Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates fixed-Haven reservation strategies for online Multi-Agent Pickup and Delivery (MAPD) in complex warehouse environments characterized by single-lane aisles and dead ends. The authors introduce SHARP, a Safe-Haven Retreat Planner that ensures agents can complete all tasks without collisions by designating fixed Safe Havens that only the owning agent can occupy. The results demonstrate that SHARP achieves 100% success in task completion across various configurations, outperforming existing MAPD methods, particularly in challenging tree-like layouts, despite a higher centralized planning cost.
SHARP guarantees 100% task completion in dense warehouse layouts where other methods fail, revealing the critical role of fixed Safe Havens in multi-agent coordination.
Dense warehouses often contain single-lane aisles, dead ends, and tree-like guidepaths that leave little room for idle agents to wait without blocking others. Existing Multi-Agent Pickup and Delivery (MAPD) guarantees for completing all finitely released tasks typically rely on extra waiting endpoints that planned paths can avoid, or on biconnected topology; these assumptions may fail in such layouts. We study fixed-Haven reservation for online MAPD, where pickup-delivery tasks are released over time. Each agent owns a fixed Safe Haven (Haven for short), usually its start cell, that only the owner may occupy and that other agents treat as blocked. For finite task releases, we prove that this fixed-Haven contract completes all released tasks under Haven-Reachability and explicit planning/progress assumptions. We implement the contract in SHARP, a Safe-Haven Retreat Planner that keeps every busy or retreating agent on a collision-free reserved route ending at its Haven. We compare SHARP with representative TP and PIBT-family MAPD baselines: Token Passing (TP), Priority Inheritance with Backtracking (PIBT), and PIBT with Temporary Priority and Temporary Avoidance (PIBTTP-TA) for biconnected main areas with attached trees. In the robustness sweep, SHARP is the only method with 100% success on all tested configurations, at substantially higher centralized planning cost on tree-like layouts. A TP-style fixed-home-return counterfactual with full-route validation also recovers robustness on tested tree-like layouts, suggesting that fixed return is a central robustness mechanism there. A no-overwrite variant shows that disabling mid-retreat reassignment worsens service time (release-to-delivery latency) by 1.89 times and makespan by 1.53 times in the tested high-load tree condition.
