REVIEW 1 cited by
Reevaluation of Large Neighborhood Search for MAPF: Findings and Opportunities
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
read the original abstract
Multi-Agent Path Finding (MAPF) aims to arrange collision-free goal-reaching paths for a group of agents. Anytime MAPF solvers based on large neighborhood search (LNS) have gained prominence recently due to their flexibility and scalability, leading to a surge of methods, especially those leveraging machine learning, to enhance neighborhood selection. However, several pitfalls exist and hinder a comprehensive evaluation of these new methods, which mainly include: 1) Lower than actual or incorrect baseline performance; 2) Lack of a unified evaluation setting and criterion; 3) Lack of a codebase or executable model for supervised learning methods. To address these challenges, we introduce a unified evaluation framework, implement prior methods, and conduct an extensive comparison of prominent methods. Our evaluation reveals that rule-based heuristics serve as strong baselines, while current learning-based methods show no clear advantage on time efficiency or improvement capacity. Our extensive analysis also opens up new research opportunities for improving MAPF-LNS, such as targeting high-delayed agents, applying contextual algorithms, optimizing replan order and neighborhood size, where machine learning can potentially be integrated. Code and data are available at https://github.com/ChristinaTan0704/mapf-lns-unified.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Where Paths Collide: A Comprehensive Survey of Classic and Learning-Based Multi-Agent Pathfinding
A broad survey of MAPF methods that documents inconsistent evaluation practices and proposes a unified taxonomy.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.