Features 🌱

• 🎮 Interactive playground — run the solvers in your browser, watch the search resolve conflicts live
• 🧭 Centralized planners: CBS, Weighted CBS, Prioritized Planning, PIBT, LaCAM, MAPF-LNS — every one referenced in REFERENCES.md
• 🕸️ Works on arbitrary graphs, not just grids (roadmaps, warehouse topologies, PRMs)
• 🐦 Decentralized swarm control, all object-oriented and registry-based: 10 flocking models (boids, Vicsek, Cucker–Smale, Olfati-Saber, proximal, active-elastic, acceleration-based, Gaussian-kernel, minimalistic, distributed-3D), 5 coverage controllers over 6 pluggable domains, and Gaussian-mixture distribution control
• 📐 Formation control on the displacement / distance / bearing taxonomy, with exact Hungarian slot assignment and a rigidity test that tells you when a target shape is holdable at all
• 🧠 Multi-agent RL (pymapf.rl): the MAPF instances as a PettingZoo-parallel environment, IPPO and MAPPO that train with no dependency beyond numpy, and a benchmark scored against the optimal CBS solution rather than another heuristic
• 🔬 Extended survey of MAPF 2021→2026 plus an experimental section with measured (and negative) results
• 🧩 Pluggable solver framework with a name-based registry, pluggable heuristics and deterministic maps
• 🔭 Observable search: every solver streams SearchEvents — record them, animate them, or watch them live
• 🗺️ Six reproducible scenario families (empty room, random obstacles, warehouse, maze, bottleneck, corner swap) plus ASCII maps
• 📊 Benchmark harness with CSV/JSON export and ready-made charts
• 🎬 Visualisation: static plots, congestion heatmaps, space-time cubes, timelines, GIF/MP4 animations, live views (window or terminal)
• 🔎 Reactive distributed planners (Nonlinear Model Predictive Control, Velocity Obstacles)
• 🪶 Zero runtime dependencies in the core — the solvers are pure standard library

CBS finding and resolving conflicts, node by node — produced by pymapf.viz.animate_search

Install 🖇️

pip install pymapf                 # the solver framework — no dependencies
pip install "pymapf[viz]"          # + plots, animations and live views
pip install "pymapf[all]"          # + the decentralized/legacy planners

From a clone:

git clone https://github.com/apla-toolbox/pymapf && cd pymapf
pip install -e ".[all,dev]"
pytest

Usage 📑

Quickstart 🧭

Cells are (row, col); a truthy grid value marks an obstacle.

import pymapf

grid = pymapf.GridMap([
    [0, 0, 0],
    [0, 1, 0],   # a wall in the middle
    [0, 0, 0],
])
problem = pymapf.MAPFProblem(grid, [
    pymapf.Agent("a", start=(0, 0), goal=(2, 2)),
    pymapf.Agent("b", start=(2, 0), goal=(0, 2)),
])

print(pymapf.available_solvers())          # ['cbs', 'prioritized', 'wcbs']

solution = pymapf.solve(problem, "cbs")
print(solution.sum_of_costs, solution.makespan, solution.is_valid())
for name, path in solution.paths.items():
    print(name, path)                      # path[t] is the cell at timestep t

Choosing a solver 🧠

Measured on the 8-agent warehouse instance: CBS spends 6 470 expansions and 5.3 s for cost 100; weighted CBS reaches 104 in 23 expansions and 18 ms; LaCAM returns a valid plan in 4 ms; LNS takes PIBT's 175 down to 113 in two seconds. The full picture, including where each one fails, is in .docs/survey.md.

CBS is exponential in the number of conflicts, so give it a budget on hard maps:

solution = pymapf.solve(problem, "cbs", time_limit=5.0)      # None if it runs out
bounded  = pymapf.solve(problem, "wcbs", weight=1.5)         # within 50% of optimal

Any graph, not just grids 🕸️

from pymapf import ExplicitGraph

graph = ExplicitGraph.undirected(
    [("dock", "aisle1"), ("aisle1", "aisle2"), ("aisle2", "pack"), ("dock", "pack")]
)
problem = pymapf.MAPFProblem(graph, [
    pymapf.Agent("r1", "dock", "pack"),
    pymapf.Agent("r2", "pack", "dock"),
])
pymapf.solve(problem, "lacam")      # PIBT and LaCAM use exact graph distances

Scenarios 🗺️

Reproducible instances, deterministic in their seed:

scenario = pymapf.build_scenario("warehouse", n_agents=8, seed=3)
solution = pymapf.solve(scenario.to_problem(), "wcbs")

print(pymapf.available_scenarios())
# ['bottleneck', 'corner_swap', 'empty_room', 'maze', 'random_obstacles', 'warehouse']

Or write the map by hand — lowercase is a start, uppercase the matching goal:

from pymapf.scenarios import from_ascii

scenario = from_ascii("""
##########
#a......A#
#.######.#
#B......b#
##########
""")

