Egg Drop Problems: They Are All They Are Cracked Up To Be!

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2511.18330
• Title: Egg Drop Problems: They Are All They Are Cracked Up To Be!
• Authors: Xiangwen Cao, Zongyun Chen, Steven J. Miller
• Classification: math.HO (History and Overview)
• Submission Date: Submitted to arXiv on November 23, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.18330

Abstract

This paper explores high-dimensional generalizations of the classical egg drop problem, aiming to locate critical breaking points using the minimum number of trials. Beginning with the one-dimensional case, the authors prove that for k eggs and N floors, the minimum number of drops in the worst case satisfies $P_1(k) \leq \lceil k N^{1/k} \rceil$. The recursive algorithm is subsequently extended to two and three dimensions, establishing analogous formulas: for the two-dimensional case $P_2(k) \leq \lceil (k-1)(M+N)^{1/(k-1)} \rceil$, and for the three-dimensional case $P_3(k) \leq \lceil (k-2)(L+M+N)^{1/(k-2)} \rceil$. A general conjecture is proposed for the d-dimensional case. Beyond critical point problems, the paper also investigates critical line problems, where the breaking condition occurs along $x+y=V$ (slope -1) or more generally along $\alpha x+\beta y=V$ (unknown slope).

Research Background and Motivation

1. Problem Statement

The classical egg drop problem is a famous combinatorial optimization puzzle: given k eggs and N floors, how can one determine the critical breaking floor using the minimum number of drops? This problem frequently appears in technical interviews at technology companies such as Microsoft and Google.

2. Problem Significance

• Theoretical Value: The problem elegantly combines combinatorial reasoning and dynamic programming techniques, serving as a classic case study in algorithm design and optimization theory
• Educational Value: Suitable for cultivating students' algorithmic thinking and problem decomposition skills
• Practical Applications: Similar search strategies can be applied to software testing, quality control, and other domains

3. Limitations of Existing Methods

• Boardman (2004): Uses generating functions and direct counting methods, proving that the total number of testable floors is $\sum_{j=1}^{k}\binom{n}{j}$, but employs dynamic search strategies
• Parks & Wills (2025): Extends the problem using binary decision trees, considering "egg replacement" and "bonus egg" variants
• Limitations: Existing research primarily focuses on one-dimensional cases, lacking systematic high-dimensional generalizations; most employ dynamic strategies rather than fixed-step strategies

4. Research Motivation

This paper adopts statistical or fixed-step strategies, systematically generalizing the problem to:

• High-dimensional spaces (2D, 3D, and d-dimensional)
• Extension from point search to line search
• Provision of rigorous mathematical proofs and upper bound analysis

Core Contributions

1. One-Dimensional Critical Point Problem: Proves that for k eggs and N floors, the minimum number of drops in the worst case satisfies $P_1(k) \leq \lceil k \cdot N^{1/k} \rceil$
2. Two-Dimensional Critical Point Problem: Generalizes the problem to an M×N rectangular region, proving $P_2(k) \leq \lceil (k-1) \cdot (M+N)^{1/(k-1)} \rceil$ (k≥2)
3. Three-Dimensional Critical Point Problem: Further generalizes to an L×M×N cubic space, proving $P_3(k) \leq \lceil (k-2) \cdot (L+M+N)^{1/(k-2)} \rceil$ (k≥3)
4. d-Dimensional Conjecture: Proposes a general conjecture $P_d(k) \leq \lceil (k-d+1) \cdot (N_1+N_2+\cdots+N_d)^{1/(k-d+1)} \rceil$
5. Two-Dimensional Critical Line Problem: Investigates cases where the breaking condition occurs along the line $x+y=V$, proposing two methods:
   • Method One: $L_2^{(1)}(k) \leq \lceil k \cdot (M+N)^{1/k} \rceil$
   • Method Two: $L_2^{(2)}(k) \leq \lceil (k-1) \cdot M^{1/(k-1)} \rceil + 1$
6. Future Research Directions: Proposes a research framework for the critical line problem with unknown slope $\alpha x + \beta y = V$

Detailed Methodology

Task Definition

One-Dimensional Critical Point Problem

• Input: k eggs, N floors (numbered 1 to N)
• Objective: Find critical point n ∈ (0, N] such that:
  • Dropping from any floor a < n, the egg does not break
  • Dropping from any floor a ≥ n, the egg breaks
• Constraint: Minimize the number of drops in the worst case

Two-Dimensional Critical Point Problem

• Input: k eggs (k≥2), M×N rectangular region
• Objective: Find critical point (m,n), where m ∈ (0,M], n ∈ (0,N], such that:
  • Dropping at point (a,b), if a < m and b < n, the egg does not break
  • Otherwise (a ≥ m or b ≥ n), the egg breaks

Two-Dimensional Critical Line Problem

• Input: k eggs, M×N rectangular region, critical line $x+y=V$ (V unknown)
• Objective: Partition all lattice points into safe and breaking points
• Rule: Dropping at point (a,b), if a+b < V the egg does not break, otherwise it breaks

Model Architecture

One-Dimensional Recursive Jump Search Strategy

Core Idea: Use fixed-step jump search, optimizing step size through calculus.

Algorithm Flow:

1. Initialization: Set step size $S_{1P;k}$ (to be optimized)
2. Jump Phase: Test first egg at positions $i \cdot S_{1P;k}$ (i=1,2,3,...)
3. Breaking Handling: If breaking occurs at position $T \cdot S_{1P;k}$, the critical point lies in interval $((T-1)S_{1P;k}, TS_{1P;k}]$
4. Recursive Search: Continue searching in the sub-interval of length $S_{1P;k}$ using remaining k-1 eggs
5. Base Case: With only 1 egg remaining, perform linear search

Worst-Case Analysis: Total drop count function: $f_{1P;k+1}(S_{1P;k+1}) \leq \frac{N}{S_{1P;k+1}} + k \cdot S_{1P;k+1}^{1/k}$

• First term: drops during jump phase
• Second term: drops in recursive subproblem (by inductive hypothesis)

Step Size Optimization: Taking derivative of $f_{1P;k+1}$: $f'_{1P;k+1}(S_{1P;k+1}) = -\frac{N}{S_{1P;k+1}^2} + S_{1P;k+1}^{(1-k)/k}$

Setting derivative to zero, the optimal step size is: $S_{1P;k+1} = N^{k/(k+1)}$

The second derivative test verifies this is a minimum. Substituting yields minimum drop count: $f_{1P;k+1}(N^{k/(k+1)}) \leq (k+1) \cdot N^{1/(k+1)}$

Two-Dimensional Diagonal Search Strategy

Core Innovation: Perform jump search along the rectangle diagonal, maintaining similar rectangle structure.

Algorithm Flow:

1. Diagonal Jump: Test at points $(iS_{2P;k}, iNS_{2P;k}/M)$ (i=1,2,3,...)
2. Breaking Handling: After breaking at point $(TS_{2P;k}, TNS_{2P;k}/M)$, the critical point lies in the red sub-rectangle
3. Recursive Search: Sub-rectangle dimensions are $S_{2P;k} \times NS_{2P;k}/M$, continue with k-1 eggs
4. Base Case: With 2 eggs, perform linear search along x and y axes

Worst-Case Analysis: Total drop count function: $f_{2P;k+1}(S_{2P;k+1}) \leq \frac{M}{S_{2P;k+1}} + (k-1) \cdot \left(\frac{M+N}{M}\right)^{1/(k-1)} \cdot S_{2P;k+1}^{1/(k-1)}$

Taking derivative and setting to zero yields optimal step size: $S_{2P;k+1} = M \cdot (M+N)^{-1/k}$

Substituting gives: $f_{2P;k+1} \leq k \cdot (M+N)^{1/k}$

Two-Dimensional Critical Line Search Strategy

Method One (Diagonal Recursion):

• Perform jump search along diagonal, strategy similar to 2D critical point problem
• Finally use 1 egg for linear search along rectangle bottom and right edges
• Upper bound: $L_2^{(1)}(k) \leq \lceil k \cdot (M+N)^{1/k} \rceil$

Method Two (Egg Preservation):

• Reserve 1 egg, use k-1 eggs for diagonal search (treating as one-dimensional problem)
• Finally use reserved egg to verify the last uncertain point
• Upper bound: $L_2^{(2)}(k) \leq \lceil (k-1) \cdot M^{1/(k-1)} \rceil + 1$

Technical Innovations

1. Fixed-Step Strategy: Unlike dynamic programming approaches, fixed steps enable simpler analysis and more natural generalization
2. Calculus Optimization: Transforms discrete optimization into continuous optimization, using derivatives to find optimal step size, then rounding
3. Recursive Structure Preservation: In high-dimensional generalizations, maintains similar geometric structures (similar rectangles/cubes), enabling recursive analysis
4. AM-GM Inequality Application: Uses arithmetic-geometric mean inequality to prove endpoints are not optimal
5. Taylor Expansion Comparison: In critical line problems, uses second-order Taylor expansion to compare two method performances

