New generation crowd simulation algorithms

This course is mostly aimed at readers familiar with the use of crowd simulators and the design of crowd animations, but not necessarily familiar with the design and coding of crowd simulation algorithms. Crowds for entertainment or safety applications purposes are most of the time simulated using mi- croscopic algorithms. In contrast with other types of approaches, microscopic simulators are able to generate continuous and smooth trajectories for individual agents. They are based on models of local interactions between agents. The crowd motion result form the combination of all local motion and inter- actions. The fact that the resulting crowd motion is emergent makes difficult anticipating the simulation results. Many motion and interaction models have been proposed to design a plethora of simulation al- gorithms: force-based models, rule-based models, coupled or not with flow-based models, etc. Each type of interaction models will actually result into specific crowd motions as well as agents trajectories. Unfortunately, not all have the desired properties: oscillations, jerky trajectories, residual collisions or deadlocks are often observed in simulations. From this point of view, this course presents the many recent progresses in crowd simulation algo- rithms since the introduction of velocity-based algorithms , as well as the impact on the level of realism and the visual quality of simulated crowd motions. It also presents the impact on various kind applica- tions. The class is structured in 3 major parts. The first part provides a definition of microscopic models of simulation, and presents the main types of solutions that were proposed in the literature. More specifi- cally, the velocity-based algorithms are explained and situated with respect to other kind of approaches. The second part is a more technical one and presents a family of popular solutions based on the prin- ciple of Reciprocal Velocity Obstacles (RVO). Finally, in a third part, the course shows how this new generation of algorithms is practically used in the fields of safety, movie industry as well as interactive entertainment. With a 3-part structure of the course, we expect interesting a large audience at SIGGRAPH: the theoretical, technical and practical aspects of crowd simulation are addressed. The long A focus is given to velocity-based approaches. All the lecturers provide an as pedagogical as possible presentation of the most theoretical and technical aspects of the course to make it accessible without specific prerequisites. The large part of the course dedicated to applications enables presenting numerous examples of practical use of most recent algorithms. The structure of the course is detailed below.

[1]  Dinesh Manocha,et al.  Real-time Path Planning for Virtual Agents in Dynamic Environments , 2007, VR.

[2]  J. Kelso,et al.  Social coordination dynamics: Measuring human bonding , 2008, Social neuroscience.

[3]  E. Hall,et al.  The Hidden Dimension , 1970 .

[4]  Nancy M. Amato,et al.  Roadmap-based flocking for complex environments , 2002, 10th Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications, 2002. Proceedings..

[5]  Norman I. Badler,et al.  Controlling individual agents in high-density crowd simulation , 2007, SCA '07.

[6]  Leonidas J. Guibas,et al.  Scalable nonlinear dynamical systems for agent steering and crowd simulation , 2001, Comput. Graph..

[7]  Craig W. Reynolds Interaction with Groups of Autonomous Characters , 2000 .

[8]  Jean-Paul Laumond,et al.  Real-time navigating crowds: scalable simulation and rendering: Research Articles , 2006 .

[9]  Michel Rascle,et al.  Resurrection of "Second Order" Models of Traffic Flow , 2000, SIAM J. Appl. Math..

[10]  Demetri Terzopoulos,et al.  Autonomous pedestrians , 2005, SCA '05.

[11]  Stéphane Donikian,et al.  Crowd of Virtual Humans: a New Approach for Real Time Navigation in Complex and Structured Environments , 2004, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[12]  Daniel Thalmann,et al.  Hierarchical Model for Real Time Simulation of Virtual Human Crowds , 2001, IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph..

[13]  Soraia Raupp Musse,et al.  Modeling individual behaviors in crowd simulation , 2003, Proceedings 11th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension.

[14]  Lori Ann Vallis,et al.  Locomotor adjustments for circumvention of an obstacle in the travel path , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[15]  Aftab E. Patla,et al.  Review article Understanding the roles of vision in the control of human locomotion , 1997 .

[16]  Mark H. Overmars,et al.  A Predictive Collision Avoidance Model for Pedestrian Simulation , 2009, MIG.

[17]  Lori Ann Vallis,et al.  Characteristics of single and double obstacle avoidance strategies: a comparison between adults and children , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  J. Tresilian Empirical and theoretical issues in the perception of time to contact. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Céline Loscos,et al.  Intuitive crowd behavior in dense urban environments using local laws , 2003, Proceedings of Theory and Practice of Computer Graphics, 2003..

