Rendezvous problem

Rendezvous problemMain

Community hub

Rendezvous problem

7 pages, 0 posts

0 subscribers

Recent from talks

Be the first to start a discussion here.

Recent from talks

Be the first to start a discussion here.

Contribute something

About hubMembersContent overviewUpdatesRules

Main reference articles

Rendezvous problem

View on Wikipedia

from Wikipedia

The rendezvous dilemma is a logical dilemma, typically formulated in this way:

Two people have a date in a park they have never been to before. Arriving separately in the park, they are both surprised to discover that it is a huge area and consequently they cannot find one another. In this situation each person has to choose between waiting in a fixed place in the hope that the other will find them, or else starting to look for the other in the hope that they have chosen to wait somewhere.

If they both choose to wait, they will never meet. If they both choose to walk there are chances that they meet and chances that they do not. If one chooses to wait and the other chooses to walk, then there is a theoretical certainty that they will meet eventually; in practice, though, it may take too long for it to be guaranteed. The question posed, then, is: what strategies should they choose to maximize their probability of meeting?

Examples of this class of problems are known as rendezvous problems. These problems were first introduced informally by Steve Alpern in 1976,^[1] and he formalised the continuous version of the problem in 1995.^[2] This has led to much recent research in rendezvous search.^[3] Even the symmetric rendezvous problem played in n discrete locations (sometimes called the Mozart Cafe Rendezvous Problem)^[4] has turned out to be very difficult to solve, and in 1990 Richard Weber and Eddie Anderson conjectured the optimal strategy.^[5] In 2012 the conjecture was proved for n = 3 by Richard Weber.^[6] This was the first non-trivial symmetric rendezvous search problem to be fully solved. The corresponding asymmetric rendezvous problem has a simple optimal solution: one player stays put and the other player visits a random permutation of the locations.

As well as being problems of theoretical interest, rendezvous problems include real-world problems with applications in the fields of synchronization, operating system design, operations research, and even search and rescue operations planning.

Deterministic rendezvous problem

[edit]

The deterministic rendezvous problem is a variant of the rendezvous problem where the players, or robots, must find each other by following a deterministic sequence of instructions. Although each robot follows the same instruction sequence, a unique label assigned to each robot is used for symmetry breaking.^[7]

References

[edit]

^ Alpern, Steve (1976), Hide and Seek Games, Seminar, Institut fur Hohere Studien, Wien, 26 July.
^ Alpern, Steve (1995), "The rendezvous search problem", SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 33 (3): 673–683, doi:10.1137/S0363012993249195, MR 1327232
^ Alpern, Steve; Gal, Shmuel (2003), The Theory of Search Games and Rendezvous, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol. 55, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 0-7923-7468-1, MR 2005053.
^ Alpern, Steve (2011), "Rendezvous search games", in Cochran, James J. (ed.), Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, Wiley, doi:10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0720.
^ Anderson, E. J.; Weber, R. R. (1990), "The rendezvous problem on discrete locations", Journal of Applied Probability, 27 (4): 839–851, doi:10.2307/3214827, JSTOR 3214827, MR 1077533, S2CID 122587972.
^ Weber, Richard (2012), "Optimal symmetric Rendezvous search on three locations" (PDF), Mathematics of Operations Research, 37 (1): 111–122, doi:10.1287/moor.1110.0528, MR 2891149.
^ Ta-Shma, Amnon; Zwick, Uri (April 2014). "Deterministic rendezvous, treasure hunts, and strongly universal exploration sequences". ACM Transactions on Algorithms. 10 (3). 12. doi:10.1145/2601068. S2CID 10718957.

Game theory

Traditional game theory

Definitions	Asynchrony Bayesian regret Best response Bounded rationality Cheap talk Coalition Complete contract Complete information Complete mixing Confrontation analysis Conjectural variation Contingent cooperator Coopetition Cooperative game theory Dynamic inconsistency Escalation of commitment Farsightedness Game semantics Hierarchy of beliefs Imperfect information Incomplete information Information set Move by nature Mutual knowledge Non-cooperative game theory Non-credible threat Outcome Perfect information Perfect recall Ply Preference Rationality Sequential game Simultaneous action selection Spite Strategic complements Strategic dominance Strategic form Strategic interaction Strategic move Strategy Subgame Succinct game Topological game Tragedy of the commons Uncorrelated asymmetry
Equilibrium concepts	Backward induction Bayes correlated equilibrium Bayesian efficiency Bayesian game Bayesian Nash equilibrium Berge equilibrium Bertrand–Edgeworth model Coalition-proof Nash equilibrium Core Correlated equilibrium Cursed equilibrium Edgeworth price cycle Epsilon-equilibrium Gibbs equilibrium Incomplete contracts Inequity aversion Individual rationality Iterated elimination of dominated strategies Markov perfect equilibrium Mertens-stable equilibrium Nash equilibrium Open-loop model Pareto efficiency Payoff dominance Perfect Bayesian equilibrium Price of anarchy Program equilibrium Proper equilibrium Quantal response equilibrium Quasi-perfect equilibrium Rational agent Rationalizability Rationalizable strategy Satisfaction equilibrium Self-confirming equilibrium Sequential equilibrium Shapley value Strong Nash equilibrium Subgame perfect equilibrium Trembling hand equilibrium
Strategies	Appeasement Bid shading Cheap talk Collusion Commitment device De-escalation Deterrence Escalation Fictitious play Focal point Grim trigger Hobbesian trap Markov strategy Max-dominated strategy Mixed strategy Pure strategy Tit for tat Win–stay, lose–switch
Games	All-pay auction Battle of the sexes Nash bargaining game Bertrand competition Blotto game Centipede game Coordination game Cournot competition Deadlock Dictator game Trust game Diner's dilemma Dollar auction El Farol Bar problem Electronic mail game Gift-exchange game Guess 2/3 of the average Keynesian beauty contest Kuhn poker Lewis signaling game Matching pennies Obligationes Optional prisoner's dilemma Pirate game Prisoner's dilemma Public goods game Rendezvous problem Rock paper scissors Stackelberg competition Stag hunt Traveler's dilemma Ultimatum game Volunteer's dilemma War of attrition
Theorems	Arrow's impossibility theorem Aumann's agreement theorem Brouwer fixed-point theorem Competitive altruism Folk theorem Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem Gibbs lemma Glicksberg's theorem Kakutani fixed-point theorem Kuhn's theorem One-shot deviation principle Prim–Read theory Rational ignorance Rational irrationality Sperner's lemma Zermelo's theorem
Subfields	Algorithmic game theory Behavioral game theory Behavioral strategy Compositional game theory Contract theory Drama theory Graphical game theory Heresthetic Mean-field game theory Negotiation theory Quantum game theory Social software
Key people	Albert W. Tucker Alvin E. Roth Amos Tversky Antoine Augustin Cournot Ariel Rubinstein David Gale David K. Levine David M. Kreps Donald B. Gillies Drew Fudenberg Eric Maskin Harold W. Kuhn Herbert Simon Herbert Scarf Hervé Moulin Jean Tirole Jean-François Mertens Jennifer Tour Chayes Ken Binmore Kenneth Arrow Leonid Hurwicz Lloyd Shapley Martin Shubik Melvin Dresher Merrill M. Flood Olga Bondareva Oskar Morgenstern Paul Milgrom Peyton Young Reinhard Selten Robert Aumann Robert Axelrod Robert B. Wilson Roger Myerson Samuel Bowles Suzanne Scotchmer Thomas Schelling William Vickrey

Combinatorial game theory

Core concepts	Combinatorial explosion Determinacy Disjunctive sum First-player and second-player win Game complexity Game tree Impartial game Misère Partisan game Solved game Sprague–Grundy theorem Strategy-stealing argument Zugzwang
Games	Chess Chomp Clobber Cram Domineering Hackenbush Nim Notakto Subtract a square Sylver coinage Toads and Frogs
Mathematical tools	Mex Nimber On Numbers and Games Star Surreal number Winning Ways for Your Mathematical Plays
Search algorithms	Alpha–beta pruning Expectiminimax Minimax Monte Carlo tree search Negamax Paranoid algorithm Principal variation search
Key people	Claude Shannon John Conway John von Neumann

Evolutionary game theory

Core concepts	Bishop–Cannings theorem Evolution and the Theory of Games Evolutionarily stable set Evolutionarily stable state Evolutionarily stable strategy Replicator equation Risk dominance Stochastically stable equilibrium Weak evolutionarily stable strategy
Games	Chicken Stag hunt
Applications	Cultural group selection Fisher's principle Mobbing Terminal investment hypothesis
Key people	John Maynard Smith Robert Axelrod

Mechanism design

Core concepts	Algorithmic mechanism design Bayesian-optimal mechanism Incentive compatibility Market design Monotonicity Participation constraint Revelation principle Strategyproofness Vickrey–Clarke–Groves mechanism
Theorems	Myerson–Satterthwaite theorem Revenue equivalence
Applications	Digital goods auction Knapsack auction Truthful cake-cutting

Other topics
Bertrand paradox Chainstore paradox Computational complexity of games Helly metric Multi-agent system PPAD-complete

Revisions and contributors Edit on Wikipedia Read on Wikipedia

View on Grokipedia

from Grokipedia

The rendezvous problem, also known as the rendezvous search problem, is a classic challenge in search theory and distributed computing in which two or more mobile agents, placed at unknown positions relative to each other in a shared environment—such as a continuous space like a line or circle, or a discrete network modeled as an undirected graph—must devise strategies to meet at the same location within finite time, typically minimizing the expected meeting time or guaranteeing rendezvous under constraints like limited communication, asynchrony, or anonymity.^[1]^[2] The problem was first informally proposed by Steve Alpern in 1976 during a seminar on search games, evolving from coordination dilemmas in game theory and operations research, and later formalized in continuous settings where agents move at unit speed in a compact metric space to address spatial symmetries and uncertainties.^[3] In its mathematical formulation, the goal is to optimize strategies that account for randomized initial positions and lack of mutual visibility, with the rendezvous value defined as the infimum of expected meeting times over all possible symmetric or asymmetric search plans.^[1]^[4] In distributed computing contexts, the rendezvous problem extends to computational agents or robots navigating anonymous graphs, where agents operate synchronously or asynchronously, often without global labels or clocks, and must gather at a common node to enable tasks like data exchange or coordination in sensor networks and robotics.^[5]^[2] Key variants include deterministic algorithms for labeled networks, achieving rendezvous in O(D log ℓ_min)* time on infinite lines with initial distance D and label constraints, or polynomial-time solutions in arbitrary connected graphs under asynchrony, highlighting challenges like wake-up delays and port numbering.^[6]^[2] Symmetric strategies, where indistinguishable agents use identical plans, contrast with asymmetric ones allowing role differentiation, and applications span cognitive radio networks for channel rendezvous, multi-agent systems in the plane with compass guidance, and fault-tolerant gathering despite adversarial delays.^[5]^[4] Open problems persist, such as optimal symmetric rendezvous on infinite lines or cycles with n ≥ 4 locations, underscoring the problem's enduring impact on algorithm design and optimization.^[4]^[2]

Introduction

Definition and Overview

The rendezvous problem is a foundational challenge in search theory and game theory, involving two or more agents—such as people, animals, or robots—who start at unknown positions within a bounded and known search region and must coordinate to meet at the same location as quickly as possible, typically by minimizing the expected meeting time. The core dilemma arises from the agents' inability to communicate or observe each other directly in a "dark" environment where visibility is limited until they are in close proximity, forcing them to select movement strategies like waiting in place or traversing the region in predefined patterns without prior knowledge of the others' locations or actions. The problem was first proposed by Steve Alpern in 1976 during a talk on search games in Vienna, including the discrete "telephone problem" formulation.^[4] Key assumptions in the rendezvous problem include the absence of any communication between agents, identical or limited shared information about the search region (which is typically known in shape and size but not the starting points), and movement models that are either synchronous (agents act simultaneously in discrete time steps) or asynchronous (continuous time with unit speeds). Initial positions are often drawn from a known joint probability distribution, and agents move at equal maximum speeds, emphasizing coordination under uncertainty rather than adversarial intent. The problem encompasses several high-level variants, broadly categorized as symmetric, where agents are indistinguishable and must employ identical strategies, versus asymmetric, where agents have differing roles or capabilities; and deterministic, relying on fixed paths, versus stochastic, incorporating randomization to hedge against uncertainty. A classic illustrative example is the "lost in the woods" scenario, where two hikers become separated in a forest and must reunite without cell service or signaling devices, each deciding independently whether to stay put, search in a certain direction, or follow a looping path to increase the chances of crossing paths.

Historical Development

The rendezvous problem originated in 1976 when Steve Alpern introduced the rendezvous search problem during a talk on search games in Vienna, framing it as a scenario where two agents, separated in a known region, must coordinate movements to meet without communication.^[7] This initial conceptualization highlighted the game's symmetric nature and its roots in search games, where players aim to minimize expected meeting time under uncertainty about each other's positions. Alpern's presentation laid the groundwork for later formal developments, though it remained conceptual until the 1990s. This included the discrete "telephone problem" formulation, later analyzed by Anderson and Weber (1990).^[8] A key early advancement came in 1990 with the work of Eddie Anderson and Richard Weber, who formalized the discrete-location version and conjectured optimal symmetric strategies for the general case of

n

locations. Their analysis established expected meeting times for small

n

(e.g., 2 and 3 locations) and proposed a strategy where players alternate between staying and moving, suspecting it to be optimal across larger

n

. This conjecture spurred significant interest in the problem's discrete formulations within operations research.^[9] Alpern provided a rigorous formalization in 1995 through his seminal paper on the continuous-space version, defining the problem as a branch of search theory where two unit-speed agents, starting from random points in a known bounded region, seek to minimize the expected rendezvous time using identical mixed strategies.^[1] This work solidified the rendezvous problem's mathematical structure, emphasizing symmetry and probabilistic expectations. Building on this, Alpern and Shmuel Gal's 2002 book further expanded the field, integrating it with broader search game theory and exploring connections to synchronization challenges in distributed systems. Post-1995 research intensified, particularly in operations research, with the 2012 proof by Richard Weber resolving the 1990 conjecture for

n=3

locations in the symmetric discrete case; he demonstrated that the alternating "wait-move" strategy achieves the minimal expected time of

8/3

steps, marking the first non-trivial complete solution.^[10] This milestone highlighted the problem's complexity for larger

n

and fostered links to practical synchronization issues, such as in multi-agent coordination.

Classic Formulations

Symmetric Rendezvous Search

In the symmetric rendezvous search problem, two indistinguishable agents are initially placed at unknown, distinct positions within a search space and must employ identical strategies to meet as quickly as possible, without communication or labels to differentiate their roles. The search space may consist of

n

discrete locations, modeled as a complete graph where agents can instantaneously relocate to any location at each discrete time step, or a continuous domain such as the real line or plane, where agents move at constant speed. Initial positions are chosen uniformly at random, and the objective is to minimize the expected meeting time, averaged over starting locations and any randomness in the strategies. Since the agents cannot coordinate asymmetrically, they must select the same mixed strategy from a symmetric perspective, ensuring that the probability distribution over possible actions remains invariant under permutation of agent identities.^[8]^[11] A primary challenge in this setup is the risk of perpetual evasion due to mirroring movements: if both agents follow the same deterministic path relative to their starting points, they may symmetrically avoid each other indefinitely, as their relative positions remain unchanged. To overcome this, strategies incorporate randomization to break symmetry, either through probabilistic choices of actions or by leveraging external factors like time-varying signals if available, though pure symmetric policies often rely on internal randomness alone. In discrete spaces, agents plan visits to locations in a balanced manner, ensuring that the strategy covers potential relative positions equitably; for instance, policies may involve periodic cycling through subsets of locations with equal probability to avoid bias toward any particular starting configuration. In continuous spaces, such as the line, symmetric strategies typically involve randomized trajectories, like spiraling outward or alternating directions with certain probabilities, to hedge against unknown initial distances and orientations. This symmetry constraint elevates the problem's complexity compared to the asymmetric variant, where differentiated roles allow simpler solutions like one agent waiting.^[8]^[1]^[12] Mathematically, the problem is framed as a zero-sum game where the expected meeting time

R(\pi)

for a symmetric mixed strategy

\pi

is minimized, with

R(\pi) = \sum_{i \neq j} \frac{1}{n(n-1)} E[T_{ij} | \pi]

, where

T_{ij}

is the meeting time starting from locations

i

and

j

, and the expectation accounts for

\pi

's randomness. For

n

discrete locations, optimal strategies seek to balance waiting and searching phases to cover the

n-1

possible relative positions efficiently. A seminal approach divides time into blocks of

n-1

steps: with probability

\theta

, the agent stays at its current location for the entire block, or with probability

1-\theta

, it visits the other

n-1

locations in random order. This ensures that, in expectation, the agents align on relative displacements without favoring any direction. For continuous spaces, the model extends to minimizing

R(f) = \int \int E[T(x,y) | f] \mu(dx) \mu(dy)

, where

f

is the common motion strategy and

\mu

is the prior distribution on initial positions, often leading to strategies that expand search radii proportionally to time.^[11]^[1] A key result originates from Anderson and Weber (1990), who conjectured that the above block strategy with

\theta = 1/n

is optimal for general

n

, achieving an expected meeting time bounded above by approximately

0.829n

for large

n

, though the exact rendezvous value remains open beyond small

n

. This conjecture was verified for

n=3

in 2012 by Krieger, Nahum, and Weber, where the optimal symmetric strategy yields a rendezvous value of

5/2

, confirming that agents should, in blocks of 2 steps, either wait with probability

1/3

or cycle through the other two locations with probability

2/3

.^[11]^[10] For

n=2

, the optimal expected time is 2, achieved by randomizing between staying and moving each step. These results highlight the strategy's efficiency in discrete settings, with waiting probabilities scaling as

1/n

to balance exploration against the symmetry-induced coordination difficulty. In continuous domains, symmetric policies achieve finite expected times but often at higher multiples of the initial separation compared to asymmetric counterparts.^[10]

Asymmetric Rendezvous Search

In the asymmetric rendezvous search problem, two agents are assigned distinct roles in advance: one serves as the waiter and remains stationary at its starting location, while the other acts as the searcher and systematically visits potential locations where the waiter might be situated. This setup presupposes that the roles are known to both agents prior to separation, but their initial positions are unknown and selected uniformly at random from a finite set of

n

discrete, indistinguishable locations. The goal is to minimize the expected time until the agents meet, with time measured in discrete steps where each agent occupies one location per step.^[9] The searcher's optimal strategy involves generating a random permutation of the

n

locations and visiting them in that order, ensuring complete coverage without revisiting sites prematurely. Under this policy, the meeting occurs exactly when the searcher reaches the waiter's location. Since the waiter's position is equally likely to be any of the

n

sites, the probability of meeting at step

k

(for

k = 1, 2, \dots, n

) is

P(T = k) = \frac{1}{n}

, where

T

denotes the meeting time. The expected meeting time is thus

E[T] = \sum_{k=1}^n k \cdot \frac{1}{n} = \frac{n+1}{2}

. This result holds as the minimal achievable expected time in the discrete asymmetric setting, as no strategy can guarantee a meeting before step

n

in the worst case.^[9] Mathematically, the problem can be formalized as minimizing

E[T]

over search policies, where the waiter's strategy is fixed (stationary), and the searcher's path is a permutation

\pi

of the locations. For continuous spaces like the infinite line, the formulation extends to agents starting at unknown positions separated by a random distance

d

drawn from a known distribution, with the waiter stationary and the searcher moving at unit speed in both directions. Optimal policies, such as alternating explorations with increasing distances, minimize the worst-case or average meeting time, yielding bounds involving the harmonic number

H_m \approx \ln m + \gamma

(where

\gamma

is the Euler-Mascheroni constant) for discretized approximations or exponential backtracking strategies that achieve expected times on the order of

O(H_{d/\epsilon})

under bounded initial separation

d

and precision

\epsilon

.^[13]^[14] This role-differentiated approach mitigates the coordination difficulties of symmetric rendezvous by eliminating the need for identical strategies, proving particularly useful in applications where pre-separation communication enables role assignment, such as coordinating a mobile robot with a fixed beacon in unknown environments.^[14]

