Pedestrian-Robot Interaction Experiments in an Exit Corridor

arXiv:1802.05730v1 [cs.RO] 15 Feb 2018

Zhuo Chen, Chao Jiang and Yi Guo

Abstract— The study of human-robot interaction (HRI) has
received increasing research attention for robot navigation in
pedestrian crowds. In this paper, we present empirical study of
pedestrian-robot interaction in an uni-directional exit corridor.
We deploy a mobile robot moving in a direction perpendicular
to that of the pedestrian flow, and install a pedestrian motion
tracking system to record the collective motion. We analyze both
individual and collective motion of pedestrians, and measure
the effect of the robot motion on the overall pedestrian flow.
The experimental results show the effect of passive HRI,
where the pedestrians’ overall speed is slowed down in the
presence of the robot, and the faster the robot moves, the lower
the average pedestrian velocity becomes. Experiment results
show qualitative consistency of the collective HRI effect with
simulation results that was previously reported. The study can
be used to guide future design of robot-assisted pedestrian
evacuation algorithms.

I. I NTRODUCTION
With the rapid advances in the development of autonomous
mobile robot technologies, the applications of service and
socially assistive robots have been woven into people’s daily
life. As robots are performing tasks where human beings
are involved, the problem of human-robot interaction (HRI)
arises and has received considerable attention during the
past decade. Understanding the effect of HRI on human’s
behavior, especially in human and robot collective motion,
is of great significance for robot control or decision-making.
In one of the recent works, HRI is studied and considered
for human-aware robot navigation, where traditional motion
planning approach is amended to respect the effect of HRI
on human behavior in the presence of mobile robot [1]. In
addition to considering human being as moving obstacles,
criteria such as human comfort [2, 3], natural motion [4, 5]
and socially-adaptive motion [6, 7] are taken in to account
for robot motion planning.
In the studies of robot-assisted guidance where multiple
robots work collaboratively to escort a group of people, HRI
is commonly modeled as repulsive or attractive force that is
embedded in the social force model which governs human
motion dynamics [8]. The robot performs either as a leader
who directs a group of people towards the destination, or
as a shepherd who regroups people escaping from the group
formation. Thus, human’s motion is controlled through the
effect of attractive and repulsive force from the leader and
shepherd robot, respectively. In [9], the parameters of the
social force based HRI model were found by analyzing the
This work was partially supported by the US National Science Foundation
under Grant CMMI-1527016.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

{zchen39,cjiang6,yi.guo}@stevens.edu

data obtained from real-world experiment using an interactive learning approach.
HRI is also studied for robot motion planning in largescale human crowds. It has been found interesting how
implicit interaction between humans and mobile robots affects human collective motion, so that desired human crowd
behaviors can be achieved by adjusting the motion of robot in
human crowd. Specially, inspired by self-organized phenomena in human collective motion, attempts have been made to
improve human flow efficiency by introducing mobile robots
in human crowds. The large-scale dynamics of human crowds
can be modified as human crowds implicitly interact with the
robot [10, 11]. Previous study [12] has found that placing
a mobile robot in crossing human flows can help to create
diagonal strip pattern in human flow as the human agents try
to avoid the collision with the robot. The strip pattern is a
desirable phenomenon for preventing congestion in crossing
crowds. By adjusting their motion, the interacting robots can
improve human flow efficiency under different flow densities.
In our early work [13], simulations based on social force
models were carried out to characterize HRI in an unidirectional exit corridor. An interacting robot was placed and
programmed to move in a direction that is perpendicular to
that of the flow direction to regulate the flow velocity in an
evacuation situation in a uni-directional corridor.
The focus of this paper is to empirically study passive HRI
in an exit corridor for the purpose of robot-assisted pedestrian
flow regulation. We conduct real robot experiments with
a group of pedestrians walking towards an exit door, and
measure the effect of robot motion on the overall pedestrian
flow. Our experimental results show that in an exit corridor
environment, a robot moving in a direction perpendicular to
that of the uni-directional pedestrian flow can slow down
the uni-directional flow, and the faster the robot moves, the
lower the average pedestrian velocity becomes. Furthermore,
the effect of the robot on the pedestrian velocity is more
significant when people walk at a faster speed. This empirical
evidence is qualitatively consistent with simulation results
reported in our early paper [13], and can be used for future
development on robot-assisted pedestrian flow regulation.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section
II introduces the the passive pedestrian-robot interaction
studied in the paper, and present the experimental setup and
procedure. Section III presents the experimental results, and
discuss comparisons with simulation results reported before.
The conclusion and future work are presented in Section IV.

Kinect sensors
Pedestrian flow direction
4m

Robot
𝒚
𝒙
𝑶

10m

Fig. 1: The schematic diagram of pedestrian flow in an indoor
corridor with robot-assisted regulation
Fig. 2: The customized Adept Pioneer P3-DX mobile robot.
II. PASSIVE P EDESTRIAN -ROBOT I NTERACTION AND
E XPERIMENTAL S ETUP
A. Passive Pedestrian-Robot Interaction
We empirically study the regulation of human flow velocity in an exit corridor environment using an interacting robot.
As shown in Fig. 1, a single interacting robot is added to the
pedestrian flow, and moves in a direction perpendicular to
that of the pedestrian flow with a predesignated speed. Since
the robot’s movement is in the way of the pedestrians towards
the exit, the pedestrians see the robot and avoid potential
collisions by either changing the speed or alter the trajectory
of their own. The pedestrian flow is regulated through the
effect of passive HRI. That is, the robot moves in a predesignated trajectory with a predesignated speed, and the
pedestrians avoid potential collisions when passing through
the robot thus passively interact with the robot. Note that we
assume normal situations that the pedestrians can clearly see
the robot and their movement behaviors are rational. We do
not consider panic situations or nonrational behaviors.
Our hypothesis is that the speed of the robot moving in a
direction perpendicular to that of a uni-directional pedestrian
flow will affect the average speed of the pedestrians going
through the corridor. The goal of the study is to test this
hypothesis, measure the effect of the passive HRI by adjusting the robot’s speed on the pre-designated trajectory, and
compare the effect with the case without the robot.
B. Experimental Setup
1) The Environment: The experiment was conducted in
the Griffith Building of Stevens Institute of Technology on
June 22, 2016. A pedestrian tracking system deployed in
the building covers a 10 meter by 4 meter tracking area as
shown in Fig. 1 with an exit door at the end of the area. The
boundaries of the tracking area are marked with red duct
tapes. The tracking system consists of 5 Microsoft Kinect
sensors and 6 computers connected to a local area network.
A pedestrian detection and tracking software OpenPTrack
[14] is used.
OpenPTrack is a real-time distributed people detection and
tracking software capable of utilizing RGB-D images from
the Kinect network. OpenPTrack runs on Robot Operating
System (ROS) in Ubuntu 14.04. During the experiment, each
of the 5 Kinect sensors is connected to a computer and the
image stream obtained by the Kinect sensor is fed into a
OpenPTrack detection program running on the computer. The

OpenPTrack detection program on each computer processes
the images and transmits the detection results to a central
computer over the local area network. The central computer
fuses the received data and records the tracking results.
2) The Mobile Robot: We used a customized Adept
Pioneer P3-DX mobile robot, as shown in Fig. 2. The robot
motion dynamics is described by a single integrator model,
that is
ẋr = ur
(1)
where xr = [xxr , xyr ]T ⊆ R2 denotes the robot position and
ur = [uxr , uyr ]T denotes robot velocity control. The robot
motion is controlled to follow a pre-designed trajectory that
is perpendicular to the pedestrian flow direction. The robot
velocity in the y direction is controlled to track a sinusoidal
signal, and the velocity control in the x direction remains 0.
That is,
uxr (t) = 0
(2a)
uyr (t) = Aω sin (ωt)

(2b)

where A is the amplitude of the simple harmonic motion,
which is set to 2m (half the corridor width); ω is the robot
motion frequency. This control law makes sure that the robot
moves within the boundary of the area, and the upper limit
of the controlled speed is Aω.
3) Tracking System Calibration: After the sensors are
mounted in place, both intrinsic and extrinsic parameters
of the tracking system need to be determined. Default
intrinsic parameters for the Kinect sensors were used without performing any intrinsic calibration. To calibrate the
extrinsic parameters of the tracking system, we printed a
6-by-7 checkerboard with the cell width and height both
being 75mm. The networking capabilities of ROS enable the
Kinect sensors’ poses to be estimated by: Step (1) letting
a pair of sensors both see the checkerboard to calibrate
their relative pose; Step (2) finding one calibrated sensor
and one uncalibrated sensor, and doing Step (1) with this
pair of sensors; Step (3) repeating Step (2) until all sensors
are calibrated; Step (4) placing the checkerboard on the
ground where it can be seen by at least 1 sensor to specify
the checkerboard reference frame; and Step (5) performing
calibration refinement with people detections [14].
By performing the 5 steps above, sensor poses are estimated with respect to the checkerboard reference frame