Watching the search 🔭

Solvers push SearchEvents to any callable you pass as observer:

trace = pymapf.SearchTrace()
solution = pymapf.solve(scenario.to_problem(), "cbs", observer=trace)

print(trace.summary())
# {'events': 67, 'expansions': 16, 'conflicts': 15, 'solved': True, 'cost': 48, ...}

Live, while it runs — in a window, or in the terminal over SSH:

from pymapf.viz import LiveSolveView, LiveConsoleView

with LiveConsoleView(scenario) as view:                    # no display needed
    pymapf.solve(scenario.to_problem(), "cbs", observer=view)

Visualisation 🎬

from pymapf import viz

viz.save(viz.plot_solution(solution, scenario), "plan.png")
viz.save(viz.plot_congestion(solution, scenario), "congestion.png")   # traffic hot spots
viz.save(viz.plot_spacetime(solution, scenario), "spacetime.png")     # the 3D search cube
viz.save(viz.plot_timeline(solution), "timeline.png")                 # who waits, when

viz.save_animation(viz.animate_solution(solution, scenario), "plan.gif", fps=16)
viz.save_animation(viz.animate_search(trace, scenario), "search.mp4")

plot_solution	plot_congestion	plot_spacetime

Benchmarking 📊

from pymapf.benchmark import compare_algorithms, scaling_study
from pymapf import viz

report = compare_algorithms(["warehouse", "maze"], ["cbs", "wcbs", "prioritized"], time_limit=2.0)
print(report.table())
report.to_csv("results.csv")

scaling = scaling_study("random_obstacles", agent_counts=(2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12))
viz.dashboard(scaling, report).savefig("dashboard.png")

Adding your own solver 🔌

from pymapf.core import MAPFSolver, Solution, register_solver
from pymapf.algorithms import space_time_astar


@register_solver("selfish")
class Selfish(MAPFSolver):
    """Every agent takes its own shortest path and ignores the others."""

    def solve(self, problem, observer=None):
        paths = {
            agent.name: space_time_astar(problem.grid, agent.start, agent.goal)
            for agent in problem.agents
        }
        return Solution(paths=paths, algorithm=self.name)


pymapf.solve(problem, "selfish").first_conflict()   # spoiler: there is one

Swarms: flocking, coverage and distribution 🐦

Same conventions as the planners — an abstract base class per family, a name registry, swappable strategy objects.

from pymapf.swarm import SwarmSimulator, available_behaviors

for name in available_behaviors():          # 10 flocking + 4 formation + 2 distribution
    result = SwarmSimulator(name, n_agents=20).run(steps=300)
    print(name, result.metrics.summary())

Who each agent sees is a strategy object, and it changes the collective behaviour as much as the control law does:

from pymapf.swarm import SwarmSimulator, TopologicalNeighborhood

SwarmSimulator("acceleration", neighborhood=TopologicalNeighborhood(k=5))
# better spacing (2.17 m vs 1.60 m) with a third of the connectivity

Composition rather than new classes:

from pymapf.swarm import CompositeBehavior, CuckerSmale, AccelerationFlocking

blend = CompositeBehavior([(CuckerSmale(), 0.5), (AccelerationFlocking(), 1.0)])

Coverage is written against a domain, so one controller serves every shape:

from pymapf.swarm import CoverageSimulator

for domain in ("planar", "disk", "sphere", "hemisphere", "annulus"):
    print(domain, CoverageSimulator("lloyd", domain=domain, n_agents=9).run(steps=40).improvement)

Controllers: lloyd, limited_range, adaptive (learns the density online), gmm (splits the team across mixture components), time_varying (pursues moving targets).

Gaussian mixtures are the importance model and the target distribution:

from pymapf.swarm import GaussianMixtureDensity, SwarmSimulator

target = GaussianMixtureDensity(means=[(-8, 0), (8, 4), (0, -9)],
                                covariances=[3., 3., 2.], weights=[.4, .4, .2])
sim = SwarmSimulator("mixture_assignment", n_agents=30, mixture=target)
sim.run(steps=400)          # allocation lands on 12 / 12 / 6 — exactly the quota

fitted = GaussianMixtureDensity.fit(observations, k=2)   # EM from measurements

Formation control is organised by what each agent can measure — the displacement / distance / bearing taxonomy — because that is what decides which symmetry you can fix:

from pymapf.swarm import SwarmSimulator, is_infinitesimally_rigid, get_shape

for law in ["displacement_formation", "distance_formation",
            "bearing_formation", "leader_follower"]:
    sim = SwarmSimulator(law, n_agents=9, shape="v", spacing=3.0)
    result = sim.run(steps=800)
    print(law, sim.behavior.error(result.final))     # graded under the
                                                     # symmetries it can't see

The less each agent senses, the longer it takes — that is the taxonomy restated as a cost. Distance and bearing control also need the constraint graph to be rigid, and the library says so before you fly it:

line = get_shape("line", spacing=3.0).centred(6, 2)
is_infinitesimally_rigid(line, [(i, j) for i in range(6) for j in range(i + 1, 6)])
# False — a collinear target has flex modes no first-order controller can see

The functional API in pymapf.decentralized.flocking / .coverage still works; it now delegates to this layer.

Reinforcement learning 🧠

The same instances the planners solve, as a multi-agent environment — and the reason to have it here rather than in a separate repo is that a rollout comes back as a pymapf.Solution, so a learned policy and CBS are scored by identical code:

from pymapf.rl import MAPFEnv, make_trainer, compare

env = MAPFEnv("random_obstacles", n_agents=4, height=10, width=10)
trainer = make_trainer("mappo", env)      # or "ippo"
trainer.learn(total_steps=400_000)        # ~7k steps/s, numpy only

for row in compare(env, {"mappo": trainer}, episodes=100):
    print(row["method"], row["success_rate"], row["suboptimality"])

It follows the PettingZoo Parallel API without importing PettingZoo, so it runs in a bare environment and still drops into any MARL library (env.to_pettingzoo() when you want the real base class). Observations, rewards and algorithms are registries like everything else:

from pymapf.rl import register_observation, LocalWindow

@register_observation("my_encoding")
class MyEncoder(LocalWindow):
    ...

Three things it gets from living inside the library:

• exact reward shaping. ShapedReward uses the backward-Dijkstra distance oracle the solvers already use, so the potential is the true remaining cost rather than a Manhattan guess — and being potential-based, it is policy-invariant (Ng et al. 1999).
• conflict-freedom by construction. Vertex, edge and cascading conflicts are resolved with MAPF's rules, so any rollout is a valid plan. Validity is 100% in the table below because it cannot be otherwise.
• true suboptimality. CBS is optimal, so the ratio is measured against ground truth, not against another heuristic.

Measured on empty_room, 2 agents, 400k steps of IPPO — and this is the result worth knowing about:

The same weights, evaluated two ways — and the gap has two causes, measured over 80 instances (33 greedy failures, no wall contacts, and in every case both agents solve that instance fine alone):

• 70% are collision-free period-2 orbits. The agents never touch. The argmax makes each a deterministic function of an observation that contains the other agent, and the pair settles onto a closed loop.
• 30% are period-1 freezes with a collision on every step — a genuine livelock, two agents each wanting the cell the other holds. The same failure PIBT has, reached by a different route.

Both have the same cure: sampling is the only noise in the system, so it always escapes — and it also wanders, hence 3x the cost. Reporting either number alone would be reporting half the result, so compare() reports both by default.

There is a short film for this layer — .docs/assets/pymapf-rl-promo.mp4, built by scripts/make_rl_promo.py. It trains the policy while it renders, so the split-screen is that policy acting on one shared instance, and the 70/30 split is measured over 80 instances during the render rather than quoted.

Reactive planners 🔎

from pymapf.decentralized import MultiAgentNMPC
from pymapf.decentralized.position import Position
import numpy as np

sim = MultiAgentNMPC()
sim.register_agent("r2d2", Position(0, 3), Position(10, 7))
sim.register_agent("bb8", Position(0, 7), Position(5, 10))
sim.register_agent("c3po", Position(10, 7), Position(5, 0))
sim.register_obstacle(2, np.pi / 4, Position(0, 0))
sim.run_simulation()
sim.visualize("filename_test", 10, 10)

from pymapf.decentralized.velocity_obstacle import MultiAgentVelocityObstacle
from pymapf.decentralized.position import Position

sim = MultiAgentVelocityObstacle(simulation_time=8.0)
sim.register_agent("r2d2", Position(0, 3), Position(10, 7))
sim.register_agent("bb8", Position(0, 7), Position(5, 10))
sim.register_agent("c3po", Position(10, 7), Position(5, 0))
sim.run_simulation()
sim.visualize("filename_test_2", 10, 10)

Scripts 💨

python scripts/generate_gallery.py     # every figure in .docs/assets
python scripts/make_promo.py           # the promo film
python scripts/make_rl_promo.py        # the learning-layer film
python scripts/train_rl.py             # train IPPO/MAPPO, benchmark vs CBS
python scripts/build_web_bundle.py     # refresh the playground's copy of the library
python scripts/switch_positions_nmpc.py

The playground 🌐

.docs/ is a static site that runs PyMAPF in the browser under Pyodide — the same source files, loaded into a WebAssembly interpreter, with a JavaScript port of the solvers as an instant-response fallback. Serve it locally with:

python -m http.server -d docs 8000

Cite 📰

If you use the project in your work, please consider citing it with:

@misc{https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.14030.28486,
  doi = {10.13140/RG.2.2.14030.28486},
  url = {http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.14030.28486},
  author = {Erwin Lejeune and Sampreet Sarkar},
  language = {en},
  title = {Survey of the Multi-Agent Pathfinding Solutions},
  publisher = {Unpublished},
  year = {2021}
}

List of publications & preprints using pymapf (please open a pull request to add missing entries):

• Survey of MAPF solutions (January 2021)

Contribute 🆘

Open an issue to state clearly the contribution you want to make. Upon aproval send in a PR with the Issue referenced. (Implement Issue #No / Fix Issue #No).

Maintainers Ⓜ️

• Erwin Lejeune
• Sampreet Sarkar