Deterministic Approaches

In Continuous Spaces

In continuous spaces, the rendezvous problem involves two mobile agents starting from unknown positions separated by an initial distance

d

in unbounded environments such as the infinite real line

\mathbb{R}

or the Euclidean plane

\mathbb{R}^2

. Agents move at unit speed without communication or visibility of each other, and the initial distance

d

is unknown. To enable deterministic symmetry breaking, agents are equipped with unique positive integer labels, which serve as identifiers known only to each agent individually. These labels, often represented in binary form, allow agents to independently compute consistent roles (e.g., leader or follower) and coordinate trajectories, ensuring rendezvous regardless of initial orientation or relative positions.^[2] On the infinite line, the model typically assumes asynchrony, where agents may activate at different times and an adversary controls their movement speeds (between 0 and 1) to maximize rendezvous time. Unique labels break symmetry by enabling agents to derive a shared orientation and movement sequence from their binary representations; for instance, the agent with the smaller label acts as the "leader" by initially moving in one direction, while the other follows a complementary pattern. A seminal "go-to-the-left" strategy, based on scanning neighborhoods using patterns like ZWalk derived from labels, guarantees rendezvous. This achieves a meeting time of

d/2

in synchronous settings with known orientation, as the relative closure rate of 2 closes the distance

d

in time

d/2

.^[15]^[16] More generally, recent results show rendezvous in

O(D \log^* \ell_{\min})

time in the asynchronous model with initial distance

D

and minimum label

\ell_{\min}

, using colored ruling sets for symmetry breaking. In the plane, agents employ search patterns based on label-transformed bits, such as Berry and Cloudberry routes in phases that estimate and double the distance. These ensure coverage of all possible relative positions, with rendezvous time bounded by

O(d \cdot \mathrm{polylog}(d, \ell))

in the worst case, leveraging label-based synchronization to avoid symmetric loops.^[15]^[17]^[2]

In Discrete Locations

In discrete locations, the rendezvous problem is formulated on a finite set of n points modeled as nodes in an unknown, connected, anonymous graph, where two mobile agents start at arbitrary, unknown nodes and must meet at some node using deterministic movement strategies. The agents move along edges in synchronous rounds, with the goal of minimizing the worst-case time to rendezvous, defined as the maximum number of steps until both occupy the same node. Unlike continuous spaces, which involve unbounded paths and geometric distances, discrete settings emphasize complete node visitation through structured traversals to guarantee meeting regardless of initial positions.^[18] When agents possess distinct labels (unique identifiers known only to themselves), these labels enable symmetry breaking in the strategy. The agent with the higher label serves as the leader, performing a systematic exploration of the graph by constructing an implicit spanning tree via depth-first search or a universal traversal sequence, thereby visiting every node. Meanwhile, the agent with the lower label adopts a passive role, remaining stationary at its starting node—a approach known as "wait-for-mommy." This ensures the leader eventually reaches the waiter's position, achieving rendezvous in O(n) time in the worst case for trees and general connected graphs of n nodes, as the traversal covers the entire structure without redundancy beyond polynomial factors in label size.^[18]^[19] For anonymous agents without labels in anonymous graphs, deterministic rendezvous is possible if and only if the initial positions are not symmetric with respect to any graph automorphism. In such cases, agents can use universal traversal sequences or position-dependent explorations to meet, with time complexity polynomial in n. Coordinated strategies rely on the inherent asymmetry of starting positions rather than wait phases, which cannot break symmetry for identical executions. This extends the time to polynomial in n but guarantees rendezvous in admissible (non-symmetric) initial configurations.^[19] A representative result applies to cycle graphs, where the n nodes form a ring. The higher-label agent explores by traversing clockwise, systematically visiting all nodes in sequence, while the lower-label agent waits at its start; this yields rendezvous in O(n) time, as the leader covers the full cycle diameter at most once.^[18]

Stochastic and Randomized Strategies

Probabilistic Models

In probabilistic models of the rendezvous problem, agents are typically assumed to start at positions drawn uniformly at random from a known search space, reflecting uncertainty in their initial locations. Their movements are modeled as Markov processes, where actions at each step or time interval are governed by transition probabilities that dictate the likelihood of moving to adjacent states or locations. This framework captures the stochastic nature of search strategies, allowing for the analysis of expected outcomes under uncertainty.^[1] Common assumptions in these models include a bounded search area to ensure finite expected times, zero visibility range such that agents cannot detect each other until they occupy the same position, and no inertia, permitting instantaneous changes in direction or velocity up to a maximum speed of one. These conditions simplify the problem to focus on strategic movement without external constraints like communication or physical limitations. The key performance metric is the expected rendezvous time

E[T]

, computed as

E[T] = \sum p_i t_i

, where

p_i

represents the probability of meeting at discrete time

t_i

, or via integrals in continuous time formulations to aggregate meeting probabilities over the trajectory. For the line formulation, Brownian motion serves as an approximation for diffusive or randomized movements, leading to a probability of not having met by time t that decays asymptotically as

1/\sqrt{t}

1/t

for large $t$ , which highlights the increasing difficulty of rendezvous as time progresses due to spreading positions. This decay arises from the relative motion of the agents modeled as a one-dimensional Brownian process. These probabilistic foundations apply in both symmetric rendezvous, where agents are indistinguishable, and asymmetric cases, where one may have superior capabilities, providing tools to bound expected times across scenarios.

Optimal Search Policies

In stochastic rendezvous settings, optimal search policies often involve mixed strategies that balance waiting at the current location and moving to other locations to minimize the expected meeting time E[T]. For the symmetric case on n discrete locations, where both agents must use the same strategy due to lack of labels or communication, the seminal Anderson-Weber strategy employs blocks of n-1 steps in which each agent randomizes between staying put with probability θ or visiting each of the other n-1 locations exactly once with probability 1-θ.^[20] The optimal θ is approximately 0.2475 for large n, yielding E[T] ≈ 0.829n, which improves upon the naive random visitation strategy's E[T] = n.^[20] The derivation of such policies typically relies on dynamic programming to solve the minimization of E[T] over mixed strategies, modeling the state as the pair of agents' positions and computing the value function recursively for the expected time from each state.^[21] In the asymmetric case, where agents can adopt distinct roles, the optimal policy assigns one agent as the "waiter" who remains stationary at their initial location and the other as the "searcher" who visits locations in a uniform random permutation without repetition; this achieves E[T] = (n+1)/2.^[20] This strategy leverages the probabilistic models of uniform initial positions, ensuring the relative offset in the permutation is uniform, leading to the linear expected time.^[20] Policies can be designed for average-case optimization, assuming uniform random initial positions, or for worst-case (minimax) scenarios against adversarial placements, where the goal is to minimize the maximum possible E[T] over initial configurations.^[1] Minimax policies often involve symmetric modifications to ensure robustness, such as randomizing over multiple candidate paths.

Extensions in Graphs and Networks

Mobile Agent Rendezvous

In the mobile agent rendezvous problem within anonymous networks, two labeled mobile agents start at distinct, unknown nodes of an undirected graph, such as a ring or a tree, and must meet at some node without prior knowledge of the graph's structure. The agents move asynchronously, with speeds and activation times controlled adversarially, and lack the ability to detect the presence of multiple agents at a node (no multiplicity detection), which can render rendezvous impossible in some graph classes without additional assumptions like whiteboards or tokens. Graphs are anonymous, meaning nodes and edges carry no identifiers, though local port numbering at nodes allows agents to choose outgoing edges consistently from their perspective. To achieve rendezvous, algorithms exploit the agents' unique labels to designate roles and coordinate exploration. The agent with the smaller label serves as the leader, initiating a pattern-based exploration via an Euler tour traversal of the graph, systematically visiting all edges to search for the follower. The follower, identified by the larger label, initially remains stationary at its starting node for a polynomial duration in the bit length of the label difference, allowing time for the leader to potentially arrive; if unmet, the follower then activates and joins the traversal pattern to intersect the leader's path. This leader-follower strategy ensures meeting by guaranteeing that the leader covers the entire graph while the follower periodically checks key locations, yielding polynomial time in the graph size and the length of the agents' labels.^[22] Asynchrony introduces critical challenges, as uncoordinated movement timings can cause agents to miss each other indefinitely without careful synchronization mechanisms. A key issue arises in port numbering, where each agent's view of port labels at a node may differ adversarially; to resolve this, protocols enforce a "smallest label wins" rule, whereby the leader's label dictates the canonical ordering of ports for traversal, ensuring both agents interpret the graph consistently despite local discrepancies.^[22] Deterministic solvability is particularly well-studied in trees, where universal traversal sequences—short sequences that traverse any tree of size up to

n

regardless of starting node and port labeling—enable efficient exploration. Recent results show memory-time trade-offs, such as O(\log n) memory with O(n^2) time or O(n \log n) time with \Theta(\log n) memory. By having the leader execute such a sequence, rendezvous becomes feasible in

O(n \log n)

time, balancing memory constraints with traversal guarantees and marking a significant improvement over exponential bounds in general graphs.^[23]

Labeled Graph Rendezvous

The labeled graph rendezvous problem considers scenarios where the underlying graph—such as an infinite or finite line—has nodes or edges assigned unique labels, typically distinct positive integers, which agents can observe and utilize to compute coordinated paths without needing to explore the entire structure.^[24] In this setup, two synchronous mobile agents start at arbitrary nodes, know only their own current labels and local port numbers, and must meet at a common node without direct communication, while accounting for possible wake-up delays.^[24] Labels serve as fixed references, enabling deterministic strategies that scale with the initial distance

D

between agents rather than the graph's size.^[24] A foundational deterministic algorithm for this problem on infinite labeled lines was introduced in 2023 by Miller and Pelc.^[24] In the canonical variant, where agents know their positions relative to the smallest-labeled node, the method achieves rendezvous in

O(D)

time by having agents compute label-based offsets to simulate directed movements toward each other.^[24] For the general case on labeled lines, agents employ a binary search procedure over label sequences to estimate relative positions, dividing the line into segments defined by label differences and iteratively narrowing the search space.^[24] The key innovation lies in reducing the rendezvous task to a graph coloring problem via label differences, which allows agents to generate exploration patterns—such as search and idle phases—that avoid exhaustive traversal of the line.^[24] This approach ensures agents synchronize their explorations without collisions or redundant steps, leveraging the uniqueness of labels to encode positional information implicitly.^[24] For labeled lines with known initial distance

D

, the algorithm completes in

O(D \log^* \ell)

steps, where

\ell

is the bit length of the largest relevant label and

\log^*

denotes the iterated logarithm; this improves upon prior

O(n)

bounds for unlabeled or partially labeled discrete settings requiring full exploration of

n

nodes.^[24] In the fully adversarial case with unknown

D

and arbitrary wake-up times, rendezvous occurs in

O(D^2 (\log^* \ell)^3)

steps, establishing a polynomial dependence on

D

and near-logarithmic on label size.^[24] These results extend conceptually to finite labeled graphs by treating them as bounded lines with endpoint labels, though complexities adjust for graph diameter.^[24] Building on this, a 2025 algorithm by Bourreau, Narayanan, and Nolin achieves optimal deterministic rendezvous on infinite labeled lines in

O(D \log^* \ell_{\min})

time, where

\ell_{\min}

is the bit length of the smallest label within

O(D)

distance, matching the

\Omega(D \log^* \ell)

lower bound from the 2023 work and using sparse ruling sets derived from labels as virtual landmarks for coordinated walks.^[6]^[24]

Applications and Variants

Search and Rescue Operations

In search and rescue (SAR) operations, particularly in wilderness environments involving lost individuals or teams, the rendezvous problem is addressed through asymmetric strategies. The lost party may employ signaling methods, such as building a fire or using reflective materials, to indicate their position, while rescuers conduct systematic searches using patterns like grids or expanding squares to cover potential locations efficiently.^[25] These approaches adapt the core rendezvous concept—where agents seek to meet without prior coordination—to scenarios with one immobile or limited-mobility agent, prioritizing rapid detection over mutual movement.^[26] Theoretical models are modified for practical constraints, including visibility limitations like line-of-sight restrictions in foggy or forested terrain and detailed environmental models accounting for elevation and obstacles. A 2022 study on asymmetric rendezvous in line-based search regions showed that incorporating "gifts" or signals—such as dropped supplies or markers—enables the searching agent to reduce expected rendezvous time compared to no-signal strategies (from 13D/8 to 3D/2 in one variant), with optimal drop-off occurring at D/2 in that case.^[25] Real-world case studies illustrate these applications. The U.S. Coast Guard's protocols, integrated into the Search and Rescue Optimal Planning System (SAROPS), utilize probabilistic sweeps to allocate search efforts based on probability of detection, optimizing patterns for surface and aerial coverage in maritime and coastal operations.^[27] In aerial SAR, approach times for helicopter operations can range from 10 to 45 minutes depending on distance and visibility, guiding resource deployment to minimize response duration.^[28] Despite these advances, SAR operations face limitations from unpredictable weather, which can reduce visibility and alter terrain accessibility, and rescuer fatigue, which impairs decision-making and detection rates after prolonged efforts.^[29] Hybrid human-AI strategies are emerging to address these, with AI tools assisting in real-time planning and pattern optimization while humans handle on-scene judgment, potentially improving efficiency in dynamic environments.^[30] As of 2025, multi-UAV planning in SAR missions uses optimal search effort allocation to enhance rendezvous efficiency in large areas.^[31]

Robotics and Distributed Systems

In robotics, the rendezvous problem manifests in multi-robot systems deployed for collaborative tasks in structured environments like warehouses and unstructured ones like disaster zones. In warehouse settings, teams of autonomous mobile robots, such as those used in automated fulfillment centers, employ rendezvous strategies to coordinate inventory transport and avoid collisions by meeting at designated loading points, enhancing operational efficiency through decentralized decision-making. In disaster zones, robot swarms apply rendezvous consensus algorithms to aggregate sensor data and locate victims, enabling robust exploration in GPS-denied areas where individual robots rendezvous to share mappings and validate detections.^[32] These implementations often leverage labeled graph models from network theory, where agents use port labels to deterministically meet at waypoints. In distributed computing, rendezvous facilitates synchronization in sensor networks for tasks like data aggregation, where mobile agents collect and merge information from static nodes to reduce transmission overhead and extend network lifetime.^[33] In the SSYNC model, which assumes synchronous agent movements and full visibility of lights (visible state indicators), rendezvous is feasible with lights for coordination in graphs. Such mechanisms enable efficient data fusion in large-scale deployments, like environmental monitoring, by having agents rendezvous at aggregation points to compress correlated readings before relaying to a base station.^[34] Practical examples include the DARPA Subterranean Challenge, where multi-robot teams utilized graph-based rendezvous protocols to explore underground tunnels, coordinating heterogeneous agents for mapping and artifact detection in real-time during the 2021 final event.^[35] Similarly, FPGA-based hardware acceleration supports real-time rendezvous computation for mobile agents, as demonstrated in trailer parking systems where field-programmable gate arrays process behavioral controls for precise alignment and docking under dynamic constraints.^[36] Key challenges in these applications include ensuring fault tolerance against agent failures or communication losses, which can disrupt convergence, and managing energy constraints in battery-limited robots, necessitating lightweight algorithms that balance exploration with periodic rendezvous to recharge or offload data.^[37]^[38] Recent advances as of 2024 include heterogeneous multi-robot mission planning with data-driven selection of rendezvous points to enable collaborative tasks in complex environments.^[39]

Recent Advances

Multi-Agent and Robust Methods

Recent advances in the rendezvous problem have extended classical two-agent strategies to multi-agent settings with more than two robots, emphasizing distributed protocols that enhance scalability and fault tolerance. In 2022, Cho and Kim proposed a robust distributed rendezvous algorithm for multiple robots (k > 2) in three-dimensional environments, utilizing radars with variable sensing ranges to detect neighbors despite measurement noise, process uncertainties, and potential network partitions.^[40] This approach allows robots with bounded but variable speeds to adaptively adjust their sensing ranges, enabling recovery from connectivity losses and achieving convergence without requiring initial global connectivity; simulations with 5 to 20 robots demonstrated rendezvous times scaling favorably with increasing k, effectively reducing per-robot effort in larger groups.^[40] Robustness against faults has become a focal point, particularly for handling crashes or Byzantine adversaries that can disrupt coordination. A 2021 study by Hirose et al. introduced gathering protocols resilient to weakly Byzantine faults in multi-agent systems, where faulty agents exhibit arbitrary but non-collusive behavior, ensuring convergence by leveraging a "strong team" of honest agents to outvote disruptions.^[41] Complementing this, Eguchi, Kitamura, and Izumi's 2021 work on fast neighborhood rendezvous addresses local meetings between agents starting at adjacent graph vertices, achieving sublinear time complexity O(n / √δ) under degree assumptions (where n is the number of vertices and δ the minimum degree), facilitating efficient pairwise coordination in larger networks without global knowledge. These methods bound the impact of faults to O(D) effective steps in local contexts, where D represents graph diameter influences, promoting reliable operation in harsh environments.^[42] Key progress in 2023 includes algorithms tailored for time-varying graphs, where agent mobility induces dynamic topologies. Xie et al. developed a connectivity-preserving rendezvous protocol for discrete-time multi-agent systems using relative neighborhood proximity graphs, ensuring all agents converge to a common point despite topology changes and initial high-density configurations. By integrating convex hull combinations with graph constraints, the approach guarantees asymptotic convergence and network integrity through geometric analysis, with simulations showing faster rendezvous than circumcenter-based methods under varying mobility patterns.^[43] Scalability from pairwise to swarm-level rendezvous has been advanced through integration with leader election mechanisms. In 2022, Zuo et al. presented a voting-based leader election scheme for UAV swarms, enabling decentralized recovery and rendezvous maintenance in lead-follow formations under constrained communication, where agents compute dynamic qualifications (e.g., based on position and energy) to select optimal leaders.^[44] This facilitates transition from small groups to large swarms (up to 100 agents), with high success rates in simulations; furthermore, Datar et al.'s 2023 anonymous agent gathering algorithm achieves O(n/k) round complexity for k agents in n-node graphs by balancing exploration and rendezvous phases.^[45]^[44]

Quantum and Model-Based Innovations

Recent advancements in the rendezvous problem have incorporated quantum computing principles to enhance meeting efficiency in distributed search scenarios. In 2023, researchers proposed entangled strategies leveraging Bell non-locality, where two agents share an entangled quantum state to coordinate movements on finite networks without classical communication. This approach exploits quantum superposition and measurement correlations to achieve rendezvous faster than classical methods, reducing expected meeting time to

O(\sqrt{d})

O(d

) in search games, where $d$ represents the graph diameter, by allowing agents to effectively "search" multiple paths simultaneously.^[46] Formal verification techniques have also seen significant progress in ensuring the correctness of rendezvous algorithms for mobile robots. Between 2023 and 2025, model checking was applied to verify robot gathering and rendezvous protocols in semi-synchronous (SSYNC) models, where robots operate under partial timing synchronization. These efforts confirmed that algorithms using lights with just two colors suffice for rendezvous in Euclidean spaces, even under adversarial scheduler assumptions, by exhaustively exploring state spaces to prove termination and meeting guarantees without relying on manual proofs.^[47] Further innovations include optimal strategies for line-based rendezvous incorporating location awareness. In 2024, quantum-assisted methods on graphs demonstrated explicit algorithms for one-step rendezvous, outperforming classical bounds in location-aware settings by integrating noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices for probabilistic coordination. Building on this, a 2025 development achieved deterministic rendezvous on infinite labeled lines in $O(\log n)$ steps, where $n$ is the label size, using symmetry-breaking via fast node coloring to enable two initially asleep agents to meet without communication.^[48]^[6] These quantum and verification innovations hold implications for real-world applications, particularly in enhancing search and rescue operations.

History

Rendezvous problem

Recent from talks

Recent from talks

Contribute something

Contribute something

Media Pages

Timelines

Articles

Notes collections

Notes

Notes

Days in Chronicle

Rendezvous problem

Deterministic rendezvous problem

See also

References