Bridging the Gap: From Cellular Automata to Differential Equation Models for Pedestrian Dynamics

Cellular automata (CA) and ordinary differential equation (ODE) based models compete for dominance in microscopic pedestrian dynamics. Both are inspired by the idea that pedestrians are subject to forces. However, there are two major differences: In a CA, movement is restricted to a coarse grid and navigation is achieved directly by pointing the movement in the direction of the forces. Force based ODE models operate in continuous space and navigation is computed indirectly through the acceleration vector. We present two models emanating from the CA and ODE approaches that remove these two differences: the Optimal Steps Model and the Gradient Navigation Model. Both models are very robust and produce trajectories similar to each other, bridging the gap between the older models. Both approaches are grid-free and free of oscillations, giving cause to the hypothesis that the two major differences are also the two major weaknesses of the older models.

[1]  Mohcine Chraibi,et al.  Validated force-based modeling of pedestrian dynamics , 2012 .

[2]  Gerta Köster,et al.  Natural discretization of pedestrian movement in continuous space. , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  J A Sethian,et al.  A fast marching level set method for monotonically advancing fronts. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  Adrien Treuille,et al.  Continuum crowds , 2006, SIGGRAPH 2006.

[5]  Gerta Köster,et al.  Avoiding numerical pitfalls in social force models. , 2013, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[6]  Mohcine Chraibi,et al.  Generalized centrifugal-force model for pedestrian dynamics. , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  Edward Lester,et al.  Modelling contra-flow in crowd dynamics DEM simulation. , 2009 .

[8]  Michael Schreckenberg,et al.  Simulation of competitive egress behavior: comparison with aircraft evacuation data , 2003 .

[9]  A. Schadschneider,et al.  Simulation of pedestrian dynamics using a two dimensional cellular automaton , 2001 .

[10]  Wolfram Klein,et al.  Microscopic Pedestrian Simulations: From Passenger Exchange Times to Regional Evacuation , 2010, OR.

[11]  Dirk Hartmann,et al.  Adaptive pedestrian dynamics based on geodesics , 2010 .

[12]  Mohcine Chraibi,et al.  Force-based models of pedestrian dynamics , 2011, Networks Heterog. Media.

[13]  James A. Sethian,et al.  Level Set Methods and Fast Marching Methods: Evolving Interfaces in Computational Geometry, Fluid , 2012 .

[14]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  Helbing,et al.  Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. , 1995, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[16]  Tony White,et al.  Macroscopic effects of microscopic forces between agents in crowd models , 2007 .

[17]  Daichi Yanagisawa,et al.  Simulation of space acquisition process of pedestrians using Proxemic Floor Field Model , 2012 .

[18]  Xiaoping Zheng,et al.  Modeling crowd evacuation of a building based on seven methodological approaches , 2009 .

[19]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Experimental study of the behavioural mechanisms underlying self-organization in human crowds , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  Wolfram Klein,et al.  On modelling the influence of group formations in a crowd , 2011 .

[21]  Mohcine Chraibi,et al.  On Force-Based Modeling of Pedestrian Dynamics , 2013, Modeling, Simulation and Visual Analysis of Crowds.