width-optimal visibility representations of plane graphs · width-optimal visibility...
Post on 28-Jun-2020
10 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Width-Optimal Visibility Representations ofPlane Graphs
Speaker: Chun-Cheng Lin
Coauthors: Jia-Hao Fan Hsueh-I Lu Hsu-Chun Yen
National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
(Presented at the 18th International Symposium onAlgorithms and Computation (ISAAC 2007))
1/19
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Preliminaries
3 Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
4 Analysis
5 Conclusion
2/19
Introduction
Visibility Representation (a.k.a., Visibility Drawing)
Visibility Representation
Node segment
Edge segment
Measuring the drawing area in a grid
59
1
3 2
7
6
4
8
5
9
1
3
2
7
6
4
8
3/19
Introduction
Visibility Representation (a.k.a., Visibility Drawing)
Visibility Representation
Node segment
Edge segment
Measuring the drawing area in a grid
59
1
3 2
7
6
4
8
5
9
1
3
2
7
6
4
8
3/19
Introduction
Visibility Representation (a.k.a., Visibility Drawing)
Visibility Representation
Node segment
Edge segment
Measuring the drawing area in a grid
59
1
3 2
7
6
4
8
5
9
1
3
2
7
6
4
8
3/19
Introduction
Visibility Representation (a.k.a., Visibility Drawing)
Visibility Representation
Node segment
Edge segment
Measuring the drawing area in a grid
59
1
3 2
7
6
4
8
5
9
1
3
2
7
6
4
8
3/19
Introduction
Compactness of Visibility Representation
Otten and van Wijk (1978)first known algorithm for visibility drawings;no bound for the compactness of the output.
worst-case upper boundrequired height required width
n−1 (Rosenstiehl & Tarjan, 1986; 2n−5 (Rosenstiehl & Tarjan,1986;
Tamassia & Tollis, 1986) Tamassia & Tollis, 1986;
b 15n16 c (Zhang & He, 2003) Nummenmaa, 1992)
b 5n6 c (Zhang & He, 2005) b 22n−42
15 c (Lin, Lu, and Sun, 2004)
b 4n−15 c (Zhang & He, 2006) b 13n−24
9 c (Zhang & He, 2005)2n3 +2d
√n/2e (He & Zhang, 2006) 4n
3 +2d√
ne (He & Zhang, 2006)
lower boundThe size of the required area is at least b 2n
3 c× (b 4n3 c−3) (Zhang & He, 2005)
Lin, Lu, and Sun (2004) conjectured ...no wider than 4n
3 +O(1).
4/19
Introduction
Compactness of Visibility Representation
Otten and van Wijk (1978)first known algorithm for visibility drawings;no bound for the compactness of the output.
worst-case upper boundrequired height required width
n−1 (Rosenstiehl & Tarjan, 1986; 2n−5 (Rosenstiehl & Tarjan,1986;
Tamassia & Tollis, 1986) Tamassia & Tollis, 1986;
b 15n16 c (Zhang & He, 2003) Nummenmaa, 1992)
b 5n6 c (Zhang & He, 2005) b 22n−42
15 c (Lin, Lu, and Sun, 2004)
b 4n−15 c (Zhang & He, 2006) b 13n−24
9 c (Zhang & He, 2005)2n3 +2d
√n/2e (He & Zhang, 2006) 4n
3 +2d√
ne (He & Zhang, 2006)
lower boundThe size of the required area is at least b 2n
3 c× (b 4n3 c−3) (Zhang & He, 2005)
Lin, Lu, and Sun (2004) conjectured ...no wider than 4n
3 +O(1).
4/19
Introduction
Compactness of Visibility Representation
Otten and van Wijk (1978)first known algorithm for visibility drawings;no bound for the compactness of the output.
worst-case upper boundrequired height required width
n−1 (Rosenstiehl & Tarjan, 1986; 2n−5 (Rosenstiehl & Tarjan,1986;
Tamassia & Tollis, 1986) Tamassia & Tollis, 1986;
b 15n16 c (Zhang & He, 2003) Nummenmaa, 1992)
b 5n6 c (Zhang & He, 2005) b 22n−42
15 c (Lin, Lu, and Sun, 2004)
b 4n−15 c (Zhang & He, 2006) b 13n−24
9 c (Zhang & He, 2005)2n3 +2d
√n/2e (He & Zhang, 2006) 4n
3 +2d√
ne (He & Zhang, 2006)
lower boundThe size of the required area is at least b 2n
3 c× (b 4n3 c−3) (Zhang & He, 2005)
Lin, Lu, and Sun (2004) conjectured ...no wider than 4n
3 +O(1).
