Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (ATSC) aims to optimize traffic flow and minimize delays by adjusting traffic lights in real time. Recent advances in Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL) have shown promise for ATSC, yet existing approaches still suffer from limited representational capacity, often leading to suboptimal performance and poor generalization in complex and dynamic traffic environments. On the other hand, Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at semantic representation, reasoning, and analysis, yet their propensity for hallucination and slow inference speeds often hinder their direct application to decision-making tasks. To address these challenges, we propose a novel learning paradigm named LATS that integrates LLMs and MARL, leveraging the former's strong prior knowledge and inductive abilities to enhance the latter's decision-making process. Specifically, we introduce a plug-and-play teacher-student learning module, where a trained embedding LLM serves as a teacher to generate rich semantic features that capture each intersection's topology structures and traffic dynamics. A much simpler (student) neural network then learns to emulate these features through knowledge distillation in the latent space, enabling the final model to operate independently from the LLM for downstream use in the RL decision-making process. This integration significantly enhances the overall model's representational capacity across diverse traffic scenarios, thus leading to more efficient and generalizable control strategies. Extensive experiments across diverse traffic datasets empirically demonstrate that our method enhances the representation learning capability of RL models, thereby leading to improved overall performance and generalization over both traditional RL and LLM-only approaches. [...]
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: The pipeline of our proposed LLM-assisted TSC framework, where we employ LLMs to generate rich semantic features based on customized traffic prompts to enhance the downstream MARL decision-making process.
Fig. 2: (a) An illustration of an intersection, which consists of roads, lanes, and traffic movements. (b) Eight non-conflicting traffic signal phases at the intersection. (c) Depiction of the traffic signal control process based on phase selections. (d) Illustration of the state of a traffic movement for RL agents.
Fig. 3: Architecture of the proposed LLM-assisted teacher-student learning framework (LATS) for general TSC. The teacher uses a pre-trained embedding LLM to generate semantic embedding vectors from customized traffic prompts (top left) for each phase. The student model emulates these vectors through knowledge distillation in the latent space. These latent vectors are integrated into the downstream RL decision-making process to enhance the phase representations.
Fig. 4: A snapshot of a four-road intersection from the Grid 5 × 5 network during the simulation for generating semantic features in LATS (left). The traffic prompt for phase p0 at the intersection, which contains the descriptions of static intersection topology and dynamic traffic conditions (right). The black text represents the unified prompt template, while the orange text indicates the filled-in intersection topology and traffic dynamics information.
Queue Length ↓ (vehs)
Speed ↑ (m/s)
Intersections Delay ↓ (sec)
Completion Rate ↑ (vehs/sec)
Trip Time ↓ (sec)
Trip Delay ↓ (sec)
Homogeneous Grid 5 × 5 network with 25 signalized intersections
Fixed-Time
3.16 (1.57)
2.03 (1.56)
29.34 (17.65)
0.62 (0.54)
657.67 (551.72)
411.95 (428.68)
Greedy
2.65 (1.72)
3.27 (2.42)
42.09 (38.05)
0.86 (0.41)
546.96 (429.35)
263.59 (325.64)
Max-Pressure
2.79 (1.76)
2.93 (2.19)
39.17 (37.50)
0.82 (0.42)
572.43 (404.92)
270.41 (292.18)
IQLD
3.51 (2.24)
2.36 (2.12)
95.92 (74.70)
0.58 (0.39)
492.71 (439.87)
285.46 (368.77)
IQLL
2.00 (1.23)
3.38 (2.32)
40.60 (40.68)
0.95 (0.47)
483.48 (406.18)
240.27 (300.38)
TABLE I: Comparative results of different methods on both Grid 5 × 5 and Monaco networks across average episodic metrics: queue length ( ↓ ), speed ( ↑ ), intersection delay ( ↓ ), completion rate ( ↑ ), trip time ( ↓ ), and trip delay ( ↓ ). Here, ↑ indicates higher values are better, and ↓ indicates lower values are better, with the best result for each metric in bold and the second best underlined.
Queue Length ↓ (vehs)
Speed ↑ (m/s)
Intersection Delay ↓ (sec)
Completion Rate ↑ (vehs/s)
Trip Time ↓ (sec)
Trip Delay ↓ (sec)
Low traffic demands for Grid 5 × 5 network
IPPO
0.68 (0.36)
2.46 (1.03)
61.95 (20.47)
0.20 (0.18)
625.72 (499.98)
472.59 (475.34)
AttendLight
0.23 (0.12)
4.17 (1.74)
42.23 (23.15)
0.21 (0.21)
299.15 (184.76)
160.65 (180.29)
HeteroLight
0.47 (0.21)
3.19 (1.98)
227.85 (160.84)
0.20 (0.20)
441.39 (705.13)
326.66 (707.81)
LATS (ours)
0.12 (0.12)
6.34 (2.94)
14.10 (10.12)
0.22 (0.22)
209.64 (167.81)
83.65 (148.05)
Medium traffic demands for Grid 5 × 5 network
TABLE II: Zero-shot performance of various parameter sharing methods trained on the Monaco network and tested on the Grid 5 × 5 network with low, medium, and high demands.
Queue Length ↓ (vehs)
Speed ↑ (m/s)
Intersection Delay ↓ (sec)
Completion Rate ↑ (vehs/s)
Trip Time ↓ (sec)
Trip Delay ↓ (sec)
AttendLight
2.14 (1.28)
1.67 (2.36)
85.29 (43.15)
0.15 (0.14)
1372.88 (875.09)
1242.56 (850.96)
HeteroLight
1.91 (1.10)
1.78 (2.39)
88.55 (43.04)
0.17 (0.14)
1272.23 (874.33)
1145.17 (855.98)
LATS (ours)
1.60 (0.90)
1.58 (2.04)
99.18 (36.52)
0.19 (0.15)
478.01 (561.71)
351.49 (535.29)
TABLE III: Zero-shot performance of various parameter sharing RL methods trained on the homogeneous Grid 5 × 5 network and tested on the heterogeneous Monaco network.
Grid 5×5 Network
Monaco Network
Fixed-Time
1145.72 (362.93)
1117.75 (357.76)
Greedy
679.29 (235.53)
1025.35 (325.50)
Max-Pressure
914.37 (312.51)
1027.53 (329.69)
AttendLight
767.36 (255.02)
909.55 (288.93)
HolLight*
622.11 (215.92)
920.95 (297.80)
CoLight*
464.27 (161.76)
884.26 (282.46)
TABLE IV: Comparison of Average Trip Duration (s) across different ATSC methods on the homogeneous Grid 5 × 5 network and the heterogeneous Monaco network.
Queue Length ↓ (vehs)
Speed ↑ (m/s)
Intersections Delay ↓ (sec)
Completion Rate ↑ (vehs/s)
Trip Time ↓ (sec)
Trip Delay ↓ (sec)
Homogeneous Grid 5 × 5 network
LATS
1.26 (1.04)
4.73 (2.39)
13.60 (9.91)
1.03 (0.58)
389.80 (288.08)
182.72 (218.25)
LATS w/o T
1.69 (1.20)
4.44 (2.41)
25.74 (18.89)
1.01 (0.46)
451.00 (365.52)
230.90 (291.86)
LATS w/o S
1.78 (1.17)
3.89 (2.19)
26.57 (20.32)
0.98 (0.47)
499.38 (372.50)
227.58 (272.80)
LATS w/o TS
4.30 (2.44)
1.92 (1.44)
53.36 (34.60)
0.60 (0.33)
935.52 (621.47)
687.05 (563.01)
AttendLight w/ TS
2.83 (1.84)
3.52 (2.41)
49.18 (36.01)
0.94 (0.41)
550.86 (450.81)
339.75 (387.31)
TABLE V: Optimization performance of various LATS variants and AttendLight variants in the ablation study.
Fig. 5: Illustration of the three selected intersections (agent 2, agent 9, and agent 23) with diverse topology structures from the heterogeneous Monaco traffic network used for t-SNE visualizations (left). 2D t-SNE visualization of phase features for three selected intersections, comparing LATS and IPPO (LATS w/o TS) during training: (a) LATS after 800 episodes, (b) LATS after 1600 episodes, (c) IPPO after 800 episodes, and (d) IPPO after 1600 episodes (right).
Queue Length ↓ (vehs)
Speed ↑ (m/s)
Intersections Delay ↓ (sec)
Completion Rate ↑ (vehs/sec)
Trip Time ↓ (sec)
Trip Delay ↓ (sec)
Homogeneous Grid 5 × 5 network with 25 signalized intersections
LATS w/ Full
1.26 (1.04)
4.73 (2.39)
13.60 (9.91)
1.03 (0.58)
389.80 (288.08)
182.72 (218.25)
LATS w/ Topo
1.50 (1.19)
4.58 (2.45)
17.45 (11.88)
1.03 (0.54)
431.24 (343.67)
216.30 (267.82)
LATS w/ Dyna
1.38 (1.10)
4.74 (2.33)
16.12 (11.31)
1.03 (0.54)
404.81 (329.44)
200.00 (258.96)
LATS w/ Jina
1.26 (1.04)
4.73 (2.39)
13.60 (9.91)
1.03 (0.58)
389.80 (288.08)
182.72 (218.25)
LATS w/ BGE
1.33 (1.06)
4.85 (2.26)
14.09 (10.22)
1.03 (0.54)
405.75 (303.99)
191.51 (233.49)
TABLE VI: Ablation study of different LATS prompt variants on the homogeneous Grid 5×5 network and the heterogeneous Monaco network.
Traffic signal control studies how to set intersection phases and green times to reduce congestion while balancing safety, emissions, and priority needs.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore · Chandra Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin · Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology