A Polynomial-Time Algorithm for Non-Optimal Multi-Agent Pathfinding
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-agent pathfinding, where multiple agents must travel to their goal locations without getting stuck, has been studied in both theoretical and practical contexts, with a variety of both optimal and sub-optimal algorithms proposed for solving problems. Recent work has shown that there is a linear-time check for whether a multi-agent pathfinding problem can be solved in a tree, however this was not used to actually produce solutions. In this paper we provide a constructive proof of how to solve multi-agent pathfinding problems in a tree that culminates in a novel approach that we call the tree-based agent swapping strategy (TASS). Experimental results showed that TASS can find solutions to the multi-agent pathfinding problem on a highly crowded tree with 1000 nodes and 996 agents in less than 8 seconds. These results are far more efficient and general than existing work, suggesting that TASS is a productive line of study for multi-agent pathfinding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it