Search

The minimum genus of a graph is an important question in graph theory and a key ingredient in several graph algorithms. However, its computation is NP-hard and turns out to be hard even in practice. Only recently, the first non-trivial approach - based on SAT and ILP (integer linear programming) models - has been presented, but it is unable to successfully tackle graphs of genus larger than 1 in practice. Herein, we show how to improve the ILP formulation. The crucial ingredients are two-fold. First, we show that instead of modeling rotation schemes explicitly, it suffices to optimize over partitions of the (bidirected) arc set A of the graph. Second, we exploit the cycle structure of the graph, explicitly mapping short closed walks on A to faces in the embedding. Besides the theoretical advantages of our models, we show their practical strength by a thorough experimental evaluation. Contrary to the previous approach, we are able to quickly solve many instances of genus > 1.

The NP-hard Maximum Planar Subgraph problem asks for a planar subgraph H of a given graph G such that H has maximum edge cardinality. For more than two decades, the only known non-trivial exact algorithm was based on integer linear programming and Kuratowski's famous planarity criterion. We build upon this approach and present new constraint classes - together with a lifting of the polyhedron - to obtain provably stronger LP-relaxations, and in turn faster algorithms in practice. The new constraints take Euler's polyhedron formula as a starting point and combine it with considering cycles in G. This paper discusses both the theoretical as well as the practical sides of this strengthening.

Given a graph G, the NP-hard Maximum Planar Subgraph problem asks for a planar subgraph of G with the maximum number of edges. The only known non-trivial exact algorithm utilizes Kuratowski's famous planarity criterion and can be formulated as an integer linear program (ILP) or a pseudo-boolean satisfiability problem (PBS). We examine three alternative characterizations of planarity regarding their applicability to model maximum planar subgraphs. For each, we consider both ILP and PBS variants, investigate diverse formulation aspects, and evaluate their practical performance.

The crossing number is the smallest number of pairwise edge crossings when drawing a graph into the plane. There are only very few graph classes for which the exact crossing number is known or for which there at least exist constant approximation ratios. Furthermore, up to now, general crossing number computations have never been successfully tackled using bounded width of graph decompositions, like treewidth or pathwidth. In this paper, we for the first time show that crossing number is tractable (even in linear time) for maximal graphs of bounded pathwidth 3. The technique also shows that the crossing number and the rectilinear (a.k.a. straight-line) crossing number are identical for this graph class, and that we require only an O(n)xO(n)-grid to achieve such a drawing. Our techniques can further be extended to devise a 2-approximation for general graphs with pathwidth 3, and a 4w^3-approximation for maximal graphs of pathwidth w. This is a constant approximation for bounded pathwidth graphs.

We study planar drawings of directed graphs in the L-drawing standard. We provide necessary conditions for the existence of these drawings and show that testing for the existence of a planar L-drawing is an NP-complete problem. Motivated by this result, we focus on upward-planar L-drawings. We show that directed st-graphs admitting an upward- (resp. upward-rightward-) planar L-drawing are exactly those admitting a bitonic (resp. monotonically increasing) st-ordering. We give a linear-time algorithm that computes a bitonic (resp. monotonically increasing) st-ordering of a planar st-graph or reports that there exists none., Comment: Appears in the Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD 2017)

Research about crossings is typically about minimization. In this paper, we consider \emph{maximizing} the number of crossings over all possible ways to draw a given graph in the plane. Alpert et al. [Electron. J. Combin., 2009] conjectured that any graph has a \emph{convex} straight-line drawing, e.g., a drawing with vertices in convex position, that maximizes the number of edge crossings. We disprove this conjecture by constructing a planar graph on twelve vertices that allows a non-convex drawing with more crossings than any convex one. Bald et al. [Proc. COCOON, 2016] showed that it is NP-hard to compute the maximum number of crossings of a geometric graph and that the weighted geometric case is NP-hard to approximate. We strengthen these results by showing hardness of approximation even for the unweighted geometric case and prove that the unweighted topological case is NP-hard., Comment: 16 pages, 5 figures