Paper detail

Trade-offs between Selection Complexity and Performance when Searching the Plane without Communication

We consider the ANTS problem [Feinerman et al.] in which a group of agents collaboratively search for a target in a two-dimensional plane. Because this problem is inspired by the behavior of biological species, we argue that in addition to studying the {\em time complexity} of solutions it is also important to study the {\em selection complexity}, a measure of how likely a given algorithmic strategy is to arise in nature due to selective pressures. In more detail, we propose a new selection complexity metric $χ$, defined for algorithm ${\cal A}$ such that $χ({\cal A}) = b + \log \ell$, where $b$ is the number of memory bits used by each agent and $\ell$ bounds the fineness of available probabilities (agents use probabilities of at least $1/2^\ell$). In this paper, we study the trade-off between the standard performance metric of speed-up, which measures how the expected time to find the target improves with $n$, and our new selection metric. In particular, consider $n$ agents searching for a treasure located at (unknown) distance $D$ from the origin (where $n$ is sub-exponential in $D$). For this problem, we identify $\log \log D$ as a crucial threshold for our selection complexity metric. We first prove a new upper bound that achieves a near-optimal speed-up of $(D^2/n +D) \cdot 2^{O(\ell)}$ for $χ({\cal A}) \leq 3 \log \log D + O(1)$. In particular, for $\ell \in O(1)$, the speed-up is asymptotically optimal. By comparison, the existing results for this problem [Feinerman et al.] that achieve similar speed-up require $χ({\cal A}) = Ω(\log D)$. We then show that this threshold is tight by describing a lower bound showing that if $χ({\cal A}) < \log \log D - ω(1)$, then with high probability the target is not found within $D^{2-o(1)}$ moves per agent. Hence, there is a sizable gap to the straightforward $Ω(D^2/n + D)$ lower bound in this setting.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.