Advertisement

Symmetry Breaking in Evacuation Exit Choice: Impacts of Cognitive Bias and Physical Factor on Evacuation Decision

  • Akira TsurushimaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11978)

Abstract

When people evacuate from a room with two identical exits, it is known that these exits are often unequally used, with evacuees gathering at one of them. This inappropriate and irrational behavior sometimes results in serious loss of life. In this paper, this symmetry breaking in exit choice is discussed from the viewpoint of herding, a cognitive bias in humans during disaster evacuations. The aim of this paper is to show that simple herd behavior is sufficient to reproduce symmetry breaking in exit choice, whereas many models in the literature adopt predefined rules, scenarios, or some models representing rational decision making processes such as utility functions or payoff matrices. The evacuation decision model, based on the response threshold model in biology, is presented to reproduce human herd behavior. Simulation with the evacuation decision model shows that almost all agents gather at one exit at some frequency, despite individual agents choosing the exit randomly. Moreover, the social force model is employed in conjunction with the evacuation decision model to take physical factors such as clogging and collisions into account. The effects of physical factors on both evacuation decisions and evacuation times are analyzed.

Keywords

Response threshold model Exit choice Evacuation behavior Social force model Emergency decision making 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Robert Ramirez, Yoshikazu Shinoda, and Kei Marukawa for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. 1.
    Agassounon, W., Martinoli, A.: Efficiency and robustness of threshold-based distributed allocation algorithms in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2002, vol. 3, pp. 1090–1097 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altshuler, E., Ramos, O., Nuñez, Y., Fernańdez, J., Batista-Leyva, A.J., Noda, C.: Symmetry breaking in escaping ants. Am. Nat. 166(6), 643–649 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Augustijn-Beckers, E.W., Flacke, J., Retsios, B.: Investigating the effect of different pre-evacuation behavior and exit choice strategies using agent-based modeling. Proc. Eng. 3, 23–35 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonabeau, E., Sobkowski, A., Theraulaz, G., Deneubourg, J.L.: Adaptive task allocation inspired by a model of division of labor in social insects. In: Proceeding of Biocomputing and Emergent Computation, pp. 36–45 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G., Deneubourg, J.L.: Quantitative study of the fixed threshold model for the regulation of division of labour in insect societies. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 263(1376), 1565–1569 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castello, E., et al.: Adaptive foraging for simulated and real robotic swarms: the dynamical response threshold approach. Swarm Intell. 10(1), 1–31 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cutter, S., Barnes, K.: Evacuation behavior and three mile island. Disasters 6(2), 116–124 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duives, D.C., Mahmassani, H.S.: Exit choice decisions during pedestrian evacuations of buildings. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2316, 84–94 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dyer, J.R.G., et al.: Consensus decision making in human crowds. Anim. Behav. 75, 461–470 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elliott, D., Smith, D.: Football stadia disasters in the United Kingdom: learning from tragedy? Ind. Environ. Cris. Q. 7(3), 205–229 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fridolf, K., Ronchi, E., Nilsson, D., Frantzich, H.: Movement speed and exit choice in smoke-filled rail tunnels. Fire Saf. J. 59, 8–21 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haghani, M., Ejtemai, O., Sarvi, M., Sobhani, A., Burd, M., Aghabayk, K.: Random utility models of pedestrian crowd exit selection based on SP-off-RP experiments. Trans. Res. Proc. 2, 524–532 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haghani, M., Sarvi, M.: Human exit choice in crowd built environments: investigating underlying behavioural differences between normal egress and emergency evacuations. Fire Saf. J. 85, 1–9 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hasegawa, E., Ishii, Y., Tada, K., Kobayashi, K., Yoshimura, J.: Lazy workers are necessary for long-term sustainability in insect societies. Sci. Rep. 6 (2016). Article number: 20846.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20846
  15. 15.
    Helbing, D., Farkas, I., Vicsek, T.: Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature 407(28), 487–490 (2000). http://angel.elte.hu/panic/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Helbing, D., Farkas, I.J., Molnar, P., Vicsek, T.: Simulation of pedestrian crowds in normal and evacuation situations. Pedestr. Evacuation Dyn. 21(2), 21–58 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Helbing, D., Molnár, P.: Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Phys. Rev. E 51(5), 4282–4289 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Henrich, J., Boyd, R.: The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences. Evol. Hum. Behav. 19, 215–241 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang, H.J., Guo, R.Y.: Static floor field and exit choice for pedestrian evacuation in rooms with internal obstacles and multiple exits. Phys. Rev. E 78, 021131 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ji, Q., Xin, C., Tang, S., Huang, J.: Symmetry associated with symmetry break: revisiting ants and humans escaping from multiple-exit rooms. Phys. A (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2017.11.024
  21. 21.
    Kirchner, A., Schadschneider, A.: Simulation of evacuation processes using a bionics-inspired cellular automaton model for pedestrian dynamics. Phys. A 312, 260–276 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kobes, M., Helsloot, I., de Vries, B., Post, J.: Exit choice, (pre-)movement time and (pre-)evacuation behavior in hotel fire evacuation - Behavioural analysis and validation of the use of serious gaming in experimental research. Proc. Eng. 3, 37–51 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krieger, M.J.B., Billeter, J.B., Keller, L.: Ant-like task allocation and recruitment in cooperative robots. Nature 406, 992–995 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lo, S., Huang, H., Wang, P., Yuen, K.: A game theory based exit selection model for evacuation. Fire Saf. J. 41, 364–369 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lovreglio, R., Fonzone, A., dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A.: The role of herding behaviour in exit choice during evacuation. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 160, 390–399 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lovreglio, R., Borri, D., dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A.: A discrete choice model based on random utilities for exit choice in emergency evacuations. Saf. Sci. 62, 418–426 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lovreglio, R., Fonzone, A., dell’Olio, L.: A mixed logit model for predicting exit choice during building evacuations. Transaportation Res. Part A Policy Pract. 92, 59–75 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lovreglio, R., Fonzone, A., dell’Olio, L., Borri, D.: A study of herding behaviour in exit choice during emergencies based on random utility theory. Saf. Sci. 82, 421–431 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Low, K.H., Leow, W.K., Ang Jr., M.H.: Task allocation via self-organizing swarm coalitions in distributed mobile sensor network. In: AAAI 2004 Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 28–33 (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Onishi, M., Yamashita, T., Hoshikawa, T., Sato, K.: Transmission of knowledge for evacuation drill using pedestrian tracking and simulation - example of opera concert with evacuation drill in new national theater, Tokyo. In: Handouts in SIGCONF 2015. The Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence SIG-KST-026-06 (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pan, X.: Computational modeling of human and social behaviour for emergency egress analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pan, X., Han, C.S., Law, K.H.: A multi-agent based simulation framework for the study of human and social behaviour in egress analysis. In: 2005 International Conference on Computing in Civil Engineering, pp. 1–12 (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Perez, G.J., Tapang, G., Lim, M., Saloma, C.: Streaming, disruptive interference and power-law behavior in the exit dynamics of confined pedestrians. Phys. A 312, 609–618 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Raafat, R.M., Chater, N., Frith, C.: Herding in humans. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13(10), 420–428 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Saloma, C., Perez, G.J., Tapang, G., Lim, M., Palmes-Saloma, C.: Self-organized queuing and scale-free behavior in real escape panic. PNAS 100(21), 11947–11952 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sharpanskykh, A., Treur, J.: Adaptive modelling of social decision making by agents integrating simulated behaviour and perception chains. In: Pan, J.-S., Chen, S.-M., Nguyen, N.T. (eds.) ICCCI 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6421, pp. 284–295. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16693-8_31CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shi, L., Xie, Q., Cheng, X., Chen, L., Zhou, Y., Zhang, R.: Developing a database for emergency evacuation model. Build. Environ. 44, 1724–1729 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tsurushima, A.: Simulating earthquake evacuation decisions based on herd behavior. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society (2018)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tsurushima, A.: Modeling herd behavior caused by evacuation decision making using response threshold. In: Davidsson, P., Verhagen, H. (eds.) MABS 2018. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11463, pp. 138–152. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22270-3_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tsurushima, A.: Reproducing symmetry breaking in exit choice under emergency evacuation situation using response threshold model. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, ICAART, vol. 1, pp. 31–41. INSTICC, SciTePress (2019).  https://doi.org/10.5220/0007256000310041
  41. 41.
    Wilensky, U.: NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL (1999). http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
  42. 42.
    Zia, K., Riener, A., Ferscha, A., Sharpanskykh, A.: Evacuation simulation based on cognitive decision making model in a socio-technical system. In: 15th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real Time Applications, pp. 98–107 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intelligent Systems LaboratorySECOM CO., LTD.MitakaJapan

Personalised recommendations