SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 1602.07816

Relating Graph Thickness to Planar Layers and Bend Complexity

Abstract

The thickness of a graph $G=(V,E)$ with $n$ vertices is the minimum number of planar subgraphs of $G$ whose union is $G$. A polyline drawing of $G$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ is a drawing $\Gamma$ of $G$, where each vertex is mapped to a point and each edge is mapped to a polygonal chain. Bend and layer complexities are two important aesthetics of such a drawing. The bend complexity of $\Gamma$ is the maximum number of bends per edge in $\Gamma$, and the layer complexity of $\Gamma$ is the minimum integer $r$ such that the set of polygonal chains in $\Gamma$ can be partitioned into $r$ disjoint sets, where each set corresponds to a planar polyline drawing. Let $G$ be a graph of thickness $t$. By F\'{a}ry's theorem, if $t=1$, then $G$ can be drawn on a single layer with bend complexity $0$. A few extensions to higher thickness are known, e.g., if $t=2$ (resp., $t>2$), then $G$ can be drawn on $t$ layers with bend complexity 2 (resp., $3n+O(1)$). However, allowing a higher number of layers may reduce the bend complexity, e.g., complete graphs require $\Theta(n)$ layers to be drawn using 0 bends per edge. In this paper we present an elegant extension of F\'{a}ry's theorem to draw graphs of thickness $t>2$. We first prove that thickness-$t$ graphs can be drawn on $t$ layers with $2.25n+O(1)$ bends per edge. We then develop another technique to draw thickness-$t$ graphs on $t$ layers with bend complexity, i.e., $O(\sqrt{2}^{t} \cdot n^{1-(1/\beta)})$, where $\beta = 2^{\lceil (t-2)/2 \rceil }$. Previously, the bend complexity was not known to be sublinear for $t>2$. Finally, we show that graphs with linear arboricity $k$ can be drawn on $k$ layers with bend complexity $\frac{3(k-1)n}{(4k-2)}$.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Stephane Durocher, Debajyoti Mondal. 2016-02-25. Relating Graph Thickness to Planar Layers and Bend Complexity. https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.07816

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Almost Linear Universal Point Sets for Planar Graphs

A point set is universal for planar graphs on $n$ vertices if every such graph has a straight-line drawing without crossings whose vertices belong to the set. We construct universal point sets of size $n^{1+o(1)}$, improving the previous quadratic upper bound. Our construction uses the reduction of Bannister, Cheng, Devanny, and Eppstein from universal point sets to superpatterns for $213$-avoiding permutations. We represent these permutations by ordered rooted forests and construct a small family of intervals containing every such forest. The result follows from a straightforward bound on the size of the family of intervals. GPT-6 Astra assisted in developing the construction and proof.

cs.CG

Some results on Archdeacon's conjecture for rotation systems

A rotation system on $n$ elements assigns to each element a cyclic order of the other $n-1$ elements. A four-element subset is non-planar if its induced rotation system cannot be realized by a crossing-free drawing of $K_4$. As a combinatorial strengthening of Hill's conjecture on the crossing number of the complete graph, Archdeacon conjectured that every rotation system on $n$ elements has at least $H(n)=\frac{1}{4} \lfloor\frac {n}{2}\rfloor \lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor \lfloor\frac{n-2}{2}\rfloor \lfloor\frac{n-3}{2}\rfloor$ non-planar four-element subsets. We computationally verify Archdeacon's conjecture for $n\leq 10$ and show that every extremal rotation system in these orders is realizable by a simple drawing. With computer assistance, we prove that every rotation system on $n$ elements has at least $(8/9 - o(1)) H(n)$ non-planar four-element subsets. We also present a proof by hand for a weaker lower bound of $(2/3-o(1)) H(n)$. Finally, extending recent work of Felsner on antipodal pairs in drawings, we show that Archdeacon's conjecture holds for antipodally shellable rotation systems.

cs.CG

The Hyperbolic Surface Distance, Diameter, and Dirichlet Problems

Despite the prominence of hyperbolic surfaces in mathematics, basic algorithmic questions about them, even computing the distance between two points, have remained open, leaving many features of these surfaces inaccessible. The classical machinery assumes a polyhedral structure absent on a smooth surface. We remove these obstacles. We begin with an efficient $O(g^2)$ algorithm for the distance between two points, where $g$ is the genus of the surface. Building on it, we obtain an $O(g^2 \log g)$ method for answering distance queries from a fixed source and, as a consequence, for recentering a Dirichlet domain around an arbitrary point. This understanding of distances on the surface then lets us approximate the diameter to within any $\eps$ in time $O(g^3 \log g / \eps^2)$. We further show that the diameter, a single real number encoding a great deal about the surface, is exactly computable. Its hyperbolic cosine is an algebraic number over the field encoding the coefficients of the hyperbolic isometries defining the surface.

cs.CG