Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Multi-Robot Path Deconfliction through Prioritization by Path Prospects

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A robot's number of topologically distinct routes, when used as planning priority, beats five benchmark rules in multi-robot path deconfliction.

desk verdict A new, plausible priority heuristic for decoupled multi-robot planning, with decent simulations and a topological framing that overclaims. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02361 v1 pith:RQ7VXHG7 submitted 2019-08-06 cs.RO

Wenying Wu , Subhrajit Bhattacharya , Amanda Prorok This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords multi-robotpathplanningprioritizedprospectshomologyclassesZ2coefficientsdecentralizedcoordinationdeadlock-freemakespanflowtime
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Multi-robot path planning becomes intractable when robots are planned jointly, so a common shortcut is to give each robot a priority and plan paths one at a time; the question this paper tackles is which robot should go first. It proposes measuring each robot's path prospects — the number of topologically distinct routes it still has to its goal — and giving priority to the robot with fewer options, on the intuition that constrained robots should be served before flexible ones. In grid-world simulations with 10 robots across six cluttered maps and with 100 robots in a large maze, the path-prospect priority rules reach the highest success rates (95.7% with random tie-break, 94.1% with longest-first tie-break) and sit on the empirical Pareto front for the trade-off between makespan and flowtime against five benchmark priority rules. The paper also shows that the decentralized negotiation keeps one consistent priority score per robot, so the induced ordering is a strict partial order and the planning loop is deadlock-free.

What carries the argument

The central object is the path-prospect estimate $P_n^{(t)}$, computed by Algorithm 3. The algorithm builds a forward area $A$ from vertices reachable from the robot's current position whose time-to-goal plus true distance to the goal stays under a global threshold $T$ (the team's estimated longest true distance), then counts effective obstacles — static obstacles merged after inflation by the robot's footprint when no trajectory passes between them — that lie entirely inside $A$; if $\kappa$ obstacles are counted, the robot's prospects are $2^\kappa$. This number is the size of the $Z_2$-coefficient homology class set of trajectories in a planar domain with $\kappa$ connected components of effective obstacles, and it is what converts the environment and the robot's size into a priority: fewer prospects, higher priority. The forward area matters because it prevents obstacles behind the robot from inflating its count.

What would settle it

Take the S1 grid-worlds and, for each robot, compute the exact number of feasible $Z_2$-coefficient homology classes from its current position to its goal via a homology-aware search instead of Algorithm 3's $2^\kappa$ count. If the exact count differs from Algorithm 3's estimate on enough instances that the priority order changes, and the exact-count version then outperforms PP-R on success rate or Pareto dominance, the paper's claim that its estimate carries the improvement is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the number of a robot's path prospects, estimated from $Z_2$-coefficient homology classes of trajectories, is the right quantity to prioritize on in decentralized multi-robot path deconfliction. A robot with fewer prospects should have higher priority, because it cannot easily adapt; a robot with more prospects should yield and take an alternative route. The paper reports that the two path-prospect variants lie on the empirical Pareto front for percent increase over ideal makespan and flowtime across all six tested environments, and achieve the highest success rates among the seven compared variants (PP-R 95.7% and PP-LF 94.1%). It further claims that the coordination algorithm is deadlock-free because every robot broadcasts an absolute priority score, making the global relation a strict partial order.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on Algorithm 3's estimate that a robot with $\kappa$ effective obstacles inside its forward area has $2^\kappa$ genuinely distinct route options; if that count does not track the real number of feasible topologically distinct paths in cluttered or dynamic settings, the priority ordering becomes arbitrary and the reported gains may not hold outside the tested grid worlds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the six grid-world environments and the 150x150, 100-robot maze, using path prospects as the priority rule achieves the highest success rate of all seven variants (PP-R 95.7%, PP-LF 94.1%).
  • Both path-prospect variants lie on the empirical Pareto front for percent increase over ideal makespan and flowtime; no benchmark jointly dominates them on the two objectives.
  • Because each robot computes its priority from its own state and the environment, the method avoids evaluating $N!$ priority orderings and can be run online in a distributed fashion with only local communication.
  • The deadlock-free property follows from the consistency of absolute priority scores: neighborhoods can merge and the global relation remains a strict partial order, so replanning cannot cycle.
  • The prioritization machinery is agnostic to the underlying path planner; HCA* is used in the experiments, but any planner with a TRIM-like collision check can be substituted.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If Algorithm 3's $2^\kappa$ estimate were replaced by an exact enumeration of feasible $Z_2$-homology classes, the priority rule would likely become more robust in dense maps; a direct comparison on the paper's own maps is a cheap test of whether the count or the topology is the active ingredient.
  • The rule effectively grants right-of-way to the most mobility-constrained robot, which suggests a connection to bottleneck-based priority schemes in traffic and to completeness guarantees: robots whose choice set is a singleton should never be forced to wait indefinitely, which may help explain the high success rate.
  • Because path prospects shrink as a robot nears its goal, the priority ordering is genuinely dynamic: the same pair of robots can swap effective priorities mid-run, something static longest-first heuristics cannot do; exploiting this explicitly might reduce flowtime further than the reported numbers.
  • The paper notes future work beyond grid-worlds; in continuous 3-D workspaces, the $2^\kappa$ rule may not carry over directly because the number of homology classes need not be finite for general configuration spaces, so a practical extension would require a bounded or filtered version of the count.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a decentralized prioritized multi-robot path planning method in which each robot computes a priority score from its ``path prospects'': the number of Z2-coefficient homology classes of trajectories from its current position to its goal. This score is estimated by Algorithm 3 as 2^κ, where κ is the number of effective obstacles fully contained in a forward area A, and A is defined via vertices whose time-to-goal is below a global threshold T. The priority score is used in a dynamic decentralized negotiation algorithm (Algorithm 1), and the authors claim in Proposition 1 that the algorithm is deadlock-free because it maintains a partial order over the robot set. The method is evaluated in grid-world simulations with ten robots on six maps and with one hundred robots on a large map, comparing against five benchmark heuristics plus a random rule. The authors report that their two path-prospect variants (PP-R and PP-LF) achieve the highest success rates (95.7% and 94.1%) and lie on the empirical Pareto front for makespan and flowtime.

Significance. The idea of quantifying a robot's path options through homology classes and using this as an online prioritization signal is novel and potentially useful for decoupled multi-robot planning. The ablation design is a strength: comparing Naive Surroundings (NS) with Coupled Surroundings (CS) and Forwards Looking (FL) with Path Prospects (PP) isolates the contributions of robot-environment coupling and of the forward area. If the path-prospects estimator were validated and the deadlock-freedom argument made rigorous, the method would be a lightweight, decentralized heuristic of broad interest. However, the paper's central explanatory claim is not yet supported: the estimator in Algorithm 3 is not shown to compute the number of feasible homology classes, and the proof of Proposition 1 is only a sketch. The empirical results are described but not reproducible from the manuscript alone, as no code, data, or exact parameter settings are provided. The paper does not contain machine-checked proofs or released code; its main contribution is a falsifiable heuristic whose validation is currently incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [V-B, Algorithm 3, Eq. (1)] The estimate P_n(t)=2^κ is not derived from the homology-counting statement in Section V-A. That statement applies to a planar domain with z connected components of effective obstacles and counts all Z2 homology classes of loops in the whole punctured workspace. Algorithm 3, by contrast, counts only effective obstacles that are entirely contained in the forward area A, omitting obstacles that partially intersect or lie outside A even when feasible paths can wind around them, and it may count obstacles inside A that cannot actually be encircled within the time budget induced by T. Moreover, A is not used to constrain the HCA* planner in Section IV-B, so the scored region and the real plan space can diverge. Since Eq. (1) sets priority directly from P_n, the paper does not establish that robots are prioritized by their actual path prospects. I ask for a direct validation: in small grid worlds, compare P_n with the true number of feasible Z2 homology classes of time-respecting paths, and report sensitivity of the results to T and to the obstacle-inflation rule.
  2. [IV-A, Proposition 1] The proof that Algorithm 1 is deadlock-free is a sketch and does not establish the claim. It argues that because each robot broadcasts a single priority score, the union of neighborhoods is partially ordered by transitivity. However, ξ_n is recomputed online (Algorithm 1 line 6 and Algorithm 2 line 6) and depends on the robot's current vertex, so relative priorities can change over time and there may be no single static partial order over R. The proof also does not address asynchronous updates or the random tie-breaking used in PP-R: if two robots compute their priorities at slightly different times or use uncoordinated random tie-breaking, both may believe they have higher priority. Please provide a rigorous invariant, such as a proof that priorities are frozen during negotiation or that a consistent total order is maintained, and show that deadlock-freedom follows in the asynchronous model described in Section III.
  3. [VI, Figures 8-10] The central empirical claims are not reproducible from the manuscript alone. The paper does not provide code, data, or exact values for the threshold T used in Algorithm 3, and the 95% confidence intervals in Figures 8-10 are not defined (e.g., standard error over the 500 random assignments, or over communication ranges). No statistical test is reported for the success-rate differences in Figure 9, so it is unclear whether PP-R's 95.7% is significantly better than PP-LF's 94.1% or than CS. Please report the missing experimental details, including the full parameter settings, and provide a sensitivity analysis for T.
minor comments (5)
  1. [VI-A] The grid-search for the NS baseline's range z=30 is mentioned but not specified; please report the search range and the criterion used to select 30.
  2. [III] The definition of effective obstacles is ambiguous: writing \tilde{o}_i \subseteq O suggests each effective obstacle is a subset of the set of original obstacles, but the text later treats it as a subset of the workspace; please clarify the notation.
  3. [V-B] The ``true distance'' of a vertex is described informally; it should be defined formally to make the construction of the forward area and the threshold T unambiguous.
