Multi‐agent Path Planning with Heterogenous Interactions in Tight Spaces
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
Abstract By starting with the assumption that motion is fundamentally a decision making problem, we use the world‐line concept from Special Relativity as the inspiration for a novel multi‐agent path planning method. We have identified a particular set of problems that have so far been overlooked by previous works. We present our solution for the global path planning problem for each agent and ensure smooth local collision avoidance for each pair of agents in the scene. We accomplish this by modelling the collision‐free trajectories of the agents through 2D space and time as rods in 3D. We obtain smooth trajectories by solving a non‐linear optimization problem with a quasi‐Newton interior point solver, initializing the solver with a non‐intersecting configuration from a modified Dijkstra's algorithm. This space–time formulation allows us to simulate previously ignored phenomena such as highly heterogeneous interactions in very constrained environments. It also provides a solution for scenes with unnaturally symmetric agent alignments without the need for jittering agent positions or velocities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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