## 3 Results
### Modeling and Simulation Results  
#### 3.4.1 The Effect of Small Groups on Overall Evacuation  
As shown in Figure 13a, the TET of scenario 2.0 increased compared to that of scenario 1.0, and the evacuation efficiency of scenario 2.0 is lower than that of scenario 1.0. As shown in Table 6, compared with scenario 1.0, the TET, average OET, and average OTJT of scenario 2.0 increase by 144.95%, 27.30%, and 154.84%, respectively, and the average OED and average OES decrease by 6.72% and 21.79%, respectively. As shown in Table 7, 72.28% of occupants' OTJT and 58.15% of occupants' OET, 56.53% of occupants' OED, and 75.00% of occupants' OES decrease. Figure 11: Occupants in AA at 14:37:54. (**a**) Initial location of the occupants; (**b**) composition of small groups. Figure 12: Maximum distances between MIGs. The Pathfinder dynamic simulation revealed that MIGs within the same small group needed to gather and evacuate together. In crowd evacuation, it was difficult for MIGs \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Occupant**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Index**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 1.0**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 2.0**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Average Value**} \\  & & **P 5** & **P 50** & **P 95** & **Average** & **P 5** & **P 50** & **P 95** & **Average** & & **Increase Compared** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{AMsAA} & TET (s) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{57.26} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{140.26} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{83} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{144.95\%} \\  & DET (s) & 5.47 & 27.00 & 52.09 & 27.91 & 6.73 & 31.69 & 85.80 & 35.53 & 7.62 & 27.30\% \\  & OTJT (s) & 0.23 & 1.28 & 29.25 & 4.65 & 0.23 & 4.56 & 54.56 & 11.85 & 7.20 & 154.84\% \\  & OED (m) & 3.67 & 20.73 & 41.42 & 20.67 & 3.36 & 19.23 & 38.27 & 19.28 & \(-\)1.39 & \(-\)6.72\% \\  & OES (m/s) & 0.19 & 0.83 & 1.10 & 0.78 & 0.16 & 0.61 & 1.05 & 0.61 & \(-\)0.17 & \(-\)21.79\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{MIG} & TET (s) & \multicolumn{3}{c}{57.05} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{140.26} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{83.21} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{145.85\%} \\  & DET (s) & 7.31 & 31.72 & 53.05 & 30.70 & 9.40 & 39.00 & 87.99 & 41.09 & 10.39 & 33.84\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & OTJT (s) & 0.22 & 1.36 & 31.49 & 5.05 & 1.08 & 7.31 & 65.26 & 14.77 & 9.72 & 192.48\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & OED (m) & 5.45 & 23.51 & 45.41 & 22.64 & 5.69 & 21.40 & 38.95 & 20.77 & \(-\)1.87 & \(-\)8.26\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & OES (m/s) & 0.20 & 0.84 & 1.07 & 0.78 & 0.17 & 0.58 & 0.84 & 0.56 & \(-\)0.22 & \(-\)28.21\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* P: The sign for the percentile. Like P 5, it means that 5% of the values are equal to and less than it, and 95% of the values are greater than it.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Effect of small groups on overall evacuation. Figure 13: Evacuation curves of exits. (**a**) Number of occupants arriving at three exits. (**b**) Number of occupants arriving at each exit. walking behind the crowd to find other members in front of the crowd by speeding up the pace. Instead, they had to progress forward with the crowd, searching for other members as they evacuated. MIGs at the front of the line either waited in the crowd for other members walking behind the crowd or attempted to move against the main evacuation flow to find them. In either case, these MIGs became an obstacle to the evacuation of others and created congestion, leading to an increase in TET, a slowdown in OES, and an increase in OTJT. In the common evacuation phase, the leader would slow down to wait for other MIGs, and MIGs with faster OES would reduce speed to accommodate those with slower OES, which also led to increased TET and slower OES. Figure 14 illustrates that the curvature of the evacuation path in scenario 1.0 is higher than that in scenario 2.0. Individuals may have more trajectory changes than groups [38]. When occupants evacuated individually, they were subject to forces of varying magnitudes and directions from surrounding occupants. As a result, their movement paths tended to be more curved as they adjusted to these forces.