[20]  Dinesh Manocha,et al.  Directing Crowd Simulations Using Navigation Fields , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[21]  John Harris,et al.  Handbook of mathematics and computational science , 1998 .

[22]  Seth Hutchinson,et al.  Visual Servo Control Part I: Basic Approaches , 2006 .

[23]  Luiz Chaimowicz,et al.  Boids that see: Using self-occlusion for simulating large groups on GPUs , 2009, CIE.

[24]  Kazuhiko Watanabe,et al.  The relationship between obstacle height and center of pressure velocity during obstacle crossing. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[25]  Aftab E Patla,et al.  The influence of multiple obstacles in the travel path on avoidance strategy. , 2002, Gait & posture.

[26]  Sébastien Paris,et al.  Pedestrian Reactive Navigation for Crowd Simulation: a Predictive Approach , 2007, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[27]  Glenn Reinman,et al.  Watch Out! A Framework for Evaluating Steering Behaviors , 2008, MIG.

[28]  Joëlle Thollot,et al.  A physically-based particle model of emergent crowd behaviors , 2010, ArXiv.

[29]  Aftab E Patla,et al.  Locomotor avoidance behaviours during a visually guided task involving an approaching object. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[30]  Jean-Claude Latombe,et al.  Fast synthetic vision, memory, and learning models for virtual humans , 1999, Proceedings Computer Animation 1999.

[31]  Dimitris N. Metaxas,et al.  Eurographics/ Acm Siggraph Symposium on Computer Animation (2007) Group Behavior from Video: a Data-driven Approach to Crowd Simulation , 2022 .

[32]  Norman I. Badler,et al.  Virtual Crowds: Methods, Simulation, and Control , 2008, Virtual Crowds: Methods, Simulation, and Control.

[33]  David C. Brogan,et al.  Realistic human walking paths , 2003, Proceedings 11th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension.

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

[35]  Jean-Paul Laumond,et al.  On the nonholonomic nature of human locomotion , 2008, Auton. Robots.

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

[37]  Craig W. Reynolds Steering Behaviors For Autonomous Characters , 1999 .

[38]  Daniel Thalmann,et al.  Navigation for digital actors based on synthetic vision, memory, and learning , 1995, Comput. Graph..

[39]  Craig W. Reynolds Flocks, herds, and schools: a distributed behavioral model , 1987, SIGGRAPH.

[40]  A. Schadschneider,et al.  Statistical physics of vehicular traffic and some related systems , 2000, cond-mat/0007053.

[41]  Demetri Terzopoulos,et al.  Artificial fishes: physics, locomotion, perception, behavior , 1994, SIGGRAPH.

[42]  Michael Gleicher,et al.  Scalable behaviors for crowd simulation , 2004, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[43]  Paolo Fiorini,et al.  Motion Planning in Dynamic Environments Using Velocity Obstacles , 1998, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[44]  Ming C. Lin,et al.  Aggregate dynamics for dense crowd simulation , 2009, ACM Trans. Graph..

[45]  Takashi Chikayama,et al.  Simulating the Collision Avoidance Behavior of Pedestrians , 2000 .

[46]  Harry Gifford Crowd Simulation , 2013 .

[47]  William H. Warren,et al.  Switching behavior in moving obstacle avoidance , 2010 .

[48]  Aftab E Patla,et al.  What visual information is used for navigation around obstacles in a cluttered environment? , 2004, Canadian journal of physiology and pharmacology.

[49]  E. Goffman Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order , 1971 .

[50]  A. Berthoz,et al.  Timing and distance characteristics of interpersonal coordination during locomotion , 2005, Neuroscience Letters.

[51]  Simon K. Rushton,et al.  Optic Flow and Beyond , 2004 .

[52]  Katsuya Yamori Going with the flow : Micro-macro dynamics in the macrobehavioral patterns of pedestrian crowds , 1998 .

[53]  Dinesh Manocha,et al.  ClearPath: highly parallel collision avoidance for multi-agent simulation , 2009, SCA '09.

[54]  François Chaumette,et al.  Visual servo control. I. Basic approaches , 2006, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[55]  Stéphane Donikian,et al.  Online inserting virtual characters into dynamic video scenes , 2011, Comput. Animat. Virtual Worlds.

[56]  Sara J Gilliland,et al.  Interpersonal synchronization during side by side treadmill walking is influenced by leg length differential and altered sensory feedback. , 2009, Human movement science.

[57]  C. Richards,et al.  The negotiation of stationary and moving obstructions during walking: anticipatory locomotor adaptations and preservation of personal space. , 2005, Motor control.

[58]  Daniel Thalmann,et al.  Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/cav.147 , 2022 .

[59]  Wolfram Burgard,et al.  The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance , 1997, IEEE Robotics Autom. Mag..

[60]  L. F. Henderson,et al.  The Statistics of Crowd Fluids , 1971, Nature.

[61]  Stéphane Donikian,et al.  Experiment-based modeling, simulation and validation of interactions between virtual walkers , 2009, SCA '09.

[62]  Ming C. Lin,et al.  Continuum Traffic Simulation , 2010, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[63]  William H. Warren,et al.  Combining moving targets and moving obstacles in a locomotion model , 2010 .

[64]  J. Pettré,et al.  Minimal predicted distance: a common metric for collision avoidance during pairwise interactions between walkers. , 2012, Gait & posture.

[65]  Jessica K. Hodgins,et al.  Reactive pedestrian path following from examples , 2004, The Visual Computer.

[66]  Dinesh Manocha,et al.  Reciprocal Velocity Obstacles for real-time multi-agent navigation , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[67]  Aftab E Patla,et al.  Travel path conditions dictate the manner in which individuals avoid collisions. , 2007, Gait & posture.

[68]  James R. Tresilian,et al.  Perceptual and motor processes in interceptive timing , 1994 .

[69]  J. Tresilian,et al.  Empirical and theoretical issues in the perception of time to contact. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[70]  Christopher E. Peters,et al.  Bottom-up visual attention for virtual human animation , 2003, Proceedings 11th IEEE International Workshop on Program Comprehension.

[71]  Dinesh Manocha,et al.  Interactive navigation of multiple agents in crowded environments , 2008, I3D '08.

[72]  The Dynamic Window Approach to Collision Avoidance - IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , 2004 .

[73]  Paul A. Braren,et al.  How We Avoid Collisions With Stationary and Moving Obstacles , 2004 .

[74]  Adrien Treuille,et al.  Near-optimal character animation with continuous control , 2007, SIGGRAPH 2007.

[75]  Sébastien Paris,et al.  Environmental abstraction and path planning techniques for realistic crowd simulation , 2006, Comput. Animat. Virtual Worlds.

[76]  R. Hughes The flow of human crowds , 2003 .

[77]  David N. Lee,et al.  A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision , 1976, Perception.

[78]  Ming C. Lin,et al.  Real-time Path Planning for Virtual Agents in Dynamic Environments , 2007, 2007 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference.

[79]  H. M. Zhang A NON-EQUILIBRIUM TRAFFIC MODEL DEVOID OF GAS-LIKE BEHAVIOR , 2002 .

[80]  Luc Van Gool,et al.  You'll never walk alone: Modeling social behavior for multi-target tracking , 2009, 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision.

[81]  A. Schadschneider Cellular Automaton Approach to Pedestrian Dynamics - Theory , 2001, cond-mat/0112117.

[82]  Stephen Chenney,et al.  Flow tiles , 2004, SCA '04.

[83]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Specification of the Social Force Pedestrian Model by Evolutionary Adjustment to Video Tracking Data , 2007, Adv. Complex Syst..

[84]  J. Pettré,et al.  A synthetic-vision based steering approach for crowd simulation , 2010, ACM Trans. Graph..

[85]  Dinesh Manocha,et al.  Multi-robot coordination using generalized social potential fields , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[86]  Brett R. Fajen,et al.  Behavioral dynamics of avoiding a moving obstacle , 2010 .

[87]  Lubos Buzna,et al.  Self-Organized Pedestrian Crowd Dynamics: Experiments, Simulations, and Design Solutions , 2005, Transp. Sci..

[88]  Brett R Fajen,et al.  Behavioral dynamics of steering, obstacle avoidance, and route selection. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[89]  Daniel Thalmann,et al.  Crowd and group animation , 2005, SIGGRAPH Courses.

[90]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Simulating dynamical features of escape panic , 2000, Nature.

[91]  Taras I. Lakoba,et al.  Modifications of the Helbing-Molnár-Farkas-Vicsek Social Force Model for Pedestrian Evolution , 2005, Simul..

[92]  Petros Faloutsos,et al.  Egocentric affordance fields in pedestrian steering , 2009, I3D '09.

[93]  Dani Lischinski,et al.  Crowds by Example , 2007, Comput. Graph. Forum.