4/19
Introduction
Compactness of Visibility Representation
Otten and van Wijk (1978)first known algorithm for visibility drawings;no bound for the compactness of the output.
worst-case upper boundrequired height required width
n−1 (Rosenstiehl & Tarjan, 1986; 2n−5 (Rosenstiehl & Tarjan,1986;
Tamassia & Tollis, 1986) Tamassia & Tollis, 1986;
b 15n16 c (Zhang & He, 2003) Nummenmaa, 1992)
b 5n6 c (Zhang & He, 2005) b 22n−42
15 c (Lin, Lu, and Sun, 2004)
b 4n−15 c (Zhang & He, 2006) b 13n−24
9 c (Zhang & He, 2005)2n3 +2d
√n/2e (He & Zhang, 2006) 4n
3 +2d√
ne (He & Zhang, 2006)
lower boundThe size of the required area is at least b 2n
3 c× (b 4n3 c−3) (Zhang & He, 2005)
Lin, Lu, and Sun (2004) conjectured ...no wider than 4n
3 +O(1).
4/19
Introduction
Our Main Result
Theorem
Given an n-node plane triangulation G, a visibility drawing of G with itswidth bounded by b4n
3 c−2 can be obtained in time O(n).
Our bound is the optimalbecause our bound differs the previously known lower bound4n3 −3 (Zhang and He, 2005) only by a unit.
Answering in the affirmative a conjecture of [Lin, Lu, Sun, 2004]about whether any visibility drawing no wider than 4n
3 +O(1) canbe obtained in polynomial time.
Rather than conventionally using canonical ordering,st-numbering, or Schnyder’s realizer as the initial input, ouralgorithm applies a new kind of ordering, called constructiveordering , of G to constructing the visibility drawing.
5/19
Introduction
Our Main Result
Theorem
Given an n-node plane triangulation G, a visibility drawing of G with itswidth bounded by b4n
3 c−2 can be obtained in time O(n).
Our bound is the optimalbecause our bound differs the previously known lower bound4n3 −3 (Zhang and He, 2005) only by a unit.
Answering in the affirmative a conjecture of [Lin, Lu, Sun, 2004]about whether any visibility drawing no wider than 4n
3 +O(1) canbe obtained in polynomial time.
Rather than conventionally using canonical ordering,st-numbering, or Schnyder’s realizer as the initial input, ouralgorithm applies a new kind of ordering, called constructiveordering , of G to constructing the visibility drawing.
5/19
Introduction
Our Main Result
Theorem
Given an n-node plane triangulation G, a visibility drawing of G with itswidth bounded by b4n
3 c−2 can be obtained in time O(n).
Our bound is the optimalbecause our bound differs the previously known lower bound4n3 −3 (Zhang and He, 2005) only by a unit.
Answering in the affirmative a conjecture of [Lin, Lu, Sun, 2004]about whether any visibility drawing no wider than 4n
3 +O(1) canbe obtained in polynomial time.
Rather than conventionally using canonical ordering,st-numbering, or Schnyder’s realizer as the initial input, ouralgorithm applies a new kind of ordering, called constructiveordering , of G to constructing the visibility drawing.
5/19
Introduction
Our Main Result
Theorem
Given an n-node plane triangulation G, a visibility drawing of G with itswidth bounded by b4n
3 c−2 can be obtained in time O(n).
Our bound is the optimalbecause our bound differs the previously known lower bound4n3 −3 (Zhang and He, 2005) only by a unit.
Answering in the affirmative a conjecture of [Lin, Lu, Sun, 2004]about whether any visibility drawing no wider than 4n
3 +O(1) canbe obtained in polynomial time.
Rather than conventionally using canonical ordering,st-numbering, or Schnyder’s realizer as the initial input, ouralgorithm applies a new kind of ordering, called constructiveordering , of G to constructing the visibility drawing.
