Emergency Preemption Without Online Exploration: A Decision Transformer Approach
Organizations: New York University · University of California, Berkeley
Abstract
Emergency vehicle (EV) response time is a critical determinant of survival outcomes, yet deployed signal preemption strategies remain reactive and uncontrollable. We propose a return-conditioned framework for emergency corridor optimization based on the Decision Transformer (DT). By casting corridor optimization as offline, return-conditioned sequence modeling, our approach (1) eliminates online environment interaction during policy learning, (2) enables dispatch-level urgency control through a single target-return scalar, and (3) extends to multi-agent settings via a Multi-Agent Decision Transformer (MADT) with graph attention for spatial coordination. On the LightSim simulator, DT reduces average EV travel time by 37.7% relative to fixed-timing preemption on a 4x4 grid (88.6 s vs. 142.3 s), achieving the lowest civilian delay (11.3 s/veh) and fewest EV stops (1.2) among all methods, including online RL baselines that require environment interaction. MADT further improves on larger grids, overtaking DT with 45.2% reduction on 8x8 via graph-attention coordination. Return conditioning produces a smooth dispatch interface: varying the target return from 100 to -400 trades EV travel time (72.4-138.2 s) against civilian delay (16.8-5.4 s/veh), requiring no retraining. A Constrained DT extension adds explicit civilian disruption budgets as a second control knob.
Figures & tables
| Method | Online/Offline | Controllable | Multi-agent | EV-specific | Simulator |
| EMVLight [ 50 ] | Online | × | ✓ | ✓ | SUMO |
| OffLight [ 5 ] | Offline | × | ✓ | × | CityFlow |
| DTLight [ 19 ] | Offline Online | × | ✓ | × | CityFlow |
| CoLight [ 61 ] | Online | × | ✓ | × | CityFlow |
| PressLight [ 60 ] | Online | × | ✓ | × | CityFlow |
| DataLight [ 69 ] | Offline | × | ✓ | × | CityFlow |
| Feature | LightSim | SUMO | CityFlow |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traffic model | CTM (macroscopic) | Krauss (microscopic) | SOTL (cell-based) |
| Speed ( ) | 11,174 steps/s | 1,800 steps/s | 3,200 steps/s |
| Speed ( ) | 3,919 steps/s | 620 steps/s | 1,100 steps/s |
| RL interface | Gymnasium + PettingZoo | SUMO-RL | CityFlow-RL |
| EV support | Native EVTracker | Via TraCI | None |
| Dependencies | NumPy only | SUMO binary | C++ binary |
| Component | Purpose | Weight | Typical magnitude |
|---|---|---|---|
| EV progress per step | 0–75 m | ||
| Queue penalty (civilian disruption) | to | ||
| Terminal arrival bonus | 0 or 10.0 |
| Method | ETT (s) | ACD (s/veh) | Throughput | EV Stops |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rule-based | ||||
| FT-EVP | ||||
| Greedy | ||||
| MaxPressure | ||||
| Online RL | ||||
| DQN | ||||
| ETT (s) | ACD (s/veh) | Throughput | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grid | DT ETT (s) | MADT ETT (s) | FT-EVP ETT (s) | DT Impr. | MADT Impr. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37.7% | 35.1% | ||||
| 41.8% | 44.6% | ||||
| 39.8% | 45.2% |
| Variant | ETT (s) | ACD (s/veh) | ETT |
|---|---|---|---|
| DT (full) | — | ||
| w/o return cond. | |||
| context | |||
| expert-only data | |||
| 2 layers (vs. 4) |
| Composition | ETT (s) | ACD (s/veh) |
|---|---|---|
| 100/0/0 (expert-only) | ||
| 90/5/5 | ||
| 70/15/15 (ours) | ||
| 50/25/25 | ||
| 30/35/35 | ||
| 0/50/50 (no expert) |
| Variant | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| MADT (full, ) | |||
| w/o GAT ( ) | |||
| + GAT | |||
| DT (single-agent, ) |
| Position | DT delay (s) | FT-EVP delay (s) | Savings (s) | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1–3 (near origin) | Early green activation | |||
| 4–5 (mid-route) | Pre-clearance of queues | |||
| 6–7 (near destination) | Residual green wave | |||
| Total (7 intersections) | — |
| Demand (veh/s) | DT ETT (s) | FT-EVP ETT (s) | DT Impr. | DT ACD (s/veh) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.05 (low) | 37.2% | |||
| 0.10 (medium) | 37.7% | |||
| 0.20 (high) | 39.3% | |||
| 0.30 (heavy) | 37.4% |
| Grid | DT Train (min) | DT Infer (ms/step) | MADT Infer (ms/step) | Memory (MB) |
| 12.3 | 2.3 | 4.1 | 245 | |
| 28.7 | 3.1 | 6.8 | 512 | |
| 51.4 | 4.2 | 8.7 | 891 |
| Comparison | ETT -value | ACD -value |
|---|---|---|
| DT vs. PPO | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| DT vs. CQL | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| DT vs. IQL | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| DT vs. MaxPressure | 0.001 | 0.142 |
| DT vs. MADT ( ) | 0.087 | 0.231 |
| MADT vs. DT ( ) | 0.001 | 0.015 |
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Parameter | DT | MADT |
|---|---|---|
| Hidden dim | ||
| Layers | ||
| Heads | ||
| Context | ||
| GAT layers | — | |
| GAT heads | — |
| Parameter | Values tested | Best ETT (s) | Worst ETT (s) | Optimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hidden dim | 32, 64, 128, 256 | 88.6 ( ) | 102.4 ( ) | 128 |
| Layers | 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 | 88.6 ( ) | 97.3 ( ) | 4 |
| Context | 5, 10, 20, 30, 50 | 86.9 ( ) | 104.8 ( ) | 50 |
| Learning rate | , , , | 88.6 ( ) | 118.3 ( ) | |
| Batch size | 16, 32, 64, 128 | 87.2 (128) | 92.8 (16) | 128 |
| Symbol | Definition | Typical value | Section |
| Network and traffic | |||
| Traffic network graph | to grid | 4 | |
| Set of signalized intersections | 4 | ||
| Set of road segments (edges) | — | 4 | |
| Vehicle count in cell at time | – vehicles | 3.1 | |
| Cell capacity (maximum vehicles) | 11 vehicles | 3.1 | |
Traffic Signal Control
Traffic signal control studies how to set intersection phases and green times to reduce congestion while balancing safety, emissions, and priority needs.
See all 39 papers