The multi-agent pathfinding problem (MAPF) is the fundamental problem of planning paths for multiple agents, where the key constraint is that the agents will be able to follow these paths concurrently without colliding with each other. Applications of MAPF include automated warehouses, autonomous vehicles, and robotics. Research on MAPF has been flourishing in the past couple of years. Different MAPF research papers assume different sets of assumptions, e.g., whether agents can traverse the same road at the same time, and have different objective functions, e.g., minimize makespan or sum of agents' actions costs. These assumptions and objectives are sometimes implicitly assumed or described informally. This makes it difficult for establishing appropriate baselines for comparison in research papers, as well as making it difficult for practitioners to find the papers relevant to their concrete application. This paper aims to fill this gap and facilitate future research and practitioners by providing a unifying terminology for describing the common MAPF assumptions and objectives. In addition, we also provide pointers to two MAPF benchmarks. In particular, we introduce a new grid-based benchmark for MAPF, and demonstrate experimentally that it poses a challenge to contemporary MAPF algorithms.

We study prioritized planning for Multi-Agent Path Finding (MAPF). Existing prioritized MAPF algorithms depend on rule-of-thumb heuristics and random assignment to determine a fixed total priority ordering of all agents a priori. We instead explore the space of all possible partial priority orderings as part of a novel systematic and conflict-driven combinatorial search framework. In a variety of empirical comparisons, we demonstrate state-of-the-art solution qualities and success rates, often with similar runtimes to existing algorithms. We also develop new theoretical results that explore the limitations of prioritized planning, in terms of completeness and optimality, for the first time.

Conflict-Based Search (CBS) and its enhancements are among the strongest algorithms for Multi-Agent Path Finding. Recent work introduced an admissible heuristic to guide the high-level search of CBS. In this work, we prove the limitation of this heuristic, as it is based on cardinal conflicts only. We then introduce two new admissible heuristics by reasoning about the pairwise dependencies between agents. Empirically, CBS with either new heuristic significantly improves the success rate over CBS with the recent heuristic and reduces the number of expanded nodes and runtime by up to a factor of 50.