5/19
Preliminaries
Coalescing and Splitting Operations
in Gk+1 in Gk
(a) deg(vk+1) = 3 in Gk+1
1
1
vr
vp = u
vq
vk+1Fk,1
vr
vp = u
vq
in Gk+1 in Gk
(b) deg(vk+1) = 4 in Gk+1
2
2
vr
vp = u
vs
vqFk,2 Fk,1
vr
vp = u
vs
vq
vk+1
in Gk+1 in Gk
(c) deg(vk+1) = 5 in Gk+1
3
3
vr
vp = u
vt vqFk,2
Fk,1Fk,3
vs
vk+1
vr
vp = u
vt vq
vs
When deg(vk+1) = 5,
α3(vk+1,u) = coalescing two nodes vk+1 and u
≡ detaching two faces
β3(vk+1,Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3) = splitting node vk+1 at faces Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3
≡ attaching two new faces≡ inserting a node at faces Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3
6/19
Preliminaries
Coalescing and Splitting Operations
in Gk+1 in Gk
(a) deg(vk+1) = 3 in Gk+1
1
1
vr
vp = u
vq
vk+1Fk,1
vr
vp = u
vq
in Gk+1 in Gk
(b) deg(vk+1) = 4 in Gk+1
2
2
vr
vp = u
vs
vqFk,2 Fk,1
vr
vp = u
vs
vq
vk+1
in Gk+1 in Gk
(c) deg(vk+1) = 5 in Gk+1
3
3
vr
vp = u
vt vqFk,2
Fk,1Fk,3
vs
vk+1
vr
vp = u
vt vq
vs
When deg(vk+1) = 5,
α3(vk+1,u) = coalescing two nodes vk+1 and u
≡ detaching two faces
β3(vk+1,Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3) = splitting node vk+1 at faces Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3
≡ attaching two new faces≡ inserting a node at faces Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3
6/19
Preliminaries
Coalescing and Splitting Operations
in Gk+1 in Gk
(a) deg(vk+1) = 3 in Gk+1
1
1
vr
vp = u
vq
vk+1Fk,1
vr
vp = u
vq
in Gk+1 in Gk
(b) deg(vk+1) = 4 in Gk+1
2
2
vr
vp = u
vs
vqFk,2 Fk,1
vr
vp = u
vs
vq
vk+1
in Gk+1 in Gk
(c) deg(vk+1) = 5 in Gk+1
3
3
vr
vp = u
vt vqFk,2
Fk,1Fk,3
vs
vk+1
vr
vp = u
vt vq
vs
When deg(vk+1) = 5,
α3(vk+1,u) = coalescing two nodes vk+1 and u
≡ detaching two faces
β3(vk+1,Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3) = splitting node vk+1 at faces Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3
≡ attaching two new faces≡ inserting a node at faces Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3
6/19
Preliminaries
Coalescing and Splitting Operations
in Gk+1 in Gk
(a) deg(vk+1) = 3 in Gk+1
1
1
vr
vp = u
vq
vk+1Fk,1
vr
vp = u
vq
in Gk+1 in Gk
(b) deg(vk+1) = 4 in Gk+1
2
2
vr
vp = u
vs
vqFk,2 Fk,1
vr
vp = u
vs
vq
vk+1
in Gk+1 in Gk
(c) deg(vk+1) = 5 in Gk+1
3
3
vr
vp = u
vt vqFk,2
Fk,1Fk,3
vs
vk+1
vr
vp = u
vt vq
vs
When deg(vk+1) = 5,
α3(vk+1,u) = coalescing two nodes vk+1 and u≡ detaching two faces
β3(vk+1,Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3) = splitting node vk+1 at faces Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3
≡ attaching two new faces
≡ inserting a node at faces Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3
6/19
Preliminaries
Coalescing and Splitting Operations
in Gk+1 in Gk
(a) deg(vk+1) = 3 in Gk+1
1
1
vr
vp = u
vq
vk+1Fk,1
vr
vp = u
vq
in Gk+1 in Gk
(b) deg(vk+1) = 4 in Gk+1
2
2
vr
vp = u
vs
vqFk,2 Fk,1
vr
vp = u
vs
vq
vk+1
in Gk+1 in Gk
(c) deg(vk+1) = 5 in Gk+1
3
3
vr
vp = u
vt vqFk,2
Fk,1Fk,3
vs
vk+1
vr
vp = u
vt vq
vs
When deg(vk+1) = 5,
α3(vk+1,u) = coalescing two nodes vk+1 and u≡ detaching two faces
β3(vk+1,Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3) = splitting node vk+1 at faces Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3
≡ attaching two new faces≡ inserting a node at faces Fk,1,Fk,2,Fk,3
6/19
Preliminaries
Constructive Ordering of a Plane Triangulation
Definition
Gk involves the k nodes v1,v2, ...,vk. We call π = (v1,v2, ...,vn) a constructive orderingof a plane triangulation G if the following conditions hold for each k, 3≤ k≤ n:
1 Gk is a plane triangulation with outer edges v1v2, v2v3, v3v1;2 if 3≤ k≤ n−1, then node vk+1 is split from a node in Gk, and the degree of node
vk+1 is three, four, or five in Gk+1.
G6 = G1
3 25
4
6
Note that there always exists a node with degree 3, 4, or 5 in any plane triangulation.
Lemma
Every n-node plane triangulation G has a constructive ordering, which can be found inO(n) time.
7/19
Preliminaries
Constructive Ordering of a Plane Triangulation
Definition
Gk involves the k nodes v1,v2, ...,vk. We call π = (v1,v2, ...,vn) a constructive orderingof a plane triangulation G if the following conditions hold for each k, 3≤ k≤ n:
1 Gk is a plane triangulation with outer edges v1v2, v2v3, v3v1;2 if 3≤ k≤ n−1, then node vk+1 is split from a node in Gk, and the degree of node
vk+1 is three, four, or five in Gk+1.
