Reevaluation of Large Neighborhood Search for MAPF: Findings and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-Agent Path Finding (MAPF) aims to arrange collision-free goal-reaching paths for a group of agents. Anytime MAPF solvers based on large neighborhood search (LNS) have gained prominence recently due to their flexibility and scalability, leading to a surge of methods, especially those leveraging machine learning, to enhance neighborhood selection. However, several pitfalls exist and hinder a comprehensive evaluation of these new methods, which mainly include: 1) Lower than actual or incorrect baseline performance; 2) Lack of a unified evaluation setting and criterion; 3) Lack of a codebase or executable model for supervised learning methods. To address these challenges, we introduce a unified evaluation framework, implement prior methods, and conduct an extensive comparison of prominent methods. Our evaluation reveals that rule-based heuristics serve as strong baselines, while current learning-based methods show no clear advantage on time efficiency or improvement capacity. Our extensive analysis also opens up new research opportunities for improving MAPF-LNS, such as targeting high-delayed agents, applying contextual algorithms, optimizing replan order and neighborhood size, where machine learning can potentially be integrated.
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 | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".