arxiv: 2604.05416 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: no theorem link

Multi-Agent Pathfinding with Non-Unit Integer Edge Costs via Enhanced Conflict-Based Search and Graph Discretization

Hongkai Fan , Qinjing Xie , Bo Ouyang , Yaonan Wang , Zhi Yan , Jiawen He , Zheng Fang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI

keywords Multi-Agent PathfindingConflict-Based SearchGraph DiscretizationNon-Unit Edge CostsTime-Interval ConflictsSafe Interval Path PlanningBayesian Optimization

0 comments

The pith

A MAPF variant with non-unit integer edge costs keeps a finite state space and solves faster than continuous-time predecessors using time-interval conflict detection.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces MAPFZ as a multi-agent pathfinding problem on graphs where edges carry different positive integer costs rather than the usual unit cost. This setup models realistic travel times between locations while avoiding the unbounded state explosion that comes from treating time as fully continuous. The authors solve it with CBS-NIC, which replaces single-timestep checks by interval-based conflict detection inside a conflict-based search tree and pairs it with an improved safe-interval path planner. They further supply BOGD, a Bayesian optimization procedure that discretizes the graph to trade off fidelity against speed while carrying a sub-linear regret guarantee. Experiments on standard benchmarks show higher success rates and lower runtimes than prior methods that either force unit costs or allow real-valued times.

Core claim

MAPFZ restricts multi-agent pathfinding to graphs whose edges have positive integer costs that are not necessarily one. This choice yields a finite state space because every possible arrival time at a vertex remains an integer multiple of the greatest common divisor of the edge costs. CBS-NIC solves instances of MAPFZ by maintaining a conflict tree whose nodes record time-interval conflicts rather than point conflicts, then replans individual agents with an enhanced SIPP routine that respects those intervals. BOGD selects a discretization of the original costs so that the resulting integer graph approximates the true travel times with bounded regret.

What carries the argument

CBS-NIC, an enhanced Conflict-Based Search that replaces point conflicts with time-interval conflict detection and uses an improved Safe Interval Path Planning subroutine for low-level search.

If this is right

Warehouse or traffic coordination problems become solvable when different road segments have different traversal times without forcing every segment to cost exactly one.
The finite-state guarantee allows complete and optimal search to remain tractable even when agents must wait at vertices for integer multiples of edge costs.
BOGD's regret bound supplies a principled way to choose how finely to approximate any given set of travel times before running the planner.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same interval-based conflict machinery could be lifted to other low-level planners such as prioritized planning or satisfiability-modulo-theory encodings.
If edge costs share a small greatest common divisor, the effective time granularity shrinks automatically, which may explain part of the observed runtime gains.
The method's reliance on integer costs suggests a natural next step of testing whether small rational costs can be scaled to integers without changing the relative ordering of arrival times.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen discretization of edge costs keeps solution quality intact and the interval-based conflict checks never miss collisions or create new infinite state spaces.

What would settle it

On any benchmark instance whose true continuous-time paths collide at a time that the integer discretization rounds away, the returned solution either collides when simulated in continuous time or fails to find a feasible schedule that the continuous model would have accepted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05416 by Bo Ouyang, Hongkai Fan, Jiawen He, Qinjing Xie, Yaonan Wang, Zheng Fang, Zhi Yan.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Conflict detection and constraint addition of CBS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The framework of BOGD. deviation between original and discretized weights along the paths of all agents. To tackle this problem, the BOGD framework, illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The roadmap visualization includes varying num [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The success rate for different algorithms and their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The makespan for different algorithms on gridmaps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Multi-Agent Pathfinding (MAPF) plays a critical role in various domains. Traditional MAPF methods typically assume unit edge costs and single-timestep actions, which limit their applicability to real-world scenarios. MAPFR extends MAPF to handle non-unit costs with real-valued edge costs and continuous-time actions, but its geometric collision model leads to an unbounded state space that compromises solver efficiency. In this paper, we propose MAPFZ, a novel MAPF variant on graphs with non-unit integer costs that preserves a finite state space while offering improved realism over classical MAPF. To solve MAPFZ efficiently, we develop CBS-NIC, an enhanced Conflict-Based Search framework incorporating time-interval-based conflict detection and an improved Safe Interval Path Planning (SIPP) algorithm. Additionally, we propose Bayesian Optimization for Graph Design (BOGD), a discretization method for non-unit edge costs that balances efficiency and accuracy with a sub-linear regret bound. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods in runtime and success rate across diverse benchmark scenarios.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper carves out a practical middle ground for MAPF with non-unit integer costs by discretizing graphs and adding interval checks, but the discretization step risks changing which plans are actually optimal.

read the letter

The core contribution is MAPFZ, a MAPF variant on graphs with non-unit integer edge costs that keeps a finite state space. They solve it with CBS-NIC, which layers time-interval conflict detection on top of an improved SIPP, and BOGD, a Bayesian optimization routine that picks discretization parameters with a sub-linear regret bound. Experiments on benchmarks reportedly show better runtime and success rates than prior methods including MAPFR. That framing is useful because real robotics often has edges with different traversal times or lengths, and the finite-state guarantee is a direct improvement over the unbounded continuous model in MAPFR. The algorithmic pieces are clearly motivated and build on established CBS and SIPP machinery without obvious reinvention. The main soft spot is that BOGD's regret bound only controls how well the discretization approximates the chosen parameters; it does not automatically preserve the relative costs or collision timings of the original integer graph. If discretization shifts which paths are shortest or alters interval overlaps, the returned joint plans may no longer be optimal or even feasible when mapped back to the true costs. The abstract gives no proof sketch that the interval-based checks are complete for continuous-time actions on the discretized graph, so missed collisions or extra states remain possible. The outperformance claims also rest on experiments whose tuning details and graph characteristics are not visible here. This work is aimed at MAPF researchers and roboticists who need heterogeneous but still discrete costs. A reader already familiar with CBS variants will see the incremental value quickly. It is coherent enough and addresses a real gap that it deserves a serious referee to check the completeness arguments and re-run the key comparisons.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MAPFZ, a multi-agent pathfinding variant on graphs with non-unit integer edge costs that preserves a finite state space (unlike MAPFR's unbounded continuous-time model). It proposes CBS-NIC, an enhanced Conflict-Based Search algorithm incorporating time-interval conflict detection and an improved Safe Interval Path Planning (SIPP) component. BOGD is presented as a Bayesian optimization discretization technique for non-unit costs that achieves a sub-linear regret bound while balancing efficiency and accuracy. Extensive experiments on diverse benchmarks claim superior runtime and success rates over state-of-the-art methods.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a practical bridge between classical unit-cost MAPF and more realistic non-unit cost models, with potential impact in robotics, logistics, and traffic domains where edge traversal times vary. The sub-linear regret bound for BOGD and the finite-state guarantee in CBS-NIC are notable strengths if rigorously established, and the broad experimental evaluation on benchmarks provides empirical grounding.

major comments (2)

Abstract: The sub-linear regret bound for BOGD is stated to balance efficiency and accuracy while preserving solution quality, but this bound applies only to the Bayesian optimization of discretization parameters and does not establish invariance of shortest-path costs or collision-free joint plans under the original non-unit integer costs. Even bounded regret can alter relative path costs between agents, potentially changing optimal routes and invalidating outperformance claims versus MAPFR or other baselines.
CBS-NIC description (time-interval conflict detection): The assertion that interval-based checks avoid both unbounded states and missed collisions lacks an explicit completeness argument for continuous-time actions on the discretized graph. Without this, it is unclear whether all potential collisions are captured, which is load-bearing for the finite-state-space claim and solver correctness.

minor comments (2)

The abstract would benefit from a one-sentence statement of the key theoretical result (e.g., the regret bound) to better orient readers.
Experiments section: Adding an ablation isolating the contribution of BOGD versus the CBS-NIC enhancements would clarify which component drives the reported gains.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the insightful comments on our paper. We address the major comments point by point below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to improve the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: The sub-linear regret bound for BOGD is stated to balance efficiency and accuracy while preserving solution quality, but this bound applies only to the Bayesian optimization of discretization parameters and does not establish invariance of shortest-path costs or collision-free joint plans under the original non-unit integer costs. Even bounded regret can alter relative path costs between agents, potentially changing optimal routes and invalidating outperformance claims versus MAPFR or other baselines.

Authors: We thank the referee for pointing out this important distinction. The sub-linear regret bound indeed characterizes the performance of the Bayesian optimization procedure in selecting discretization parameters that trade off computational efficiency and approximation accuracy. We agree that it does not by itself guarantee that the discretized costs preserve the exact shortest-path costs or the optimality of joint plans under the original integer costs. Our outperformance claims are supported by empirical evaluations on standard benchmarks, where the discretization is chosen to maintain solution quality in practice. To address this concern, we will revise the abstract to more precisely describe the role of the regret bound and add a paragraph in the BOGD section discussing the conditions under which relative path costs are preserved, particularly given the integer nature of the costs. This will clarify that the method does not claim theoretical invariance but demonstrates practical effectiveness. revision: partial
Referee: CBS-NIC description (time-interval conflict detection): The assertion that interval-based checks avoid both unbounded states and missed collisions lacks an explicit completeness argument for continuous-time actions on the discretized graph. Without this, it is unclear whether all potential collisions are captured, which is load-bearing for the finite-state-space claim and solver correctness.

Authors: We appreciate this feedback on the completeness of our argument. The time-interval conflict detection in CBS-NIC builds upon the safe interval path planning (SIPP) framework, where conflicts are detected by checking for overlapping time intervals rather than point-wise checks. This approach ensures a finite state space because the discretization of the graph and the integer costs lead to a finite number of safe intervals. However, we acknowledge that the manuscript would benefit from an explicit completeness proof or argument showing that no collisions are missed for continuous-time actions. In the revised manuscript, we will include a dedicated subsection or appendix providing a formal argument for completeness, leveraging the properties of interval overlaps and the finite discretization to show that all possible collision points are accounted for within the interval-based detection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; novel algorithmic proposals validated empirically

full rationale

The paper defines MAPFZ as a new MAPF variant on non-unit integer costs, introduces CBS-NIC with time-interval conflict detection and improved SIPP, and presents BOGD as a Bayesian optimization discretization technique carrying a sub-linear regret bound. None of these reduce by construction to their inputs: the regret bound is a standard property of the optimization procedure rather than a self-defined performance metric, solution quality preservation is asserted via the discretization design and then checked experimentally on benchmarks, and no equations or fitted parameters are renamed as independent predictions. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes from prior author work are invoked as load-bearing justifications. The central claims rest on algorithmic construction plus external benchmark results, making the derivation chain self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 3 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be audited beyond the three named contributions.

invented entities (3)

MAPFZ no independent evidence
purpose: MAPF variant on graphs with non-unit integer edge costs and finite state space
New problem definition introduced to bridge unit-cost MAPF and real-valued MAPFR
CBS-NIC no independent evidence
purpose: Enhanced Conflict-Based Search with time-interval conflict detection and improved SIPP
Proposed solver framework
BOGD no independent evidence
purpose: Bayesian Optimization for Graph Design discretization method
Proposed discretization technique with claimed sub-linear regret bound

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5500 in / 1231 out tokens · 86818 ms · 2026-05-10T18:58:24.419353+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Safe reinforcement learning-based motion planning for functional mobile robots suffering uncontrollable mobile robots,

H. Cao, H. Xiong, W. Zeng, H. Jiang, Z. Cai, L. Hu, L. Zhang, and W. Lu, “Safe reinforcement learning-based motion planning for functional mobile robots suffering uncontrollable mobile robots,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Sys- tems, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 4346–4363, 2024

2024
[2]

Structure and intractability of optimal multi-robot path planning on graphs,

J. Yu and S. LaValle, “Structure and intractability of optimal multi-robot path planning on graphs,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 27, no. 1, 2013, pp. 1443–1449

2013
[3]

Multi-agent path finding with heterogeneous edges and roundtrips,

B. Ai, J. Jiang, S. Yu, and Y. Jiang, “Multi-agent path finding with heterogeneous edges and roundtrips,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 234, p. 107554, 2021

2021
[4]

Multi-agent pathfinding with continuous time,

A. Andreychuk, K. Yakovlev, P. Surynek, D. Atzmon, and R. Stern, “Multi-agent pathfinding with continuous time,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 305, p. 103662, 2022

2022
[5]

Loosely synchronized search for multi-agent path finding with asynchronous actions,

Z. Ren, S. Rathinam, and H. Choset, “Loosely synchronized search for multi-agent path finding with asynchronous actions,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 9714–9719

2021
[6]

Loosely synchronized rule- based planning for multi-agent path finding with asynchronous actions,

S. Zhou, S. Zhao, and Z. Ren, “Loosely synchronized rule- based planning for multi-agent path finding with asynchronous actions,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 14, 2025, pp. 14 763–14 770

2025
[7]

Lsrp*: Scalable and anytime planning for multi-agent path finding with asynchronous actions,

——, “Lsrp*: Scalable and anytime planning for multi-agent path finding with asynchronous actions,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, vol. 18, 2025, pp. 275–276

2025
[8]

An adap- tive clustering-based algorithm for automatic path planning of heterogeneous uavs,

J. Chen, Y. Zhang, L. Wu, T. You, and X. Ning, “An adap- tive clustering-based algorithm for automatic path planning of heterogeneous uavs,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 16 842–16 853, 2022

2022
[9]

Conflict- based search for optimal multi-agent pathfinding,

G. Sharon, R. Stern, A. Felner, and N. R. Sturtevant, “Conflict- based search for optimal multi-agent pathfinding,” Artificial intelligence, vol. 219, pp. 40–66, 2015

2015
[10]

Adding heuristics to conflict-based search for multi-agent path finding,

A. Felner, J. Li, E. Boyarski, H. Ma, L. Cohen, T. S. Kumar, and S. Koenig, “Adding heuristics to conflict-based search for multi-agent path finding,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 28, 2018, pp. 83–87

2018
[11]

Im- proved heuristics for multi-agent path finding with conflict- based search

J. Li, A. Felner, E. Boyarski, H. Ma, and S. Koenig, “Im- proved heuristics for multi-agent path finding with conflict- based search. ” in IJCAI, vol. 2019, 2019, pp. 442–449

2019
[12]

New techniques for pairwise symmetry breaking in multi-agent path finding,

J. Li, G. Gange, D. Harabor, P. J. Stuckey, H. Ma, and S. Koenig, “New techniques for pairwise symmetry breaking in multi-agent path finding,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 30, 2020, pp. 193–201

2020
[13]

Enhanced partial expansion a,

M. Goldenberg, A. Felner, R. Stern, G. Sharon, N. Sturtevant, R. C. Holte, and J. Schaeffer, “Enhanced partial expansion a,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 50, pp. 141–187, 2014

2014
[14]

Suboptimal variants of the conflict-based search algorithm for the multi- agent pathfinding problem,

M. Barer, G. Sharon, R. Stern, and A. Felner, “Suboptimal variants of the conflict-based search algorithm for the multi- agent pathfinding problem,” in Proceedings of the international symposium on combinatorial Search, vol. 5, no. 1, 2014, pp. 19–27

2014
[15]

Eecbs: A bounded-suboptimal search for multi-agent path finding,

J. Li, W. Ruml, and S. Koenig, “Eecbs: A bounded-suboptimal search for multi-agent path finding,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 35, no. 14, 2021, pp. 12 353–12 362

2021
[16]

Priority inheritance with backtracking for iterative multi-agent path finding,

K. Okumura, M. Machida, X. Défago, and Y. Tamura, “Priority inheritance with backtracking for iterative multi-agent path finding,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 310, p. 103752, 2022

2022
[17]

Extended increasing cost tree search for non-unit cost domains

T. T. Walker, N. R. Sturtevant, and A. Felner, “Extended increasing cost tree search for non-unit cost domains. ” in IJCAI, 2018, pp. 534–540

2018
[18]

Optimal and bounded-suboptimal multi-agent motion planning,

L. Cohen, T. Uras, T. Kumar, and S. Koenig, “Optimal and bounded-suboptimal multi-agent motion planning,” in Proceed- ings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, vol. 10, no. 1, 2019, pp. 44–51

2019
[19]

Using hierarchical constraints to avoid conflicts in multi-agent pathfinding,

T. Walker, D. Chan, and N. Sturtevant, “Using hierarchical constraints to avoid conflicts in multi-agent pathfinding,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 27, 2017, pp. 316–324

2017
[20]

A comparative study of probabilistic roadmap planners,

R. Geraerts and M. H. Overmars, “A comparative study of probabilistic roadmap planners,” in Algorithmic foundations of robotics V. Springer, 2004, pp. 43–57

2004
[21]

Ctrms: Learning to construct cooperative timed roadmaps for multi-agent path planning in continuous spaces,

K. Okumura, R. Yonetani, M. Nishimura, and A. Kanezaki, “Ctrms: Learning to construct cooperative timed roadmaps for multi-agent path planning in continuous spaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.09467, 2022

work page arXiv 2022
[22]

Multi- agent rapidly-exploring pseudo-random tree,

A. A. Neto, D. G. Macharet, and M. F. M. Campos, “Multi- agent rapidly-exploring pseudo-random tree,” Journal of Intel- ligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 69–85, 2018

2018
[23]

Optimized directed roadmap graph for multi-agent path finding using stochastic gradient descent,

C. Henkel and M. Toussaint, “Optimized directed roadmap graph for multi-agent path finding using stochastic gradient descent,” in Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 2020, pp. 776–783

2020
[24]

Automated roadmap graph creation and mapf benchmarking for large agv fleets,

J. Stenzel and L. Schmitz, “Automated roadmap graph creation and mapf benchmarking for large agv fleets,” in 2022 8th Inter- national Conference on Automation, Robotics and Applications (ICARA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 146–153

2022
[25]

Voronoi-based heuris- tic for nonholonomic search-based path planning,

Q. Wang, M. Wulfmeier, and B. Wagner, “Voronoi-based heuris- tic for nonholonomic search-based path planning,” in Intelligent Autonomous Systems 13: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference IAS-13. Springer, 2015, pp. 445–458

2015
[26]

Icbs: The improved conflict-based search algorithm for multi-agent pathfinding,

E. Boyarski, A. Felner, R. Stern, G. Sharon, O. Betzalel, D. Tolpin, and E. Shimony, “Icbs: The improved conflict-based search algorithm for multi-agent pathfinding,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, vol. 6, no. 1, 2015, pp. 223–225

2015
[27]

Disjoint splitting for multi-agent path finding with conflict- based search,

J. Li, D. Harabor, P. J. Stuckey, A. Felner, H. Ma, and S. Koenig, “Disjoint splitting for multi-agent path finding with conflict- based search,” in Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling, vol. 29, 2019, pp. 279– 283

2019
[28]

A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii,

K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii,” IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182–197, 2002

2002
[29]

Gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting: No regret and experimental design,

N. Srinivas, A. Krause, S. M. Kakade, and M. Seeger, “Gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting: No regret and experimental design,” arXiv preprint arXiv:0912.3995, 2009

work page arXiv 2009
[30]

Uncertainty-aware search framework for multi- objective bayesian optimization,

S. Belakaria, A. Deshwal, N. K. Jayakodi, and J. R. Doppa, “Uncertainty-aware search framework for multi- objective bayesian optimization,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 34, no. 06, 2020, pp. 10 044–10 052

2020
[31]

Convex optimization: Algorithms and complexity,

S. Bubeck, “Convex optimization: Algorithms and complexity,” Foundations and trends in Machine Learning, vol. 8, no. 3-4, pp. 231–357, 2015

2015
[32]

Information-theoretic regret bounds for gaussian process op- timization in the bandit setting,

N. Srinivas, A. Krause, S. M. Kakade, and M. W. Seeger, “Information-theoretic regret bounds for gaussian process op- timization in the bandit setting,” IEEE transactions on infor- mation theory, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 3250–3265, 2012

2012
[33]

Taking the human out of the loop: A review of bayesian optimization,

B. Shahriari, K. Swersky, Z. Wang, R. P. Adams, and N. De Fre- itas, “Taking the human out of the loop: A review of bayesian optimization,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 148–175, 2015

2015
[34]

Benchmarks for grid-based pathfinding,

N. R. Sturtevant, “Benchmarks for grid-based pathfinding,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 144–148, 2012

2012
[35]

Constrained delaunay triangulations,

L. P. Chew, “Constrained delaunay triangulations,” in Pro- ceedings of the third annual symposium on Computational geometry, 1987, pp. 215–222

1987
[36]

Meta-agent conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent path finding,

G. Sharon, R. Stern, A. Felner, and N. Sturtevant, “Meta-agent conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent path finding,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, vol. 3, no. 1, 2012, pp. 97–104. Hongkai Fan received the B.S. degree in infor- mation engineering from the Hunan University of Technology, Zhuzhou, China, in 202...

2012