2021
DOI: 10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8137
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Partial-Expansion A* with Selective Node Generation

Abstract: A* is often described as being `optimal', in that it expands the minimum number of unique nodes. But, A* may generate many extra nodes which are never expanded. This is a performance loss, especially when the branching factor is large. Partial Expansion A* addresses this problem when expanding a node, n, by generating all the children of n but only storing children with the same f-cost as n. n is re-inserted into the OPEN list, but with the f-cost of the next best child. This paper introduces an enhanced versi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…OD reduces the branching factor at the cost of increasing the depth of the solution in the search tree. Another relevant A* variant is Enhanced Partial Expansion A* (EPEA*) (Felner et al 2012). EPEA* uses a priori domain knowledge to sort all successors of a given state according to their f values.…”
Section: Optimal Solversmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…OD reduces the branching factor at the cost of increasing the depth of the solution in the search tree. Another relevant A* variant is Enhanced Partial Expansion A* (EPEA*) (Felner et al 2012). EPEA* uses a priori domain knowledge to sort all successors of a given state according to their f values.…”
Section: Optimal Solversmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These algorithms usually extend optimal search algorithms (e.g., A* or IDA*) by considering an inflated version of an admissible heuristic. Thus, one can apply these algorithms to any A*-based MAPF solver, such as EPEA* (Felner et al 2012), A* with OD (Standley 2010), and M* (Wagner and Choset 2011). We implemented and experimented with such bounded suboptimal MAPF solvers below.…”
Section: Bounded Suboptimal Solversmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We omit comparisons with the many MAPF solvers that have already been shown to perform worse than CBS [10,11] or worse than ECBS [23] or worse than EECBS [36,37]. We also omit comparisons with MAPF solvers that have no completeness and bounded-suboptimality guarantees [38,39,40].…”
Section: Numerical Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous complete and optimal MAPF solvers seek to explore only the neighbors of a joint state that could potentially yield an optimal solution [10,11,12,13,14]. Conflict Based Search (CBS) [15] is a state-of-the-art optimal MAPF solver that utilizes a lazy algorithm to delay generation of irrelevant neighbors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another technique is related to surplus nodes, which are nodes generated but never be expanded to find an optimal solution. Avoiding generating the surplus nodes makes a substantial speedup (Standley, 2010;Felner et al, 2012;Goldenberg et al, 2014). In summary, though these techniques provide exponential speedup for A*-based methods, solution quality still degrades rapidly and computational time increases fast as the agent density increase.…”
Section: Optimal Solvers For Centralized Mpfmentioning
confidence: 99%