G6 = G1
3 25
4
6
Note that there always exists a node with degree 3, 4, or 5 in any plane triangulation.
Lemma
Every n-node plane triangulation G has a constructive ordering, which can be found inO(n) time.
7/19
Preliminaries
Constructive Ordering of a Plane Triangulation
Definition
Gk involves the k nodes v1,v2, ...,vk. We call π = (v1,v2, ...,vn) a constructive orderingof a plane triangulation G if the following conditions hold for each k, 3≤ k≤ n:
1 Gk is a plane triangulation with outer edges v1v2, v2v3, v3v1;2 if 3≤ k≤ n−1, then node vk+1 is split from a node in Gk, and the degree of node
vk+1 is three, four, or five in Gk+1.
G51
3 25
4 53
3 G6 = G1
3 25
4
6
Note that there always exists a node with degree 3, 4, or 5 in any plane triangulation.
Lemma
Every n-node plane triangulation G has a constructive ordering, which can be found inO(n) time.
7/19
Preliminaries
Constructive Ordering of a Plane Triangulation
Definition
Gk involves the k nodes v1,v2, ...,vk. We call π = (v1,v2, ...,vn) a constructive orderingof a plane triangulation G if the following conditions hold for each k, 3≤ k≤ n:
1 Gk is a plane triangulation with outer edges v1v2, v2v3, v3v1;2 if 3≤ k≤ n−1, then node vk+1 is split from a node in Gk, and the degree of node
vk+1 is three, four, or five in Gk+1.
G41
3 2
4
2
2 G51
3 25
4 53
3 G6 = G1
3 25
4
6
Note that there always exists a node with degree 3, 4, or 5 in any plane triangulation.
Lemma
Every n-node plane triangulation G has a constructive ordering, which can be found inO(n) time.
7/19
Preliminaries
Constructive Ordering of a Plane Triangulation
Definition
Gk involves the k nodes v1,v2, ...,vk. We call π = (v1,v2, ...,vn) a constructive orderingof a plane triangulation G if the following conditions hold for each k, 3≤ k≤ n:
1 Gk is a plane triangulation with outer edges v1v2, v2v3, v3v1;2 if 3≤ k≤ n−1, then node vk+1 is split from a node in Gk, and the degree of node
vk+1 is three, four, or five in Gk+1.
1
3 2
G3
1
1 G41
3 2
4
2
2 G51
3 25
4 53
3 G6 = G1
3 25
4
6
Note that there always exists a node with degree 3, 4, or 5 in any plane triangulation.
Lemma
Every n-node plane triangulation G has a constructive ordering, which can be found inO(n) time.
7/19
Preliminaries
Constructive Ordering of a Plane Triangulation
Definition
Gk involves the k nodes v1,v2, ...,vk. We call π = (v1,v2, ...,vn) a constructive orderingof a plane triangulation G if the following conditions hold for each k, 3≤ k≤ n:
1 Gk is a plane triangulation with outer edges v1v2, v2v3, v3v1;2 if 3≤ k≤ n−1, then node vk+1 is split from a node in Gk, and the degree of node
vk+1 is three, four, or five in Gk+1.
1
3 2
G3
1
1 G41
3 2
4
2
2 G51
3 25
4 53
3 G6 = G1
3 25
4
6
Note that there always exists a node with degree 3, 4, or 5 in any plane triangulation.
Lemma
Every n-node plane triangulation G has a constructive ordering, which can be found inO(n) time.
7/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
L-Shape and the β1 Operation
L-shape
Regular L-shape Degenerated L-shape
right L-shape
left L-shape
The β1 operation (the degree-three splitting operation)
1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb = 1wb + 2
vk+1
vp
vq
vr
(ii) For L-shapes with wb = 1
wb + 1
vk+1
vp
vq
vr
1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb
(i) For L-sahpes with wb >1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb
or
8/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
L-Shape and the β1 Operation
L-shape
Regular L-shape Degenerated L-shape
right L-shape
left L-shape
The β1 operation (the degree-three splitting operation)
1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb = 1wb + 2
vk+1
vp
vq
vr
(ii) For L-shapes with wb = 1
wb + 1
vk+1
vp
vq
vr
1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb
(i) For L-sahpes with wb >1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb
or
8/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
The β2 Operation acting at two narrowest L-shapes
The β2 operation (the degree-four splitting operation)
(1-iii) lr: This case does not exist.
(1-iv) ll: This case is a reflectional symmetry of case (1-i).
(1-i) rr (1-ii) rl (2-i) rr (2-ii) rl
(y(vs) and y(vq) may notnecessarily be the same.)
(2-iv) ll: This case is a reflectional symmetry of case (2-i).
(a) The two input L-shapes do not share the same bottom node segment.