  4. [Algorithm 4] GET_FORWARDS_VERTICES returns a set of vertices, but Algorithm 3 requires an area A; please specify how COMPUTE_AREA constructs A from the returned vertices and the edge set E_n.
  5. [V-C] Equation (1) defines the ordering only when P_n < P_m; please specify the full tie-breaking rule in the formal definition, since the paper uses both random and longest-first tie-breaks.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proposed prioritization is computed from local graph and obstacle data, and its reported advantages come from external benchmark comparisons with no fitted parameters in the proposed method.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its central claim. The prioritization rule is defined in Section V-C by Eq. (1): P_n < P_m iff ξ_n precedes ξ_m, where P_n is the path-prospect value returned by Algorithm 3. The inputs to Algorithm 3 are the robot's current position, goal, untrimmed graph, effective obstacles, and an estimated longest path length T; no target metric such as success rate, makespan, or flowtime is used to define or calibrate P_n. The reported success-rate and Pareto-front results are obtained by running the planner in grid-world benchmarks and comparing against five baseline heuristics. The only tuned parameter mentioned in the evaluation, z = 30, belongs to the Naive Surroundings baseline, not to the proposed method. The algebraic-topology statement that Z2-coefficient homology classes in a planar domain with z effective obstacles number 2^z is accompanied by its own short justification in Section V-A: the homology invariant becomes a vector in Z2^z. The self-citations [3] and [4] include one of the authors but are not load-bearing for that elementary counting argument; they do not import an unverified uniqueness theorem or forbid alternative priority rules. The concern that Algorithm 3's kappa may not faithfully estimate the true number of feasible homology classes is a substantive correctness question, but it is not circularity, because the estimator is not defined in terms of the evaluation outcomes. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction step, or renaming of a known result is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method contributes a new heuristic, not a new fitted model. It relies on a standard topological fact, a domain assumption about effective obstacles, and two ad hoc heuristic choices (obstacle-containment count and forward-area threshold). No new physical or computational entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • T (estimated longest true distance of robot team)
    Global threshold used in GET_FORWARDS_VERTICES to decide which vertices belong to the forward area: a vertex is kept only if t_n + TRUE_DISTANCE(n, g) <= T. The paper sets T by broadcasting the largest static start-goal true distance; it is a design choice, not fitted to the evaluation data, but it directly shapes the path-prospects count.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math In a planar domain with z connected components of effective obstacles, the number of Z2-coefficient homology classes of loops is 2^z.
    Used in Section V-A to justify counting 2^κ as the number of path prospects. Standard algebraic topology, cited to [3] and [4].
  • domain assumption Effective obstacles ~O_n are groups of original obstacles such that no feasible trajectory in G_n passes between obstacles in the same group.
    Defines the entities whose components enter the homology count; depends on robot size and graph. Introduced in Section III.
  • ad hoc to paper The number of path prospects P_n(t) equals 2^κ where κ is the number of effective obstacles fully contained in the forward area A.
    This is the paper's heuristic estimator (Algorithm 3), not derived. It counts full containment (o ∩ A = o) and ignores partial obstacles, which may over- or under-count actual homology classes.
  • ad hoc to paper The forward area A is the region spanned by vertices reachable from the current position with time-to-goal under the team threshold T.
    Defines the spatial scope of path prospects. Uses true distance from [21]; the threshold choice is arbitrary and not validated.
  • domain assumption Robots have synchronized clocks, mutual detection, negligible message delay, and each robot's priority is a global absolute value that can be broadcast.
    Stated in Section III assumptions; required for the partial-order argument in Proposition 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Robot Path Deconfliction through Prioritization by Path Prospects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQ7VXHG7

@misc{pith2026190802361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Robot Path Deconfliction through Prioritization by Path Prospects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQ7VXHG7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02361}
}
read the original abstract

This work deals with the problem of planning conflict-free paths for mobile robots in cluttered environments. Since centralized, coupled planning algorithms are computationally intractable for large numbers of robots, we consider decoupled planning, in which robots plan their paths sequentially in order of priority. Choosing how to prioritize the robots is a key consideration. State-of-the-art prioritization heuristics, however, do not model the coupling between a robot's mobility and its environment. In this paper, we propose a prioritization rule that can be computed online by each robot independently, and that provides consistent, conflict-free path plans. Our innovation is to formalize a robot's path prospects to reach its goal from its current location. To this end, we consider the number of homology classes of trajectories, and use this as a prioritization rule in our decentralized path planning algorithm, whenever any robots enter negotiation to deconflict path plans. This prioritization rule guarantees a partial ordering over the robot set. We perform simulations that compare our method to five benchmarks, and show that it reaches the highest success rate (w.r.t. completeness), and that it strikes the best balance between makespan and flowtime objectives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02361 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example problem where considering path diversity is important for the prioritization. The red robot has two possible paths, whereas the larger blue robot only has one. On the left, the red robot has first priority. It takes the shorter of its two paths, however this forces the blue robot to wait in place until it can follow. On the right, the blue robot, with lower path diversity, has first priority. The red robo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows a labeled assignment for two robots that must plan minimum-cost trajectories from their start positions to their goal positions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. On the left, we plot the space-time graph G1 with a minimum-cost trajectory π1 for robot r1. On the right, we see how trajectory π2 sweeps a volume V (π2, ρ2) that does not intersect with V (π1, ρ1). Definition 2 (Ordered robot set). Given a priority ordering ≺ on a set of robots R, the pair (R, ≺) is a strict partially ordered robot set. Definition 3 (Ordered robot neighborhood). Given a priority ordering ≺, for a … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Homology classes of trajectories. τ2 and τ ′ 2 are in different classes in regular homology, but map to the same class in Z2-coefficient homology. times, and for every different number of windings the class assigned to the loop is different. In order to prevent the sep…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example where two robots with different sizes have different path prospects. In (b), the two central obstacles merge into a single effective obstacle. The lighter borders around each obstacle depict their inflation by the robots radius ρn, which is one method for compu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of path solutions (blue lines) for the six maps used in our problem sets. In each problem, 10 robots (blue squares) of five different sizes are assigned random start and goal positions. the robot-environment coupling. To this end, we implement seven variant sc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Experiment S1. Percentage increase over the ideal flowtime and ideal makespan, for the seven variant prioritization heuristics. We show a 95% confidence interval. Blue nodes correspond to path prospect heuristics, red nodes represent the alternate benchmarks. B. Result…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the success rates for the seven algorithms. The results show that success rates increase significantly with heuristics that explicitly account for the robot-environment coupling. The highest success rates are achieved by our two methods, PP-R at 95.7% and PP-LF a…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Experiment S2 obtained on a large map of size 150×150 with 100 robots. Percentage increase over the ideal flowtime and ideal makespan, for the seven variant prioritization heuristics. We show a 95% confidence interval. Blue nodes correspond to path prospect heuristics…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    H. Ma, D. Harabor, P . J. Stuckey, J. Li, and S. Koenig. Sea rching with consistent prioritization for multi-agent path findin g. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.06356, 2018

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Azarm and G

    K. Azarm and G. Schmidt. Conflict-free motion of multiple mobile robots based on decentralized motion planning and negotiat ion. In Robotics and Automation, 1997. Proceedings., 1997 IEEE Int ernational Conference on , volume 4, pages 3526–3533. IEEE, 1997

    work page 1997

  3. [2]

    Bennewitz, W

    M. Bennewitz, W. Burgard, and S. Thrun. Finding and optim izing solvable priority schemes for decoupled path planning tech niques for teams of mobile robots. Robotics and autonomous systems , 41(2-3):89– 99, 2002

    work page 2002

  4. [3]

    Bhattacharya, R

    S. Bhattacharya, R. Ghrist, and V . Kumar. Persistent hom ology for path planning in uncertain environments. IEEE Transactions on Robotics (T- RO), 31(3):578–590, March 2015. DOI: 10.1109/TRO.2015.24120 51

    arXiv 2015

  5. [4]

    Bhattacharya, M

    S. Bhattacharya, M. Likhachev, and V . Kumar. Topologica l constraints in search-based robot path planning. Autonomous Robots , 33(3):273–290, October 2012. DOI: 10.1007/s10514-012-9304-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10514-012-9304-1 2012

  6. [5]

    C´ ap, P

    M. C´ ap, P . Nov´ ak, M. Seleck` y, J. Faigl, and J. V okffnek. Asynchronous decentralized prioritized planning for coordination in mu lti-robot system. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2013 IEEE/RSJ Inter national Conference on , pages 3822–3829. IEEE, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Y . Chen, M. Cutler, and J. P . How. Decoupled multiagent pa th planning via incremental sequential convex programming. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2015 IEEE International Conference on , pages 5954–5961. IEEE, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    C. M. Clark, T. Bretl, and S. Rock. Applying kinodynamic r andomized motion planning with a dynamic priority system to multi-rob ot space systems. In Aerospace Conference Proceedings, 2002. IEEE , volume 7, pages 7–7. IEEE, 2002

    work page 2002

Show all 26 references
  1. [8]

    A. A. Deshpande and K. R. Nataraj. A review: Priority base d motion control of multiple robot systems. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology , 2(1), 2013

    2013

  2. [9]

    Enright and P

    J. Enright and P . R. Wurman. Optimization and coordinate d autonomy in mobile fulfillment systems. In Automated action planning for autonomous mobile robots , pages 33–38, 2011

    2011

  3. [10]

    Erdmann and T

    M. Erdmann and T. Lozano-P´ erez. On multiple moving obj ects. Algorithmica, 2(1-4):477, 1987

    1987

  4. [11]

    Ferner, G

    C. Ferner, G. Wagner, and H. Choset. ODrM* optimal multi robot path planning in low dimensional search spaces. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 3854–3859. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  5. [12]

    Grippa, D

    P . Grippa, D. A. Behrens, C. Bettstetter, and F. Wall. Jo b selection in a network of autonomous uavs for delivery of goods. Robotics: Science and Systems , 2017

    2017

  6. [13]

    H¨ onig, T

    W. H¨ onig, T. S. Kumar, L. Cohen, H. Ma, H. Xu, N. Ayanian, and S. Koenig. Multi-agent path finding with kinematic constrai nts. In Twenty-Sixth International Conference on Automated Plann ing and Scheduling, 2016

    2016

  7. [14]

    Hyldmar, Y

    N. Hyldmar, Y . He, and A. Prorok. A fleet of miniature cars for experiments in cooperative driving. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2019

    2019

  8. [15]

    Kant and S

    K. Kant and S. W. Zucker. Toward efficient trajectory pla nning: The path-velocity decomposition. The international journal of robotics research, 5(3):72–89, 1986

    1986

  9. [16]

    Kantor, S

    G. Kantor, S. Singh, R. Peterson, D. Rus, A. Das, V . Kumar , G. Pereira, and J. Spletzer. Distributed search and rescue with robot an d sensor teams. In Field and Service Robotics , pages 529–538. Springer, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    Pavone, S

    M. Pavone, S. L. Smith, E. Frazzoli, and D. Rus. Robotic l oad balancing for mobility-on-demand systems. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 31(7):839–854, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    Regele and P

    R. Regele and P . Levi. Cooperative multi-robot path pla nning by heuristic priority adjustment. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on , pages 5954–5959. IEEE, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Sharon, R

    G. Sharon, R. Stern, A. Felner, and N. R. Sturtevant. Con flict- based search for optimal multi-agent pathfinding. Artificial Intelligence , 219:40–66, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    D. Silver. Cooperative pathfinding. In Artificial intelligence and interactive digital entertainment , volume 1, pages 117–122, 2005

    2005

  14. [22]

    Turpin, K

    M. Turpin, K. Mohta, and N. Michael. Goal assignment and trajectory planning for large teams of interchangeable robots. In Autonomous Robots, volume 37, pages 401–415, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    J. P . V an Den Berg and M. H. Overmars. Prioritized motion planning for multiple robots. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 430–435. IEEE, 2005

    2005

  16. [24]

    V elagapudi, K

    P . V elagapudi, K. Sycara, and P . Scerri. Decentralized prioritized planning in large multirobot teams. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on , pages 4603–4609. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    Wagner and H

    G. Wagner and H. Choset. M*: A complete multirobot path p lanning algorithm with performance bounds. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on , pages 3260–3267. IEEE, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Y u and S

    J. Y u and S. M. LaV alle. Structure and intractability of optimal multi- robot path planning on graphs. In AAAI, 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.