Leader election in programmable matter
Anonymous constant-memory particles must elect exactly one leader, which most shape-formation algorithms need first.
Problem statement and measuresexpand
A connected configuration (the set of nodes occupied by particles) of \(n\) anonymous particles (initially contracted) must reach a state in which exactly one particle is the leader and all others know they are not. Time is in asynchronous rounds; \(L_{out}\) is the length of the outer boundary and \(D\) the diameter of the configuration.
Measures: Time, asynchronous rounds; Moves, total expansions and contractions (work).
Stationary, chirality, weak scheduler
draftWithout moving, particles with chirality elect at most six leaders in \(O(n^2)\) rounds, holes allowed.
Assumed (added on the last edge are outlined)
Not assumed
Formal definitions of this setting
- Memory: constant memory
- Each particle has \(O(1)\) bits of persistent memory and reads or writes neighbours' memory.
- Scheduler: weak scheduler
- An activation's look, compute and move need not be atomic; concurrent activations may interfere. The scheduler of Bazzi and Briones is described as weak sequential, as non-atomic, and as fair asynchronous by different later papers Briones et al. 2023 Dufoulon et al. 2021 Chalopin et al. 2026.
- Orientation: chirality
- All particles agree on clockwise order, not on a common direction.
- Movement: stationary
- No particle ever expands or contracts; the configuration is fixed and only states change.
- Randomness: deterministic
- No random choices.
- Initial shape: holes allowed
- The initial set of occupied nodes induces a connected subgraph; it may enclose empty regions.
- Connectivity during execution: stays connected
- At every time the occupied nodes induce a connected subgraph.
Statement for this variant
Up to six leaders may be elected.
What is known
Results, in order of publication
Introductory and current best; at most six leaders.
Open questions
Is a unique leader ever impossible for stationary particles with chirality? Dufoulon et al. say this was shown in Bazzi & Briones 2019, at least for a weak scheduler Dufoulon et al. 2021; the theorem was not read.
Notes
Bounds are from the table of Dufoulon, Kutten and Moses Dufoulon et al. 2021; the abstract of Bazzi & Briones 2019 was not read.
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
Know a better result for this setting, or found a mistake? Suggest a result · Report an error. Accepted contributions are acknowledged.