Experimental Setup

Mathematical Proof Framework

This is pure theoretical research, primarily employing mathematical induction:

1. Base Case: Verify conclusion holds for k=1 (or k=2, k=3)
2. Inductive Hypothesis: Assume conclusion holds for k
3. Inductive Step: Prove conclusion holds for k+1

Verification Methods

Numerical Verification

• For one-dimensional problem, classic case k=2, N=36: optimal solution is 8 drops
• Paper formula gives: $P_1(2) \leq \lceil 2 \cdot 36^{1/2} \rceil = \lceil 12 \rceil = 12$
• Note: Paper provides upper bound, not exact optimal solution

Example Calculations

Appendix 6.3 provides detailed calculations for one-dimensional case, demonstrating:

• How to differentiate step size function
• How to solve critical point equations
• How to verify second-order conditions

Graphical Analysis

• Figures 1-11: Illustrate geometric intuition of various search strategies
• Figures 12-13: Compare performance of two critical line methods (numerical simulation)

Experimental Results

Main Theoretical Results

One-Dimensional Critical Point Problem (Theorem 2.1)

$P_1(k) \leq \lceil k \cdot N^{1/k} \rceil, \quad k \geq 1$

Optimal Step Size: $S_{1P;k} \leq N^{(k-1)/k}$

Specific Examples:

• k=1: $P_1(1) = N$ (linear search)
• k=2, N=100: $P_1(2) \leq \lceil 2 \cdot 10 \rceil = 20$
• k=4, N=100: $P_1(4) \leq \lceil 4 \cdot 100^{0.25} \rceil = \lceil 12.65 \rceil = 13$

Two-Dimensional Critical Point Problem (Theorem 3.1)

$P_2(k) \leq \lceil (k-1) \cdot (M+N)^{1/(k-1)} \rceil, \quad k \geq 2$

Base Case: k=2 requires M+N drops (linear search along both axes)

Asymptotic Behavior: As k increases, drop count decreases with $(M+N)^{1/(k-1)}$

Three-Dimensional Critical Point Problem (Theorem 6.1)

$P_3(k) \leq \lceil (k-2) \cdot (L+M+N)^{1/(k-2)} \rceil, \quad k \geq 3$

Pattern Recognition: Both coefficient and exponent denominator equal k-(d-1), where d is dimension

Two-Dimensional Critical Line Problem

Method One (Theorem 4.1): $L_2^{(1)}(k) \leq \lceil k \cdot (M+N)^{1/k} \rceil, \quad k \geq 1$

Method Two (Theorems 4.2, 4.3):

• k=2: $L_2^{(2)}(2) = M+1$
• k≥3: $L_2^{(2)}(k) \leq \lceil (k-1) \cdot M^{1/(k-1)} \rceil + 1$

Method Comparison Analysis

Section 6.2 uses Taylor expansion to compare two critical line methods:

Define difference function: $l(k) = k \cdot (M+N)^{1/k} - [(k-1) \cdot M^{1/(k-1)} + 1]$

Second-Order Approximation: $T_2(k) = \ln\left(1+\frac{N}{M}\right) + \frac{(\ln(M+N))^2}{2k} - \frac{(\ln M)^2}{2(k-1)}$

Key Findings:

• Small k values (k=2,3): $l(k) < 0$, Method One significantly superior
• Large k values (k=10,20): $l(k) > 0$ but negligible, Method Two slightly better but difference negligible
• Overall Conclusion: Method One is superior strategy

d-Dimensional Conjecture (Conjecture 1)

$P_d(k) \leq \lceil (k-d+1) \cdot (N_1+N_2+\cdots+N_d)^{1/(k-d+1)} \rceil, \quad k \geq d$

Pattern:

• Coefficient: k-d+1
• Exponent denominator: k-d+1
• Total dimension sum: $N_1+N_2+\cdots+N_d$

Related Work

Classical Egg Drop Problem

1. Konhauser, Velleman, Wagon (1996): First proposed classic 36-floor 2-egg problem
2. Boardman (2004): Uses generating functions to prove testable floor count is $\sum_{j=1}^{k}\binom{n}{j}$
3. Sniedovich (2003): Analyzes problem from operations research/management science perspective

Problem Variants

1. Parks & Wills (2025):
   • Egg replacement variant: Eggs restored after non-breaking
   • Bonus egg variant: Gain new eggs after non-breaking
   • Uses binary decision tree method
2. Online Resources:
   • Brilliant.org: Interactive tutorials
   • GeeksforGeeks: Dynamic programming implementations
   • Spencer Mortensen: Detailed analysis

Relationship to Related Work

Main Differences:

• Strategy Type: Fixed-step vs. dynamic search
• Research Focus: High-dimensional generalization vs. one-dimensional exact solution
• Analysis Method: Calculus optimization vs. combinatorial counting/dynamic programming

Advantages:

• Unified theoretical framework applicable to multiple dimensions
• Clear asymptotic analysis
• Easy to generalize to higher dimensions

Disadvantages:

• Provides upper bounds rather than exact optimal solutions
• For certain special cases (e.g., N is triangular number), inferior to classical methods

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Unified Framework: Establishes unified recursive search framework from one to high dimensions
2. Upper Bound Formulas: Provides rigorous upper bound proofs for 1D, 2D, 3D cases
3. General Conjecture: Proposes general formula for d-dimensional case
4. Critical Line Problem: Pioneers new direction from point search to line search
5. Method Comparison: Compares different strategies through Taylor expansion

Limitations

1. Upper Bounds Rather Than Optimal Solutions:
   • Paper provides upper bounds, not exact optimal values
   • Example: k=2, N=36, optimal solution is 8, but formula gives 12
   • Reason: Uses approximations ($S_{1P;k}-1 \approx S_{1P;k}$) and rounding
2. Fixed-Step Limitations:
   • Classical "triangular number strategy" (decreasing step size) superior in some cases
   • But fixed steps enable more natural high-dimensional generalization
3. Discretization Issues:
   • Theoretical analysis treats step size as continuous variable
   • Practical application requires rounding, potentially deviating from optimum
   • As paper notes, similar to knapsack problem, integer solutions may differ significantly from real solutions
4. Unproven Conjecture:
   • d-dimensional general formula remains conjecture without complete proof
   • Requires more rigorous inductive argument
5. Unknown Slope Critical Line Problem:
   • Section 5's $\alpha x + \beta y = V$ problem not fully resolved
   • Only provides 2-egg strategy, not generalized to k eggs

Future Directions

Explicitly proposed research directions:

1. Unknown Slope Critical Lines:
   • Study $\alpha x + \beta y = V$ problem
   • Derive general strategies for k≥3 eggs
   • Explore more efficient search methods
2. Average-Case Analysis:
   • Current research focuses on worst case
   • Can study expected drop count in average case
   • Assume different probability distributions (uniform, exponential, binomial, etc.)
3. Proof of d-Dimensional Conjecture:
   • Provide rigorous mathematical proof
   • May require more complex inductive structure
4. Optimization Strategy Improvements:
   • Explore variable-step strategies in high dimensions
   • Study exact optimization under integer constraints
5. Practical Applications:
   • Apply theory to software testing, quality control domains
   • Consider practical constraints (e.g., unequal test costs)

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Methodological Innovation

• Systematic High-Dimensional Generalization: First systematic generalization of egg drop problem to 2D, 3D, and d dimensions, filling research gap
• Point-to-Line Extension: Innovatively proposes critical line problem, expanding research scope
• Fixed-Step Strategy: While not optimal, enables clearer theoretical analysis and more natural generalization
• Calculus Optimization Method: Cleverly transforms discrete problem into continuous form, using derivatives to find optimal solution

2. Theoretical Rigor

• Complete Inductive Proofs: Provides rigorous mathematical proofs for 1D, 2D, 3D cases
• Second Derivative Verification: Not only finds critical points but verifies they are minima
• Endpoint Analysis: Carefully examines boundary cases ensuring global optimality
• AM-GM Inequality Application: Elegantly proves endpoints are not optimal

3. Result Insightfulness

• Pattern Recognition: Discovers k-(d-1) coefficient pattern, proposing general conjecture
• Asymptotic Behavior: Clearly shows how drop count varies with k and dimension
• Method Comparison: Quantitatively compares two strategies via Taylor expansion, providing practical guidance

4. Writing Clarity

• Intuitive Geometric Illustrations: 11 figures clearly present search strategies
• Detailed Calculation Process: Appendix provides complete derivation steps
• Progressive Structure: Progresses from simple to complex, known to unknown
• Clear Assumptions: Explicitly states various assumptions and constraints

Weaknesses

1. Theoretical Limitations

• Upper Bounds Rather Than Exact Solutions: For practical applications, may need tighter bounds
• Approximation Reasonableness: $S_{1P;k}-1 \approx S_{1P;k}$ approximation may have large error in some cases
• Insufficient Rounding Analysis: While mentioning rounding, lacks deep analysis of integer constraint effects

2. Insufficient Experimental Verification

• Lack of Numerical Experiments: Beyond Figures 12-13, no extensive numerical experiments verify theory
• No Systematic Comparison with Optimal Solutions: Lacks systematic comparison between upper bounds and known optimal solutions
• Missing Sensitivity Analysis: Doesn't explore how different M, N, k values affect results

3. Unproven d-Dimensional Conjecture

• While proposing general formula, lacks complete proof
• Relies on pattern from 1D, 2D, 3D, potentially missing exceptions

4. Incomplete Critical Line Problem

• Unknown slope problem only provides 2-egg strategy
• Method Two analysis left as future work
• Taylor expansion comparison lacks rigor (authors acknowledge this)

5. Insufficient Practical Application Discussion

• Lacks specific analysis of real application scenarios
• Doesn't consider non-ideal cases (unequal test costs, egg degradation, etc.)

Impact

1. Contribution to Field

• Pioneering Work: First systematic study of high-dimensional egg drop problem
• Theoretical Framework: Provides unified analysis framework for subsequent research
• New Problem Direction: Critical line problem opens new direction in combinatorial search theory

2. Educational Value

• Teaching Material: Suitable for algorithm courses, mathematical modeling courses
• Generalization Example: Demonstrates systematic problem generalization
• Integrated Mathematical Tools: Combines calculus, induction, combinatorics

3. Practical Value

• Software Testing: Applicable to regression testing, performance testing scenarios
• Quality Control: Industrial production critical value detection
• Resource Allocation: Limited resource search strategy optimization

4. Reproducibility

• Complete Proofs: Mathematical proofs fully reproducible
• Clear Algorithms: Search strategies clearly described, easy to implement
• Open Problems: Explicitly identifies unsolved problems for subsequent research

Applicable Scenarios

1. Theoretical Research

• Combinatorial optimization theory
• Search algorithm design
• Dynamic programming vs. greedy algorithm comparison

2. Educational Training

• Algorithm course cases
• Mathematical modeling competitions
• Technical interview preparation

3. Practical Applications

• Software Testing: Locating bugs with limited test resources
• A/B Testing: Online experiments quickly finding critical conversion rate
• Industrial Quality Control: Material strength testing, product durability testing
• Medical Diagnosis: Dose-response relationship determination

4. Inapplicable Scenarios

• Applications requiring exact optimal solutions (paper only provides bounds)
• Dynamic environments (paper assumes fixed critical point)
• Highly unequal test costs

References

Key Citations

1. Konhauser, Velleman, Wagon (1996): Which Way Did the Bicycle Go?
   • Proposes classic 36-floor 2-egg problem
2. Boardman (2004): "Egg Drop Numbers", Mathematics Magazine
   • Uses generating functions to derive testable floor count formula
3. Parks & Wills (2025): "Two Eggs Any Style", Recreational Mathematics Magazine
   • Studies egg replacement and bonus egg variants
4. Miller (2017): Mathematics of Optimization
   • Discusses integer constraint issues in knapsack problem
5. Stewart: Calculus: Early Transcendentals
   • Taylor expansion error analysis

Online Resources

• Brilliant.org: Interactive egg drop tutorials
• GeeksforGeeks: Dynamic programming implementations
• YouTube: Visualization explanation videos

Summary

This is a paper with strong theoretical innovation, systematic generalization, and rigorous proofs. The authors successfully generalize the classical one-dimensional egg drop problem to high-dimensional spaces and pioneer a new direction in critical line search. While providing upper bounds rather than exact optimal solutions, the unified theoretical framework and clear asymptotic analysis provide significant theoretical value and educational significance.

Recommended for:

• Combinatorial optimization researchers
• Algorithm design instructors and students
• Engineers interested in search strategies
• Mathematical modeling enthusiasts

Reading Suggestions:

• First understand complete proof of one-dimensional case (Section 2)
• Then examine two-dimensional generalization analogy (Section 3)
• Finally consider proof strategy for d-dimensional conjecture
• For critical line problem, focus on geometric intuition