Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 1403–1423 | Cite as

ACMICS: an agent communication model for interacting crowd simulation



Behavioral plausibility is one of the major aims of crowd simulation research. We present a novel approach that simulates communication between the agents and assess its influence on overall crowd behavior. Our formulation uses a communication model that tends to simulate human-like communication capability. The underlying formulation is based on a message structure that corresponds to a simplified version of Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents Agent Communication Language Message Structure Specification. Our algorithm distinguishes between low- and high-level communication tasks so that ACMICS can be easily extended and employed in new simulation scenarios. We highlight the performance of our communication model on different crowd simulation scenarios. We also extend our approach to model evacuation behavior in unknown environments. Overall, our communication model has a small runtime overhead and can be used for interactive simulation with tens or hundreds of agents.


Crowd simulation Communication model Agent communication Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) Agent Communication Language (ACL) 



This work was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) under Grant No. 112E110. Additionally, the first author was supported by a scholarship (support type 2214-A) by TÜBİTAK to visit the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. We would like to thank Sarah George from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill for proofreading the paper.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (mp4 14974 KB)


  1. 1.
    Ali, S., Nishino, K., Manocha, D., & Shah, M. (Eds.). (2013). Modeling, simulation and visual analysis of crowds, the international series in video computing (Vol. 11). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van den Berg, J., Lin, M., & Manocha, D. (2008). Reciprocal velocity obstacles for real-time multi-agent navigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), (pp. 1928–1935).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blue, V., & Adler, J. (1999). Cellular automata microsimulation of bidirectional pedestrian flows. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1678, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. F. (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chandler, D. (1994). The transmission model of communication. Online short paper at Accessed 24 Oct 2016.
  7. 7.
    Craig, R. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Curtis, S., Best, A., & Manocha, D. (2014). Menge: A modular framework for simulating crowd movement. Technical report: Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Durupinar, F., Güdükbay, U., Aman, A., & Badler, N. I. (2016). Psychological parameters for crowd simulation: From audiences to mobs. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(9), 2145–2159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Durupinar, F., Pelechano, N., Allbeck, J. M., Güdükbay, U., & Badler, N. I. (2011). How the Ocean personality model affects the perception of crowds. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 31(3), 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Funge, J., Tu, X., & Terzopoulos, D. (1999). Cognitive modeling: knowledge, reasoning and planning for intelligent characters. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH, pp. 29–38.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guy, S.J., Chhugani, J., Curtis, S., Dubey, P., Lin, M., & Manocha, D. (2010). Pledestrians: a least-effort approach to crowd simulation. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on computer animation, pp. 119–128.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guy, S.J., Kim, S., Lin, M.C., & Manocha, D. (2011). Simulating heterogeneous crowd behaviors using personality trait theory. In Symposium on computer animation, ACM, (pp. 43–52).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harding, P., Gwynne, S., & Amos, M. (2011). Mutual information for the detection of crush. PLOS One, 6(12), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Helbing, D., & Molnar, P. (1995). Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Physical Review E, 51(5), 4282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henderson, L. (1974). On the fluid mechanics of human crowd motion. Transportation Research, 8(6), 509–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hopcroft, J. E., Motwani, R., & Ullman, J. D. (2007). Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Integrated Environmental Solutions Ltd.: Simulex. Accessed 24 Oct 2016.
  19. 19.
    Kim, S., Guy, S.J., Manocha, D., & Lin, M.C. (2012). Interactive simulation of dynamic crowd behaviors using general adaptation syndrome theory. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on interactive 3D graphics and games, ACM, (pp. 55–62).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kullu, K., & Güdükbay, U. (2014). A layered communication model for agents in virtual crowds. In Proceedings of 27th international conference on computer animation and social agents (CASA 2014), Short Papers. Houston, USA.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, K.H., Choi, M.G., Hong, Q., & Lee, J. (2007). Group behavior from video: A data-driven approach to crowd simulation. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH/eurographics symposium on computer animation, Eurographics Association, (pp. 109–118).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mandelbrot, B. B. (1967). How long is the coast of Britain. Science, 156(3775), 636–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McDonnell, R., Larkin, M., Dobbyn, S., Collins, S., & O’Sullivan, C. (2008). Clone attack! perception of crowd variety. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 27(3), 26:1–26:8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McDonnell, R., Newell, F., & O’Sullivan, C. (2007). Smooth movers: Perceptually guided human motion simulation. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on computer animation, Eurographics Association, (pp. 259–269).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moussaïd, M., Perozo, N., Garnier, S., Helbing, D., & Theraulaz, G. (2010). The walking behaviour of pedestrian social groups and its impact on crowd dynamics. PLoS One, 5(4), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nams, V. O. (1996). The vfractal: A new estimator for fractal dimension of animal movement paths. Landscape Ecology, 11(5), 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nara, A., & Torrens, P.M. (2007). Spatial and temporal analysis of pedestrian egress behavior and efficiency. In Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM international symposium on advances in geographic information systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA (pp. 59:1–59:4).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Narang, S., Best, A., Randhavane, T., Shapiro, A., & Manocha, D. (2016). PedVR: Simulating gaze-based interactions between a real user and virtual crowds. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM conference on virtual reality software and technology, ACM, New York, NY, USA (pp. 91–100).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nwana, H. S. (1996). Software agents: An overview. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(03), 205–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pan, X. (2006). Computational modeling of human and social behaviors for emergency egress analysis. Ph.D. thesis, The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Standford University.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park, S. I., Quek, F., & Cao, Y. (2013). Simulating and animating social dynamics: Embedding small pedestrian groups in crowds. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 24, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pelechano, N. (2006). Modeling realistic high density autonomous agent crowd movement: social forces, communication, roles and psychological influences. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pelechano, N., Allbeck, J.M., & Badler, N.I. (2007). Controlling individual agents in high-density crowd simulation. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on computer animation (pp. 99–108). Eurographics Association.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pelechano, N., Allbeck, J.M., & Badler, N.I. (2008). Virtual crowds: Methods, simulation, and control. Synthesis Lectures on computer graphics and animation #8. Morgan & Claypool PublishersGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Poslad, S. (2007). Specifying protocols for multi-agent systems interaction. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems. doi: 10.1145/1293731.1293735.
  36. 36.
    Randhavane, T., Bera, A., & Manocha, D. (2016). F2FCrowds: Planning agent movements to enable face-to-face interactions. Technical report: Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schramm, W. (1997). How communication works, chap. 3, pp. 51–63. Greenwood Publishing Group (1954). (Reprint in) Mass Media and Society by A. Wells, ed.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol. 626). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shoulson, A., Marshak, N., Kapadia, M., & Badler, N.I. (2013). ADAPT: the agent development and prototyping testbed. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on interactive 3D graphics and games (pp. 9–18). ACM.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Silverman, B. G., Bharathy, G., & Cornwell, K. O. J. (2006). Human behavior models for agents in simulators and games: Part II: Gamebot engineering with PMFserv. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Silverman, B. G., Johns, M., Cornwell, J., & O’Brien, K. (2006). Human behavior models for agents in simulators and games: Part I: Enabling science with PMFserv. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15, 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Snook, G. (2000). Simplified 3D movement and pathfinding using navigation meshes. In M. DeLoura (ed.), Game programming gems (pp. 288–304). Newton Center, MA: Charles River Media.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stevenson, A. (Ed.). (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sun, L., Shoulson, A., Huang, P., Nelson, N., Qin, W., Nenkova, A., et al. (2012). Animating synthetic dyadic conversations with variations based on context and agent attributes. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 9, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Thalmann, D. (2006). Populating virtual environments with crowds. In Proceedings of the ACM international conference on virtual reality continuum and its applications (pp. 11–11). ACM, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Thalmann, D., & Musse, S. R. (2013). Crowd Simulation (2nd ed.). London: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Torrens, P. M., Nara, A., Li, X., Zhu, H., Griffin, W. A., & Brown, S. B. (2012). An extensible simulation environment and movement metrics for testing walking behavior in agent-based models. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 36(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Unity Technologies: Unity®. Accessed 24 Oct 2016.
  50. 50.
    Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., Jackson, D. D., & O’Hanlon, B. (2011). Pragmatics of Human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yu, Q., Terzopoulos, D. (2007). A decision network framework for the behavioral animation of virtual humans. In Symposium on computer animation (pp. 119–128).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringBilkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer EngineeringAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations