Mobility Matters
Home›Mobile agents on graphs›Exploration›Graph exploration by a single agent›Collision-free exploration

Collision-free exploration

Agents start at distinct nodes of a graph and must explore it so that no two agents are ever at the same node; how long does it take, and what must the agents sense of each other?

Problem statement and measuresexpand

\(k \ge 2\) agents start at distinct nodes of a connected undirected graph \(G\) with \(n\) nodes and move in synchronous rounds: in each round an agent stays or crosses one edge. A collision is two agents at the same node in the same round; two agents that cross one edge in opposite directions do not collide and do not notice it. Exploration is collision-free if no collision ever happens, also with an agent that an adversary has not yet woken up. Unless a setting says otherwise, every agent must visit every node and then stop. The agents run the same deterministic algorithm, cannot mark nodes and send no messages; what they perceive of each other (their vision) and what they know of \(G\) are fixed by the setting, and in some settings an oracle places coloured pebbles on nodes before the start. Time is the number of rounds from the wake-up of the later agent until every agent has stopped. \(X(n)\) is the time of a single-agent exploration procedure for graphs with at most \(n\) nodes, used as a building block (polynomial in \(n\), for instance with a universal exploration sequence).

Measures: Time, rounds from the wake-up of the later agent until all agents have stopped; Colours, number of pebble colours the oracle needs, when pebbles are used.

tight near-optimal polynomial gap unknown impossible· rows follow the assumption tree; each cell: best upper bound vs lower bound, and what forces the lower bound
Setting
Time
Colours
Node identifiers + static graph, + undirected
—
—
What must be visited anonymous nodes, + synchronous, + two agents
—
—
Two agents sensing presence, no pebbles + the team, + bound on \(n\), + presence
0 open · 0 results
impossible — vs \(\text{impossible}\) symmetry breaking
impossible — vs —
unknown \(O(\Delta^D)\) vs —
tight \(3\) vs \(2\) symmetry breaking
unknown \(\mathrm{poly}(n)\) vs —
tight \(2\) vs \(1\) symmetry breaking
Vision of the other agents every agent, + bound on \(n\)
—
—
Two agents, anonymous graphs, vision of radius 2 + radius 2
2 open · 2 results
unknown \(O(X(n))\) vs —
tight — vs —
Two agents, anonymous graphs, vision of radius 1 + radius 1
0 open · 0 results
impossible — vs \(\text{impossible}\) symmetry breaking
impossible — vs —
Anonymous graphs, nothing known every agent, nothing known, + radius 2, + simultaneous start
0 open · 0 results
impossible — vs \(\text{impossible}\) symmetry breaking
impossible — vs —
Knowledge of the graph + labelled nodes, + synchronous
—
—
Labelled graphs, with a map, any number of agents + map, + simultaneous start
0 open · 1 results
tight \(O(n\Delta^*)\) vs \(\Omega(n\Delta^*)\) congestion at a node
tight — vs —
tight \(n\Delta\) vs \(n\Delta\) congestion at a node
tight — vs —
Labelled graphs, no knowledge, any number of agents nothing known, + simultaneous start
1 open · 1 results
polynomial gap \(O(n^5\log n)\) vs \(\Omega(n^2)\) congestion at a node
tight — vs —
tight \(O(n^2)\) vs \(\Omega(n^2)\) congestion at a node
tight — vs —

Know a better result, or found a mistake? Suggest a result · Report an error. Accepted contributions are acknowledged.