Emergent velocity agreement in robot networks

In this paper we propose and prove correct a new self-stabilizing velocity agreement (flocking) algorithm for oblivious and asynchronous robot networks. Our algorithm allows a flock of uniform robots to follow a flock head emergent during the computation whatever its direction in plane. Robots are asynchronous, oblivious and do not share a common coordinate system. Our solution includes three modules architectured as follows: creation of a common coordinate system that also allows the emergence of a flock-head, setting up the flock pattern and moving the flock. The novelty of our approach steams in identifying the necessary conditions on the flock pattern placement and the velocity of the flock-head (rotation, translation or speed) that allow the flock to both follow the exact same head and to preserve the flock pattern. Additionally, our system is self-healing and self-stabilizing. In the event of the head leave (the leading robot disappears or is damaged and cannot be recognized by the other robots) the flock agrees on another head and follows the trajectory of the new head. Also, robots are oblivious (they do not recall the result of their previous computations) and we make no assumption on their initial position. The step complexity of our solution is O(n)

On Asynchrony, Memory, and Communication: Separations and Landscapes

Research on distributed computing by a team of identical mobile computational entities, called robots, operating in a Euclidean space in $\mathit{Look}$-$\mathit{Compute}$-$\mathit{Move}$ ($\mathit{LCM}$) cycles, has recently focused on better understanding how the computational power of robots depends on the interplay between their internal capabilities (i.e., persistent memory, communication), captured by the four standard computational models (OBLOT, LUMI, FSTA, and FCOM) and the conditions imposed by the external environment, controlling the activation of the robots and their synchronization of their activities, perceived and modeled as an adversarial scheduler. We consider a set of adversarial asynchronous schedulers ranging from the classical semi-synchronous (SSYNCH) and fully asynchronous (ASYNCH) settings, including schedulers (emerging when studying the atomicity of the combination of operations in the $\mathit{LCM}$ cycles) whose adversarial power is in between those two. We ask the question: what is the computational relationship between a model $M_1$ under adversarial scheduler $K_1$ ($M_1(K_1)$) and a model $M_2$ under scheduler $K_2$ ($M_2(K_2)$)? For example, are the robots in $M_1(K_1)$ more powerful (i.e., they can solve more problems) than those in $M_2(K_2)$? We answer all these questions by providing, through cross-model analysis, a complete characterization of the computational relationship between the power of the four models of robots under the considered asynchronous schedulers. In this process, we also provide qualified answers to several open questions, including the outstanding one on the proper dominance of SSYNCH over ASYNCH in the case of unrestricted visibility