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

Rendezvous

Two agents start at different nodes of an unknown graph and must meet; how long does it take, and how much memory or symmetry breaking does it need?

Problem statement and measuresexpand

Two mobile agents start at different nodes of an unknown connected port-labelled graph. In the synchronous model they must be at the same node in the same round; in the asynchronous model an adversary controls their speeds and they may also meet inside an edge. Agents are either labelled (distinct labels from \(\{1,\dots,L\}\); \(\lambda\) is the smaller label) or anonymous. They may start at different times; \(\tau\) is the delay. Time is the number of rounds from the start of the later agent (synchronous) or the total number of moves, that is edge traversals (asynchronous cost). Memory is bits per agent.

Measures: Time, rounds after the later agent starts (synchronous); edge traversals (asynchronous); Memory, bits per agent.

Labelled agents, graphs with infinite degrees

verified
Time: polynomial gapMemory: unknown

A universal algorithm works even when nodes have infinite degree; it is within a cubic factor of the lower bound.

Assumed (added on the last edge are outlined)

+Graph dynamicsstatic graph+Edge directionundirected+Identifiersdistinct identifiers (eponymous): agents have pairwise distinct identifiers+Timingsynchronous rounds

Not assumed

Graph sizefinite or countably infinite, degrees may be infiniteStartarbitrary delay between the two startsTopologyarbitrary 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.
Graph size: infinite degrees allowed
\(G\) is finite or countably infinite; degrees may be infinite.
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.
Timing: synchronous
Time proceeds in rounds \(t=1,2,\dots\); in every round every agent communicates, computes and moves (at most one edge) simultaneously.
Start: any delay
An adversary wakes the agents at times \(t_1\) and \(t_2\); the delay \(\tau=|t_1-t_2|\) is unknown.
Topology: any topology
\(G\) is any connected graph in the class allowed by the other axes.

What is known

Time · rounds after the later agent starts (synchronous); edge traversals (asynchronous)
polynomial gap
Cubic.
lower bound
\(\Omega(\max(W,\log L))\) Pattanayak & Pelc 2024
bottleneckport addressing
holds when
  • \(W=\max(w(v_1,v_2),w(v_2,v_1))\), the path weight of the treasure-hunt variant
  • e.g. the infinite tree with all degrees infinite
introductory—
current best
\(O((W\log L)^3)\)
Memory · bits per agent
unknown
Memory is unbounded.
lower boundnone known
introductory—
current best—

Results, in order of publication

Time \(O((W\log L)^3)\)

Introductory and current best (Theorem 3.1).

Open questions

  1. Find an optimal rendezvous algorithm, "even for finite graphs" Pattanayak & Pelc 2024.

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.