cs.AISep 29, 2026

VLALight: A Vision-Language-Action Model for Traffic Signal Control

Authors: Pan Zhang, Siqi Lai, Kemu Dong, Hao Liu

Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Dalian University of Technology

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Traffic signal control (TSC) is essential for improving urban mobility and reducing congestion. Although roadside cameras are widely deployed at signalized intersections and provide rich visual observations of evolving traffic, existing TSC methods typically rely on manually engineered traffic states or separate perception modules, creating a gap between physical observations and control decisions. We present VLALight, the first vision-language-action (VLA) model for end-to-end traffic signal control from multi-view roadside videos. VLALight directly maps visual observations to coordinated signal actions through multi-target spatiotemporal traffic reasoning and topology-aware cooperative perception across intersections. To establish this capability, we develop a two-stage supervised cold-start training strategy for visual traffic understanding and signal decision-making, followed by cooperative agentic reinforcement learning that jointly optimizes local control and network-wide traffic efficiency. Furthermore, VLALight introduces adaptive fast and slow reasoning modes, enabling the policy to allocate deeper reasoning only when additional deliberation provides sufficient control benefits. Through balanced mode-aware rollouts and relative advantage optimization, VLALight learns to trade off decision quality and inference cost. Extensive experiments on seven real-world traffic-flow datasets across three urban networks demonstrate that VLALight consistently outperforms transportation-based, RL-based, and LLM/VLM-based baselines. Ablation studies validate the effectiveness of cooperative perception, network-level optimization, and adaptive reasoning. These results demonstrate the potential of VLA models for real-world physical traffic control. Our project is available at https://github.com/usail-hkust/VLALight.git.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: The overview of VLALight.
MethodJinanHangzhouNew York
1231212
 ATTAQLAWTATTAQLAWTATTAQLAWTATTAQLAWTATTAQLAWTATTAQLAWTATTAQLAWT
Transportation-Engineering Methods
FixedTime458.95383.91237.36366.59185.60152.92394.99206.57136.14544.46207.24269.66464.08274.97229.641464.242716.681171.091666.713940.701387.68
MaxPressure270.97163.7779.79267.68109.8274.35260.02135.3073.35306.4565.2263.13304.98120.8873.961215.432395.16894.251467.474066.031202.50
RL-Based Methods
Table 1: Traffic-control performance on the Jinan, Hangzhou, and New York datasets. Lower values are better. The best, second-best, and third-best results are highlighted through boldface, double underline, and underline, respectively. E- and A- denote Efficient and Advanced, respectively; Ge-4-31B-IT denotes Gemma-4-31B-IT.
Figure 3
TraceMethodReasoning statisticsControl performance
Fast (%)Slow (%)Avg. Tokens (Slow)Min–max Tokens (Slow)ATT
New York 1VLALight51.9248.08220.4754–545975.80
New York 1w/o balanced rollouts27.5672.44209.4262–649984.76
New York 1SFT59.7240.28233.1562–1,2301171.08
New York 2VLALight51.2448.76208.2658–6821240.11
New York 2w/o balanced rollouts28.3871.62204.9262–6091296.10
Table 3: Adaptive reasoning token statistics and ATT on New York datasets. Fast and Slow report the percentages of decisions assigned to each mode.
Table 5
Fast 1 ⋅\cdot clear local winner intersection 3–1, step 99 Local perception ETWT: vv =19, qq =19, Δv\Delta v =0, Δq\Delta q =0 NTST : vv = 39 , qq = 39 , Δv\Delta v = 0 , Δq\Delta q = 0 ELWL: vv =8, qq =8, Δv\Delta v =0, Δq\Delta q =0 NLSL: vv =0, qq =0, Δv\Delta v =0, Δq\Delta q =0 Cooperative context Neighbor movement cues: ETWT: 19 vehicles ⋅\cdot NTST: 19 vehicles Neighbor directional pressure: N: 20 queued ⋅\cdot E: 19 queued ⋅\cdot ETA: 27 s FAST signal NTST Why: The local queue maximum is unambiguous.Fast 2 ⋅\cdot clear local winner intersection 5–1, step 88 Local perception ETWT: vv =14, qq =0, Δv\Delta v = −6-6 , Δq\Delta q = −20-20 NTST : vv = 21 , qq = 21 , Δv\Delta v = 0 , Δq\Delta q = 0 ELWL: vv =1, qq =1, Δv\Delta v =0, Δq\Delta q =0 NLSL: vv =0, qq =0, Δv\Delta v =0, Δq\Delta q =0 Cooperative context Neighbor movement cues: ETWT: 1 vehicle Neighbor directional pressure: E: 1 queued ⋅\cdot ETA: 27 s FAST signal NTST Why: One phase dominates visible and stopped vehicles.
Slow 1 ⋅\cdot competing local queues intersection 2–1, step 40 Local perception ETWT : vv = 20 , qq = 19 , Δv\Delta v = +4+4 , Δq\Delta q = +10+10 NTST: vv =21, qq =19, Δv\Delta v = −1-1 , Δq\Delta q = −1-1 ELWL: vv =5, qq =5, Δv\Delta v =0, Δq\Delta q =0 NLSL: vv =0, qq =0, Δv\Delta v =0, Δq\Delta q =0 Cooperative context Neighbor movement cues: ETWT: 11 vehicles ⋅\cdot NTST: 1 vehicle Neighbor directional pressure: E: 20 queued ⋅\cdot N: 12 queued ⋅\cdot ETA: 27 s SLOW signal ETWT Key reasoning: Given ETWT has the largest visible demand, worsening trend, and strong local coordination plus east neighbor pressure, it is clearly the most effective choice.Slow 2 ⋅\cdot close local competition intersection 7–10, step 62 Local perception ETWT: vv =4, qq =3, Δv\Delta v = +1+1 , Δq\Delta q = +1+1 NTST: vv =0, qq =0, Δv\Delta v = −5-5 , Δq\Delta q = −2-2 ELWL : vv = 5 , qq = 3 , Δv\Delta v = +2+2 , Δq\Delta q = +1+1 NLSL: vv =2, qq =2, Δv\Delta v =0, Δq\Delta q = +1+1 Cooperative context Neighbor movement cues: ETWT: 1 vehicle ⋅\cdot ELWL: 1 vehicle Neighbor directional pressure: N: 2 queued ⋅\cdot S: 2 queued ⋅\cdot ETA: 27 s SLOW signal ELWL Key reasoning: Given ELWL’s high demand, queue, positive trend, and long waiting time, it is the most effective choice.
Figure 3: Case study on adapative reasoning.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Figure 4: Traffic-signal-control setting used in our experiments. (A) A four-arm intersection. (B) Twelve incoming lanes and their permitted movements; right turns remain permissive. (C) Four controlled signal phases, each pairing non-conflicting movements: ETWT and NTST serve east–west and north–south through movements, respectively, whereas ELWL and NLSL serve the corresponding left-turn movements.
CityTraceGridVehicles5-min arrivals ( μ±σ\mu\pm\sigma )Min–max
Jinan13×43\times 46295524.58±98.53524.58\pm 98.53256–672
Jinan23×43\times 44365363.75±74.66363.75\pm 74.66237–493
Jinan33×43\times 45494457.83±46.22457.83\pm 46.22363–544
Hangzhou14×44\times 42983248.58±40.45248.58\pm 40.45212–333
Hangzhou24×44\times 46984582.00±318.52582.00\pm 318.52203–1146
New York128×728\times 711058850.62±174.20850.62\pm 174.20383–965
Appendix
Table 6: Traffic-flow trace statistics. Arrival rates are vehicles per 5 min; values are reported as mean ±\pm standard deviation, followed by the observed range.
Figure 5: Topology-routed cooperative information: (A) downstream-linked frames estimate potential arrivals; (B) upstream vehicle and queue counts with link travel time summarize directional demand.
Figure 6: Fast case. A clear local-demand winner leads to fast routing.
Figure 7: Slow case. Competing local and cooperative evidence triggers slow reasoning.

Explore similar work

CardsList

  1. DGLight: DQN-Guided GRPO Fine-Tuning of Large Language Models for Traffic Signal Control

    Apr 28, 2026Chenbo YuTraffic Signal ControlReinforcement Learning Control

    National University of Singapore Singapore

  2. ReasonLight: A Multimodal Foundation Model-Enhanced Reinforcement Learning Framework for Zero-Shot Traffic Signal Control

    May 28, 2026Aoyu Pang, Maonan Wang, Yuejiao Xie +3Traffic Signal ControlReinforcement Learning Control

    School of Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China · Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong · Shanghai AI Laboratory, Shanghai, China +1

  3. LLM-Augmented Traffic Signal Control with LSTM-Based Traffic State Prediction and Safety-Constrained Decision Support

    Apr 26, 2026Jiazhao ShiTraffic Signal ControlAccurate Traffic Forecasting

    Tandon School of Engineering, New York University, 6 MetroTech Center, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA