{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027692307692307693, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.470588235294118, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Empirical Comparison of the Hardness of Multi-Agent Path Finding under the Makespan and the Sum of Costs Objectives


 
 In the multi-agent path finding (MAPF) the task is to find non-conflicting paths for multiple agents. Recently, existing makespan optimal SAT-based solvers for MAPF have been modified for the sum-of-costs objective. In this paper, we empirically compare the hardness of solving MAPF with SAT-based and search-based solvers under the makespan and the sum-of-costs objectives in a number of domains. The experimental evaluation shows that MAPF under the makespan objective is easier across all the tested solvers and domains.
 
