MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391654576 · doi:10.1007/s10462-023-10670-6

Learning team-based navigation: a review of deep reinforcement learning techniques for multi-agent pathfinding

2024· review· en· W4391654576 on OpenAlexaff
Jaehoon Chung, Jamil Fayyad, Younes Al Younes, Homayoun Najjaran

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Review · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathfindingReinforcement learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionShortest path problem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Multi-agent pathfinding (MAPF) is a critical field in many large-scale robotic applications, often being the fundamental step in multi-agent systems. The increasing complexity of MAPF in complex and crowded environments, however, critically diminishes the effectiveness of existing solutions. In contrast to other studies that have either presented a general overview of the recent advancements in MAPF or extensively reviewed Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) within multi-agent system settings independently, our work presented in this review paper focuses on highlighting the integration of DRL-based approaches in MAPF. Moreover, we aim to bridge the current gap in evaluating MAPF solutions by addressing the lack of unified evaluation indicators and providing comprehensive clarification on these indicators. Finally, our paper discusses the potential of model-based DRL as a promising future direction and provides its required foundational understanding to address current challenges in MAPF. Our objective is to assist readers in gaining insight into the current research direction, providing unified indicators for comparing different MAPF algorithms and expanding their knowledge of model-based DRL to address the existing challenges in MAPF.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence ReviewSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207