Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Synergistic Traffic Assignment

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces synergistic traffic assignment, in which road costs fall as more travelers use a road, and proves that impact-blind simultaneous best response always converges to an equilibrium.

desk verdict New model, solid experiments, and a fixable but load-bearing gap in the main convergence theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04343 v1 pith:HQKN57KP submitted 2025-02-03 cs.GT cs.MAmath.OC

Thomas Bläsius (1) , Adrian Feilhauer (1) , Markus Jung (1) , Moritz Laupichler (1) , Peter Sanders (1) , Michael Zündorf (1) ((1) Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.MAmath.OC MSC 91A1091A4390B20
keywords trafficassignmentsynergisticcongestiongamesbestresponsedynamicspotentialfunctionNashequilibriumsharedmobilitycustomizablecontractionhierarchies
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

Traffic assignment normally assumes roads get worse as more people use them. This paper inverts that: in synergistic traffic assignment (STA), road costs decrease with use, because more travelers on a road means more sharing potential. The paper's central result is that if travelers pick their routes against the currently posted edge costs and ignore the small effect their own switch has on loads, then simultaneous best-response updates are guaranteed to reach an equilibrium. That guarantee makes STA equilibria computable quickly, because all agents can query shortest paths against one unchanged cost function per round, and it sharply contrasts with avoidant traffic assignment, where simultaneous best response can cycle and practical methods only approach an equilibrium. Experiments on a Stuttgart road network converge in fewer than 20 iterations, and a simple bus-line-planning prototype built on STA equilibria cuts required feeder vehicle time relative to free-flow routes.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the potential function $\phi(S)=\sum_{e\in E}\sum_{\ell=0}^{\ell_e(S)} c_e(\ell)$ for a strategy profile $S$, with edge cost functions $c_e$ non-increasing. In each round of impact-blind best response, agent $i$ switches from $p_i$ to $p'_i$ only when the anticipated cost decrease $\Delta_i=\mathrm{cost}(p_i,S)-\mathrm{cost}(p'_i,S)$ is positive; the theorem proves edge-wise that $\phi_e(S)-\phi_e(S')\ge c_e(\ell_e(S))(\ell_e(S)-\ell_e(S'))$, so $\phi$ strictly drops each round. Because the state space is finite, the process terminates at a profile in which no agent can improve. Impact blindness is what lets every agent evaluate the same current cost function, which is also what makes batched precomputed shortest-path queries usable.

What would settle it

Run an exhaustive search over small synergistic congestion games with non-increasing integer cost functions, checking whether simultaneous impact-blind best response can revisit a strategy profile; a single cycle would falsify Theorem 4.2. A cheaper experiment: instrument the Section 5 algorithm on a non-increasing load-cost network and look for a load vector that repeats without stabilizing, since the theorem guarantees strict potential decrease and termination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims Theorem 4.2: in any synergistic congestion game—a finite resource-allocation game in which every resource's cost function is non-increasing in load—impact-blind best response converges to a Nash equilibrium, whether agents update sequentially, simultaneously, or any non-empty subset at a time. The proof uses the potential function from [31], the sum over resources of prefix sums of the cost functions, and shows each round strictly decreases this potential because a non-increasing cost function guarantees the edge-wise inequality between potential drop and the agents' anticipated cost savings. The authors stress this is specific to the synergistic setting: with avoidant (non-decreasing) costs, impact blindness can cause cycles, and for STA, making agents impact-aware already destroys convergence, with a simultaneous two-agent cycle and even a group-simultaneous cycle with groups of size two. They present this as a surprising separation: the same minor behavioral assumption that destabilizes avoidant traffic assignment stabilizes synergistic traffic assignment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that travelers choose against current edge costs and ignore the fact that their own switch changes loads, combined with costs that never increase with load; the paper argues the first assumption is negligible with many agents but proves no bound, and dropping it reintroduces best-response cycles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • STA equilibria can be computed by batch shortest-path rounds: recompute all agents' paths against one cost function, then update loads, and repeat until the load vector stops changing.
  • Because every agent in a round sees identical edge costs, speedup techniques such as customizable contraction hierarchies work, and STA's reinforcement of heavily used roads makes later shortest-path queries faster.
  • Avoidant traffic assignment cannot use this simple simultaneous scheme—its impact-blind variants can cycle—so STA offers a qualitative algorithmic advantage for shared-transit planning.
  • The convergence guarantee is finite and exact: unlike convex-optimization-based ATA solvers that only approach user equilibrium, this process reaches an impact-blind equilibrium in a finite number of iterations.
  • In the bus-line prototype, building lines from STA equilibria instead of free-flow paths lowers total vehicle operation time for the same bus budget, with the reported experiment showing STA-based lines needing only 340 h of extra feeder service versus 841 h for free-flow-based lines at a 1800 h budget.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the proof of Theorem 4.2 does not use convexity or continuity, so the same convergence should hold for arbitrary non-increasing cost functions, including discontinuous or non-convex sharing bonuses; a brute-force search over small games could test this.
  • Inference: if impact blindness is behaviorally accurate when the traveler population is large, STA-style best-response dynamics might describe real shared-mobility systems more faithfully than ATA; a field or simulation study comparing posted-cost route choice against impact-aware route choice would test this.
  • Inference: the appendix shows the price of anarchy and stability are unbounded for STA, so a system planner cannot rely on selfish equilibria to be efficient; one open direction is designing cost perturbations or tolls that keep the convergence guarantee while improving system performance.
  • Inference: the paper's few-iterations observation is empirical—the theorem gives no rate bound—so a worst-case superpolynomial convergence example may exist; constructing one would clarify how far the practical speed generalizes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. Bläsius et al. introduce synergistic traffic assignment (STA), a congestion-game model in which edge costs decrease with load as a measure of sharing potential. They analyze four combinations of sequential/simultaneous and impact-aware/impact-blind best response. Their central theoretical result, Theorem 4.2, states that impact-blind best response in synergistic congestion games converges to an impact-blind Nash equilibrium, proved by showing a strict decrease of the Rosenthal potential. They also exhibit best-response cycles for simultaneous impact-aware best response and for group-simultaneous group-impact-aware best response. The paper then gives an algorithm based on customizable contraction hierarchies for simultaneous impact-blind best response, evaluates it on realistic demand data for Stuttgart, and demonstrates a simple bus-line-planning application. Appendix A proves NP-hardness of finding a system optimum for STA.

Significance. The paper opens a new direction in traffic assignment by inverting the usual congestion assumption, and the contrast with avoidant traffic assignment is conceptually interesting. The potential-function argument is short and, once the tie-breaking convention is made precise, correct. The experimental contribution is a genuine strength: the code is publicly available, the test scenarios are realistic, and the use of customizable contraction hierarchies is appropriate. The bus-line demonstration is simple but shows a concrete downstream use of STA equilibria. The main obstacle is the missing tie-breaking convention in Theorem 4.2, which is load-bearing for the convergence claim and for the stopping criterion of the algorithm; it is a local and fixable omission rather than a repudiation of the STA idea.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.2 (Theorem 4.2)] The proof defines Δ_i = cost(p_i,S) − cost(p_i',S) and asserts that Δ_i > 0 for some i, hence Δ > 0. This only follows if every agent who actually changes has a strict improvement, i.e., p_i is not already a best response. The paper never states such a tie-breaking convention, and under the standard definition of a best response as any minimizing strategy, an indifferent agent may switch to a different equal-cost path with Δ_i = 0. Then the Rosenthal potential is merely non-increasing and the finiteness argument does not rule out cycles. This is not a hypothetical corner case: with two agents, two parallel edges, and constant cost c_e(ℓ) = 1, simultaneous impact-blind best response can swap both agents between the two edges forever while φ remains constant. The same issue affects the stopping criterion in Section 5 ('until no agent changes their path'), since a tie that replaces one shortest path by another changes the load vector without any strict improvement. The repair is local: declare that agents move only on strict improvement and keep their current strategy when indifferent, and state Theorem 4.2 for that convention; then the per-edge inequality in the proof gives a strictly decreasing potential whenever any agent moves.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3] The claim that impact-blindness 'makes little difference in practical scenarios with many agents' is asserted informally and without a quantitative bound; a statement bounding the difference between impact-aware and impact-blind best responses would strengthen the practical motivation.
  2. [Section 4.2 / Section 5] Theorem 4.2 and the algorithm description should consistently say 'impact-blind Nash equilibrium' rather than just 'equilibrium', since the object computed is not necessarily a standard Nash equilibrium of the original game.
  3. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is very dense; the four configurations A–D are hard to distinguish from the right panel, and the reader must rely on the proof text to identify the relevant bold edges in each configuration. A larger figure or a table of edge loads per configuration would improve readability.
  4. [Appendix A] The statement that the price of anarchy and price of stability for STA are unbounded is supported only by an informal explanation; a short formal example would make the appendix self-contained.
  5. [References] Reference [5] is listed as 'to be published' with 'TBD' in the details; it should be updated to the published version or a stable preprint before final submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 4.2 is derived independently via the Rosenthal potential, the r-parameter sweep and bus-line demo are empirical comparisons, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

None of the paper's load-bearing derivations reduces to its own inputs by construction. Theorem 4.2 (Section 4.2) is proved from first principles: each impact-blind best-response round changes the Rosenthal potential by at least the sum of the agents' anticipated cost decreases, and the per-edge inequality uses only the defining non-increasing property of synergistic cost functions. The potential is the standard Rosenthal potential taken from external reference [31], not from the authors' prior work. The experimental cost function c^r_e(l) = r*d(e) + (1-r)*d(e)/(l+1) is a modeling choice with a single parameter r; the paper sweeps r to show trade-offs (Figures 3-5) and fixes r=0.01 only as an illustrative bus-planning scenario, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The bus-line demonstration uses STA equilibria as an input to a separate greedy line-construction heuristic and compares against free-flow paths; that is a direct empirical comparison, not a tautology. The few self-citations ([5], [24], and related-work citations to [6]) are confined to implementation details of CCH and to prior engineering results; they do not supply the convergence theorem or the equilibrium concept. One genuine robustness gap exists in the proof of Theorem 4.2: it assumes Delta_i > 0 for any agent that changes, i.e., strict-improvement tie-breaking, and the paper never states that convention; under indifferent switching, the potential may merely be non-increasing. This is a correctness and robustness issue, not circularity, because the fix (move only on strict improvement or keep a current best response on ties) imports no fitted data and does not make the conclusion equivalent to an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorem is a self-contained derivation using a standard potential function. The model introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are tuning knobs (r, bus capacity, frequency) chosen for the experiments and demonstrations, not fitted to force the results. The main unstated premises are the synergistic cost assumption and the impact-blind behavioral assumption, both clearly stated in the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • selfishness parameter r = varied over [0,1]; e.g., 0, 0.0025, 0.005, 0.0075, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.1, 1 in Figure 3
    Interpolates between free-flow shortest paths (r=1) and aggressive sharing (r=0) in the cost function c_r(l) = r*d(e) + (1-r)*d(e)/(l+1). Chosen by hand to explore the trade-off, not fitted to data.
  • bus capacity and service frequency for line planning demo = capacity 80 passengers, frequency 1 bus per 10 minutes
    Assumed for the bus line planning model in Section 6.4; not calibrated. The quantitative results (e.g., TVOT reduction) depend on these choices.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Edge cost functions are non-increasing in load (synergistic costs).
    Defines STA in Section 3. It is the key premise that makes Theorem 4.2 hold. In the avoidant case (non-decreasing costs), the analogous impact-blind simultaneous process can cycle.
  • ad hoc to paper Travelers are impact-blind, minimizing cost(p, S) under the current profile without accounting for their own load change.
    Introduced in Section 3.3. This behavioral assumption is essential: with impact-aware agents, simultaneous best response has a best-response cycle (Observation 1). The paper asserts the difference is negligible with many agents but does not quantify it.
  • standard math Rosenthal's potential function sum_e sum_{l=0}^{l_e(S)} c_e(l) is a valid potential that strictly decreases when an agent moves to a better response.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 4.2; this is a classical result in congestion game theory [31].
  • domain assumption The demand data and road network are representative of real travel behavior.
    The experimental evaluation in Section 6 uses a single city (Stuttgart) with demand from mobiTopp [25,26] and a 2009/2010 household survey [34]. The conclusions about convergence speed and sharing benefits rest on this input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synergistic Traffic Assignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HQKN57KP

@misc{pith2026250204343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synergistic Traffic Assignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HQKN57KP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04343}
}
read the original abstract

Traffic assignment analyzes traffic flows in road networks that emerge due to traveler interaction. Traditionally, travelers are assumed to use private cars, so road costs grow with the number of users due to congestion. However, in sustainable transit systems, travelers share vehicles s.t. more users on a road lead to higher sharing potential and reduced cost per user. Thus, we invert the usual avoidant traffic assignment (ATA) and instead consider synergistic traffic assignment (STA) where road costs decrease with use. We find that STA is significantly different from ATA from a game-theoretical point of view. We show that a simple iterative best-response method with simultaneous updates converges to an equilibrium state. This enables efficient computation of equilibria using optimized speedup techniques for shortest-path queries. In contrast, ATA requires slower sequential updates or more complicated iteration schemes that only approximate an equilibrium. Experiments with a realistic scenario for the city of Stuttgart indicate that STA indeed quickly converges to an equilibrium. We envision STA as a part of software-defined transportation systems that dynamically adapt to current travel demand. As a first demonstration, we show that an STA equilibrium can be used to incorporate traveler synergism in a simple bus line planning algorithm to potentially greatly reduce the required vehicle resources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graph (left) with a best-response cycle (right) for si [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graph (left) with a best-response cycle (right) for Theorem 4.1. Edges are implicitly oriented from left to right. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The normalized average sharing in relation to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fraction of agents that share a fraction of at least [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The number of iterations for the STA best response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time spent for shortest-path computations and load [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Javier Alonso-Mora, Samitha Samaranayake, Alex Wallar, Emilio Frazzoli, and Daniela Rus. 2017. On-demand High-Capacity Ride-sharing via Dynamic Trip- Vehicle Assignment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 3 (2017), 462–467. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611675114

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1611675114 2017

  2. [2]

    Hillel Bar-Gera. 2002. Origin-Based Algorithm for the Traffic Assignment Prob- lem. Transportation Science 36, 4 (11 2002), 398–417. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc. 36.4.398.549

    doi:10.1287/trsc 2002

  3. [3]

    Goldberg, Matthias Müller-Hannemann, Thomas Pajor, Peter Sanders, Dorothea Wagner, and Renato F

    Hannah Bast, Daniel Delling, Andrew V. Goldberg, Matthias Müller-Hannemann, Thomas Pajor, Peter Sanders, Dorothea Wagner, and Renato F. Werneck. 2016. Route Planning in Transportation Networks. In Algorithm Engineering - Selected Results and Surveys, Lasse Kliemann and Peter Sanders (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9220. Springer, 19–80. ht...

    doi:10.1007/978-3- 2016

  4. [4]

    McGuire, and Christopher B

    Martin Beckmann, Charles B. McGuire, and Christopher B. Winsten. 1955.Studies in the Economics of Transportation . Technical Report. The Rand Corporation

    work page 1955

  5. [5]

    Thomas Bläsius, Valentin Buchhold, Dorothea Wagner, Tim Zeitz, and Michael Zündorf. 2025. Customizable Contraction Hierarchies – A Survey (to be pub- lished). TBD (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Valentin Buchhold, Peter Sanders, and Dorothea Wagner. 2019. Real-time Traffic Assignment Using Engineered Customizable Contraction Hierarchies. ACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics 24, 1 (2019), 2.4:1–2.4:28. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3362693

    work page doi:10.1145/3362693 2019

  7. [7]

    Valentin Buchhold, Peter Sanders, and Dorothea Wagner. 2021. Fast, Exact and Scalable Dynamic Ridesharing. In 2021 Proceedings of the Symposium on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (ALENEX) (Philadelphia, PA). SIAM, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611976472.8

    doi:10.1137/1.9781611976472.8 2021

  8. [8]

    Styliani-Stella Constantine Dafermos. 1968. Traffic Assignment and Resource Allocation in Transportation Networks . Ph.D. thesis. Johns Hopkins University

    work page 1968

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Goldberg, Thomas Pajor, and Renato F

    Daniel Delling, Andrew V. Goldberg, Thomas Pajor, and Renato F. Werneck. 2017. Customizable Route Planning in Road Networks. Transportation Science 51, 2 (2017), 566–591. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2014.0579

    2017

  2. [10]

    Robert B. Dial. 2006. A Path-based User-Equilibrium Traffic Assignment Algo- rithm that Obviates Path Storage and Enumeration. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 40, 10 (2006), 917–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2006.02.008

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Julian Dibbelt, Ben Strasser, and Dorothea Wagner. 2016. Customizable Con- traction Hierarchies. ACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics 21, 1 (2016), 1.5:1–1.5:49. https://doi.org/10.1145/2886843

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Stéphane Durand and Bruno Gaujal. 2016. Complexity and Optimality of the Best Response Algorithm in Random Potential Games. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9928 (2016), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53354-3_4

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Alex Fabrikant, Christos Papadimitriou, and Kunal Talwar. 2004. The Complexity of Pure Nash Equilibria. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (Chicago, IL). ACM, 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1007352.1007445

    2004

  6. [14]

    Andres Fielbaum, Xiaoshan Bai, and Javier Alonso-Mora. 2021. On-demand Ridesharing with Optimized Pick-up and Drop-off Walking Locations. Trans- portation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 126 (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.trc.2021.103061

    2021

  7. [15]

    Michael Florian, Isabelle Constantin, and Dan Florian. 2009. A New Look at Projected Gradient Method for Equilibrium Assignment. Transportation Research Record 2090, 1 (2009), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.3141/2090-02

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Michael Florian and Donald Hearn. 1995. Network Equilibrium Models and Algorithms. In Network Routing. Handbooks in Operations Research and Manage- ment Science, Vol. 8. Elsevier, Chapter 6, 485–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927- 0507(05)80110-0

    1995 doi

  9. [17]

    Marguerite Frank and Philip Wolfe. 1956. An Algorithm for Quadratic Program- ming. Naval research logistics quarterly 3, 1-2 (1956), 95–110

    1956

  10. [18]

    Lars Gottesbüren, Michael Hamann, Tim Niklas Uhl, and Dorothea Wagner

  11. [19]

    Jonathan Gadea Harder, Simon Krogmann, Pascal Lenzner, and Alexander Skopa- lik. 2023. Strategic Resource Selection with Homophilic Agents. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23, Edith Elkind (Ed.). IJCAI, 2701–...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Transportation - An Emerging Science

    Alan M. Hershdorfer. 1966. Predicting the Equilibrium of Supply and Demand: Location Theory and Transportation Network Flow Models. In Papers - Sev- enth Annual Meeting "Transportation - An Emerging Science" (San Francisco). Transportation Research Forum

    1966

  13. [21]

    Sin C. Ho, W.Y. Szeto, Yong-Hong Kuo, Janny M.Y. Leung, Matthew Petering, and Terence W.H. Tou. 2018. A Survey of Dial-a-Ride Problems: Literature Review and Recent Developments. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 111 (2018), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb....

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Jayakrishnan, Wei K

    R. Jayakrishnan, Wei K. Tsai, Joseph N. Prashker, and Subodh Rajadhyaksha. 1994. Faster Path-based Algorithm for Traffic Assignment. In 73rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (Washington, DC). SAGE, 75–83

    1994

  15. [23]

    Amit Kumar and Srinivas Peeta. 2011. An Improved Social Pressure Algorithm for Static Deterministic User Equilibrium Traffic Assignment Problem. In 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (Washington, DC). SAGE. https://trid.trb.org/View/1091267

    2011

  16. [24]

    Moritz Laupichler and Peter Sanders. 2024. Fast Many-to-Many Routing for Dynamic Taxi Sharing with Meeting Points. In Symposium on Algorithm En- gineering and Experiments (ALENEX) (Alexandria, VA). SIAM, 74–90. https: //doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977929.6

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Nicolai Mallig, Martin Kagerbauer, and Peter Vortisch. 2013. mobiTopp–A Mod- ular Agent-based Travel Demand Modelling Framework. Procedia Computer Science 19 (2013), 854–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.06.114

    2013 doi

  18. [27]

    Dov Monderer and Lloyd S. Shapley. 1996. Potential Games.Games and Economic Behavior 14 (5 1996), 124–143. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1996.0044

    1996

  19. [28]

    Yu Marco Nie. 2010. A Class of Bush-based Algorithms for the Traffic Assignment Problem. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 44, 1 (2010), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2009.06.005

    2010 doi

  20. [29]

    Guillermo Owen. 2013. Game Theory (4th ed.). Emerald Group

    2013

  21. [30]

    Olga Perederieieva, Matthias Ehrgott, Andrea Raith, and Judith Y.T. Wang. 2015. A Framework for and Empirical Study of Algorithms for Traffic Assignment. Computers & Operations Research 54 (2015), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cor.2014.08.024

    2015 doi

  22. [31]

    Rosenthal

    Robert W. Rosenthal. 1973. A Class of Games Possessing Pure-strategy Nash Equilibria. International Journal of Game Theory 2 (1973), 65–67. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF01737559 Thomas Bläsius, Adrian Feilhauer, Markus Jung, Moritz Laupichler, Peter Sanders, and Michael Zündorf

    1973 doi

  23. [32]

    Johannes Schlaich, Udo Heidl, and Regine Pohlner. 2011. Verkehrsmodellierung für die Region Stuttgart–Schlussbericht. Unpublished Manuscript (2011)

    2011

  24. [33]

    Yosef Sheffi. 1985. Urban Transportation Networks. Prentice-Hall

    1985

  25. [34]

    Verband Region Stuttgart. 2011. Mobilität und Verkehr in der Region Stuttgart 2009/2010: Regionale Haushaltsbefragung zum Verkehrsverhalten. Schriftenreihe Verband Region Stuttgart 29 (2011), 1–138

    2011

  26. [35]

    John Glen Wardrop. 1952. Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1, 3 (1952), 325–362. https: //doi.org/10.1680/ipeds.1952.11259

    1952

  27. [36]

    Zhong Zhou and Matthew Martimo. 2010. Computational Study of Alternative Methods for Static Traffic Equilibrium Assignment. In Proceedings of the 12th world conference on transport research (WCTRS) (Lisbon, Portugal). 1–15. A APPENDIX: SYSTEM OPTIMA Since sharing potential in ...

    2010

  28. [2019]

    Algorithms 12, 9 (2019)

    Faster and Better Nested Dissection Orders for Customizable Contraction Hierarchies. Algorithms 12, 9 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/a12090196

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.