Collective fast delivery by energy-efficient agentsAn extended abstract of this paper appeared at MFCS 2018 [10]. It erroneously claimed the single agent approach for variant (iii) to have approximation ratio 2.

We use the characterization in Lemma 5 to find an optimum solution for FastEfficientDelivery of delivery time $\mathcal{T}=(\delta+d(s,t))/\overline{\upsilon}$: For each agent $i$, we compute the set $Q_{i}$ of all potential pick-up locations, i.e., the set of points $q_{i}$ that satisfy Lemma 5. The number of potential locations is $|Q_{i}|\in\mathcal{O}(|V|+|E|)\subseteq\mathcal{O}(n^{2})$. Then we build an auxiliary directed acyclic multi-graph $H$ on a node set $V(H)=\bigcup_{i=1}^{k}Q_{i}$, of size $|V(H)|\in\mathcal{O}(|V|+k|E|)\subseteq\mathcal{O}(kn^{2})$. Each directed edge in $E(H)$ describes how agent $i$ can contribute to the delivery by bringing the package from its starting position $q_{i}$ to another agent’s starting position $q_{j}$ along a shortest $s$-$t$-path: For each pair of nodes $q_{i}\in Q_{i}$ and $q_{j}\in V(H)$ such that $q_{i}\neq q_{j}$ and $d(s,q_{i})+d(q_{i},q_{j})+d(q_{j},t)=d(s,t)$, we add an arc $(q_{i},q_{j})$ of weight $\omega_{i}\cdot(d(p_{i},q_{i})+d(q_{i},q_{j}))$ to $E(H)$. Overall, we have at most $|E(H)|\in\mathcal{O}(k\cdot n^{2}\cdot kn^{2})$ many arcs. By construction of $H$, running Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm on the multi-graph $H$ finds a shortest path from $s$ to $t$ corresponding to an optimal solution.

In the following, we look at the path graph $G$ as the real line, and assume (after performing a depth-first search from $s$ and ordering the starting positions in time $\mathcal{O}(n+k\log k)$) without loss of generality that $s=0<t$, that $p_{1}\leq p_{2}\leq\ldots\leq p_{k}$ and that $n=k+2$, as the only relevant nodes on the line are $s$, $t$ and the starting positions $p_{i}$. Note that in an optimum solution of FastEfficientDelivery, no agent $i$ will ever take over the package from another agent $j$ which $i$ overtakes from the left. In particular, this means that we will need at most one agent with starting position $p_{i}<s$, and that after the package is picked up at $s$, it will never have to wait between a drop-off by an agent $j$ and a pick-up by the next agent $i$, since $j$ could continue carrying the package towards $i$, thus decreasing the overall delivery time. Hence in an optimum schedule we also have for consecutive agents $i,j$ with $s<p_{j}<p_{i}$, that $\upsilon_{j}\leq\upsilon_{i}$ (otherwise we can discard $i$, by this decreasing the delivery time).

Assume that agent $i$ is the agent that delivers the package to $t$. We represent the trajectory of the package while being carried by $i$ as a ray giving the position $y$ on the real line as a function $f_{i}(x)$ of the time $x$ passed so far, see Figure 4 (right). We now inductively compute a set containing all functions $f_{0},f_{1},\ldots,f_{k}$, where $f_{0}(x)=s=0$.

If we have $p_{i}<0$, then by the reasoning above, $i$ is the only involved agent, and the function is simply $f_{i}\colon y=\upsilon_{i}\cdot x+p_{i}$. For $p_{i}>s$, the slope $\upsilon_{i}$ of the ray is set, but not its pick-up position. In order to minimize the earliest possible delivery time $x$ (i.e. $f_{i}(x)=t$), by the non-decreasing velocity property $i$ must pick up the package as early as possible – e.g. in Figure 4 (left), the fastest agent $6$ would not get the package from agent $4$, but from agent $5$ who is able to speed up the transport between agents $4$ and $6$, thus advancing the last handover position and allowing agent $6$ to pick up the package earlier.

Formally, the pick-up position is given by the time-wise first (or in other words leftmost) intersection of a query line $y=p_{i}-\upsilon_{i}\cdot x$ (modelling the agent moving towards $s$) with any preceding ray $f_{0},\ldots,f_{i-1}$. Let $q_{i}:=(x_{i},y_{i})$ denote the intersection point of the query line with the upper envelope of the preceding rays, and denote by $f_{j}$ a ray of steepest slope $\upsilon_{j}$ among all rays $f_{0},\ldots,f_{i-1}$ that contain $q_{i}$ – e.g. the query line “$6?$” in Figure 4 (right) intersects both $f_{1}$ and $f_{5}$ on the upper envelope, and since both have the same slope, we can consider either.

In case $\upsilon_{j}>\upsilon_{i}$, agent $i$ will not be used in an optimal schedule and we set $f_{i}=0$. If, however, $\upsilon_{j}\leq\upsilon_{i}$, then $f_{i}$ is given by the line equality $f_{i}\colon y=\upsilon_{i}\cdot x+(y_{i}-\upsilon_{i}\cdot x_{i})$. After completion, an optimum schedule corresponds to a path along the rays of our diagram from $(0,0)$ to the ray reaching $y=t$ at the earliest possible time.

To quickly compute the equation of each ray $f_{i}$, we need to find the intersection of a query line with the upper envelope of $\mathcal{O}(k)$ many rays. Precomputing this envelope as an ordered list of its segments would allow us to speed up the intersection queries from a linear to a binary search (convex hull trick for dynamic programming [24]). However, the set of functions that we query here is not known up front. Instead, we apply the classic geometric point-line duality [20]. In this dual setting, the task of finding the leftmost intersection point of a query line with a set of lines turns into finding a right tangent from a query point (the dual of the query line) onto the convex hull of a point set (the dual of the rays $f_{i}$). The dynamic planar convex hull data structure by Brodal and Jacob [5, 26] allows point insertions and tangent queries all in $\mathcal{O}(\log k)$ amortized time, giving an overall running time of $\mathcal{O}(k\log k)$. Assuming that we know the optimum schedule for each of the uniform velocity intervals, it remains to recombine these subschedules:

We are left to solve the case where all agents have the same uniform velocity $\overline{\upsilon}$. As before, we denote by $\delta$ the offset of the closest agent’s starting position to $s$, and let $a$ denote the corresponding agent. No agent $i$ with $p_{i}<s$ other than maybe agent $a$ is involved in an optimum schedule (all others would only slow down delivery). Also note that if $p_{a}<s$, the setting is equivalent to one where $a$ starts at $s+(s-p_{a})$, so we can assume (after relabelling the agents) $a=1$, $\delta=p_{1}$. This also implies $\mathcal{T}=(\delta+(t-s))/\overline{\upsilon}$ and we can ignore agents $i$ that are dominated by earlier, cheaper agents $j$ with $p_{j}<p_{i}$ and $\omega_{j}<\omega_{i}$.

We define the point $q_{i}$ as the leftmost point on the line where agent $i$ can pick up the package without causing a delay, i.e., we have $q_{i}:=\frac{p_{i}+s-\delta}{2}$ since $p_{i}-q_{i}=\delta+(q_{i}-s)$. Note that $q_{1}=s$ and $q_{j}<q_{i}$ for $j<i$. Similarly as – but more specific than – in the characterization of uniform instances on general graphs (Lemma 5) we get a limited set of possible pick-up locations:

Lemma 9 suggests that in an inductive approach from left to right it suffices to consider only finitely many handover options. We define the following subproblems:

We will argue how to compute the optimum energy costs $\mathcal{E}[i]$ (and with it $A[i]$ and $A^{\prime}[i]$) without explicitly maintaining the schedules $S[i]$ ($S[i]$ can later be retraced from $A[i]$ and $A^{\prime}[i]$). For computing $\mathcal{E}[i]$, $A[i]$ and $A^{\prime}[i]$, we distinguish four cases (also shown in Figure 5):

1. 1.

   Agent $i$ is not involved in $S[i]$.

2. 2.

   Agent $i$ is involved in $S[i]$. Hence by Lemma 9, agent $i$ has pick-up location $q_{i}^{+}=q_{i}$; and we get the following three variations:

   1. (a)

      $i=1$ and agent $1$ picks up the package at $s$ itself.

   2. (b)

      Agent $i$ picks up the package from some other agent $j$ with $p_{j}\leq q_{i}$.

   3. (c)

      Agent $i$ picks up the package from some other agent $j$ with $p_{j}>q_{i}$.

Case 1.

If $i$ is not involved in $S[i]$, the best choice for the agent who transports the package to $p_{i}$ is agent $i-1$, as it is the cheapest one on the last segment $[p_{i-1},p_{i}]$ and we have $\mathcal{E}[i-1]\leq\mathcal{E}[j]+(p_{i-1}-p_{j})\cdot\omega_{j}$ for all $j<i-1$ by induction. Hence we can optimize in constant time:

	$\displaystyle\mathcal{E}[i]$	$\displaystyle=\min_{j<i}\{\mathcal{E}[j]+(p_{i}-p_{j})\cdot\omega_{j}\}=\mathcal{E}[i-1]+(p_{i}-p_{i-1})\cdot\omega_{i-1},$
	$\displaystyle A[i]$	$\displaystyle=i-1\text{ and }A^{\prime}[i]=A[i-1].$

Case 2.a)

This is the base case where the first agent is on its own:

$\displaystyle\mathcal{E}[1]=2\cdot\lvert p_{1}-s\rvert\cdot\omega_{1}=2\cdot\delta\cdot\omega_{1},\quad A[1]=\text{none},\ A^{\prime}[1]=\text{none}.$

Case 2.b)

If agent $i$ is involved in $S[i]$ and takes over at $q_{i}$ from an agent $j$ with $p_{j}\leq q_{i}$, we want $j$ to minimize $\mathcal{E}[j]+(q_{i}-p_{j})\cdot\omega_{j}$, the cost of bringing the package to $q_{i}$. Now let $i^{\prime}=\max\{j\mid p_{j}\leq q_{i}\}$ be the agent starting closest to the left of $q_{i}$. As in Case 1, we argue that $i^{\prime}$ is the optimum choice for $j$, as it minimizes the cost on $[p_{i^{\prime}},q_{i}]$ and does not constrain the schedule up to $p_{i^{\prime}}$ further. Hence, we again get in amortized constant time, i.e., we update $i^{\prime}$ by incrementing it lazily when going from $i$ to $i+1$:

$\displaystyle\mathcal{E}[i]$

$\displaystyle=\mathcal{E}[i^{\prime}]+(q_{i}-p_{i^{\prime}})\cdot\omega_{i^{\prime}}+2\cdot(p_{i}-q_{i})\cdot\omega_{i},\quad A[i]=i,\ A^{\prime}[i]=i^{\prime}.$

The most interesting case is the remaining case $(2.c)$, where the agent $j$ handing over to $i$ starts in between $q_{i}$ and $p_{i}$. Where can we look up the energy consumption $c$ of an optimum schedule that ends with $j$ bringing the package $q_{i}$ – the dynamic program being only defined for points $p_{j}$? For some $j$, we might have $A[j]=j$, so $S[j]$ ends by $j$ walking to $q_{j}$ and back. In that case, we can exploit $q_{j}<q_{i}$ and use $\mathcal{E}[j]-(p_{j}-q_{i})\cdot\omega_{j}$ as a candidate for the energy consumption $c$. But what if $A[j]\neq j$? As we saw, this implies $A[j]=j-1$, but in that case we cannot just subtract $(p_{j}-q_{i})\omega_{j}$: We do not know how $S[j]$ looks like between $q_{i}$ and $p_{j}$. We argue that we do not need to consider these agents $j$ as candidates at all!

Case 2.c)

Lemma 10 leaves us with only those agents $j$ whose schedules $S[j]$ we understand sufficiently to modify them into candidates for $S[i]$ under Case 2.c):

	$\displaystyle\mathcal{E}[i]$	$\displaystyle=\min_{j}\{\mathcal{E}[j]-(p_{j}-q_{i})\omega_{j}\mid q_{i}<p_{j}<p_{i}\wedge A[j]=j\}+2(p_{i}-q_{i})\omega_{i},$
	$\displaystyle A[i]$	$\displaystyle=i,\ \,A^{\prime}[i]=\argmin_{j}\{\mathcal{E}[j]-(p_{j}-q_{i})\omega_{j}\mid q_{i}<p_{j}<p_{i}\wedge A[j]=j\}.$

We can now take $\mathcal{E}[i]$ as the minimum over the four cases 1–2.c) and compute all schedules $S[i]$ by proceeding over all subproblems in increasing order, giving us the energy-optimal schedules for delivering the package to the points $p_{i}$ in time $(\delta+(p_{i}-s))/\overline{\upsilon}$. How can we use the solutions to the subproblems $\mathcal{E}[i]$ to find the energy $\mathcal{E}$ of an energy-optimal schedule delivering the package to the target $t$ in optimum time $(\delta+(t-s))/\overline{\upsilon}$? Let $k^{\prime}$ be the closest agent on the left of $t$, i.e., $k^{\prime}:=\argmax_{i}{p_{i}\leq t}$. Clearly, if in an optimum schedule the package is delivered to $t$ by an agent starting to the left of $t$, then by the decreasing weight property this agent must be agent $k^{\prime}$, giving us $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}[k^{\prime}]+(t-p_{k^{\prime}})\cdot\omega_{k}$.

It remains to take care of agents with starting positions $p_{i}>t$:

As illustrated in Figure 6, multiple agents with $p_{i}>t$ might be involved in the most efficient delivery. Note that our dynamic programming problem $\mathcal{E}[i]$ is defined independent of $t$ and so we can also easily compute $\mathcal{E}[i]$ for $p_{i}>t$. Agents $i$ with $q_{i}>t$ are not useful, however, for a delivery to $t$, as they arrive in $[s,t]$ only after the package has been delivered. Similar to Lemma 10, we claim that among the remaining agents $i$ only those with $A[i]=i$ need to be considered: