Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Why Solving Multi-agent Path Finding with Large Language Model has not Succeeded Yet

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.03630 v2 pith:EBKNGNR5 submitted 2024-01-08 cs.MA cs.AIcs.CL

classification cs.MAcs.AIcs.CL
keywords multi-agentmapfplanningdifferentlargesolvingbeenfinding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

With the explosive influence caused by the success of large language models (LLM) like ChatGPT and GPT-4, there has been an extensive amount of recent work showing that foundation models can be used to solve a large variety of tasks. However, there is very limited work that shares insights on multi-agent planning. Multi-agent planning is different from other domains by combining the difficulty of multi-agent coordination and planning, and making it hard to leverage external tools to facilitate the reasoning needed. In this paper, we focus on the problem of multi-agent path finding (MAPF), which is also known as multi-robot route planning, and study the performance of solving MAPF with LLMs. We first show the motivating success on an empty room map without obstacles, then the failure to plan on the harder room map and maze map of the standard MAPF benchmark. We present our position on why directly solving MAPF with LLMs has not been successful yet, and we use various experiments to support our hypothesis. Based on our results, we discussed how researchers with different backgrounds could help with this problem from different perspectives.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Where Paths Collide: A Comprehensive Survey of Classic and Learning-Based Multi-Agent Pathfinding

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A broad survey of MAPF methods that documents inconsistent evaluation practices and proposes a unified taxonomy.

Pith tools