Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study online Multi-Agent Path Finding (MAPF), where new agents are constantly revealed over time and all agents must find collision-free paths to their given goal locations. We generalize existing complexity results of (offline) MAPF to online MAPF. We classify online MAPF algorithms into different categories based on (1) controllability (the set of agents that they can plan paths for at each time) and (2) rationality (the quality of paths they plan) and study the relationships between them. We perform a competitive analysis for each category of online MAPF algorithms with respect to commonly-used objective functions. We show that a naive algorithm that routes newly-revealed agents one at a time in sequence achieves a competitive ratio that is asymptotically bounded from both below and above by the number of agents with respect to flowtime and makespan. We then show a counter-intuitive result that, if rerouting of previously-revealed agents is not allowed, any rational online MAPF algorithms, including ones that plan optimal paths for all newly-revealed agents, have the same asymptotic competitive ratio as the naive algorithm, even on 2D 4-neighbor grids. We also derive constant lower bounds on the competitive ratio of any rational online MAPF algorithms that allow rerouting. The results thus provide theoretical insights into the effectiveness of using MAPF algorithms in an online setting for the first time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".