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.

Two agents sensing presence, no pebbles

verified
Time: impossibleColours: impossible

Two identical agents that only sense each other's presence cannot explore even a path of three nodes without help.

Assumed (added on the last edge are outlined)

+Graph dynamicsstatic graph+Edge directionundirected+Timingsynchronous rounds+Number of agentstwo agents+What must be visitedevery node is visited by some agent+Knowledge of the graphan upper bound on \(n\)+Vision of the other agentspresence one edge away

Not assumed

Node identifiersanonymous nodesHelp from an oracleno helpStartthe adversary wakes the agentsTopologyarbitrary connected graph
Formal definitions of this setting
Graph dynamics: static graph
\(G_t=G\) for all \(t\): the edge set never changes.
Edge direction: undirected
\(G=(V,E)\) with \(E\subseteq\binom V2\); every edge can be traversed in both directions.
Node identifiers: anonymous nodes
Nodes have no identifiers; an agent at \(v\) sees only \(\deg(v)\) and the port numbers \(1,\dots,\deg(v)\), which are assigned locally and independently at each endpoint of an edge.
Timing: synchronous
Time proceeds in rounds \(t=1,2,\dots\); in every round every agent communicates, computes and moves (at most one edge) simultaneously.
Number of agents: two agents
Exactly two agents.
What must be visited: the team
Every node must be visited by at least one agent, and all agents stop.
Knowledge of the graph: bound on \(n\)
The agents know an upper bound on \(n\) (Das et al. 2025a give them \(n\) itself).
Vision of the other agents: presence
An agent notices that the other agent is on a neighbouring node, but not on which one Das et al. 2025a.
Help from an oracle: no help
Nothing is placed on the nodes.
Start: adversarial wake-up
Each agent starts in a round chosen by the adversary; until then it stays at its start node, where no other agent may enter.
Topology: any topology
\(G\) is any connected graph in the class allowed by the other axes.

What is known

Time · rounds from the wake-up of the later agent until all agents have stopped
impossible
Even with simultaneous start.
lower bound
\(\text{impossible}\) Das et al. 2025a
bottlenecksymmetry breaking
holds when
  • a path of three nodes with the agents on its ends, started together: they act alike, so they either collide in the middle or never visit it (Section 1.2)
introductory—
current best—
Colours · number of pebble colours the oracle needs, when pebbles are used
impossible
Impossible without pebbles.
lower boundnone known
introductory—
current best—

Results, in order of publication

No result recorded yet.

Open questions

None recorded for this variant.

Notes

Checked against the full text of Das et al. 2025a (arXiv v1).

What carries over from neighbouring settings

Read off the order of assumptions, not checked case by case: results may carry extra assumptions (shown on their pages), and asynchronous time is measured in epochs.

Algorithms from weaker settings work here

No catalogued weaker setting.

Lower bounds from stronger settings hold here

Branches from here

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