MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896987114 · doi:10.1109/cig.2018.8490436

Multi-Agent Pathfinding with Real-Time Heuristic Search

2018· article· en· W2896987114 on OpenAlexafffund
Devon Sigurdson, Vadim Bulitko, William Yeoh, Carlos Hernández, Sven Koenig

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNvidiaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPathfindingHeuristicComputer scienceConsistent heuristicTask (project management)Incremental heuristic searchNull-move heuristicArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmSearch algorithmBeam searchTheoretical computer scienceShortest path problemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-agent pathfinding, namely finding collision-free paths for several agents from their given start locations to their given goal locations on a known stationary map, is an important task for non-player characters in video games. A variety of heuristic search algorithms have been developed for this task. Non-real-time algorithms, such as Flow Annotated Replanning (FAR), first find complete paths for all agents and then move the agents along these paths. However, their searches are often too expensive. Real-time algorithms have the ability to produce the next moves for all agents without finding complete paths for them and thus allow the agents to move in real time. Real-time heuristic search algorithms have so far typically been developed for single-agent pathfinding. We, on the other hand, present a real-time heuristic search algorithm for multi-agent pathfinding, called Bounded Multi-Agent A* (BMAA*), that works as follows: Every agent runs an individual real-time heuristic search that updates heuristic values assigned to locations and treats the other agents as (moving) obstacles. Agents do not coordinate with each other, in particular, they neither share their paths nor heuristic values. We show how BMAA* can be enhanced by adding FAR-style flow annotations and allowing agents to push other agents temporarily off their goal locations, when necessary. In our experiments, BMAA* has higher completion rates and lower completion times than FAR.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207