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

Dispersion

Spread \(k \le n\) agents over the nodes of an \(n\)-node anonymous graph so that no node hosts more than one agent, as fast as possible and with as little memory per agent as possible.

Problem statement and measuresexpand

Given a connected graph \(G\) with \(n\) nodes and \(m\) edges, and \(k \le n\) agents placed on the nodes of \(G\) in any initial configuration (the node of each agent; several agents may share a node), the agents must reach a configuration in which every node hosts at most one agent, and stay there.

Time is the number of rounds (synchronous) or epochs (asynchronous; an epoch is an interval in which every agent completes at least one full Communicate–Compute–Move step, not necessarily the shortest one) until the dispersed configuration is reached; where a result also makes every agent terminate explicitly, the notes say so. Memory is the number of bits of persistent memory each agent needs, counting its \(O(\log k)\)-bit identifier. Unless a variant or a result says otherwise, agents know nothing about \(n\), \(m\), \(k\), \(\Delta\) or \(D\).

Dispersion is the natural "one agent per node" problem: it is equivalent to leaving one agent at every node of a depth-first search (DFS) tree of \(k\) nodes, which is why depth-first search bounds such as \(\min(m, k\Delta)\) appear throughout, and it is a building block for exploration, leader election and self-deployment of agents.

Measures: Time, rounds in the synchronous model, epochs in the asynchronous model, until dispersion is reached; Memory, bits of persistent memory per agent, including its identifier.

Weak Byzantine agents on grids

verified
Time: tightMemory: polynomial gap

Time-optimal \(O(\sqrt n)\) rounds on oriented grids for any number of weak Byzantine agents, at the price of \(O(n\log n)\) bits.

Assumed (added on the last edge are outlined)

+Graph dynamicsstatic graph+Edge directionundirected+Number of agents\(k \le n\)+Identifiersdistinct identifiers (eponymous): agents have pairwise distinct identifiers+Faultsup to \(f\) weak Byzantine agents (arbitrary behaviour, cannot fake identifiers)+Communicationlocal (co-located agents communicate)+Timingsynchronous rounds+Topologygrid

Not assumed

RandomnessdeterministicNode memoryno whiteboardsNode identifiersanonymous nodesInitial configurationarbitrary (agents on any \(\ell \le k\) nodes)
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.
Number of agents: \(k \le n\)
The number of agents satisfies \(1\le k\le n\).
Identifiers: distinct IDs (eponymous)
Distinct identifiers (eponymous agents): the label function \(\mathrm{id}:\{1,\dots,k\}\to\{1,\dots,L\}\) is injective; usually \(L=k^{O(1)}\), so a label takes \(O(\log k)\) bits.
Randomness: deterministic
The next state and move of an agent are a function of its current state and what it observes.
Faults: at most weak Byzantine faults
Up to \(f\) agents behave arbitrarily but always report their own true identifier.
Communication: local communication
Agents at the same node at the same time can read each other's entire memory (face-to-face communication). Agents crossing on an edge do not meet.
Timing: synchronous
Time proceeds in rounds \(t=1,2,\dots\); in every round every agent communicates, computes and moves (at most one edge) simultaneously.
Node memory: no whiteboards
Nodes have no storage: no information can be left at a node except by an agent staying there.
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.
Topology: grid
\(G\) is a \(\sqrt n\times\sqrt n\) grid graph; whether ports are globally consistent (oriented) is stated per result.
Initial configuration: any start
Agents start at arbitrary nodes; \(\ell\le k\) nodes are initially occupied, possibly with several agents each.

What is known

Time · rounds in the synchronous model, epochs in the asynchronous model, until dispersion is reached
tight
\(\Theta(\sqrt n)\).
lower bound
\(\Omega(\sqrt n)\) Kshemkalyani et al. 2020
bottleneckdistance
holds when
  • \(k = n\): the grid has diameter \(2\sqrt n\)
  • any algorithm
\(k = n\).
introductory—
current best
\(O(\sqrt n)\)
oriented grid\(k = n\)\(f \le n\)
Memory · bits of persistent memory per agent, including its identifier
polynomial gap
\(O(n\log n)\) versus \(\Omega(\log n)\).
lower bound
\(\Omega(\log n)\) Augustine & Moses Jr. 2018
bottlenecksymmetry breaking
holds when
  • deterministic
  • all agents have the same memory bound
  • \(k = n\)
introductory—
current best
\(O(n\log n)\)
oriented grid\(k = n\)\(f \le n\)

Results, in order of publication

Time \(O(\sqrt n)\)Memory \(O(n\log n)\)
oriented grid\(k = n\)\(f \le n\)

Introductory and current best.

Open questions

  1. Reduce the memory below \(O(n\log n)\) bits on grids with weak Byzantine agents.

  2. Strong Byzantine agents (able to fake identifiers) on grids Banerjee et al. 2025.

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

Weak Byzantine agents
Time \(\tilde O(n^9)\)

Lower bounds from stronger settings hold here

Crash faults on grids
Time \(\Omega(\sqrt k)\)Memory \(\Omega(\log k)\)

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