  As one of the most fundamental concepts in transportation science, Wardrop
equilibrium (WE) has always had a relatively weak behavioral underpinning. To
strengthen this foundation, one must reckon with bounded rationality in human
decision-making processes, such as the lack of accurate information, limited
computing power, and sub-optimal choices. This retreat from behavioral
perfectionism in the literature, however, was typically accompanied by a
conceptual modification of WE. Here we show that giving up perfect rationality
need not force a departure from WE. On the contrary, WE can be reached with
global stability in a routing game played by boundedly rational travelers. We
achieve this result by developing a day-to-day (DTD) dynamical model that
mimics how travelers gradually adjust their route valuations, hence choice
probabilities, based on past experiences. Our model, called cumulative logit
(CULO), resembles the classical DTD models but makes a crucial change: whereas
the classical models assume routes are valued based on the cost averaged over
historical data, ours values the routes based on the cost accumulated. To
describe route choice behaviors, the CULO model only uses two parameters, one
accounting for the rate at which the future route cost is discounted in the
valuation relative to the past ones and the other describing the sensitivity of
route choice probabilities to valuation differences. We prove that the CULO
model always converges to WE, regardless of the initial point, as long as the
behavioral parameters satisfy certain mild conditions. Our theory thus upholds
WE's role as a benchmark in transportation systems analysis. It also resolves
the theoretical challenge posed by Harsanyi's instability problem by explaining
why equally good routes at WE are selected with different probabilities.
