simulation calibrated with GPS and loop-detector data: measure the share of rerouting drivers, speed profiles near the blocked lane, and queue spillback over time. If these quantities deviate substantially from the Information Comply Model and Stopping Sight Distance assumptions, the method rankings from the paper's experiments would not reproduce in reality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that incident-induced distribution shifts break the generalization of most current RL-TSC controllers, and that the severity of the break depends on network topology and on the controller's coordination architecture. Using T-REX, the authors show that IDQN (each intersection learns its own deep Q-network) and MPLight (decentralized pressure-based coordination) suffer large performance losses under incidents, while FMA2C, a hierarchical manager-worker actor-critic, maintains more stable travel times in large irregular networks such as the Ingolstadt region, although it learns much more slowly. The paper also reports that policies trained in incident-free base scenarios often generalize better to incidents than policies trained with incidents, because incident-trained agents overfit to the specific incident configurations they saw; exposure to incidents alone is therefore not a robustness strategy. The authors conclude that no single method dominates across all robustness metrics and networks, and that current RL-TSC methods are not ready for reliable deployment under incidents.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the simulated drivers—how they learn about an incident, decide to reroute, slow to 8 km/h, and change lanes—match real driver behavior; if that behavior differs, the congestion patterns and the ranking of control methods will not transfer to the real world.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Independent and decentralized RL-TSC methods cannot be assumed to survive lane-blocking incidents; their favorable normal-condition results do not transfer to disrupted networks.
  • Hierarchical coordination architectures are the most defensible choice for large, irregular networks under incidents, but only where their slower training and sample inefficiency can be afforded.
  • Training on incidents alone can be counterproductive: without explicit incident-awareness or uncertainty handling, it overfits to specific disruption configurations.
  • Robustness comparisons need standardized incident dynamics and multi-dimensional metrics; raw travel-time improvements in clean conditions are insufficient evidence for deployment.
  • T-REX provides a reproducible way to benchmark future RL-TSC methods under incidents, supporting pre-training, online-learning, and hybrid deployment evaluations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported rankings are conditional on the assumed driver-response parameters, such as rerouting probabilities and the 8 km/h crawl speed; calibrating these against real incident data could change which architecture looks best.
  • A natural next step the authors leave implicit is to use their metrics to test robustness to other disruptions, such as sensor failures, demand surges, or adversarial traffic, within the same framework.
  • The counterintuitive result that base-trained policies beat incident-trained ones suggests a testable hypothesis: domain randomization over incident configurations should outperform targeted incident training, which could be checked directly with T-REX.
  • If incident robustness becomes a training objective, value-based methods might regain competitiveness with explicit out-of-distribution regularization or uncertainty-aware exploration, since their fast convergence is otherwise attractive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces T-REX, an open-source SUMO-based framework for training and evaluating RL-based traffic signal control under lane-blocking incidents. T-REX models driver rerouting with the Information Comply Model, speed adaptation via stopping-sight-distance, and modified lane-changing behavior, and it proposes robustness metrics (LSI, FPD, CR, AUC, RAUC, PDI). The authors compare IDQN, IPPO, MPLight, and FMA2C with rule-based baselines on one synthetic grid and four real-world networks. The paper's central claims are that no RL-TSC paradigm dominates across all robustness dimensions, that independent value-based and decentralized pressure-based methods degrade sharply under incidents, that hierarchical coordination (FMA2C) is more stable in large irregular networks at the cost of slower convergence, and that incident exposure during training does not improve incident-test performance. The framework and metric suite are useful and the code release is a clear strength, but the empirical evidence as reported contains internal contradictions and confounds that prevent the central claims from being accepted as stated.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would make a valuable contribution: it addresses a real gap in RL-TSC evaluation by moving from localized incident modeling to network-level congestion propagation with rerouting and behavioral responses, and it provides a standardized, open benchmarking platform. The proposed metrics go beyond conventional travel-time comparisons and target deployment-relevant dimensions such as learning stability and transferability. The release of source code and the use of established baseline implementations are commendable. However, the central comparative claims are currently weakened by unequal training budgets, a numerical contradiction in the main robustness table, and a conclusion about incident training that is opposite to the paper's own PDI table. These issues would need to be resolved before the result can be relied on by the community.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.4 and Table 2] The learning-performance comparison is confounded by unequal training budgets: IDQN and MPLight are trained for 100 episodes, while IPPO and FMA2C are trained for 1,400 episodes. Since RAUC and AUC are integrated over the training trajectory, FMA2C's lower RAUC (e.g., 9.384 in Ingolstadt Region) cannot be attributed to hierarchical coordination alone; it may simply reflect 14 times more environment interactions. The claim in §4.1 that FMA2C 'consistently demonstrates the highest robustness' is therefore not supported as reported. Please either use matched training budgets, report sample-efficiency-adjusted metrics, or explicitly acknowledge and control for the confound.
  2. [Table 2 and §4.1] The statement that FMA2C achieves the lowest RAUC in several networks is contradicted by Table 2's own numbers. With RAUC defined so that lower is better, in Ingolstadt Region MPLight (-10.584) and IPPO (-21.715) have lower RAUC than FMA2C (9.384), and in Cologne Corridor IPPO (-39.830) has the minimum value while FMA2C is 40.056. The text's example ('only 9.38% in the Ingolstadt Region') is factually incorrect. The robustness ranking needs to be corrected, and ideally accompanied by confidence intervals or significance tests given the large variances visible in the underlying results.
  3. [§4.2 and Table 3] The conclusion that 'base-trained policies generalize better than incident-trained ones' is not supported by Table 3. Comparing the Base-incident and Incident-incident PDI columns—the relevant contrast for whether incident training helps at incident test time—incident-trained policies have lower PDI in 12 of 15 method-network cells, which is the opposite of the stated finding. Furthermore, the manuscript itself notes that PDI is 'less suited for comparing across training-testing pairs' immediately before using it to make that cross-pair comparison. The PDI values are reported without error bars, despite the very large standard deviations in Table D1, so even the ordinal comparisons are not statistically grounded. Please re-analyze this experiment with appropriate comparison criteria and uncertainty quantification.
  4. [Appendix D, Table D1] The Ingolstadt Region rows in Table D1 contain apparent copy-paste errors: the Base-Base entries for IDQN (72.64 ±1.02, 73.41 ±1.95), MPLight (101.01 ±62.35, 82.81 ±16.34), and FMA2C (90.65 ±9.76, 140.90 ±18.09) are identical to the Ingolstadt Corridor entries in the same table. Since Ingolstadt Region is the key large, irregular network supporting the FMA2C-robustness narrative, these errors invalidate the corresponding PDI values in Table 3 and the conclusions drawn from them. The experiments need to be re-run or correctly reported.
  5. [Appendix B and §5] The realism of the claim that T-REX models 'realistic network-level performance' rests on behavioral parameters—ICM awareness and rerouting parameters (µ_FTI=0.7, µ_ON=0.5, µ_OS=0.8, β_gain=2.5, β_loss=2.5, β_0=-5), driver-type proportions, the conservative 8 km/h crawl speed, and modified SUMO lane-changing—which are 'inferred or assumed' according to the paper's own limitation paragraph. No sensitivity analysis or calibration against empirical incident data is provided. Because all method rankings are generated under these assumptions, the real-world deployment-readiness conclusions should either be tempered or accompanied by a sensitivity study over these parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4] Reporting the best 10 consecutive episodes for IDQN/MPLight and the best 100 for IPPO/FMA2C is a post-hoc selection that overstates final performance; please also report the mean and standard deviation over fixed final windows or the full learning curves.
  2. [Table 1] In the Ingolstadt Corridor panel, Greedy appears twice (rows with 79.79 s and 72.43 s in base conditions); the second row is likely a different method and should be corrected.
  3. [§4.3, Figures 4–5] The rolling-average windows differ between panels (5 episodes for IDQN/MPLight, 30 for FMA2C), which makes visual comparison misleading; a consistent smoothing window should be used.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'a open-source' appears in the abstract and contributions; it should read 'an open-source'.
  5. [Appendix D] The column header 'Test (avg. 100)' is inconsistent with the description of the selection protocol, and it is unclear whether the reported values are means over test episodes, over seeds, or both; this should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No material circularity: the comparative findings are generated by simulation rather than derived from the fitted inputs or self-citations; residual self-citation is background or input, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical outputs of a SUMO-based simulator (T-REX) with externally specified models, not conclusions recovered by construction from the framework's parameters. The robustness metrics (LSI, FPD, CR, AUC, RAUC, PDI) are direct definitions applied to measured travel times; none of them embeds the target ranking. The main self-citations—Rodrigues and Azevedo (2019) and Pereira, Rodrigues and Ben-Akiva (2013)—are used for literature motivation and for the incident-duration distribution Exp(0.029) in Appendix B; that distribution is an input scenario parameter, not the predicted outcome, and the method rankings are not fitted to it. The limitation passage stating that behavioral parameters are 'inferred or assumed' affects external validity, not circularity. Likewise, the internal inconsistencies highlighted by the skeptic—Table 2 not supporting the 'FMA2C most robust' claim, Table 3 not supporting the 'incident training does not help' claim, and the paper's own warning that PDI is 'less suited for comparing across training-testing pairs'—are correctness and interpretation concerns, not cases where a prediction reduces to its inputs. No equation in the paper defines a target quantity in terms of the same target quantity, and no load-bearing argument depends on an unverified self-citation chain. The paper is thus self-contained for circularity purposes, with at most minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central experiment is an empirical comparison driven by a simulator. The free parameters are the assumed values of the driver-behavior models that are not calibrated to data. The axioms are the domain assumptions that these models and the chosen evaluation protocol produce realistic, transferable congestion dynamics. The only invented entity is the IC vehicle, a simulation device.

free parameters (4)
  • ICM awareness and rerouting parameters = mu_FTI=0.7, mu_ON=0.5, mu_OS=0.8, sigma=10 min, xi_OB=0.5, t_OB=2 min, beta_gain=2.5, beta_loss=2.5, beta_0=-5, VMS…
    Appendix B sets these by hand without calibration data; they determine when and how drivers reroute, directly shaping the simulated congestion propagation that the RL comparison depends on.
  • Driver type proportions and travel time estimation errors = experienced 40% / 5%, novice 30% / 10%, distracted 20% / 20%, CAVs 10% / 1%
    Assumed in Appendix B to model heterogeneity; affects rerouting decisions and speed adaptation.
  • Conservative reduced speed near incident = 8 km/h (5 mph)
    Chosen in Section 2.4.2 based on Move Over laws; influences queue build-up near incidents.
  • Lane-changing parameter modifications = lcStrategic=1, lcSpeedGain=1, lcCooperative=1, lcKeepRight=0
    Appendix B sets these when a vehicle enters SSD range; behavior reverts after passing. Not empirically calibrated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The SUMO LC2013 lane-changing model, after the specified TraCI modifications, adequately captures real-world lane-changing under incidents.
    Section 2.4.3 assumes this without validation against observed lane-changing data.
  • domain assumption The Stopping Sight Distance formula from AASHTO, computed with actual vehicle speed, correctly determines when drivers begin to decelerate near an incident.
    Section 2.4.2 applies a road-design standard to real-time speed; its transferability to congested, signalized networks is assumed.
  • domain assumption The Information Comply Model (ICM) with the assumed parameter values yields realistic rerouting rates and network-level congestion propagation.
    Appendix A and B adopt ICM from Kucharski and Gentile (2019) with uncalibrated parameters; the limitation section concedes these are 'inferred or assumed'.
  • domain assumption Random incidents sampled uniformly over edges (grid) or proportionally to simulated traffic volumes (real networks) are representative of real disruptions.
    Section 2.3 defines the sampling; only duration comes from empirical data, while location and timing distributions are not validated against incident logs.
  • domain assumption A Dec-POMDP with independent agents, local observations, and a fixed 10-second phase duration is an adequate abstraction of traffic signal control.
    Section 2.1 and Appendix B; this is standard in the RL-TSC literature but simplifies coordination and phase dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper Reporting best 10 or best 100 consecutive episodes is a valid measure of final performance for comparison.
    Section 3.4 defines this selection rule for training metrics; it inflates reported performance and is not a pre-registered evaluation protocol.
invented entities (1)
  • IC (incident) vehicles
    purpose: Inserted at a precise position and time to block lanes, triggering rerouting, speed adaptation, and lane-changing in the simulation.
    A simulation construct described in Section 2.3; it is not a physical claim, but it is an invented mechanism with no external validation of its behavioral realism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robustness of Reinforcement Learning-Based Traffic Signal Control under Incidents: A Comparative Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3QXVQYIS

@misc{pith2026250613836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robustness of Reinforcement Learning-Based Traffic Signal Control under Incidents: A Comparative Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3QXVQYIS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13836}
}
read the original abstract

Reinforcement learning-based traffic signal control (RL-TSC) has emerged as a promising approach for improving urban mobility. However, its robustness under real-world disruptions such as traffic incidents remains largely underexplored. In this study, we introduce T-REX, an open-source, SUMO-based simulation framework for training and evaluating RL-TSC methods under dynamic, incident scenarios. T-REX models realistic network-level performance considering drivers' probabilistic rerouting, speed adaptation, and contextual lane-changing, enabling the simulation of congestion propagation under incidents. To assess robustness, we propose a suite of metrics that extend beyond conventional traffic efficiency measures. Through extensive experiments across synthetic and real-world networks, we showcase T-REX for the evaluation of several state-of-the-art RL-TSC methods under multiple real-world deployment paradigms. Our findings show that while independent value-based and decentralized pressure-based methods offer fast convergence and generalization in stable traffic conditions and homogeneous networks, their performance degrades sharply under incident-driven distribution shifts. In contrast, hierarchical coordination methods tend to offer more stable and adaptable performance in large-scale, irregular networks, benefiting from their structured decision-making architecture. However, this comes with the trade-off of slower convergence and higher training complexity. These findings highlight the need for robustness-aware design and evaluation in RL-TSC research. T-REX contributes to this effort by providing an open, standardized and reproducible platform for benchmarking RL methods under dynamic and disruptive traffic scenarios.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    AASHTO, Washington, D.C., commonly referred to as the AASHTO Green Book

    AASHTO (2018) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th edn. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., commonly referred to as the AASHTO Green Book

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Expert Systems with Applications 254:124416

    Agarwal A, Sahu D, Mohata R, et al (2024) Dynamic traffic signal control for heterogeneous traffic conditions using max pressure and reinforcement learning. Expert Systems with Applications 254:124416

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Advanced Engineering Informatics 38:639--655

    Aslani M, Seipel S, Mesgari MS, et al (2018) Traffic signal optimization through discrete and continuous reinforcement learning with robustness analysis in downtown tehran. Advanced Engineering Informatics 38:639--655

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    str \"o m KJ, Murray RM (2021) Feedback Systems: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    In: Proc

    Ault J, Sharon G (2021) Reinforcement learning benchmarks for traffic signal control. In: Proc. of the 35th Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems. Datasets and Benchmarks Track

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:191211023

    Ault J, Hanna J, Sharon G (2019) Learning an interpretable traffic signal control policy. arXiv preprint arXiv:191211023

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Accident Analysis & Prevention 157:106163

    Cao D, Wu J, Dong X, et al (2021) Quantification of the impact of traffic incidents on speed reduction: A causal inference based approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention 157:106163

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    In: Proc

    Chen C, Wei H, Xu N, et al (2020) Toward a thousand lights: Decentralized deep reinforcement learning for large-scale traffic signal control. In: Proc. of the AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp 3414--3421

    work page 2020

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv:220611996

    Chen R, Fang F, Sadeh N (2022) The real deal: A review of challenges and opportunities in moving reinforcement learning-based traffic signal control systems towards reality. arXiv:220611996

    2022

  2. [10]

    IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems 21(3):1086--1095

    Chu T, Wang J, Codec \`a L, et al (2019) Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for large-scale traffic signal control. IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems 21(3):1086--1095

    2019

  3. [11]

    Control Engineering Practice 10(2):183--195

    Diakaki C, Papageorgiou M, Aboudolas K (2002) A multivariable regulator approach to traffic-responsive network-wide signal control. Control Engineering Practice 10(2):183--195

    2002

  4. [12]

    In: Modeling Mobility with Open Data: 2nd SUMO Conference 2014 Berlin, Germany, May 15-16, 2014, Springer, pp 105--123

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

    2015

  5. [13]

    ://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09005/move_over.htm, [Online; accessed 2025-04-01]

    FHWA (2008) Traffic incident management quick clearance laws: A national review of best practices - move over laws - fhwa office of operations. ://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09005/move_over.htm, [Online; accessed 2025-04-01]

    2008

  6. [14]

    Communications in Transportation Research 3:100104

    Han Y, Wang M, Leclercq L (2023) Leveraging reinforcement learning for dynamic traffic control: A survey and challenges for field implementation. Communications in Transportation Research 3:100104

    2023

  7. [15]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23(1):11--32

    Haydari A, Y lmaz Y (2020) Deep reinforcement learning for intelligent transportation systems: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23(1):11--32

    2020

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

    Henderson P, Islam R, Bachman P, et al (2018) Deep reinforcement learning that matters. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

    2018

  9. [17]

    ://inrix.com/press-releases/2024-global-traffic-scorecard-us/, accessed: 17/2/2025

    INRIX (2024) 2024 global traffic scorecard. ://inrix.com/press-releases/2024-global-traffic-scorecard-us/, accessed: 17/2/2025

    2024

  10. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems

    Jiang Q, Qin M, Zhang H, et al (2024) Blindlight: High robustness reinforcement learning method to solve partially blinded traffic signal control problem. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems

    2024

  11. [19]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, pp 4962--4973

    Jordan S, Chandak Y, Cohen D, et al (2020) Evaluating the performance of reinforcement learning algorithms. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, pp 4962--4973

    2020

  12. [20]

    Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 126:414--441

    Kucharski R, Gentile G (2019) Simulation of rerouting phenomena in dynamic traffic assignment with the information comply model. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 126:414--441

    2019

  13. [21]

    In: Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Annual Conference, Springer, pp 527--539

    Li T, Zhao W, Baumanis C, et al (2022) A python extension in sumo for simulating traffic incidents and emergency service vehicles. In: Canadian Society of Civil Engineering Annual Conference, Springer, pp 527--539

    2022

  14. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:201111995

    Lobo SC, Neumeier S, Fernandez EM, et al (2020) Intas--the ingolstadt traffic scenario for sumo. arXiv preprint arXiv:201111995

    2020

  15. [23]

    In: 2018 21st international conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC), Ieee, pp 2575--2582

    Lopez PA, Behrisch M, Bieker-Walz L, et al (2018) Microscopic traffic simulation using sumo. In: 2018 21st international conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC), Ieee, pp 2575--2582

    2018

  16. [24]

    In: Proc

    Ma J, Wu F (2020) Feudal multi-agent deep reinforcement learning for traffic signal control. In: Proc. of the 19th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp 816--824

    2020

  17. [25]

    Expert Systems with Applications

    Noaeen M, Naik A, Goodman L, et al (2022) Reinforcement learning in urban network traffic signal control: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications

    2022

  18. [26]

    Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 37:177--192

    Pereira F, Rodrigues F, Ben-Akiva M (2013) Text analysis in incident duration prediction. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 37:177--192

    2013

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:220312048

    Pullum LL (2022) Review of metrics to measure the stability, robustness and resilience of reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:220312048

    2022

  20. [28]

    IEEE Transactions on vehicular technology 40(1):11--15

    Robertson DI, Bretherton RD (1991) Optimizing networks of traffic signals in real time-the scoot method. IEEE Transactions on vehicular technology 40(1):11--15

    1991

  21. [29]

    In: 2019 IEEE intelligent transportation systems conference (ITSC), IEEE, pp 3559--3566

    Rodrigues F, Azevedo CL (2019) Towards robust deep reinforcement learning for traffic signal control: Demand surges, incidents and sensor failures. In: 2019 IEEE intelligent transportation systems conference (ITSC), IEEE, pp 3559--3566

    2019

  22. [30]

    IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems

    Shi T, Devailly FX, Larocque D, et al (2023) Improving the generalizability and robustness of large-scale traffic signal control. IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems

    2023

  23. [31]

    IEEE Transactions on vehicular technology 29(2):130--137

    Sims AG, Dobinson KW (1980) The sydney coordinated adaptive traffic (scat) system philosophy and benefits. IEEE Transactions on vehicular technology 29(2):130--137

    1980

  24. [32]

    In: 39th Annual IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks Workshops, IEEE, pp 702--710

    Smith D, Djahel S, Murphy J (2014) A sumo based evaluation of road incidents' impact on traffic congestion level in smart cities. In: 39th Annual IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks Workshops, IEEE, pp 702--710

    2014

  25. [33]

    ://sourceforge.net/p/sumo/mailman/message/32148991/, [Online; accessed 2025-04-21]

    SourceForge (2014) Re: [sumo-user] fwd: Help with traci reroutes | simulation of urban mobility. ://sourceforge.net/p/sumo/mailman/message/32148991/, [Online; accessed 2025-04-21]

    2014

  26. [34]

    Journal of Big Data Analytics in Transportation 2:263--274

    Tan KL, Sharma A, Sarkar S (2020) Robust deep reinforcement learning for traffic signal control. Journal of Big Data Analytics in Transportation 2:263--274

    2020

  27. [35]

    Integrierte Mikro-Simulation von Raum-und Verkehrsentwicklung Theorie, Konzepte, Modelle, Praxis 81:63--69

    Varschen C, Wagner P (2006) Mikroskopische modellierung der personenverkehrsnachfrage auf basis von zeitverwendungstageb \"u chern. Integrierte Mikro-Simulation von Raum-und Verkehrsentwicklung Theorie, Konzepte, Modelle, Praxis 81:63--69

    2006

  28. [36]

    In: 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), IEEE, pp 1--7

    Wu C, Ma Z, Kim I (2020) Multi-agent reinforcement learning for traffic signal control: Algorithms and robustness analysis. In: 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), IEEE, pp 1--7

    2020

  29. [37]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 24(2):1727--1738

    Xu D, Li C, Wang D, et al (2022) Robustness analysis of discrete state-based reinforcement learning models in traffic signal control. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 24(2):1727--1738

    2022

  30. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:240318539

    Yamagata T, Santos-Rodriguez R (2024) Safe and robust reinforcement learning: Principles and practice. arXiv preprint arXiv:240318539

    2024

  31. [39]

    Sustainability 15(2):1329

    Zeinaly Z, Sojoodi M, Bolouki S (2023) A resilient intelligent traffic signal control scheme for accident scenario at intersections via deep reinforcement learning. Sustainability 15(2):1329

    2023

  32. [40]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 22(1):404--415

    Zhang R, Ishikawa A, Wang W, et al (2020) Using reinforcement learning with partial vehicle detection for intelligent traffic signal control. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 22(1):404--415

    2020

  33. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, pp 1963--1972

    Zheng G, Xiong Y, Zang X, et al (2019) Learning phase competition for traffic signal control. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, pp 1963--1972

    2019

  34. [42]

    sn-basic.bst

    FUNCTION identify.basic.version "sn-basic.bst" " [2024/07/19 v1.1 bibliography style]" * top ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series ...

    2024

  35. [43]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION add.period duplicate empty 'skip "." * add.blank if FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap dupl...

  36. [44]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION string.to.integer 't := t text.length 'k := #1 'char.num := t char.num #1 substring 's := s is.num s "." = or char.num k = not and char.num #1 + 'char.num := while char.num #1 - 'char.num := t #1 char.num substring FUNCTI...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.