(b) The two input L-shapes share the same bottom node segment.
vk+1
vs
vp
vr
vq vq
vp
vs
vr
vk+1
vp
vq
vr
vs
vk+1
f1’f2’
f1f2
vp
vq
vr
vs
vk+1
f1’f2’
f1f2
vk+1
vq
vr
vs
vp
f1’f2’
f1f2
vq
vp
vs
vrFk,1
Fk,2
vr
vs
vp
vq
Fk,1 Fk,2
vp
vq
vr
vs
Fk,2 Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
vs
Fk,2 Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
vsFk,2 Fk,1
2 2 2 2 2
(2-iii) lr
9/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
The β3 Operation acting at three narrowest L-shapes (1/3)
The degree-five splitting operation (1/3)
(2v-ii) rl: This case has the above two possible subcases.
(2v-i) rr: This case has the above two possible subcases.
(2v-iii) lr: This case is a reflectional symmetry of the case (2v-ii).
(2v-iv) ll: This case is a reflectional symmetry of the case (2v-i).
vr
vs
vt
vq
Fk,2Fk,3
Fk,1
vp
vr
vs
vt
vqFk,2
Fk,3
Fk,1
vp
vk+1
vr
vs
vt
vq
vp
vr
vs
vt
vq
vp
vk+1
vr
vs
vt
vqFk,2
Fk,3
Fk,1
vp
vr
vs
vt
vq
vp
vk+1
vr
vs
vt
vq
vpFk,2
Fk,3
Fk,1
vr
vs
vt
vq
vp
vk+1
(2v-i-a) (2v-i-b) (2v-ii-a) (2v-ii-b)
3 3 3 3
(3-vi) lrl(3-ii) rrl (3-v) lrr(3-i) rrr
(3-iii) rlr: This case is a reflectional symmetry of the case (3-vi).
(3-iv) rll: This case is a reflectional symmetry of the case (3-ii).
(3-vii) llr: This case is a reflectional symmetry of the case (3-v).
(3-viii) lll: This case is a reflectional symmetry of the case (3-i).
vk+1
vq
vr
vt
vs
vp
vk+1
vqvs
vt
vp
vr
vp
vqvs
vt
vk+1
vr
vp
vq
vrvt
vk+1
vs
vp
vqvs
vt
Fk,2Fk,1
Fk,3 vr
vp
vq
vr
vt
Fk,2Fk,1
Fk,3
vs
vp
vq
vrvt
Fk,2Fk,1
Fk,3
vs
vp
vqvs
vtFk,2
Fk,1Fk,3
vr
3 3 3 3
(a) Only two input L-shapes are visible from the down side.
(b) All of the three input L-shapes share the same bottom node segment.
10/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
The β3 Operation acting at three narrowest L-shapes (2/3)
The degree-five splitting operation (2/3)
(c) Two of the three input L-shapes share the same bottom node segment.
(2-viii) lll: This case is a reflectional symmetry of the case (2-i).
(2-iv) rll: This case is a reflectional symmetry of the case (2-ii).
(2-v) lrr
(2-vii) llr: This case is a reflectional symmetry of the case (2-v).
3
(2-iii) rlr: This case is a reflectional symmetry of the case (2-vi).
vt
vp
vqvs
Fk,2 Fk,1Fk,3vr
vt
vp
vq
vs
Fk,1Fk,3 Fk,2
vr
vp
vq
vs
vtFk,2
Fk,1
Fk,3vr
vk+1
vq
vs
vt
vp
vr
vr
vs
vt
vq
Fk,2Fk,3Fk,1
vp
vk+1
vt
vq
vs
vr
vr
vs
vtvq
Fk,2
Fk,3Fk,1
vp
vr
vs
vtvq
vp
vk+1
vt
vk+1
vqvs
vp
vr
vr
vs
vtvq
Fk,2Fk,3
Fk,1
vp
vr
vs
vp
vqFk,2
Fk,3
Fk,1
vt
vr
vs
vk+1
vq
vt
vp
vr
vs
vtvq
vp
vk+1
(2-i-a) (2-i-b) (2-ii-a) (2-ii-b)
vp
vq
vr
vt
Fk,2
Fk,1
Fk,3
vs
vp
vq
vr
vt
vp
vs
(2-ii-c) (2-vi-a) (2-vi-b)vr
vs
vt
vq
vk+1
vp
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
11/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
The β3 Operation acting at three narrowest L-shapes (3/3)
The degree-five splitting operation (3/3)
(d) None of the three input L-shapes shares the same bottom node segment.
(1-vi) lrl: This case does not exist.
(1-viii) lll: This case is a reflectional symmetry of case (1-i).
(1-iv) rll: This case is a reflectional symmetry of case (1-ii).
(1-vii) llr: This case does not exist.
(1-i) rrr
(1-iii) rlr: This case does not exist.
(1-v) lrr: This case does not exist.
vr
vs
vt
vq
vp
vk+1
vr
vs
vt
vq
Fk,2
Fk,3
Fk,1
vp
vp
vq
vr
vt
Fk,2
Fk,1Fk,3
vs
vr
vs
vt
vq
vk+1
vp
vk+1
vq
vr
vt
vs
vp
(1-ii-a) rrl (1-ii-b) rrl
vr
vs
vt
vq
Fk,2Fk,3
Fk,1
vp
3 3 3
Observation
If every inner face in Gk is drawn as an L-shape, then we consider all the possiblecases of the β1, β2, and β3 operations.Furthermore, the bottom node segment of any L-shape rather than input L-shapes isnot modified in executing the operation.
12/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
The β3 Operation acting at three narrowest L-shapes (3/3)
The degree-five splitting operation (3/3)
(d) None of the three input L-shapes shares the same bottom node segment.
(1-vi) lrl: This case does not exist.
(1-viii) lll: This case is a reflectional symmetry of case (1-i).
(1-iv) rll: This case is a reflectional symmetry of case (1-ii).
(1-vii) llr: This case does not exist.
(1-i) rrr
(1-iii) rlr: This case does not exist.
(1-v) lrr: This case does not exist.
vr
vs
vt
vq
vp
vk+1
vr
vs
vt
vq
Fk,2
Fk,3
Fk,1
vp
vp
vq
vr
vt
Fk,2
Fk,1Fk,3
vs
vr
vs
vt
vq
vk+1
vp
vk+1
vq
vr
vt
vs
vp
(1-ii-a) rrl (1-ii-b) rrl
vr
vs
vt
vq
Fk,2Fk,3
Fk,1
vp
3 3 3
Observation
If every inner face in Gk is drawn as an L-shape, then we consider all the possiblecases of the β1, β2, and β3 operations.Furthermore, the bottom node segment of any L-shape rather than input L-shapes isnot modified in executing the operation.
12/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
Our Drawing Algorithm
1 Find a constructive ordering of G.
1
3 2G3
1
1
1
3 2
4
G4
2
2
1
3 25
4 5
G5
3
3
1
3 25
4
6
G6 = G
2 Initially, generate all the (six) possible visibility drawings of G3.3 For each insertion, use our splitting operations to maintain 6 drawings of Gk;
appropriately adjust the drawings of the other faces.
1st pair
1
2D1
3 2
1
3D2
2nd pair
2
13
D4
2
31
D3
3rd pair
3
12
D5
3
21
D6
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1st pair
3rd pair
2nd pair1
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
2
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
3
21
45
6
1
32
45
6
2
13
54
6
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
3
4 Compress the width of every of the six drawings of Gn as much as possible.Output the drawing with the narrowest width.
13/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
Our Drawing Algorithm
1 Find a constructive ordering of G.
1
3 2G3
1
1
1
3 2
4
G4
2
2
1
3 25
4 5
G5
3
3
1
3 25
4
6
G6 = G
2 Initially, generate all the (six) possible visibility drawings of G3.3 For each insertion, use our splitting operations to maintain 6 drawings of Gk;
appropriately adjust the drawings of the other faces.
1st pair
1
2D1
3 2
1
3D2
2nd pair
2
13
D4
2
31
D3
3rd pair
3
12
D5
3
21
D6
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1st pair
3rd pair
2nd pair1
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
2
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
3
21
45
6
1
32
45
6
2
13
54
6
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
3
4 Compress the width of every of the six drawings of Gn as much as possible.Output the drawing with the narrowest width.
13/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
Our Drawing Algorithm
1 Find a constructive ordering of G.
1
3 2G3
1
1
1
3 2
4
G4
2
2
1
3 25
4 5
G5
3
3
1
3 25
4
6
G6 = G
2 Initially, generate all the (six) possible visibility drawings of G3.
3 For each insertion, use our splitting operations to maintain 6 drawings of Gk;appropriately adjust the drawings of the other faces.
1st pair
1
2D1
3 2
1
3D2
2nd pair
2
13
D4
2
31
D3
3rd pair
3
12
D5
3
21
D6
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1st pair
3rd pair
2nd pair1
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
2
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
3
21
45
6
1
32
45
6
2
13
54
6
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
3
4 Compress the width of every of the six drawings of Gn as much as possible.Output the drawing with the narrowest width.
13/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
Our Drawing Algorithm
1 Find a constructive ordering of G.
1
3 2G3
1
1
1
3 2
4
G4
2
2
1
3 25
4 5
G5
3
3
1
3 25
4
6
G6 = G
2 Initially, generate all the (six) possible visibility drawings of G3.3 For each insertion, use our splitting operations to maintain 6 drawings of Gk;
appropriately adjust the drawings of the other faces.
1st pair
1
2D1
3 2
1
3D2
2nd pair
2
13
D4
2
31
D3
3rd pair
3
12
D5
3
21
D6
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1st pair
3rd pair
2nd pair1
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
2
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
3
21
45
6
1
32
45
6
2
13
54
6
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
3
4 Compress the width of every of the six drawings of Gn as much as possible.Output the drawing with the narrowest width.
13/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
Our Drawing Algorithm
1 Find a constructive ordering of G.
1
3 2G3
1
1
1
3 2
4
G4
2
2
1
3 25
4 5
G5
3
3
1
3 25
4
6
G6 = G
2 Initially, generate all the (six) possible visibility drawings of G3.3 For each insertion, use our splitting operations to maintain 6 drawings of Gk;
appropriately adjust the drawings of the other faces.
1st pair
1
2D1
3 2
1
3D2
2nd pair
2
13
D4
2
31
D3
3rd pair
3
12
D5
3
21
D6
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1st pair
3rd pair
2nd pair1
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
2
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
3
21
45
6
1
32
45
6
2
13
54
6
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
3
4 Compress the width of every of the six drawings of Gn as much as possible.Output the drawing with the narrowest width.
13/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
Our Drawing Algorithm
1 Find a constructive ordering of G.
1
3 2G3
1
1
1
3 2
4
G4
2
2
1
3 25
4 5
G5
3
3
1
3 25
4
6
G6 = G
2 Initially, generate all the (six) possible visibility drawings of G3.3 For each insertion, use our splitting operations to maintain 6 drawings of Gk;
appropriately adjust the drawings of the other faces.
1st pair
1
2D1
3 2
1
3D2
2nd pair
2
13
D4
2
31
D3
3rd pair
3
12
D5
3
21
D6
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1st pair
3rd pair
2nd pair1
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
2
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
3
21
45
6
1
32
45
6
2
13
54
6
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
3
4 Compress the width of every of the six drawings of Gn as much as possible.Output the drawing with the narrowest width.
13/19
Our Width-Optimal Drawing Algorithm
Our Drawing Algorithm
1 Find a constructive ordering of G.
1
3 2G3
1
1
1
3 2
4
G4
2
2
1
3 25
4 5
G5
3
3
1
3 25
4
6
G6 = G
2 Initially, generate all the (six) possible visibility drawings of G3.3 For each insertion, use our splitting operations to maintain 6 drawings of Gk;
appropriately adjust the drawings of the other faces.
1st pair
1
2D1
3 2
1
3D2
2nd pair
2
13
D4
2
31
D3
3rd pair
3
12
D5
3
21
D6
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1st pair
3rd pair
2nd pair1
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
2
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
3
21
45
6
1
32
45
6
2
13
54
6
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
3
4 Compress the width of every of the six drawings of Gn as much as possible.Output the drawing with the narrowest width.
13/19
Analysis
Six Drawings =⇒ Three Pairs
Observation
The six drawings of every face F can be classified into three pairs,where each node of F serves as a bottom node segment in each pair.Furthermore, the input L-shapes of every splitting operation can be classified into threepairs.
1st pair
1
2D1
3 2
1
3D2
2nd pair
2
13
D4
2
31
D3
3rd pair
3
12
D5
3
21
D6
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1
32
4
2
13
4
3
21
4
1st pair
3rd pair
2nd pair1
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
2
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
3
21
45
6
1
32
45
6
2
13
54
6
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
3
Note that the two drawings in a pair are almost the same except for the positionsof the topmost two node segments, so it suffices to concern one of the twodrawings.
14/19
Analysis
Six Drawings =⇒ Three Pairs
Observation
The six drawings of every face F can be classified into three pairs,where each node of F serves as a bottom node segment in each pair.Furthermore, the input L-shapes of every splitting operation can be classified into threepairs.
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
1
32
45
6
2
13
54
6
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
3
1
3 2
45
1
3 2
4
6
5
Gk+1Gk
3
Note that the two drawings in a pair are almost the same except for the positionsof the topmost two node segments, so it suffices to concern one of the twodrawings.
14/19
Analysis
Six Drawings =⇒ Three Pairs
Observation
The six drawings of every face F can be classified into three pairs,where each node of F serves as a bottom node segment in each pair.Furthermore, the input L-shapes of every splitting operation can be classified into threepairs.
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
1
32
45
6
2
13
54
6
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
3
1
3 2
45
1
3 2
4
6
5
Gk+1Gk
3
Note that the two drawings in a pair are almost the same except for the positionsof the topmost two node segments, so it suffices to concern one of the twodrawings.
14/19
Analysis
Six Drawings =⇒ Three Pairs
Observation
The six drawings of every face F can be classified into three pairs,where each node of F serves as a bottom node segment in each pair.Furthermore, the input L-shapes of every splitting operation can be classified into threepairs.
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
1
32
45
6
2
13
54
6
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
1st pair
2nd pair
3rd pair
3
1
3 2
45
1
3 2
4
6
5
Gk+1Gk
3
Note that the two drawings in a pair are almost the same except for the positionsof the topmost two node segments, so it suffices to concern one of the twodrawings.
14/19
Analysis
U-Shaped Insertion
(b) 1st pair (c) 2nd pair or 3rd pair
a3
a1
ai+2 a2
ai+1
...
...
Fk,1Fk,i
in Gk
in Gk+1
a2
a1
ai+2 a1
ai+1 ...ai+3
f1’f2’
i
(a)
a1
......
x
y ai+3...
a1
...
x
y ai+3
i i...
i
a1
a2
a3
Fk,1Fk,i
ai+2
...ai+1
...
a1
a2
a3
ai+2
ai+3
...ai+1
...
f1’f2’
All configurations of i adjacentL-shapes with the same bottomnode segment exist. Here illust-rates only the configuration rr...r.
No two L-shapes share the same bottom node segment;otherwise, it violates Observation 2. Thus, there existonly four possible configurations rr...r, rr...rl, ll...l, rll...l.Here illustrate configurations rr...r, rr...rl.
a1
.........
a1
...
or
(width + 2) (width + 1) (width + 1)
=⇒ The sum of widths of six drawings is increased by 2× (+2+1+1) = +8 units.
Observation
There exists a U-shaped constructive ordering for the drawingsproduced by our algorithm.
5
9
1
3
2
7
6
4
8
15/19
Analysis
U-Shaped Insertion
(b) 1st pair (c) 2nd pair or 3rd pair
a3
a1
ai+2 a2
ai+1
...
...
Fk,1Fk,i
in Gk
in Gk+1
a2
a1
ai+2 a1
ai+1 ...ai+3
f1’f2’
i
(a)
a1
......
x
y ai+3...
a1
...
x
y ai+3
i i...
i
a1
a2
a3
Fk,1Fk,i
ai+2
...ai+1
...
a1
a2
a3
ai+2
ai+3
...ai+1
...
f1’f2’
All configurations of i adjacentL-shapes with the same bottomnode segment exist. Here illust-rates only the configuration rr...r.
No two L-shapes share the same bottom node segment;otherwise, it violates Observation 2. Thus, there existonly four possible configurations rr...r, rr...rl, ll...l, rll...l.Here illustrate configurations rr...r, rr...rl.
a1
.........
a1
...
or
(width + 2) (width + 1) (width + 1)
=⇒ The sum of widths of six drawings is increased by 2× (+2+1+1) = +8 units.
Observation
There exists a U-shaped constructive ordering for the drawingsproduced by our algorithm.
5
9
1
3
2
7
6
4
8
15/19
Analysis
U-Shaped Insertion
(b) 1st pair (c) 2nd pair or 3rd pair
a3
a1
ai+2 a2
ai+1
...
...
Fk,1Fk,i
in Gk
in Gk+1
a2
a1
ai+2 a1
ai+1 ...ai+3
f1’f2’
i
(a)
a1
......
x
y ai+3...
a1
...
x
y ai+3
i i...
i
a1
a2
a3
Fk,1Fk,i
ai+2
...ai+1
...
a1
a2
a3
ai+2
ai+3
...ai+1
...
f1’f2’
All configurations of i adjacentL-shapes with the same bottomnode segment exist. Here illust-rates only the configuration rr...r.
No two L-shapes share the same bottom node segment;otherwise, it violates Observation 2. Thus, there existonly four possible configurations rr...r, rr...rl, ll...l, rll...l.Here illustrate configurations rr...r, rr...rl.
a1
.........
a1
...
or
(width + 2) (width + 1) (width + 1)
=⇒ The sum of widths of six drawings is increased by 2× (+2+1+1) = +8 units.
Observation
There exists a U-shaped constructive ordering for the drawingsproduced by our algorithm.
5
9
1
3
2
7
6
4
8
15/19
Analysis
U-Shaped Insertion
(b) 1st pair (c) 2nd pair or 3rd pair
a3
a1
ai+2 a2
ai+1
...
...
Fk,1Fk,i
in Gk
in Gk+1
a2
a1
ai+2 a1
ai+1 ...ai+3
f1’f2’
i
(a)
a1
......
x
y ai+3...
a1
...
x
y ai+3
i i...
i
a1
a2
a3
Fk,1Fk,i
ai+2
...ai+1
...
a1
a2
a3
ai+2
ai+3
...ai+1
...
f1’f2’
All configurations of i adjacentL-shapes with the same bottomnode segment exist. