Mobility Matters
Home›Mobile agents on graphs›Exploration›Graph exploration by a single agent›Rendezvous›Gathering in graphs›Gathering by oblivious robots on graphs

Gathering by oblivious robots on graphs

Oblivious Look–Compute–Move robots must all reach one node of a graph and stay there; which starts can be gathered depends on the symmetries of the graph, on multiplicity detection and on the scheduler.

Problem statement and measuresexpand

\(k \ge 2\) anonymous, oblivious robots stand on the nodes of a connected anonymous graph \(G\) with \(n\) nodes, which every robot sees whole. A robot runs Look–Compute–Move cycles: in a Look it takes a snapshot of the graph with its occupied nodes, it computes from that snapshot only, and it stays or moves to a neighbour; moves are instantaneous, so robots are always seen on nodes. A node with two or more robots is a tower. With multiplicity detection a snapshot shows which nodes are towers (weak) or how many robots each node holds (strong); without it a tower looks like one robot. The robots must reach a configuration in which all of them are on one node and none moves again. A setting fixes the scheduler, the multiplicity detection, whether towers may exist at the start, and the graph class; an algorithm must gather from every start of the setting except the starts listed as unsolvable. Under round robin the scheduler activates one robot at a time in a fixed cyclic order. Time is counted in epochs: an epoch is an interval in which every robot completes at least one cycle (under round robin, \(k\) consecutive activations).

Measures: Time, epochs until all robots are on one node and no robot moves again.

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
Network + static graph, + undirected, + no faults
—
Rings, sequential scheduler, no multiplicity detection no multiplicity detection, any start, + sequential
0 open · 0 results
impossible — vs \(\text{impossible}\) adversarial activation
Rings, round robin, no multiplicity detection + round robin
1 open · 1 results
tight \(O(n)\) vs \(\text{impossible}\) indistinguishable multiplicities
Scheduler no multiplicity detection, + dispersed start
—
Rings, round robin, one robot per node at the start + sequential, + round robin
0 open · 1 results
tight \(O(n)\) vs \(\text{impossible}\) indistinguishable multiplicities
Rings, SSYNC, no multiplicity detection + SSYNC
0 open · 0 results
impossible — vs \(\text{impossible}\) indistinguishable multiplicities
Rings, ASYNC, weak multiplicity detection + weak detection, + dispersed start
1 open · 1 results
unknown \(\text{finite}\) vs \(\text{impossible}\) symmetry breaking
Multiplicity detection + complete graph
—
Complete graphs, round robin no multiplicity detection, any start, + sequential, + round robin
0 open · 0 results
impossible — vs \(\text{impossible}\) indistinguishable multiplicities
Complete graphs, FSYNC, strong multiplicity detection + strong detection, + dispersed start, + FSYNC
1 open · 1 results
near-optimal \(O(\log k)\) vs \(\text{impossible}\) symmetry breaking
Graphs that are not vertex-transitive, round robin + not vertex-transitive, + sequential, + round robin
1 open · 1 results
polynomial gap \(O(\ell\,d + n)\) vs \(\Omega(d)\) distance
Hypercubes, round robin + hypercube, + sequential, + round robin
0 open · 1 results
tight \(O(\log n)\) vs \(\text{impossible}\) indistinguishable multiplicities
Infinite grid, round robin + infinite grid, + sequential, + round robin
0 open · 1 results
tight \(O(d)\) vs \(\text{impossible}\) indistinguishable multiplicities
Finite grids, ASYNC, no multiplicity detection + finite grid, + dispersed start
1 open · 1 results
unknown \(\text{finite}\) vs \(\text{impossible}\) symmetry breaking
Trees, ASYNC, no multiplicity detection + tree, + dispersed start
0 open · 1 results
unknown \(\text{finite}\) vs \(\text{impossible}\) symmetry breaking

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