MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Context-sensitive Personal Space for Dense Crowd Simulation

2017· article· en· W2937002947 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Hesham, Gabriel Wainer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsCrowd simulationComputer sciencePedestrianContext (archaeology)Space (punctuation)Crowd psychologyHuman–computer interactionEvent (particle physics)GraphicsFrame (networking)Frame rateIdeal (ethics)SimulationComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time simulation of dense crowds is finding increased use in event planning, congestion prediction, and threat assessment. Existing particle-based methods assume and aim for collision-free trajectories. That is an ideal -yet not overly realistic- expectation, as near-collisions increase in dense and rushed settings compared to typically sparse pedestrian scenarios. This paper presents a method that evaluates the immediate personal space area surrounding each entity to inform its pathing decisions. While personal spaces have traditionally been modeled as having fixed radii, they actually often change in response to the surrounding context. For instance, in cases of congestion, entities tend to share more of their personal space than they normally would, simply out of necessity (e.g. leaving a concert or boarding a train). Likewise, entities travelling at higher speeds (e.g. strolling, running) tend to expect a larger area ahead of them to be their personal space. We illustrate how our agent-based method for local dynamics can reproduce several key emergent dense crowd phenomena; and how it can be efficiently computed on consumer-grade graphics (GPU) hardware, achieving interactive frame rates for simulating thousands of crowd entities in the scene.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207