pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.14204 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.CR· cs.SY· math.OC

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Day-to-Day Traffic Network Modeling under Route-Guidance Misinformation: Endogenous Trust and Resilience in CAV Environments

Eunhan Ka , Satish V. Ukkusuri
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.CRcs.SYmath.OC
keywords day-to-day traffic assignmentroute guidance misinformationendogenous trustCAV environmentsbeta evidence modelthreshold resiliencetrust evolutionnetwork vulnerability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Endogenous trust creates a threshold-based resilience mechanism against route-guidance misinformation in traffic networks.

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

The paper builds a framework that links day-to-day route choice to the evolution of user trust in external guidance. Trust updates follow a Beta evidence model driven by repeated guidance errors at the class level. Below an activation threshold, misinformation attacks stay behaviorally stealthy because dynamic trust provides almost no attenuation. Above the threshold, trust erosion cuts the impact of fixed-trust attacks by roughly 91 percent on the Sioux Falls network and 85 percent on Anaheim. The work also identifies a recovery lag in which traffic performance returns before trust, leaving a multi-week window of hidden vulnerability.

Core claim

The central claim is that endogenous trust, represented as an aggregate class-level state updated through a Beta evidence model from guidance errors, produces a sharp threshold-based resilience effect in coupled day-to-day traffic assignment. Below the threshold the attack remains stealthy; above it, trust erosion reduces the effect of sustained misinformation by 91 percent in Sioux Falls and 85 percent in Anaheim. The same model shows that CAV penetration raises fixed-trust vulnerability while preserving dynamic attenuation, and that traffic recovers before trust, creating a 77-day hidden vulnerability window.

What carries the argument

The coupled framework of LWR within-day loading and trust-dependent bounded-rationality logit day-to-day route choice, with trust encoded as an aggregate Beta evidence state updated from repeated guidance errors.

If this is right

  • Resilience emerges only after trust accumulates past a critical level through repeated exposure to bad guidance.
  • Sustained misinformation attacks lose most of their effect once the threshold is crossed.
  • Higher CAV penetration increases vulnerability when trust is treated as fixed but does not remove the attenuation provided by endogenous trust.
  • Traffic performance can return to near-normal while trust remains low, leaving an extended period of latent susceptibility.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Real-time monitoring of aggregate trust could allow operators to detect when a network has crossed into the resilient regime.
  • Initial misinformation campaigns may need rapid counter-measures before the trust threshold is reached.
  • Adding user-level heterogeneity to the Beta model could expose additional subgroups that remain vulnerable even after aggregate trust rises.
  • The recovery lag suggests that post-attack audits should continue for weeks after flow metrics normalize.

Load-bearing premise

Trust can be represented as a single aggregate class-level state following a Beta distribution and updated only from guidance errors, without individual heterogeneity or external factors.

What would settle it

Observe whether trust levels in a real or high-fidelity simulated network cross the predicted threshold and produce an 85-91 percent reduction in attack impact, or whether the 77-day traffic-trust recovery lag appears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14204 by Eunhan Ka, Satish V. Ukkusuri.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Coupled DTD and trust framework. The attack enters the information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Signature scenarios on Sioux Falls under recommendation-layer route-guidance misinformation. Dynamic trust tracks fixed trust in the stealthy regime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Spatial flow change on Sioux Falls under recommendation-layer misinformation at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatial flow change on Anaheim under recommendation-layer misinformation at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Anaheim robustness check. The larger network has lower target-path coverage than Sioux Falls and lower fixed-trust impact at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Attack intensity sweep on Sioux Falls. The empirical trust-activation threshold is near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Population composition and recovery asymmetry. (a) CAV penetration increases fixed-trust vulnerability but leaves dynamic-trust PoAtt near baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Connected and autonomous vehicles and smart mobility services increasingly use digital route guidance as an operational input to traffic network management. When this information becomes unreliable or adversarial, day-to-day traffic models must represent not only flow adaptation but also the evolution of user trust in the information source. This paper develops a coupled day-to-day traffic assignment and trust-evolution framework for route-guidance misinformation. Within-day congestion is represented by Lighthill-Whitham-Richards network loading, while day-to-day route choice follows bounded-rationality logit learning with trust-dependent reliance on external guidance. Trust is modeled as an aggregate class-level behavioral reliance state encoded by a Beta evidence model and updated from repeated guidance errors. Theoretical analysis establishes stationary equilibria, a conservative stability guide, a weighted compliance index for population-level vulnerability, and an asymmetric recovery law that explains post-attack trust hysteresis. Numerical experiments on Sioux Falls, with an Anaheim robustness check, show that endogenous trust creates a threshold-based resilience mechanism. Below the trust-activation threshold, the attack remains behaviorally stealthy and dynamic trust provides almost no attenuation. Above the threshold, trust erosion reduces the impact of the fixed-trust attack by about 91 percent in Sioux Falls and 85 percent in Anaheim. The experiments also show that CAV penetration increases fixed-trust vulnerability while preserving dynamic attenuation, and that traffic performance can recover before trust, resulting in a 77-day hidden vulnerability window. The results provide a trust-aware modeling basis for resilience analysis in CAV-enabled traffic networks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a coupled day-to-day traffic assignment and trust-evolution framework for route-guidance misinformation in CAV environments. Within-day congestion uses LWR network loading; day-to-day route choice uses bounded-rationality logit learning with trust-dependent guidance reliance. Trust is an aggregate class-level state encoded by a Beta evidence model updated from guidance errors. Theoretical analysis covers stationary equilibria, a conservative stability guide, a weighted compliance index, and an asymmetric recovery law. Numerical experiments on Sioux Falls (with Anaheim robustness check) show endogenous trust creates a threshold-based resilience mechanism: below the activation threshold the attack is stealthy with negligible attenuation; above it, trust erosion reduces fixed-trust attack impact by ~91% (Sioux Falls) and ~85% (Anaheim). Additional findings include increased fixed-trust vulnerability with higher CAV penetration, preserved dynamic attenuation, and a 77-day hidden vulnerability window where traffic recovers before trust.

Significance. If the results hold, the work provides a useful integration of behavioral trust dynamics into traffic network modeling for resilience against misinformation, with direct relevance to CAV deployment. The threshold resilience mechanism and quantified attenuation levels offer concrete insights for vulnerability assessment. Strengths include the theoretical treatment of equilibria and stability plus the use of standard benchmark networks (Sioux Falls, Anaheim) for experiments. The aggregate Beta trust model is a simplifying choice that enables closed-form updates but requires scrutiny for robustness.

major comments (2)
  1. [Trust modeling and numerical experiments] Trust model (abstract and trust-evolution section): The headline threshold-based resilience and the 91%/85% attenuation figures rest on the aggregate class-level Beta evidence accumulator updated solely from guidance errors. This implicitly assumes homogeneous response within each class and no external influences; if individual heterogeneity in updating rates exists, both the location of the activation threshold and the post-threshold erosion magnitude can shift, so the numerical results test a special case rather than the general mechanism.
  2. [Theoretical analysis] Stability and recovery analysis: The conservative stability guide and asymmetric recovery law are presented as explaining post-attack hysteresis and the 77-day hidden vulnerability window. The manuscript should explicitly state the conditions under which the guide remains conservative when the Beta parameters vary or when CAV penetration changes the class composition.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The 77-day window and the exact definition of the trust-activation threshold should be briefly defined or cross-referenced to the relevant equation or figure.
  2. [Numerical experiments] Numerical results: A single comparative table or figure showing Sioux Falls versus Anaheim metrics (attenuation, threshold values, recovery times) would improve readability of the robustness claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our modeling choices. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve transparency on assumptions and conditions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Trust model (abstract and trust-evolution section): The headline threshold-based resilience and the 91%/85% attenuation figures rest on the aggregate class-level Beta evidence accumulator updated solely from guidance errors. This implicitly assumes homogeneous response within each class and no external influences; if individual heterogeneity in updating rates exists, both the location of the activation threshold and the post-threshold erosion magnitude can shift, so the numerical results test a special case rather than the general mechanism.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The aggregate class-level Beta model is deliberately chosen in Section 3.2 for its closed-form update rules and analytical tractability, which enable the derivation of equilibria and stability results. This formulation abstracts individual heterogeneity to focus on class-level endogenous trust dynamics. Consequently, the reported 91% (Sioux Falls) and 85% (Anaheim) attenuation figures, as well as the precise threshold location, are specific to the homogeneous case. We agree that heterogeneous updating rates could alter these quantities. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in Section 5 (Discussion) that explicitly states this modeling assumption, notes that the threshold resilience mechanism is demonstrated under class-level homogeneity, and identifies heterogeneous trust updating as an important avenue for future work. The core feedback loop between trust erosion and route-choice adaptation remains the source of the resilience effect and is expected to hold qualitatively beyond the current setting. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Stability and recovery analysis: The conservative stability guide and asymmetric recovery law are presented as explaining post-attack hysteresis and the 77-day hidden vulnerability window. The manuscript should explicitly state the conditions under which the guide remains conservative when the Beta parameters vary or when CAV penetration changes the class composition.

