Pathfinding for 10k agents

Used in a seminar talk in Cambridge
https://talks.cam.ac.uk/talk/index/204508

Transcript

1. /73 Pathfinding for 10k agents Keisuke Okumura1,2 1st Nov. 2023, Wednesday Seminar, Dept. of Computer Science and Technology, Univ. of Cambridge 1University of Cambridge 2National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan kei18 https://kei18.github.io ko393@cl.cam.ac.uk
2. /73 2 "Swarm" automation is ubiquitous Insider Tech / YouTube Ocado’s warehouse
3. /73 3 Le Goc+ UIST-16 Flatland Challenge / AIcrowd Li+ AAAI-23 StarCraft / YouTube Zhang+ Automation in Construction. 2018
4. /73 4 underlying common problem: Okumura & Defago. IJCAI-23 collision-free pathfinding for multiple agents • quick, real-time • scalable • fewer redundant motions (optimality)
5. /73 5 generated by DALL-E 3 Two roads Decentralization Centralization
6. /73 6 Two roads Decentralization quick, scalable Centralization theoretical guarantees e.g., completeness, optimality
7. /73 7 Intel Newsroom / YouTube Intel’s Automated Material-Handling System (semi-)decentralization is the only way? Demands for 1k-10k scale
8. /73 8 Drone Addicts / YouTube Port of Amsterdam @tuidelescribano / X Shibuya Scramble Crossing, Tokyo Decentralization is powerful
9. /73 9 @yr_6001_as / X Skylark Channel / YouTube Delivery Robots in Restaurants deadlock but with possibility of miscoordination
10. /73 10 Radio BandNews FM / Facebook São Paulo, gridlocked intersection Miscoordination triggers tragedy
11. /73 11 Financial Times, https://www.ft.com Miscoordination triggers tragedy Centralization can reduce miscoordination
12. /73 12 Varambally, S., Li, J., & Koenig, S. Which MAPF Model Works Best for Automated Warehousing? SoCS. 2022. simulation for warehouse automation (not my work) multi-agent path finding algorithm Centralization also improves system performance semi-decentralized
13. /73 13 Can we build scalable centralized pathfinding algorithms, while still having nice theoretical guarantees?
14. /73 14 given agents graph goals solution paths without collisions cost total travel time, distance, makespan, etc MAPF: Multi-Agent Path Finding
15. /73 15 1. Okumura, K., Yonetani, R., Nishimura, M., & Kanezaki, A. CTRMs: Learning to Construct Cooperative Timed Roadmaps for Multi-agent Path Planning in Continuous Spaces. AAMAS. 2022. 2. Okumura, K., Machida, M., Défago, X., & Tamura, Y. Priority Inheritance with Backtracking for Iterative Multi-agent Path Finding. AIJ. 2022. 3. Okumura, K., &Defago, X. Quick Multi-Robot Motion Planning by Combining Sampling and Search. IJCAI. 2023. 4. Okumura, K., Bonnet, F., Tamura, Y., & Défago, X. Offline Time-Independent Multi-Agent Path Planning. T-RO. 2023. Extended from IJCAI-22. 5. Okumura, K. & Defago, X. Solving Simultaneous Target Assignment and Path Planning Efficiently with Time-Independent Execution. AIJ. 2023. ICAPS-22 Best Student Paper 6. Okumura, K., & Tixeuil, S. Fault-Tolerant Offline Multi-Agent Path Planning. AAAI. 2023. crash tolerance6 asynchronous execution4 with target assignment5 continuous spaces1 lifelong planning2 arbitrary shapes3 Solving MAPF is the foundation of:
16. /73 16 Centralized MAPF methods are NOT scalable?
17. /73 17 Hart, P. E., Nilsson, N. J., & Raphael, B. A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Trans. on Systems Science and Cybernetics. 1968. start goal A* search start goal f = g + h search tree
18. /73 18 … … … … … search node (configuration) goal configuration Vanilla A* for MAPF
19. /73 19 Completealgorithms return solutions for solvable instances in finite time; otherwise, they report the non-existence. Optimalalgorithms always return solutions having minimum costs. Algorithm properties A* is complete. It is optimal with admissible heuristics.
20. /73 20 runtime (sec) solved instances (%)                - 13,900 instances - 33 grid maps - every 50 agents, up to max. (1000) - tested on standard desktop PC Stern, R. et al. Multi-Agent Pathfinding: Definitions, Variants, and Benchmarks. SoCS. 2019. 33 grid maps e.g., random-32-32-20, 200 agents Evaluation on MAPF benchmark maze-32-32-2, 100 agents 00.0% A* [Hart+ 68] complete optimal algorithm properties computation time
21. /73 21 Reason for poor performance of A* start goal search tree branching factor (number of successor nodes) O(5^N) N: #agents MAPF has a huge branching factor: 3,125 9,765,625 95,367,431,640,625 931,322,574,615,478,515,625 9,094,947,017,729,282,379,150,390,625 88,817,841,970,012,523,233,890,533,447,265,625 5^5 5^10 5^20 5^30 5^40 5^50 For 10k agents? Ridiculous!
22. /73 22                runtime (sec) solved instances (%) 0.0% A* [Hart+ 68] 0.4% ODrM* [Wagner+ AIJ-15] complete optimal algorithm properties A* variant Complete and optimal algorithms are hopeless in scalability. Finding optimal solutions is NP-hard. Yu, J., & LaValle, S. Structure and intractability of optimal multi-robot path planning on graphs. AAAI. 2013. Banfi, J., Basilico, N., & Amigoni, F. Intractability of time-optimal multirobot path planning on 2D grid graphs with holes. RA-L. 2017.
23. /73 23 theoretical guarantees e.g., completeness, optimality planning effort c.f., speed, scalability Tradeoff in MAPF algorithms
24. /73 24 Relaxing completness Optimalalgorithms always return solutions having minimum costs. Completealgorithms return solutions for solvable instances in finite time; otherwise, they report the non-existence. unable to identify unsolvable instances
25. /73 25 CBS: Conflict-based Search Sharon, G., Stern, R., Felner, A., & Sturtevant, N. R. Conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent pathfinding. AIJ. 2015. high-level search Image by GraphicMama-team from Pixabay identify conflicts in solution candidates low-level search find a path satisfying constraints (e.g., A*) query a single-agent path that avoids detected conflicts return a path satisfying constraints
26. /73 26 opt. cost: 5 t=1 cost: 5 replan t=1 cost: 6 replan t=1 t=2 cost: 6 replan t=1 t=2 cost: 6 replan stay Many powerful extensions are available of CBS, e.g., • Boyarski, E. et al. ICBS: improved conflict-based search algorithm for multi- agent pathfinding. IJCAI. 2015. • Felner, A. et al. Adding heuristics to conflict-based search for multi-agent path finding. ICAPS. 2018 • Li, J. et al. Pairwise symmetry reasoning for multi-agent path finding search. AIJ. 2021. • … search when and where each agent cannot use it Sharon, G., Stern, R., Felner, A., & Sturtevant, N. R. Conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent pathfinding. AIJ. 2015. How CBS works high-level low-level
27. /73                               27 0.0% A* [Hart+ 68] 0.4% ODrM* [Wagner+ AIJ-15] complete optimal runtime (sec) solved instances (%) 8.3% CBS [Sharon+ AIJ-15; Li+ AIJ-21] 10.7% BCP [Lam+ COR-22] solution complete optimal (unable to identify unsolvable instances) two-level, but with mathematical optimization at high-level
28. /73 28 Relaxing Optimality Optimalalgorithms always return solutions having minimum costs. Completealgorithms return solutions for solvable instances in finite time; otherwise, they report the non-existence. allowing bounded suboptimal solutions: obtained solution cost ≤ w*(optimal solution cost) where w ≥ 1
29. /73 not explored => reducing search effort 29 Intuition of finding bounded suboptimal solutions goal search tree to be optimal: expand a node with minimum f-value, fmin to be bounded suboptimal: allowing to expand nodes with f ≤ w*fmin (w ≥ 1) applicable where search schemes exist, e.g., A*-based and CBS
30. /73                               30 0.0% A* [Hart+ 68] 0.4% ODrM* [Wagner+ AIJ-15] 8.3% CBS [Sharon+ AIJ-15; Li+ AIJ-21] 10.7% BCP [Lam+ COR-22] complete solution complete optimal optimal (unable to identify unsolvable instances) runtime (sec) solved instances (%) 30.9% I-ODrM*-5 [Wagner+ AIJ-15] complete bounded suboptimal A* variant
31. /73 31 Relaxing Completeness and Optimality Optimalalgorithms always return solutions having minimum costs. Completealgorithms return solutions for solvable instances in finite time; otherwise, they report the non-existence. allowing bounded suboptimal solutions
32. /73 32 0.0% A* [Hart+ 68] 0.4% ODrM* [Wagner+ AIJ-15] 8.3% CBS [Sharon+ AIJ-15; Li+ AIJ-21] 10.7% BCP [Lam+ COR-22] 30.9% I-ODrM*-5 [Wagner+ AIJ-15] complete solution complete complete bounded suboptimal optimal optimal (unable to identify unsolvable instances) runtime (sec) solved instances (%)                50.5% EECBS-5 [Li+ AAAI-21] solution complete bounded suboptimal CBS variant
33. /73 33 Give up everything Optimalalgorithms always return solutions having minimum costs. Completealgorithms return solutions for solvable instances in finite time; otherwise, they report the non-existence.
34. /73 34 PP: Prioritized Planning Erdmann, M., & Lozano-Perez, T. On multiple moving objects. Algorithmica. 1987; Silver, D. Cooperative pathfinding. AIIDE. 2005. simple, quick, scalable, reasonable solution quality 1 stay 2 2. Perform single-agent pathfinding for each agent according to priorities, while avoiding collisions with already competed paths. 1 2 1. Assign priorities to each agent.
35. /73 35 0.0% A* [Hart+ 68] 0.4% ODrM* [Wagner+ AIJ-15] 8.3% CBS [Sharon+ AIJ-15; Li+ AIJ-21] 10.7% BCP [Lam+ COR-22] 30.9% I-ODrM*-5 [Wagner+ AIJ-15] complete solution complete complete bounded suboptimal optimal optimal (unable to identify unsolvable instances) runtime (sec) solved instances (%)                50.5% EECBS-5 [Li+ AAAI-21] solution complete bounded suboptimal 61.4% PP [Silver AIIDE-05] incomplete suboptimal
36. /73 36 MAPF-LNS2: Large Neighborhood Search Li, J., Chen, Z., Harabor, D., Stuckey, P. J., & Koenig, S. MAPF-LNS2: fast repairing for multi-agent path finding via large neighborhood search. AAAI. 2022. high-level search low-level search query paths for the subset of agents return paths identify subset of agents (e.g., random selection) find paths for the subset with a smaller number of collisions with others (e.g., PP)
37. /73 37 runtime (sec) solved instances (%)                0.0% A* [Hart+ 68] 0.4% ODrM* [Wagner+ AIJ-15] 8.3% CBS [Sharon+ AIJ-15; Li+ AIJ-21] 10.7% BCP [Lam+ COR-22] 30.9% I-ODrM*-5 [Wagner+ AIJ-15] complete solution complete complete bounded suboptimal optimal optimal (unable to identify unsolvable instances) 50.5% EECBS-5 [Li+ AAAI-21] solution complete bounded suboptimal 61.4% PP [Silver AIIDE-05] incomplete suboptimal 80.9% LNS2 [Li+ AAAI-22] capable of addressing hundreds of agents
38. /73 38 You're kidding? It should be easy! Example that PP/LNS2 fails to find a solution
39. /73 39 Summary so far complete optimal incomplete suboptimal My research part begins, finally! holy grail state-of-the-art studies theoretical guarantees planning effort small large speed & scalability
40. /73 40 Unblock Me / Google Play DavidPlays / YouTube goal planning stage acting stage Two styles to solve puzzle long-horizon (deliberative, offline) short-horizon (reactive, online)
41. /73 41 theoretical guarantees planning effort small large speed & scalability complete optimal incomplete suboptimal long-horizon (deliberative, offline) short-horizon (reactive, online) Planning Horizon planning stage acting stage
42. /73 42 theoretical guarantees planning effort small large speed & scalability Strategy to overcome the tradeoff short-horizon planning pulls long-horizon planning integration
43. /73 43 This is just a metaphor.. Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay PIBT Okumura+ AIJ-22 LaCAM* Okumura AAAI-23, IJCAI-23
44. /73 44 This is just a metaphor.. Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay PIBT Okumura+ AIJ-22 LaCAM* Okumura AAAI-23, IJCAI-23
45. /73 45 PIBT: Priority Inheritance with Backtracking Okumura, K., Machida, M., Défago, X., & Tamura, Y. Priority Inheritance with Backtracking for Iterative Multi-agent Path Finding. AIJ. 2022. (extended from IJCAI-19*) collision-free configuration while reflecting preferences PIBT 1 desired 2 3 4 5 4 2 1 desired 3 *originally developed for lifelong pathfinding scenarios preference & priority + configuration High Low
46. /73 46 PIBT PIBT initial configuration PIBT goal configuration Vanilla PIBT for MAPF incomplete and suboptimal
47. /73 47 greedy assignment with priorities is incomplete stuck high low mid How PIBT works – 1/4
48. /73 48 high low mid as high priority inheritance Sha+ IEEE Trans Comput-90 How PIBT works – 2/4
49. /73 49 high as high as high as high as high stuck but still not feasible How PIBT works – 3/4
50. /73 50 invalid valid re-plan re-plan valid You can move invalid You must re-plan, I will stay introduce backtracking How PIBT works – 4/4 always generate collision-free configurations
51. /73 51 Multi-agent Pickup & Delivery Sushi Sushi plates are guaranteed to be delivered
52. /73 52 Performance of PIBT random-32-32-20 32x32 30sec timeout            #agents success rate EECBS PP LNS2 0% PIBT runtime (sec)          #agents EECBS PP ost003d 194x194 four-connected grid LNS2 blazing fast! worst: 550ms PIBT quick but shortsighted
53. /73                53 runtime (sec) solved instances (%)                0.0% A* [Hart+ 68] 0.4% ODrM* [Wagner+ AIJ-15] 8.3% CBS [Sharon+ AIJ-15; Li+ AIJ-21] 10.7% BCP [Lam+ COR-22] 30.9% I-ODrM*-5 [Wagner+ AIJ-15] complete solution complete complete bounded suboptimal optimal optimal (unable to identify unsolvable instances) 50.5% EECBS-5 [Li+ AAAI-21] solution complete bounded suboptimal 61.4% PP [Silver AIIDE-05] incomplete suboptimal 80.9% LNS2 [Li+ AAAI-22] 67.4% PIBT [Okumura+ AIJ-22] PIBT is convenient, blazing fast, but…
54. /73 54 This is just a metaphor.. Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay PIBT Okumura+ AIJ-22 LaCAM* Okumura AAAI-23, IJCAI-23
55. /73 55 … … … … … search node (configuration) goal configuration Recap: A* exponential number of node generation greedy search: 44 nodes
56. /73 56 PIBT initial configuration Recap: PIBT use PIBT to guide exhaustive search only 4 configurations PIBT goal configuration PIBT
57. /73 57 … … PIBT initial configuration … … PIBT goal configuration Okumura, K. LaCAM: Search-Based Algorithm for Quick Multi-Agent Pathfinding. AAAI. 2023 LaCAM: Lazy Constraints Addition Search for MAPF … PIBT not generated immediately 1. Configurations are generated in a lazy manner exhaustive search with two tricks 2. Use other MAPF algorihtms to generate a promising configuration greedy: 44 nodes LaCAM: 4 nodes => quick & complete MAPF
58. /73 must go left in the next config. 58 constraint tree (maintained implicitly) invoked multiple times during the search Lazy constraints addition – 1/4
59. /73 59 1st invoke configuration generation with no constraint Lazy constraints addition – 2/4
60. /73 60 2nd invoke configuration generation with Lazy constraints addition – 3/4
61. /73 61 e.g., breadth-first search 24th invoke configuration generation with Lazy constraints addition – 4/4 completeness proof: Each configuration eventually generates all neighbor configurations.
62. /73 62                       EECBS PP LNS2 PIBT worst: 11sec LaCAM #agents success rate random-32-32-20, 32x32, 30sec timeout, 400 agents Performance of LaCAM
63. /73                63                runtime (sec) solved instances (%) 0.0% A* [Hart+ 68] 0.4% ODrM* [Wagner+ AIJ-15] 8.3% CBS [Sharon+ AIJ-15; Li+ AIJ-21] 10.7% BCP [Lam+ COR-22] 30.9% I-ODrM*-5 [Wagner+ AIJ-15] 50.5% EECBS-5 [Li+ AAAI-21] 61.4% PP [Silver AIIDE-05] 80.9% LNS2 [Li+ AAAI-22] 67.4% PIBT [Okumura+ AIJ-22] complete solution complete complete solution complete bounded suboptimal bounded suboptimal optimal optimal (unable to identify unsolvable instances) incomplete suboptimal 85.6% LaCAM [Okumura AAAI-23] complete suboptimal Start breaking the tradeoff!
64. /73 64 0.0% A* [Hart+ 68] 0.4% ODrM* [Wagner+ AIJ-15] 8.3% CBS [Sharon+ AIJ-15; Li+ AIJ-21] 10.7% BCP [Lam+ COR-22] 30.9% I-ODrM*-5 [Wagner+ AIJ-15] 50.5% EECBS-5 [Li+ AAAI-21] 61.4% PP [Silver AIIDE-05] 80.9% LNS2 [Li+ AAAI-22] 67.4% PIBT [Okumura+ AIJ-22] 85.6% LaCAM [Okumura AAAI-23] complete solution complete complete solution complete complete bounded suboptimal bounded suboptimal optimal optimal suboptimal (unable to identify unsolvable instances) incomplete suboptimal Before LaCAM: scalability ≠ solvability
65. /73                65                runtime (sec) solved instances (%) 85.6% LaCAM [Okumura+ AAAI-23] complete suboptimal 99.0% LaCAM* (initial solution) complete eventually optimal Okumura, K. Improving LaCAM for Scalable Eventually Optimal Multi-Agent Pathfinding. IJCAI. 2023. LaCAM* with fine-tuned PIBT
66. /73 66                runtime (sec) solved instances (%) 99.0% LaCAM* (initial solution) complete eventually optimal LaCAM* establishes a landmark result! Okay, it’s too crazy... remaining 1%: only maze-128-128-1
67. /73 67                runtime (sec) solved instances (%) 0.0% A* [Hart+ 68] 0.4% ODrM* [Wagner+ AIJ-15] 8.3% CBS [Sharon+ AIJ-15; Li+ AIJ-21] 10.7% BCP [Lam+ COR-22] 30.9% I-ODrM*-5 [Wagner+ AIJ-15] 50.5% EECBS-5 [Li+ AAAI-21] 61.4% PP [Silver AIIDE-05] 80.9% LNS2 [Li+ AAAI-22] 67.4% PIBT [Okumura+ AIJ-22] complete solution complete complete solution complete bounded suboptimal bounded suboptimal optimal optimal (unable to identify unsolvable instances) incomplete suboptimal 85.6% LaCAM [Okumura AAAI-23] 99.0% LaCAM* [Okumura IJCAI-23] complete complete eventually optimal suboptimal lose nice props.
68. /73 68 LaCAM* suboptimally solves MAPF for 10kagents in a warehouse-style map with many narrow corridors, in 5 secondson my laptop
69. /73 69 Can we build scalable centralized pathfinding algorithms, while still having nice theoretical guarantees?
70. /73 70 Short-horizon planning pulls long-horizon planning LaCAM* with PIBT
71. /73 71 Jan. 2021. When I was a 1st-year PhD student: Centralized pathfinding for 10k agents? You’re a dreamer! To be honest, I agreed at the time.
72. /73 72 Jan. 2021. When I was a 1st-year PhD student: Centralized pathfinding for 10k agents? You’re a dreamer! To be honest, I agreed at the time. LaCAM* 2023 Image by naobimfrom Pixabay
73. /73 73 What do you want to do with 10k agents? LaCAM* 2023
74. /73 74 Thank you for listening! Acknowledgements to mentors / collaborators: X. Defago, Y. Tamura, F. Bonnet, M. Machida, R. Yonetani, M. Nishimura, A. Kanezaki, S. Tixeuil Funding: JSPS DC & Overseas Research Fellowship, JST ACT-X, Yoshida Scholarship Foundation And, A. Prorok + members of PROROK Lab for hosting me at Cambridge! kei18 https://kei18.github.io ko393@cl.cam.ac.uk Questions / research collaboration proposals are more than welcome: