Advertisement

Validation of Crowd Models Including Social Groups

  • Gerta Köster
  • Franz Treml
  • Michael Seitz
  • Wolfram Klein
Conference paper

Abstract

The development of group models within models of pedestrian motion has recently become a new focus of research. This interest was triggered by insight from the social sciences: Small groups often dominate the crowd at large events and the need to associate with family and friends may dominate over flight instincts. It is therefore desirable that crowd simulators adopt the new group models to better mitigate risks for example at large events or at public infrastructures. However, to make this feasible reliable validation tests must be made available. Developers and users alike should be able to check whether the adopted model indeed captures the essential characteristics of a crowd composed of subgroups. As a desirable side effect, common validation tests would make simulation tools easier to compare and their range of application easier to assess. This can help to ensure a minimum quality standard and thus to further mitigate risks. In this paper we suggest basic visual tests and some quantitative test were data is available.

Keywords

Validation Verification Modeling Simulation Crowd Pedestrian stream Groups Social group Cellular automaton 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research through the priority program Schutz und Rettung von Menschen (Protection and Rescue of People) within the projects REPKA (Regional Evacuation: Planning, Control and Adaptation) and MEPKA (Investigation of Mathematical Properties of Pedestrian Stream Models).

References

  1. 1.
    Aguirre, B. E., Wenger, D., and Vigo, G., (1998). A test of the emergent normtheory of collective behaviour. Sociological Forum, 13(2), 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aveni, A. F. (1977), The not-so-lonely crowd: friendship groups in collective behavior. Sociometry, 40(1), 96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davidich, M. and Köster, G., (2012). Towards automatic and robust adjust- ment of human behavioral parameters in a pedestrian stream model to measured data, Safety Science 50, pp. 1253–1260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fasheng Qiu and Xiaolin Hu., (2009). Modeling group structures in pedestrian crowd simulation. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory. 18:190–205, October 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    James, J., (1951). A preliminary study of the size seterminant in small group interaction. American Sociological Review, 16(4), pp. 474–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klein, W., Köster, G., and Andreas M., (2010). Towards the calibration of pedestrian stream models. In: Roman Wyrzykowski, Jack Dongarra, Konrad Karczewski, and Jerzy Wasniewski, editors, Parallel Processing and Applied Mathematics, volume 6068, pages 521–528.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Köster, G., Hartmann, D., and Klein, W. (2010). Microscopic pedestrian simulations: From passenger exchange times to regional evacuation. Proceedings international conference on operations research: mastering complexity, Munich.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Köster, G., Seitz, M., Treml, F., Hartmann, D., and Klein, W., (2011a). On modelling the influence of group formations in a crowd, Contemporary Social Science, 6:3, 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Köster, G., Seitz, M., Treml, F., and Pfaffinger A., (2011b). How to validate group models in pedestrian stream simulators: a proposal for basic tests. International Conference on Operations Research, Zürich, September 2011.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liddle, J., Seyfried, A., Steffen, B., Klingsch, W., Rupprecht, T., Winkens, A., and Boltes M., 2011. Microscopic insights into pedestrian motion through a bottleneck, resolving spatial and temporal variations. arXiv:1105.1532v1.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mawson, A.R., 2005. Understanding mass panic and other collective responses to thread and desaster. Psychiatry 68(2), 2005.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moussaïd M, Perozo N, Garnier S, Helbing D, and Theraulaz G., 2010. The Walking Behaviour of Pedestrian Social Groups and Its Impact on Crowd Dy namics. PLoS ONE 5(4): e10047. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oberhagemann, D., Statische und dynamische Personendichten bei Großveranstaltungen, vfdb Technischer Bericht 13–01, March 2011.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reuter, V., Bergner, B. S., Köster, G., Seitz, M., Treml, F., and Hartmann, D. On Modeling Groups in Crowds: Empirical Evidence and Simulation Results Including Large Groups. In Weidmann U, Kirsch U, Schreckenberg M (eds), Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2012, pp. 835–846. Springer, Cham, 2014.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    RiMEA e. V., 2009. Richtlinie für Mikroskopische Entfluchtungsanalysen (guideline for microscopic evacuation analysis), 2009. http://www.rimea.de
  16. 16.
    Rogsch, C., Klüfpel H., Könnicke, R., Winkens, A., (2009). RiMEA: A Way to Define a Standard for Evacuation Calculations. In Weidmann U, Kirsch U, Schreckenberg M (eds), Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2012, pp. 455–468. Springer, Cham, 2014.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seitz, M., Köster, G., and Pfaffinger, A. 2012. Pedestrian Group Behavior in a Cellular Automaton. In Weidmann U, Kirsch U, Schreckenberg M (eds), Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2012, pp. 807–814. Springer, Cham, 2014.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sime, J. D., (1983). Affiliative behaviour during escape to building exits, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh, H., Arter, R. Dodd, L., Langston, P., Lester, L., and Drury, J, (2009). Modeling subgroup behaviour in crowd dynamics DEM simulation. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33:4408–4423.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weidmann, U., (1992). Transporttechnik für Fussgänger. Schriftenreihe des IVT, 90.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerta Köster
    • 1
  • Franz Treml
    • 1
  • Michael Seitz
    • 1
  • Wolfram Klein
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Applied SciencesMunichGermany
  2. 2.Siemens AG Corporate TechnologyMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations