pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01996 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-03 · 💻 cs.RO · math.OC

Optimized and kinematically feasible multi-agent motion planning

Anja Hellander , Kristoffer Bergman , Daniel Axehill This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 16:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO math.OC
keywords multi-agent motion planningoptimal controlconflict-based searchtractor-trailer systemsmotion primitiveskinematic feasibilitywarm-start optimizationlattice planning
0
0 comments X

The pith

A two-step planner first finds feasible multi-agent paths with search methods then refines them via optimal control to produce optimized kinematically feasible solutions.

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

The paper introduces a hybrid approach for multi-agent motion planning that begins by generating an initial collision-free trajectory using established discrete planners such as conflict-based search or priority-based search. This trajectory serves as a warm start for solving a multi-phase optimal control problem that improves the overall cost while enforcing the agents' kinematic constraints throughout the motion. The authors also present a technique for constructing motion primitives whose durations are constrained to be integer multiples of a fixed sample time. Experiments on tractor-trailer systems demonstrate that a straightforward lattice-based planner can outperform an extended safe-interval method due to less conservative collision handling, and that conflict-based search tends to achieve higher success rates than priority-based search.

Core claim

The central claim is that an initial feasible multi-agent plan obtained from discrete search algorithms can be reliably refined by a multi-phase optimal control problem to yield a solution that is both lower in cost and strictly kinematically feasible for the agents, with the refinement step preserving feasibility because the initial plan already satisfies all collision and kinematic constraints.

What carries the argument

The two-step hybrid method consisting of a discrete search stage (CBS, PBS or lattice planning) to produce an initial feasible trajectory, followed by warm-started multi-phase optimal control refinement, together with a lattice of motion primitives whose durations are all multiples of the same sample time.

If this is right

  • The final plans satisfy the full nonlinear kinematic equations of the agents such as tractor-trailers at every instant.
  • CBS achieves higher success rates and lower average runtimes than PBS in environments with obstacles while both yield comparable final quality after refinement.
  • A simple lattice planner can outperform an extended SIPP-IP method for tractor-trailer agents because its collision checks are less conservative.
  • The optimized motion primitives with uniform sample-time durations enable efficient discretization inside the optimal control formulation.
  • The improvement step works for any initial feasible plan that respects the agents' kinematics and collision constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same warm-start refinement pattern could be applied to other nonholonomic multi-agent systems whose dynamics are more complex than tractor-trailers.
  • The method implicitly shows that simpler discrete planners with coarser but less conservative collision models can sometimes produce better starting points for continuous optimization than more elaborate planners.
  • Scalability to larger teams may depend on whether the discrete stage can still supply sufficiently good warm starts as the number of agents grows.
  • The uniform-sample-time primitive constraint may allow the same lattice to be reused across different time horizons without re-computation.

Load-bearing premise

The initial feasible plan from the discrete planner is close enough to a good optimum that the optimal control solver converges to an improved feasible solution without getting stuck in poor local minima or violating kinematic constraints.

What would settle it

Apply the refinement step to a set of initial plans from CBS and check whether the final trajectories remain kinematically valid and exhibit measurably lower cost than the initial plans; repeated failure to converge or production of invalid paths would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01996 by Anja Hellander, Daniel Axehill, Kristoffer Bergman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The steps of the proposed framework. Steps in grey are performed view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of phases for three agents. Each color represents a view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The number of problems successfully solved by the first step within view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of the resulting plans for an example with four agents. view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Multi-agent motion planning (MAMP) is an important problem for autonomous systems with multiple agents. In this work we propose a two-step method for finding optimized and kinematically feasible solutions to MAMP problems. The first step finds an initial feasible solution using state-of-the-art methods such as conflict-based search (CBS) or priority-based search (PBS), and the second step is an improvement step which improves the solution by solving a multi-phase optimal control problem (OCP) where the initial solution is used to warm-start the solver. We also propose a method for generating motion primitives in an optimized way under the constraint that the primitive durations are all multiples of the same sample time. We evaluate our proposed framework on a MAMP problem for tractor-trailer systems. We extend the safe interval path planning with interval projections (SIPP-IP) algorithm so it can handle more general cost functions and larger agents, but our results show that for the tractor-trailer system a simple lattice-based planner performs better due to less conservative collision checks. Our experiments also indicate that CBS performs better than PBS for this system as it achieves a higher success rate in environments with obstacles and had a lower average runtime, although both planners achieve solutions of similar quality after the improvement step.

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.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-step method for multi-agent motion planning (MAMP) in nonholonomic systems such as tractor-trailers: (1) generate an initial feasible solution via conflict-based search (CBS) or priority-based search (PBS), and (2) refine it by solving a multi-phase optimal control problem (OCP) warm-started from the discrete solution to produce optimized, kinematically feasible continuous trajectories. It additionally presents a technique for generating motion primitives whose durations are constrained to be integer multiples of a fixed sample time. Empirical evaluation on tractor-trailer MAMP instances shows a lattice-based planner outperforming an extended SIPP-IP variant (due to less conservative collision checking), and CBS outperforming PBS in success rate and runtime while both yield comparable post-refinement solution quality.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work supplies a pragmatic hybrid pipeline that exploits discrete search for guaranteed initial feasibility and continuous optimization for cost improvement in kinematically constrained multi-agent settings. The motion-primitive generation method and the head-to-head planner comparisons (lattice vs. extended SIPP-IP; CBS vs. PBS) constitute concrete, reusable contributions for robotics planning. The significance is limited by the absence of quantitative evidence that the non-convex OCP refinement step reliably preserves kinematic feasibility and improves cost from the warm-start.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract and description of the improvement step: the central claim that the two-step procedure yields optimized and kinematically feasible solutions depends on the multi-phase OCP reliably returning a feasible point that satisfies the exact nonholonomic ODEs and collision constraints after warm-starting from CBS/PBS initials. Because the tractor-trailer kinematics and collision sets are non-convex, the manuscript must supply convergence statistics, post-refinement feasibility verification (e.g., maximum kinematic violation or constraint residual), or failure-mode analysis; without these the improvement step remains an unverified assumption.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that motion primitives are generated 'in an optimized way' subject to the multiple-of-sample-time constraint, yet no explicit formulation, objective, or solver details are referenced; adding a short algorithmic outline or pseudocode would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comment below and agree that additional verification will strengthen the presentation of the OCP refinement step.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and description of the improvement step: the central claim that the two-step procedure yields optimized and kinematically feasible solutions depends on the multi-phase OCP reliably returning a feasible point that satisfies the exact nonholonomic ODEs and collision constraints after warm-starting from CBS/PBS initials. Because the tractor-trailer kinematics and collision sets are non-convex, the manuscript must supply convergence statistics, post-refinement feasibility verification (e.g., maximum kinematic violation or constraint residual), or failure-mode analysis; without these the improvement step remains an unverified assumption.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript currently presents the OCP refinement as reliably producing feasible, optimized trajectories without supplying explicit quantitative verification of kinematic feasibility or solver convergence. This is a valid observation given the non-convex nature of the problem. In the revised version we will add a dedicated subsection reporting post-refinement metrics across all test instances, including: (i) maximum integrated residual of the nonholonomic ODEs, (ii) maximum collision-constraint violation, (iii) solver convergence success rate from the CBS/PBS warm-starts, and (iv) a brief failure-mode summary for any instances where the OCP did not return a feasible point. These additions will directly address the referee's request and substantiate the central claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; method relies on external standard planners and empirical evaluation

full rationale

The paper describes a two-step framework where the first step uses established algorithms (CBS, PBS) to obtain an initial feasible solution and the second step refines it via a multi-phase OCP warm-started from that solution. No equations or claims reduce the final optimized trajectory to a fitted parameter or self-referential definition; the motion-primitive generation is presented as a constrained optimization under a fixed sample-time multiple without claiming it derives from the target result. Evaluation consists of direct comparisons (lattice vs. extended SIPP-IP, CBS vs. PBS) on tractor-trailer instances, which are independent of the method's internal construction. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated beyond the standard assumptions of kinematic feasibility, collision avoidance, and the existence of feasible initial solutions from CBS/PBS.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5523 in / 1149 out tokens · 28771 ms · 2026-05-09T16:48:34.441284+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multi-agent pathfinding: Defi- nitions, variants, and benchmarks,

    R. Stern, N. Sturtevant, A. Felner, S. Koenig, H. Ma, T. Walker, J. Li, D. Atzmon, L. Cohen, T. Kumar,et al., “Multi-agent pathfinding: Defi- nitions, variants, and benchmarks,” inProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, vol. 10, pp. 151–158, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Multi-agent path finding–an overview,

    R. Stern, “Multi-agent path finding–an overview,”Artificial Intelli- gence: 5th RAAI Summer School, Dolgoprudny, Russia, July 4–7, 2019, Tutorial Lectures, pp. 96–115, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    A review of graph-based multi-agent pathfinding solvers: From classical to beyond classical,

    J. Gao, Y . Li, X. Li, K. Yan, K. Lin, and X. Wu, “A review of graph-based multi-agent pathfinding solvers: From classical to beyond classical,”Knowledge-Based Systems, p. 111121, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    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,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 27, pp. 1443–1449, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    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

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    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,” inProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, vol. 6, pp. 223–225, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,

    P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, “A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,”IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 100–107, 1968

    work page 1968

  8. [8]

    Finding optimal solutions to cooperative pathfinding problems,

    T. Standley, “Finding optimal solutions to cooperative pathfinding problems,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial in- telligence, vol. 24, pp. 173–178, 2010

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    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

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Subdimensional expansion for multirobot path planning,

    G. Wagner and H. Choset, “Subdimensional expansion for multirobot path planning,”Artificial intelligence, vol. 219, pp. 1–24, 2015

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    The increasing cost tree search for optimal multi-agent pathfinding,

    G. Sharon, R. Stern, M. Goldenberg, and A. Felner, “The increasing cost tree search for optimal multi-agent pathfinding,”Artificial intel- ligence, vol. 195, pp. 470–495, 2013

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    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.,” inIJCAI, pp. 534– 540, 2018

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    On multiple moving objects,

    M. Erdmann and T. Lozano-Perez, “On multiple moving objects,” Algorithmica, vol. 2, pp. 477–521, 1987

    work page 1987

  14. [14]

    Prioritized motion planning for multiple robots,

    J. P. van den Berg and M. H. Overmars, “Prioritized motion planning for multiple robots,” in2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 430–435, 2005

    work page 2005

  15. [15]

    Cooperative pathfinding,

    D. Silver, “Cooperative pathfinding,” inProceedings of the AAAI con- ference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, vol. 1, pp. 117–122, 2005

    work page 2005

  16. [16]

    Searching with consistent prioritization for multi-agent path finding,

    H. Ma, D. Harabor, P. J. Stuckey, J. Li, and S. Koenig, “Searching with consistent prioritization for multi-agent path finding,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 33, pp. 7643– 7650, 2019

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Multi-train path finding,

    D. Atzmon, A. Diei, and D. Rave, “Multi-train path finding,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, vol. 10, pp. 125–129, 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Multi-agent path finding for large agents,

    J. Li, P. Surynek, A. Felner, H. Ma, T. S. Kumar, and S. Koenig, “Multi-agent path finding for large agents,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, pp. 7627–7634, 2019

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    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,” inProceedings of the In- ternational Symposium on Combinatorial Search, vol. 10, pp. 44–51, 2019

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    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

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    SIPP: Safe interval path planning for dynamic environments,

    M. Phillips and M. Likhachev, “SIPP: Safe interval path planning for dynamic environments,” in2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp. 5628–5635, IEEE, 2011

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Safe interval path planning with kin- odynamic constraints,

    Z. A. Ali and K. Yakovlev, “Safe interval path planning with kin- odynamic constraints,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, pp. 12330–12337, 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    CL-MAPF: Multi-agent path finding for car-like robots with kinematic and spatiotemporal constraints,

    L. Wen, Y . Liu, and H. Li, “CL-MAPF: Multi-agent path finding for car-like robots with kinematic and spatiotemporal constraints,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 150, p. 103997, 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Conflict-based search for multi-robot motion planning with kinodynamic constraints,

    J. Kottinger, S. Almagor, and M. Lahijanian, “Conflict-based search for multi-robot motion planning with kinodynamic constraints,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 13494–13499, IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Collaborative Motion Planning for Multiple Tractor-Trailer Vehicles Based on Local Conflict Search and Priority Game Inheritance,

    L. Su, M. Yue, X. Sun, H. Wang, and X. Zhao, “Collaborative Motion Planning for Multiple Tractor-Trailer Vehicles Based on Local Conflict Search and Priority Game Inheritance,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Representation- Optimal Multi-Robot Motion Planning Using Conflict-Based Search,

    I. Solis, J. Motes, R. Sandstr ¨om, and N. M. Amato, “Representation- Optimal Multi-Robot Motion Planning Using Conflict-Based Search,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4608–4615, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning,

    S. LaValle, “Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning,”Research Report 9811, 1998

    work page 1998

  28. [28]

    Randomized kinodynamic plan- ning,

    S. M. LaValle and J. J. Kuffner Jr, “Randomized kinodynamic plan- ning,”The international journal of robotics research, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 378–400, 2001

    work page 2001

  29. [29]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,”The international journal of robotics research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, 2011

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    Sampling-based optimal motion planning for non-holonomic dynamical systems,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based optimal motion planning for non-holonomic dynamical systems,” in2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp. 5041–5047, IEEE, 2013

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    Embedding nonlinear optimization in RRT* for optimal kinodynamic planning,

    S. Stoneman and R. Lampariello, “Embedding nonlinear optimization in RRT* for optimal kinodynamic planning,” in53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 3737–3744, IEEE, 2014

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

    Multi-Agent Motion Planning With B ´ezier Curve Optimization Under Kinodynamic Constraints,

    J. Yan and J. Li, “Multi-Agent Motion Planning With B ´ezier Curve Optimization Under Kinodynamic Constraints,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Tractor-trailer vehicle trajectory planning in narrow environments with a progressively constrained optimal control approach,

    B. Li, T. Acarman, Y . Zhang, L. Zhang, C. Yaman, and Q. Kong, “Tractor-trailer vehicle trajectory planning in narrow environments with a progressively constrained optimal control approach,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 414–425, 2019

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Improved path planning by tightly combining lattice-based path planning and optimal control,

    K. Bergman, O. Ljungqvist, and D. Axehill, “Improved path planning by tightly combining lattice-based path planning and optimal control,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 57–66, 2020

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Differentially constrained mobile robot motion planning in state lattices,

    M. Pivtoraiko, R. A. Knepper, and A. Kelly, “Differentially constrained mobile robot motion planning in state lattices,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 308–333, 2009

    work page 2009

  36. [36]

    Local pre- dictive optimization of globally planned motions for truck-trailer systems,

    J. Dahlmann, A. V ¨olz, M. Lukassek, and K. Graichen, “Local pre- dictive optimization of globally planned motions for truck-trailer systems,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2023

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Decentralized Multi-Agent Planning Using Model Predictive Control and Time-Aware Safe Corridors,

    C. Toumieh and A. Lambert, “Decentralized Multi-Agent Planning Using Model Predictive Control and Time-Aware Safe Corridors,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 11110–11117, 2022

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Collaborative Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Mining Trucks: A Grouping and Prioritized Optimization Based Approach,

    H. Li, P. Chen, G. Yu, B. Zhou, Z. Han, and Y . Liao, “Collaborative Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Mining Trucks: A Grouping and Prioritized Optimization Based Approach,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 6283–6300, 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    S. M. LaValle,Planning algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2006

    work page 2006

  40. [40]

    A path planning and path-following control framework for a general 2-trailer with a car-like tractor,

    O. Ljungqvist, N. Evestedt, D. Axehill, M. Cirillo, and H. Pettersson, “A path planning and path-following control framework for a general 2-trailer with a car-like tractor,”Journal of field robotics, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1345–1377, 2019

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Improved optimization of motion primitives for motion planning in state lattices,

    K. Bergman, O. Ljungqvist, and D. Axehill, “Improved optimization of motion primitives for motion planning in state lattices,” in2019 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), pp. 2307–2314, IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    High Performance State Lattice Planning Using Heuristic Look-Up Tables.,

    R. A. Knepper and A. Kelly, “High Performance State Lattice Planning Using Heuristic Look-Up Tables.,” inIROS, pp. 3375–3380, Citeseer, 2006

    work page 2006

  43. [43]

    CasADi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and opti- mal control,

    J. A. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “CasADi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and opti- mal control,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 11, pp. 1– 36, 2019

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear program- ming,

    A. W ¨achter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear program- ming,”Mathematical programming, vol. 106, pp. 25–57, 2006

    work page 2006

  45. [45]

    Hybrid control of a truck and trailer vehicle,

    C. Altafini, A. Speranzon, and K. H. Johansson, “Hybrid control of a truck and trailer vehicle,” inInternational Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, pp. 21–34, Springer, 2002

    work page 2002

  46. [46]

    An optimization-based receding horizon trajectory planning algorithm,

    K. Bergman, O. Ljungqvist, T. Glad, and D. Axehill, “An optimization-based receding horizon trajectory planning algorithm,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 15550–15557, 2020

    work page 2020