Mobility Matters
Home›Mobile agents on graphs›Exploration›Collaborative exploration

Collaborative exploration

\(k\) agents start together at the root of an unknown graph and must visit all its nodes; how much faster than one agent can a team be?

Problem statement and measuresexpand

A team of \(k\) distinguishable agents starts at a node \(s\) (the root) of an unknown connected graph with \(n\) nodes; \(D\) is the largest distance from \(s\). In synchronous rounds every agent traverses at most one edge. When an agent reaches a node it sees the incident edges. The team must visit every node (some papers also require all agents to return to \(s\); the bounds coincide asymptotically).

Time is the number of rounds (in the asynchronous model: the total number of moves). The offline optimum is \(\Theta(n/k + D)\), so an algorithm that explores every tree in \(\mathrm{CR}(k)\cdot(n/k+D)\) rounds is called \(\mathrm{CR}(k)\)-competitive; a single depth-first search is \(O(k)\)-competitive. Memory is bits per agent; most of this literature lets it be unbounded.

Unless a variant says otherwise, nodes are labelled (an agent recognises a node it has seen), which is the standard assumption of collective tree exploration; on trees it does not matter for lower bounds Disser et al. 2020. With anonymous nodes and \(k = n\), the problem is solved by rooted dispersion.

Measures: Time, rounds until every node is visited (asynchronous: total moves); Memory, bits per agent.

Trees, no communication

verified
Time: tightMemory: unknown

Without any communication, \(k\) agents are no faster than one.

Assumed (added on the last edge are outlined)

+Graph dynamicsstatic graph+Edge directionundirected+Node identifierslabelled nodes (an agent can recognise a node it has visited)+Timingsynchronous rounds+Topologytree

Not assumed

RandomnessdeterministicCommunicationnone (silent agents; only see how many agents are co-located)Node memoryno whiteboardsTeam sizeany number \(k\) of agents
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: labelled nodes
Each node \(v\) carries a distinct identifier that agents at \(v\) can read; hence an agent can recognise a node it has visited.
Randomness: deterministic
The next state and move of an agent are a function of its current state and what it observes.
Communication: no communication
Agents exchange no messages; an agent at \(v\) observes only the number of agents at \(v\) (and, where stated, whether that number changed).
Node memory: no whiteboards
Nodes have no storage: no information can be left at a node except by an agent staying there.
Timing: synchronous
Time proceeds in rounds \(t=1,2,\dots\); in every round every agent communicates, computes and moves (at most one edge) simultaneously.
Team size: any \(k\)
Any number \(k\ge 2\) of agents.
Topology: tree
\(G\) is connected and acyclic: \(|E|=n-1\).

What is known

Time · rounds until every node is visited (asynchronous: total moves)
tight
Tight: a single depth-first search is \(O(k)\)-competitive, and without communication no algorithm is better by more than a constant Fraigniaud et al. 2006.
lower bound
\(\Omega(k)\cdot\text{optimal}\) Fraigniaud et al. 2006
bottleneckno information sharing
holds when
  • each agent knows only what it explored itself
  • some trees
introductory—
current best
\(O(k)\cdot\text{optimal}\)
Memory · bits per agent
unknown
Memory is not bounded in these papers.
lower boundnone known
introductory—
current best—

Results, in order of publication

Time \(O(k)\cdot\text{optimal}\)

The baseline that the lower bound matches: one agent explores the whole tree by depth-first search, in \(2(n-1)\) moves, while the others wait; this is within a factor \(O(k)\) of the optimum \(\Theta(n/k+D)\) Fraigniaud et al. 2006.

Open questions

None recorded for this variant.

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

Trees, complete communication
Time \(\Omega\big(\tfrac{\log k}{\log\log k}\,(\tfrac nk + D)\big)\)

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