Localization game on geometric and planar graphs

The main topic of this paper is motivated by a localization problem in cellular networks. Given a graph $G$ we want to localize a walking agent by checking his distance to as few vertices as possible. The model we introduce is based on a pursuit graph game that resembles the famous Cops and Robbers game. It can be considered as a game theoretic variant of the \emph{metric dimension} of a graph. We provide upper bounds on the related graph invariant $\zeta (G)$, defined as the least number of cops needed to localize the robber on a graph $G$, for several classes of graphs (trees, bipartite graphs, etc). Our main result is that, surprisingly, there exists planar graphs of treewidth $2$ and unbounded $\zeta (G)$. On a positive side, we prove that $\zeta (G)$ is bounded by the pathwidth of $G$. We then show that the algorithmic problem of determining $\zeta (G)$ is NP-hard in graphs with diameter at most $2$. Finally, we show that at most one cop can approximate (arbitrary close) the location of the robber in the Euclidean plane

Centroidal localization game

One important problem in a network is to locate an (invisible) moving entity by using distance-detectors placed at strategical locations. For instance, the metric dimension of a graph $G$ is the minimum number $k$ of detectors placed in some vertices $\{v_1,\cdots,v_k\}$ such that the vector $(d_1,\cdots,d_k)$ of the distances $d(v_i,r)$ between the detectors and the entity's location $r$ allows to uniquely determine $r \in V(G)$. In a more realistic setting, instead of getting the exact distance information, given devices placed in $\{v_1,\cdots,v_k\}$, we get only relative distances between the entity's location $r$ and the devices (for every $1\leq i,j\leq k$, it is provided whether $d(v_i,r) >$, $<$, or $=$ to $d(v_j,r)$). The centroidal dimension of a graph $G$ is the minimum number of devices required to locate the entity in this setting. We consider the natural generalization of the latter problem, where vertices may be probed sequentially until the moving entity is located. At every turn, a set $\{v_1,\cdots,v_k\}$ of vertices is probed and then the relative distances between the vertices $v_i$ and the current location $r$ of the entity are given. If not located, the moving entity may move along one edge. Let $\zeta^* (G)$ be the minimum $k$ such that the entity is eventually located, whatever it does, in the graph $G$. We prove that $\zeta^* (T)\leq 2$ for every tree $T$ and give an upper bound on $\zeta^*(G\square H)$ in cartesian product of graphs $G$ and $H$. Our main result is that $\zeta^* (G)\leq 3$ for any outerplanar graph $G$. We then prove that $\zeta^* (G)$ is bounded by the pathwidth of $G$ plus 1 and that the optimization problem of determining $\zeta^* (G)$ is NP-hard in general graphs. Finally, we show that approximating (up to any constant distance) the entity's location in the Euclidean plane requires at most two vertices per turn

Locating a robber with multiple probes

We consider a game in which a cop searches for a moving robber on a connected graph using distance probes, which is a slight variation on one introduced by Seager. Carragher, Choi, Delcourt, Erickson and West showed that for any $n$-vertex graph $G$ there is a winning strategy for the cop on the graph $G^{1/m}$ obtained by replacing each edge of $G$ by a path of length $m$, if $m\geq n$. The present authors showed that, for all but a few small values of $n$, this bound may be improved to $m\geq n/2$, which is best possible. In this paper we consider the natural extension in which the cop probes a set of $k$ vertices, rather than a single vertex, at each turn. We consider the relationship between the value of $k$ required to ensure victory on the original graph and the length of subdivisions required to ensure victory with $k=1$. We give an asymptotically best-possible linear bound in one direction, but show that in the other direction no subexponential bound holds. We also give a bound on the value of $k$ for which the cop has a winning strategy on any (possibly infinite) connected graph of maximum degree $\Delta$, which is best possible up to a factor of $(1-o(1))$.Comment: 16 pages, 2 figures. Updated to show that Theorem 2 also applies to infinite graphs. Accepted for publication in Discrete Mathematic

Subdivisions in the Robber Locating Game

We consider a game in which a cop searches for a moving robber on a graph using distance probes, which is a slight variation on one introduced by Seager. Carragher, Choi, Delcourt, Erickson and West showed that for any n-vertex graph $G$ there is a winning strategy for the cop on the graph $G^{1/m}$ obtained by replacing each edge of $G$ by a path of length $m$, if $m \geqslant n$. They conjectured that this bound was best possible for complete graphs, but the present authors showed that in fact the cop wins on $K^{1/m}$ if and only if $m \geqslant n/2$, for all but a few small values of $n$. In this paper we extend this result to general graphs by proving that the cop has a winning strategy on $G^{1/m}$ provided $m \geqslant n/2$ for all but a few small values of $n$; this bound is best possible. We also consider replacing the edges of $G$ with paths of varying lengths.Comment: 13 Page

The kk-visibility Localization Game

We study a variant of the Localization game in which the cops have limited visibility, along with the corresponding optimization parameter, the $k$-visibility localization number $\zeta_k$, where $k$ is a non-negative integer. We give bounds on $k$-visibility localization numbers related to domination, maximum degree, and isoperimetric inequalities. For all $k$, we give a family of trees with unbounded $\zeta_k$ values. Extending results known for the localization number, we show that for $k\geq 2$, every tree contains a subdivision with $\zeta_k = 1$. For many $n$, we give the exact value of $\zeta_k$ for the $n \times n$ Cartesian grid graphs, with the remaining cases being one of two values as long as $n$ is sufficiently large. These examples also illustrate that $\zeta_i \neq \zeta_j$ for all distinct choices of $i$ and $j.