Trust in autonomous vehicles: The case of Tesla Autopilot and Summon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomous driving is on the horizon. Vehicles with partially automated driving capabilities are already in the market. Before the widespread adoption however, human factors issues regarding automated driving need to be addressed. One of the key issues is how much drivers trust in automated driving systems and how they calibrate their trust and reliance based on their experience. In this paper, we report the results of a survey conducted with Tesla drivers about their experiences with two advanced driver assistance systems, Autopilot and Summon. We found that drivers have high levels of trust in Autopilot and Summon. Trust decreased with age for Autopilot but not for Summon. Drivers who experienced unexpected behaviors from their vehicles reported lower levels of trust in Autopilot. Over time, trust in these systems increased regardless of experience. Additionally, trust was correlated with several attitudinal and behavioral factors such as frequency of use, self-rated knowledge about these systems, and ease of learning. These findings highlight the importance of trust in real world use of autonomous cars. Also, the results suggest that previous findings on trust in automation are applicable to real world cases as well.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".