    Authors: We agree that the conditions of applicability should be stated more explicitly. The conservative stability guide in Section 4.2 is derived under the assumptions of time-invariant Beta parameters (α, β) for each user class and fixed class proportions determined by a constant CAV penetration rate. In the revised version we have inserted a new paragraph immediately following the guide’s statement that lists these conditions verbatim: the guide remains conservative provided (i) Beta parameters do not change during the attack horizon and (ii) CAV penetration (hence class composition) is held constant. We further note that time-varying Beta parameters or dynamic class composition would require a re-derivation of the bound, which lies outside the present scope. This addition directly addresses the referee’s request while preserving the original analysis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model derivations and results are self-contained

full rationale

The paper defines a coupled day-to-day assignment and Beta-trust evolution model using standard LWR network loading and bounded-rationality logit choice with trust-dependent guidance weight. Stationary equilibria, stability guide, compliance index, and asymmetric recovery law are derived directly from the stated dynamics and update rules without reducing any claimed prediction or equilibrium to a fitted parameter or prior self-citation by construction. Numerical attenuation percentages (91% Sioux Falls, 85% Anaheim) are simulation outputs from the integrated model on benchmark networks, not forced by re-using the same data or ansatz. No self-definitional, fitted-input, or uniqueness-imported steps appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on standard traffic flow models and introduces a Beta-based trust evolution mechanism as the key novel element.

free parameters (1)
  • Beta distribution parameters for trust updates
    Parameters governing how trust evolves from repeated guidance errors, chosen or calibrated within the model.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Lighthill-Whitham-Richards network loading for within-day congestion
    Standard PDE-based model for traffic flow assumed as background.
  • domain assumption Bounded-rationality logit learning for day-to-day route choice
    Assumes probabilistic route selection based on perceived costs modulated by trust level.
invented entities (1)
  • Aggregate trust state encoded by Beta evidence model no independent evidence
    purpose: To represent class-level behavioral reliance on route guidance and its day-to-day evolution from errors
    Introduced as a new modeling construct for trust dynamics in this misinformation context.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5590 in / 1447 out tokens · 49673 ms · 2026-05-15T01:39:31.747101+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Use and effects of advanced traveller information services (atis): A review of the literature,

    C. G. Chorus, E. J. E. Molin, and B. van Wee, “Use and effects of advanced traveller information services (atis): A review of the literature,” Transport Reviews, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 127–149, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Which road do i take? a learning-based model of route-choice behavior with real-time information,

    E. Ben-Elia and Y . Shiftan, “Which road do i take? a learning-based model of route-choice behavior with real-time information,”Transporta- tion Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 249–264, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Forecasting americans’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies,

    P. Bansal and K. M. Kockelman, “Forecasting americans’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies,”Trans- portation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 95, pp. 49–63, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Influence of connected and autonomous vehicles on traffic flow stability and throughput,

    A. Talebpour and H. S. Mahmassani, “Influence of connected and autonomous vehicles on traffic flow stability and throughput,”Trans- portation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 71, pp. 143– 163, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Ghost riders: Sybil attacks on crowdsourced mobile mapping services,

    G. Wang, B. Wang, T. Wang, A. Nika, H. Zheng, and B. Y . Zhao, “Ghost riders: Sybil attacks on crowdsourced mobile mapping services,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1123–1136, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Sybil-based attacks on Google Maps or how to forge the image of city life,

    C. Eryonucu and P. Papadimitratos, “Sybil-based attacks on Google Maps or how to forge the image of city life,” inProceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks (WiSec). ACM, 2022, pp. 73–84. PREPRINT - UNDER REVIEW AT IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 10

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    On the impact of Sybil-based attacks on mobile crowdsensing for transportation,

    A. S ¨oderh¨all, Z. Alimadadi, and P. Papadimitratos, “On the impact of Sybil-based attacks on mobile crowdsensing for transportation,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops and Other Affiliated Events (PerCom Workshops). IEEE, 2025, pp. 482–488

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    All your GPS are belong to us: Towards stealthy manipulation of road navigation systems,

    K. C. Zeng, S. Liu, Y . Shu, D. Wang, H. Li, Y . Dou, G. Wang, and Y . Yang, “All your GPS are belong to us: Towards stealthy manipulation of road navigation systems,” inProceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, 2018, pp. 1527–1544

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Potential cyberattacks on automated vehicles,

    J. Petit and S. E. Shladover, “Potential cyberattacks on automated vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 546–556, 2015

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    Security vulnerabilities of connected vehicle streams and their impact on cooperative driving,

    M. Amoozadeh, A. Raghuramu, C.-N. Chuah, D. Ghosal, H. M. Zhang, J. Rowe, and K. Levitt, “Security vulnerabilities of connected vehicle streams and their impact on cooperative driving,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 126–132, 2015

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    A stochastic process approach to the analysis of temporal dynamics in transportation networks,

    E. Cascetta, “A stochastic process approach to the analysis of temporal dynamics in transportation networks,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 1989

    work page 1989

  12. [12]

    The stability of a dynamic model of traffic assignment: An application of a method of Lyapunov,

    M. J. Smith, “The stability of a dynamic model of traffic assignment: An application of a method of Lyapunov,”Transportation Science, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 245–252, 1984

    work page 1984

  13. [13]

    Dynamic processes and equilibrium in transportation networks: Towards a unifying theory,

    G. E. Cantarella and E. Cascetta, “Dynamic processes and equilibrium in transportation networks: Towards a unifying theory,”Transportation Science, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 305–329, 1995

    work page 1995

  14. [14]

    Day-to-day dynamic network disequilibria and idealized traveler information systems,

    T. L. Friesz, D. Bernstein, T. E. Smith, R. L. Tobin, and B.-W. Wie, “Day-to-day dynamic network disequilibria and idealized traveler information systems,”Operations Research, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1120– 1136, 1994

    work page 1994

  15. [15]

    Stability of the stochastic equilibrium assignment prob- lem: A dynamical systems approach,

    D. Watling, “Stability of the stochastic equilibrium assignment prob- lem: A dynamical systems approach,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 281–312, 1999

    work page 1999

  16. [16]

    A link-based day-to-day traffic assignment model,

    X. He, X. Guo, and H. X. Liu, “A link-based day-to-day traffic assignment model,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 597–608, 2010

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Day-to-day dynamic traffic assign- ment with imperfect information, bounded rationality and information sharing,

    Y . Yu, K. Han, and W. Ochieng, “Day-to-day dynamic traffic assign- ment with imperfect information, bounded rationality and information sharing,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 114, pp. 59–83, 2020

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Day-to-day dynamics with advanced traveler information,

    H. Ye, F. Xiao, and H. Yang, “Day-to-day dynamics with advanced traveler information,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 144, pp. 23–44, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Stabilisation strategy for unstable transport systems under general evolutionary dynamics,

    T. Iryo, M. J. Smith, and D. Watling, “Stabilisation strategy for unstable transport systems under general evolutionary dynamics,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 132, pp. 136–151, 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Managing mixed traffic with autonomous vehicles: A day-to-day routing allocation scheme,

    R.-Y . Guo, W. Wang, and J. Wang, “Managing mixed traffic with autonomous vehicles: A day-to-day routing allocation scheme,”Trans- portation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 140, p. 103726, 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Day-to-day traffic control for networks mixed with regular human-piloted and connected autonomous vehicles,

    H. Liang, Y . Li, X. Chen, T. Pan, and R. Zhong, “Day-to-day traffic control for networks mixed with regular human-piloted and connected autonomous vehicles,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 178, p. 102847, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Autonomous cars and dynamic bottleneck congestion: The effects on capacity, value of time and pref- erence heterogeneity,

    V . A. C. van den Berg and E. T. Verhoef, “Autonomous cars and dynamic bottleneck congestion: The effects on capacity, value of time and pref- erence heterogeneity,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 94, pp. 43–60, 2016

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Data integrity attacks against dynamic route guidance in transportation-based cyber-physical systems: Modeling, analysis, and defense,

    J. Lin, W. Yu, N. Zhang, X. Yang, and L. Ge, “Data integrity attacks against dynamic route guidance in transportation-based cyber-physical systems: Modeling, analysis, and defense,”IEEE Transactions on Ve- hicular Technology, vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 8738–8753, 2018

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Route guidance attacks in cyber trans- portation networks: A user-centered study of behavioral sensitivity,

    E. Ka and S. V . Ukkusuri, “Route guidance attacks in cyber trans- portation networks: A user-centered study of behavioral sensitivity,” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 115, p. 103354, 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Anomaly detection against GPS spoofing attacks on connected and autonomous vehicles using learning from demonstration,

    K. Yang, Z. Ying, and S.-W. Shen, “Anomaly detection against GPS spoofing attacks on connected and autonomous vehicles using learning from demonstration,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 9462–9475, 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Cybersecurity for next-generation road transportation: A review,

    S. V . Ukkusuri, O. F. Hamim, Z. Lei, E. Ka, M. S. Salek, M. Chowdhury, M. H. Amini, A. A. Cardenas, and B. M. Thuraisingham, “Cybersecurity for next-generation road transportation: A review,”ACM Journal on Autonomous Transportation Systems, vol. 3, no. 2, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance,

    J. D. Lee and K. A. See, “Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance,”Human Factors, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 50–80, 2004

    work page 2004

  28. [28]

    Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust,

    K. A. Hoff and M. Bashir, “Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust,”Human Factors, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 407–434, 2015

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Trust in automation. part ii. experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation,

    B. M. Muir and N. Moray, “Trust in automation. part ii. experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation,” Ergonomics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 429–460, 1996

    work page 1996

  30. [30]

    The role of trust in automation reliance,

    M. T. Dzindolet, S. A. Peterson, R. A. Pomranky, L. G. Pierce, and H. P. Beck, “The role of trust in automation reliance,”International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 697–718, 2003

    work page 2003

  31. [31]

    The more you know: Trust dynamics and calibration in highly automated driving and the effects of take-overs, system malfunction, and system transparency,

    J. Kraus, D. Scholz, D. Stiegemeier, and M. Baumann, “The more you know: Trust dynamics and calibration in highly automated driving and the effects of take-overs, system malfunction, and system transparency,” Human Factors, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 718–736, 2020

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    Modeling and predicting trust dynamics in human–robot teaming: A Bayesian inference approach,

    Y . Guo and X. J. Yang, “Modeling and predicting trust dynamics in human–robot teaming: A Bayesian inference approach,”International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1899–1909, 2021

    work page 1909

  33. [33]

    Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle,

    J. K. Choi and Y . G. Ji, “Investigating the importance of trust on adopting an autonomous vehicle,”International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 692–702, 2015

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    The Beta reputation system,

    A. Jøsang and R. Ismail, “The Beta reputation system,” inProceedings of the 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, 2002, pp. 2502–2511

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    Effect of multiple traffic information sources on route choice: A driving simulator study,

    P. Imants, J. Theeuwes, A. W. Bronkhorst, and M. H. Martens, “Effect of multiple traffic information sources on route choice: A driving simulator study,”Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 81, pp. 1–13, 2021

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Computing dynamic user equilibria on large-scale networks with software implementation,

    K. Han, G. Eve, and T. L. Friesz, “Computing dynamic user equilibria on large-scale networks with software implementation,”Networks and Spatial Economics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 869–902, 2019. Eunhan Kais a Postdoctoral Researcher with the Lyles School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Purdue University. He received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in civil an...

    work page 2019