Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Finding Optimal Solutions to Cooperative Pathfinding Problems Trevor Standley Computer Science Department University of California, Los Angeles

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Finding Optimal Solutions to Cooperative Pathfinding Problems Trevor Standley Computer Science Department University of California, Los Angeles"— Presentation transcript:

1 Finding Optimal Solutions to Cooperative Pathfinding Problems Trevor Standley Computer Science Department University of California, Los Angeles http://cs.ucla.edu/~tstand/

2 Introduction  Pathfinding Problems  A single agent must find a path from a start state to a goal state  Cooperative Pathfinding Problems  Multiple agents interact  Want to minimize the total cost

3 Motivation

4

5

6 My Formulation  Gridworld pathfinding

7 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

8 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

9 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

10 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

11 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

12 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

13 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

14 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

15 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

16 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

17 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

18 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

19 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

20 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

21 Related Work  Centralized Approaches  Strengths: Typically complete, can be optimal  Weaknesses: Takes forever!  Decoupled Approaches  Strengths: Fast  Weaknesses: Incomplete and suboptimal

22 The Standard Algorithm  The standard algorithm is A*  Centralized algorithm  There is a standard heuristic  State representation – A position for each agent  State space – Exponential in the number of agents  An operator – Complete assignment of moves to agents -One of {N; NE; E; SE; S; SW; W; NW; and wait} for each agent -Exponential in the number of agents  Obviously this algorithm is not taken seriously

23 My algorithm  Optimal  Complete  Two main contributions  Operator decomposition  Independence detection

24 Operator Decomposition  Intuition  Also a centralized algorithm  Still use A*  Change how operators are defined: only one agent moves at a time  Simple idea, tricky to get details right

25 Operator Decomposition  Each operator assigns a move to a single agent  Assignments are made in a fixed order  Move assignments stored as part of the state representation

26 Operator Decomposition  Example

27 Operator Decomposition

28 The Savings of Operator Decomposition

29 Consequences of Operator Decomposition  Branching factor becomes polynomial  However, state space still exponential

30 Simple Independence Detection

31 1.Create a group for each agent 2.Plan paths for each group independently 3.Check for conflicts in new paths 4.Combine groups with conflicting paths 5.Repeat 2-4 until no conflicts

32 Simple Independence Detection

33 Simple Independence Detection Problem  Are these agents independent?

34 Simple Independence Detection Problem  Are these agents independent?

35 Better Independence Detection  When a conflict is detected between two groups, try to find an alternate path for one of the groups  If that fails try to find an alternate path for the other group  Only combine groups if no alternate path could be found

36 Independence Detection  Which alternate paths are the best?  Only search for optimal paths  Paths can be found using operator decomposition  Find paths that will lead to fewest number of future conflicts  Operator decomposition can be modified to find optimal paths with few future conflicts

37 My Algorithm  Uses decoupled planning where possible  Only uses centralized planning for non-independent subproblems  Calls operator decomposition as a subroutine to do the centralized planning

38 Results  10000 randomly generated problems with 2-60 agents

39 Conclusions  Researchers have developed centralized and decoupled approaches for solving cooperative pathfinding problems  Operator decomposition is an improved centralized approach  Independence detection is a hybrid approach  Only uses centralized planning when necessary

40 Acknowledgments  My advisor, Rich Korf.  Dawn Chen for editing, advice, and artwork


Download ppt "Finding Optimal Solutions to Cooperative Pathfinding Problems Trevor Standley Computer Science Department University of California, Los Angeles"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google