5
Low-velocity position centroid
Grid vertex ground truth position

3
4

y position (m)

y position (m)

2

1

0

3

2

1

-1
0
-2
-1
-8

-6

-4

-2

0

0

x position (m)

2

4

6

8

10

x position (m)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 3: Tracking system calibration: estimation of the coordinate transformation from checkerboard frame to ground frame. (a)
Walking Pattern in checkerboard reference frame; (b) Comparison between measurement and ground truth; (c) Measurement
error magnitude histogram.

(a) t=4.0s

(b) t=6.0s

(c) t=9.0s

(d) t=24.0s

Fig. 4: Experimental procedure. (a) People start to walk in the bounded area; (b) People walk toward the robot; (c) People
interact with the moving robot; (d) People finish one round and walk back to the starting line.

defined by the pose of the checkerboard in Step (4), which
does not necessarily coincide with the ground reference
frame as shown in Fig. 1. Here we define the transformation
T : P2 (R) → P2 (R) that maps the homogeneous coordinates
of points in checkerboard reference frame to those in ground
reference frame as


cos θ
0
∆x
sin θ ∆y 
(3)
T= 0
0
0
1
where (∆x, ∆y) represents translation while θ represents
rotation.
To determine the transformation T, the vertices of a unitdistance square grid graph are marked on the tracking area
ground. In Fig. 3b, ground truth positions of the 55 vertices
marked with circles in Fig. 3b are expressed in checkerboard
reference frame as (xgt,k , ygt,k ), k = 1, 2, ..., 55. A person
is asked to walk through every marked vertex of the grid,
stop at each mark and remain still for a second or two before
proceeding to the next one. Fig. 3a shows an example pattern
of trajectory recorded by the tracking system, starting from
(4, 0) and ending at (10, 0) in ground frame coordinates.
Once the trajectory is recorded, the measured positions
where the subject stops, or low-velocity points, are obtained
by filtering out those points in the trajectory whose velocity is greater than 0.2m/s. These low-velocity positions
are clustered and the centroid of each cluster is marked

with a “×” in Fig. 3b. The low-velocity position centroid
expressed in checkerboard reference frame is denoted by
(xct,k , yct,k ), k = 1, 2, ..., 55. We solve for the transformation T by minimizing the sum of squared errors between lowvelocity position centroids and their corresponding ground
truth positions, that is,

 
2
55
xct,k
xgt,k
X
(4)
T ·  yct,k  −  ygt,k 
e (T) =
0
0
k=1
C. Experiment Procedure
After the tracking system was set up and calibrated, we
conducted experiments with 6 cases as listed in Table I. We
compare HRI in two testing scenarios with people walking
at a normal speed (Cases #1, #2, and #3) and a faster
speed (Cases #4, #5, and #6). In each of the two scenarios,
we compare pedestrian motions with: 1) no robot, 2) a
slow-moving robot, and 3) a fast-moving robot. The mobile
robot, whose motion is subject to (1), has a pre-set angular
frequency ω = 0.1rad/s for the slow-moving cases (Cases #2
and #5), and ω = 0.4rad/s in the fast-moving cases (Cases
#3 and #6).
In each case, there are 11 participants who have no
knowledge of the aim or nature of this experiment. As
shown in Table I, in Cases #1 and #4, pedestrians walk
without robot intervention, while in the rest of the cases,

a mobile robot whose motion is subject to (1) is introduced
in the environment. The participants are instructed to walk
within the boundaries of the tracking area at two different
walking speed, i.e., normal or faster. As shown in Fig. 4,
the participants waiting on the left side of the tracking area
receives an instruction to walk, and they enter the tracking
area. Once they exit the tracking area from the right side of
the corridor, they walk back through another pathway next
to the tracking area and get ready for the next run. Each case
consists of 3 repeated runs. Fig. 4 shows the snapshots of a
complete run of Case #3.
TABLE I: Experimental scenarios and parameters
Case #

1
2
3
4
5
6

Human
Instructed
# of
Walking
People
Speed
11
Normal
11
Normal
11
Normal
11
Faster
11
Faster
11
Faster

Robot
Angular
Start
Freq.
Position
ω(rad/s)
N/A
N/A
0.1
(6.6, 0)
0.4
(6.6, 0)
N/A
N/A
0.1
(6.6, 0)
0.4
(6.6, 0)

We present the results from collected data in the next
section.
III. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
In this section, we present the observed HRI behaviors,
summary statistics for collected HRI, and compare with
numerical simulation results reported in our previous work
[13].
A. Individual HRI Behaviors
We have recorded pedestrian trajectories using the
OpenPTrack software and a video recording system. We
observe the HRI behaviors when people get close to the
robot. It appears that the pedestrian motion behavior changes
according to their anticipation of potential collision with the
robot, and the density of the area and whether there’s room to
move around. We observe that the speed change of the robot
affects humans’ motion. We first describe individual HRI
behaviors in this subsection, and the HRI effect on collective
motion and the average flow velocity is presented in the next
subsection.
Fig. 5 shows the temporal sequence of experiment snapshots in Case #2, where the pedestrians walk at normal speed.
It can be seen that the pedestrians approach the interacting
robot at t = 46s and start to avoid the robot at t = 47s. At
t = 48s and t = 49s, some pedestrians adjust their walking
directions to avoid collision with the robot. Fig. 6 shows
the temporal sequence of experiment snapshots in Case #5,
where the pedestrians walk at faster speed.
To understand the motion behavior of pedestrians while
interacting with the robot, we further investigate the change
of trajectory and velocity of individual pedestrians. Fig. 7a
and Fig. 7b show the trajectories of the pedestrians and
the interacting robot in Case #2 and Case #3, respectively.
The circles and stars represent the position of the pedestrian
and the robot at every 1 second. The arrow represents

the velocity with the length proportional to the velocity
magnitude. From Fig. 7a, one can see that the pedestrian
adjusts his/her walking direction at around x = 4.5m to
avoid the robot as he/she foresees potential collision with
the robot. Meanwhile, the velocity of the pedestrian changes
slightly. One can see from Fig. 7b that the pedestrian adjusts
his/her walking direction at around x = 4.6m and x = 5.8m
respectively, and meanwhile slows down to avoid collision
with the robot. Fig. 7c shows the trajectories of the pedestrian
and the interacting robot in Case #6, from which one can see
the pedestrian adjusts his/her walking direction at around
x = 4.8m. The results demonstrate that both the trajectory
and velocity of the pedestrians can be affected by HRI.
B. Summary Statistics for Collective HRI
We have collected pedestrian trajectory data for all 6 experimental cases listed in Table I. One set of such trajectories
is plotted in Fig. 8a for 3 runs of Case #2. Each data point
on the trajectory has a timestamp. The velocity of each
pedestrian is calculated by performing a backward difference
on the position signal and then applying a moving average
filter to the resulting velocity signal.
To understand the effect of HRI on the collective motion of
pedestrians, we plot the average pedestrian velocity profile,
which is obtained by averaging all individual pedestrians’
velocities along the x axis for each case. Fig. 8b shows
the testing scenario of normal walking speed of pedestrians
(i.e., Cases #1, #2 and #3), and Fig. 8c shows the case
of the fast walking speed (i.e., Cases #4, #5 and #6). We
can see that the average pedestrian velocities are lowered
with the presence of robot; and the faster the robot moves,
the lower the average pedestrian velocity becomes. This
phenomenon is more visible around the robot area (i.e., the
vertical dashed line of robot positions shown in the figure)
than other areas (e.g., the beginning and the end of the
pedestrian trajectories), which indicates an HRI region exists
around the robot positions.
To further understand the collective pedestrian motion, we
plot the velocity distribution of pedestrians in each case in
the box plot of Fig. 9, where the central rectangle spans
the first quartile to the third quartile, the segment inside the
rectangle shows the median, and “whiskers” above and below
the box show the locations of the minimum and maximum.
We can clearly see the trends of HRI, that is, the first quartile,
the median, and the third quartile consistently show that: 1)
pedestrian velocities are lowered with the presence of robot,
and 2) the faster the robot moves, the lower the average
pedestrian velocity becomes.
C. Comparison with Simulations and Discussions
To compare the experimental results with the numerical simulation results presented in our previous work [13]
(Figures 4 and 5 therein), we calculate the pedestrian flow
velocity by averaging the velocities over all pedestrians in
each case in an HRI region, which is defined the same as in
the simulations (i.e., the rectangular regions within 2 meters
sideways from the robot path). Fig. 9c shows the average

(a) t=46.0s

(b) t=47.0s

(c) t=48.0s

(d) t=49.0s

Fig. 5: HRI behavior with normal walking speed of pedestrians (Case #2).

(a) t=39.0s

(b) t=39.6s

(c) t=40.2s

(d) t=40.8s

Fig. 6: HRI behavior with fast walking speed of pedestrians (Case #5).
3

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

2

Pedestrian trajectory
Pedestrian position at every 1 second
Pedestrian velocity vector
Robot trajectory
Robot position at every 1 second
Robot velocity vector

1

0
6

7

8

y position (m)

y position (m)

y position (m)

Pedestrian trajectory
Pedestrian position at every 1 second
Pedestrian velocity vector
Robot trajectory
Robot position at every 1 second
Robot velocity vector

1

Pedestrian trajectory
Pedestrian position at every 1 second
Pedestrian velocity vector
Robot trajectory
Robot position at every 1 second
Robot velocity vector

4

3
2

9

0

1

2

x position (m)

3

4

3

2

1

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

x position (m)

(a)

4

5

6

7

8

9

x position (m)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 7: Single pedestrian and robot interacting trajectories. (a) Case #2, run #2, pedestrian #10, t is from 47.1s to 51.1s; (b)
Case #3, run #2, pedestrian #1, t is from 40.0s to 44.0s; (c) Case #6, run #2, pedestrian #7, t is from 36.7s to 39.7s.

y position (m)

4

3

2

Case #1: No robot
Case #2: Slow-moving robot
Case #3: Fast-moving robot

2.5

5

velocity (m/s)

velocity (m/s)

3

2

1.5

Robot x position→

1

1
0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

x position (m)

7

8

9

10

0

2

4

6

8

x position (m)

10

Case #4: No robot
Case #5: Slow-moving robot
Case #6: Fast-moving robot

4

3
Robot x position→

2
0

2

4

6

8

10

x position (m)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 8: (a)Trajectories recorded from all 3 runs of Case #2. The trajectory followed by each pedestrian is represented by a
solid curve. The vertical dotted line denotes the robot trajectory; Average pedestrian velocities vs. x position for (a) normal
walking speed of pedestrians, and (b) faster walking speed of pedestrians.

pedestrian speed with no-robot and in the presence of a
slow- and fast- moving robot in the two cases of normal
pedestrian speed and faster pedestrian speed. We can see that
the slow-down effect of the pedestrian-robot interaction is
more significant for the group of faster-moving pedestrians,
comparing with slower-moving pedestrians. In comparison
with simulations reported in our previous work [13], we can
clearly see that the trends of HRI match. Specifically, the

following claims are supported by both simulations and our
HRI experiments:
•
•

•

The pedestrian speeds are affected by the presence of a
moving robot;
A moving robot slows down a uni-directional flow. The
faster the robot moves, the lower the average pedestrian
velocity becomes;
The effect of the robot on the pedestrian velocity is

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2

3.5

3

2.5

No Robot Slow-moving Fast-moving
robot
robot

No Robot Slow-moving Fast-moving
robot
robot

(a)

(b)

Average pedestrian velocity (m/s)

Pedestrian velocity (m/s)

Pedestrian velocities (m/s)

2.2

4
3.5

Normal walking speed
Faster walking speed

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
No Robot Slow-moving Fast-moving
robot
robot

(c)

Fig. 9: Box plot of pedestrian velocities for each case. (a) Normal walking speed; (b) Faster walking speed; (c) Average
pedestrian velocity comparison with and without the presence of a moving robot.

more significant when people walk at a faster speed.
For the tested scenarios, it clearly shows qualitative
agreement of HRI in an exit corridor in comparison with
numerical simulations based on social force models. The
results indicate that it is promising to use a moving robot
to regulate pedestrian flows, specifically, slowing down the
traffic to a desired average speed. Note that in evacuation
scenarios, being able to slow down the traffic and avoid the
faster-is-slower effect is often desirable.
With more time and resources, we would have collected
more experimental data. For example, we may vary the
pedestrian density of the area, and compare the HRI effect
with different density setups. Nevertheless, the obtained data
can be used to tune simulation models for a better match with
real world situations, which will be in the scope of our future
research. Also, we plan to conduct future HRI experiments to
validate learning-based robot-assisted pedestrian regulation
schemes that was presented in our early work [13].
IV. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
In this paper, we presented a human-robot interaction
experiment in an exit corridor. We investigated the pedestrian
behavior when they interact with a robot moving in a direction perpendicular to that of the uni-directional pedestrian
flow. Using the experimental data, we not only studied the
individual HRI behavior, but also analyzed collective HRI
and the effect of robot on the average pedestrian flow. We
compared the HRI effect on the pedestrian flow with that obtained from numerical simulations based on the social force
models that were reported in our early work [13]. We found
that the experimental HRI effect on the collective pedestrian
flow is qualitatively consistent with numerical simulations.
Future work includes calibrating simulation models using
experimentally obtained data, and developing learning-based
robot motion planner to regulate the collective speed of the
pedestrians to a desired level.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the undergraduate students, Peter Smith and Randall Devitt, and the graduate

student, Muhammad Fahad, for their assistance in collecting
data during the human robot experiments.
R EFERENCES
[1] T. Kruse, A. K. Pandey, R. Alami, and A. Kirsch, “Human-aware robot
navigation: A survey,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 61,
no. 12, pp. 1726–1743, 2013.
[2] M. Luber, L. Spinello, J. Silva, and K. O. Arras, “Socially-aware
robot navigation: A learning approach,” in IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 902–907, 2012.
[3] D. G. Macharet and D. A. Florencio, “Learning how to increase
the chance of human-robot engagement,” in IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2173–2179, 2013.
[4] M. Bennewitz, W. Burgard, G. Cielniak, and S. Thrun, “Learning motion patterns of people for compliant robot motion,” The International
Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 31–48, 2005.
[5] P. Henry, C. Vollmer, B. Ferris, and D. Fox, “Learning to navigate
through crowded environments,” in IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, pp. 981–986, 2010.
[6] A. K. Pandey and R. Alami, “A framework for adapting social
conventions in a mobile robot motion in human-centered environment,”
in International Conference on Advanced Robotics, pp. 1–8, 2009.
[7] B. Kim and J. Pineau, “Socially adaptive path planning in human environments using inverse reinforcement learning,” International Journal
of Social Robotics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 51–66, 2016.
[8] A. Garrell and A. Sanfeliu, “Local optimization of cooperative robot
movements for guiding and regrouping people in a guiding mission,” in
IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
pp. 3294–3299, 2010.
[9] G. Ferrer, A. Garrell, and A. Sanfeliu, “Robot companion: A socialforce based approach with human awareness-navigation in crowded
environments,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent
robots and systems, pp. 1688–1694, 2013.
[10] J. A. Kirkland and A. A. Maciejewski, “A simulation of attempts
to influence crowd dynamics,” in IEEE International Conference on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 5, pp. 4328–4333, 2003.
[11] B. D. Eldridge and A. A. Maciejewski, “Using genetic algorithms to
optimize social robot behavior for improved pedestrian flow,” in IEEE
International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 1,
pp. 524–529, 2005.
[12] K. Yamamoto and M. Okada, “Control of swarm behavior in crossing pedestrians based on temporal/spatial frequencies,” Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 1036–1048, 2013.
[13] C. Jiang, Z. Ni, Y. Guo, and H. He, “Robot-assisted pedestrian
regulation in an exit corridor,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference
on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 815–822, 2016.
[14] M. Munaro, F. Basso, and E. Menegatti, “Openptrack: Open source
multi-camera calibration and people tracking for RGB-D camera
networks,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 75, pp. 525–538,
2016.

