Goal-directed path planning is one of the basic and widely studied problems in the field of mobile robotics. Homotopy classes of trajectories, arising due to the presence of obstacles, are defined as sets of trajectories that can be transformed into each other by gradual bending and stretching without colliding with obstacles. The problem of finding least-cost paths restricted to a specific homotopy class or finding least-cost paths that do not belong to certain homotopy classes arises frequently in such applications as predicting paths for dynamic entities and computing heuristics for path planning with dynamic constraints. In the present work, we develop a compact way of representing homotopy classes and propose an efficient method of graph search-based optimal path planning with constraints on homotopy classes. The method is based on representing the environment of the robot as a complex plane and making use of the Cauchy Integral Theorem. We prove optimality of the method and show its efficiency experimentally.

The second is causal analysis: isolate I have seen several reviewers claim that experimental evaluations what causes a performance improvement and leave everything must use problem instances that are large enough to else unchanged, hopefully leaving the uncontrolled biases take more than x time to solve, where x has varied from the same between the two conditions. Note that nothing a few seconds to many minutes. The fact that the stated in this disturbing anecdote relates to benchmark size. Both values for x have varied over two orders of magnitude is short-and long-running benchmarks were affected, and the perhaps one indication that the criterion has no firm basis, recommendation is to increase benchmark diversity, which but let's consider it in more depth. I believe that it represents requires more benchmarks, which must therefore be smaller a serious problem: I have seen a paper (not from (in order to fit into the same PhD program or yearly conference my group) proposing a novel and interesting algorithm that timescale). Large benchmarks therefore inhibit correction soundly beat the state-of-the-art by orders of magnitude rejected of measurement bias.

Planning research has returned to the issue of optimizing costs (rather than sizes) of plans. A prevalent perception, at least among non-experts in search, is that graph search for optimizing the size of paths generalizes more or less trivially to optimizing the cost of paths. While this kind of generalization is usually straightforward for graph theorems, graph algorithms are a different story. In particular, implementing a search evaluation function by substituting cost for size is a Bad Idea. Though experts have stated as much, cutting-edge practitioners are still learning of the consequences the hard way; here we mount a forceful indictment on the inherent dangers of cost-based search.

We show how edge partitioning, a technique originally developed for external-memory search, can be used to reduce the number of slow synchronization operations needed in parallel graph search. We show that edge partitioning improves on a previous technique called parallel structured duplicate detection by allowing a higher degree of concurrency, even for search problems with little or no inherent locality. For domain-independent graph search, we also show that edge partitioning significantly improves search speed by improving the efficiency of precondition checking. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach to parallel graph search for domain-independent STRIPS planning.

We discuss the relationships between three approaches to greedy heuristic search: best-first, hill-climbing, and beam search. We consider the design decisions within each family and point out their oft-overlooked similarities. We consider the following best-first searches: weighted A*, greedy search, ASeps, window A* and multi-state commitment k-weighted A*. For hill climbing algorithms, we consider enforced hill climbing and LSS-LRTA*. We also consider a variety of beam searches, including BULB and beam-stack search. We show how to best configure beam search in order to maximize robustness. An empirical analysis on six standard benchmarks reveals that beam search and best-first search have remarkably similar performance, and outperform hill-climbing approaches in terms of both time to solution and solution quality. Of these, beam search is preferable for very large problems and best first search is better on problems where the goal cannot be reached from all states.

Anytime search is a pragmatic approach for trading solution cost and solving time. It can also be used for solving problems within a time bound. Three frameworks for constructing anytime algorithms from bounded suboptimal search have been proposed: continuing search, repairing search, and restarting search, but what combination of suboptimal search and anytime framework performs best? An extensive empirical evaluation results in several novel algorithms and reveals that the relative performance of frameworks is essentially fixed, with the repairing framework having the strongest overall performance. As part of our study, we present two enhancements to Anytime Window A* that allow it to solve a wider range of problems and hastens its convergance on optimal solutions.

In this paper we explore a novel approach for anytime heuristic search, in which the node that is most probable to improve the incumbent solution is expanded first. This is especially suited for the "anytime aspect" of anytime algorithms - the possibility that the algorithm will be be halted anytime throughout the search. The potential of a node to improve the incumbent solution is estimated by a custom cost function, resulting in Potential Search, an anytime best-first search. Experimental results on the 15-puzzle and on the key player problem in communication networks (KPP-COM) show that this approach is competitive with state-of-the-art anytime heuristic search algorithms, and is more robust.

Branch-and-Bound search is a basic algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization problems. Here we introduce a new lower-bounding methodology that can be incorporated into any branch-and-bound solver, and demonstraint its use on the MaxSAT constraint optimization problem. The approach is to adapt a “minimum-height equivalent transformation” framework that was first developed in the context of computer vision. We present efficient algorithms to realize this framework within the MaxSAT domain, and demonstrate their feasibility by implementing them within the state-of-the-art maxsatz solver. We evaluate the solver on test sets from the 2009 MaxSAT competition; we observe a basic performance tradeoff whereby the (quadratic) time cost of computing the transformations may or may not be worthwhile in exchange for better bounds and more frequent pruning. For specific test sets, the trade-off does result in significant improvement in both prunings and overall run-time.

We describe the gap heuristic for the pancake problem, which dramatically outperforms current abstraction-based heuristics for this problem. The gap heuristic belongs to a family of landmark heuristics that have recently been very successfully applied to planning problems.

Motivated by the recent hardware evolution towards multi-core machines, we investigate parallel planning techniques in a shared-memory environment. We consider, more specifically, parallel versions of a best-first search algorithm that run K threads, each expanding the next best node from the open list. We show that the proposed technique has a number of advantages. First, it is (reasonably) simple: we show how the algorithm can be obtained from a sequential version mostly by adding parallel annotations. Second, we conduct an extensive empirical study that shows that this approach is quite effective.  It is also dynamic in the sense that the number of nodes expanded in parallel is adapted during the search. Overall we show that the approach is promising for parallel domain-independent, suboptimal planning.