skip to main content
research-article

A Social Force Based Pedestrian Motion Model Considering Multi-Pedestrian Interaction with a Vehicle

Published:11 February 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Pedestrian motion modeling in mixed traffic scenarios is crucial to the development of autonomous systems in transportation related applications. This work investigated how pedestrian motion is affected by surrounding pedestrians and vehicles, i.e., vehicle-pedestrian interaction. A social force based pedestrian motion model was proposed, in which the effect of surrounding pedestrians was improved and the effect of vehicles was newly designed. Variable constraints dependent on vehicle influence as well as nearby pedestrian density were imposed on the velocity and acceleration of the pedestrian motion. This work focuses on fundamental patterns of multi-pedestrian interaction with a low speed vehicle (front, back, and lateral interaction in open space). In other words, the application of the model is not restricted to specific scenarios such as crosswalks. Parameters of the proposed model were calibrated by the genetic algorithm (GA) based on trajectory data of the same vehicle-pedestrian interaction patterns from controlled experiments. The proposed model is able to simulate complex self-designed vehicle-pedestrian interaction scenarios. The effectiveness of the proposed model was validated by comparing the simulated trajectories with ground truth trajectories under the same initial conditions, and by evaluating the pedestrian behavior of avoiding vehicle in the simulation of self-designed scenarios.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Alexandre Alahi, Kratarth Goel, Vignesh Ramanathan, Alexandre Robicquet, Li Fei-Fei, and Silvio Savarese. 2016. Social LSTM: Human trajectory prediction in crowded spaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 961--971.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Gianluca Antonini, Michel Bierlaire, and Mats Weber. 2006. Discrete choice models of pedestrian walking behavior. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 40, 8 (2006), 667--687.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bani Anvari, Michael G. H. Bell, Aruna Sivakumar, and Washington Y. Ochieng. 2015. Modelling shared space users via rule-based social force model. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 51 (2015), 83--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Gabriele Bernardini, Enrico Quagliarini, and D’Orazio. 2016. Towards creating a combined database for earthquake pedestrians’ evacuation models. Safety Science 82 (2016), 77--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Winnie Daamen and Serge Hoogendoorn. 2012. Calibration of pedestrian simulation model for emergency doors by pedestrian type. Transportation Research Record 2316, 1 (2012), 69--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Rayan El Helou. 2016. Agent-Based Modelling of Pedestrian Microscopic Interactions. Master’s Thesis. Ohio State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Claudio Feliciani, Luca Crociani, Andrea Gorrini, Giuseppe Vizzari, Stefania Bandini, and Katsuhiro Nishinari. 2017. A simulation model for non-signalized pedestrian crosswalks based on evidence from on field observation. Intelligenza Artificiale 11, 2 (2017), 117--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Andrea Gorrini, Luca Crociani, Giuseppe Vizzari, and Stefania Bandini. 2018. Observation results on pedestrian-vehicle interactions at non-signalized intersections towards simulation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 59 (2018), 269--285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Agrim Gupta, Justin Johnson, Li Fei-Fei, Silvio Savarese, and Alexandre Alahi. 2018. Social GAN: Socially acceptable trajectories with generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2255--2264.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Shlomi Hacohen, Nir Shvalb, and Shraga Shoval. 2018. Dynamic model for pedestrian crossing in congested traffic based on probabilistic navigation function. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 86 (2018), 78--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Dirk Helbing, Illés Farkas, and Tamas Vicsek. 2000. Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature 407, 6803 (2000), 487.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Dirk Helbing and Peter Molnar. 1995. Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Physical Review E 51, 5 (1995), 4282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Serge P. Hoogendoorn and Piet H. L. Bovy. 2004. Pedestrian route-choice and activity scheduling theory and models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 38, 2 (2004), 169--190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Anders Johansson, Dirk Helbing, and Pradyumn K. Shukla. 2007. Specification of the social force pedestrian model by evolutionary adjustment to video tracking data. Advances in Complex Systems 10, supp02 (2007), 271--288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Fatema T. Johora and Jörg P. Müller. 2018. Modeling interactions of multimodal road users in shared spaces. In Proceedings of the 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC’18). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 3568--3574.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Yoshiaki Kuwata, Justin Teo, Sertac Karaman, Gaston Fiore, Emilio Frazzoli, and Jonathan P. How. 2008. Motion planning in complex environments using closed-loop prediction. In Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Alon Lerner, Yiorgos Chrysanthou, and Dani Lischinski. 2007. Crowds by example. Computer Graphics Forum 26, 3, 655--664.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Robert V. Levine and Ara Norenzayan. 1999. The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30, 2 (1999), 178--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Peng Lin, Jian Ma, and Siuming Lo. 2016. Discrete element crowd model for pedestrian evacuation through an exit. Chinese Physics B 25, 3 (2016), 034501.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Melanie Mitchell. 1998. An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Betty J. Mohler, William B. Thompson, Sarah H. Creem-Regehr, Herbert L. Pick, and William H. Warren. 2007. Visual flow influences gait transition speed and preferred walking speed. Experimental Brain Research 181, 2 (2007), 221--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Mehdi Moussaïd, Dirk Helbing, and Guy Theraulaz. 2011. How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 17 (2011), 6884--6888.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Umit Ozguner, Tankut Acarman, and Keith Alan Redmill. 2011. Autonomous Ground Vehicles. Artech House.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. F. Pascucci, N. Rinke, C. Schiermeyer, B. Friedrich, and V. Berkhahn. 2015. Modeling of shared space with multi-modal traffic using a multi-layer social force approach. Transportation Research Procedia 10 (2015), 316--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Stefano Pellegrini, Andreas Ess, Konrad Schindler, and Luc Van Gool. 2009. You’ll never walk alone: Modeling social behavior for multi-target tracking. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 261--268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. N. Rinke, C. Schiermeyer, F. Pascucci, V. Berkhahn, and B. Friedrich. 2017. A multi-layer social force approach to model interactions in shared spaces using collision prediction. Transportation Research Procedia 25 (2017), 1249--1267.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Andreas Schadschneider, Wolfram Klingsch, Hubert Klüpfel, Tobias Kretz, Christian Rogsch, and Armin Seyfried. 2009. Evacuation dynamics: Empirical results, modeling and applications. In Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Springer, 3142--3176.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Robert Schönauer, Martin Stubenschrott, Weinan Huang, Christian Rudloff, and Martin Fellendorf. 2012. Modeling concepts for mixed traffic: Steps toward a microscopic simulation tool for shared space zones. Transportation Research Record 2316, 1 (2012), 114--121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Valeria Vignali, Federico Cuppi, Ennia Acerra, Arianna Bichicchi, Claudio Lantieri, Andrea Simone, and Marco Costa. 2019. Effects of median refuge island and flashing vertical sign on conspicuity and safety of unsignalized crosswalks. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 60 (2019), 427--439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Yao Xiao, Ziyou Gao, Yunchao Qu, and Xingang Li. 2016. A pedestrian flow model considering the impact of local density: Voronoi diagram based heuristics approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 68 (2016), 566--580.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Hao Xue, Du Q. Huynh, and Mark Reynolds. 2018. SS-LSTM: A hierarchical LSTM model for pedestrian trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV’18). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1186--1194.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Dongfang Yang, Linhui Li, Keith Redmill, and Ümit Özgüner. 2019. Top-view trajectories: A pedestrian dataset of vehicle-crowd interaction from controlled experiments and crowded campus. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV’19). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 899--904.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Dongfang Yang, Ümit Özgüner, and Keith Redmill. 2018. Social force based microscopic modeling of vehicle-crowd interaction. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV’18). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1537--1542.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Francesco Zanlungo, Tetsushi Ikeda, and Takayuki Kanda. 2011. Social force model with explicit collision prediction. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 93, 6 (2011), 68005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Weiliang Zeng, Peng Chen, Guizhen Yu, and Yunpeng Wang. 2017. Specification and calibration of a microscopic model for pedestrian dynamic simulation at signalized intersections: A hybrid approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 80 (2017), 37--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Weiliang Zeng, Hideki Nakamura, and Peng Chen. 2014. A modified social force model for pedestrian behavior simulation at signalized crosswalks. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 138 (2014), 521--530.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A Social Force Based Pedestrian Motion Model Considering Multi-Pedestrian Interaction with a Vehicle

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems
          ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems  Volume 6, Issue 2
          June 2020
          192 pages
          ISSN:2374-0353
          EISSN:2374-0361
          DOI:10.1145/3375460
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2020 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 11 February 2020
          • Revised: 1 November 2019
          • Accepted: 1 November 2019
          • Received: 1 December 2018
          Published in tsas Volume 6, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format