Learning team-based navigation: a review of deep reinforcement learning techniques for 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
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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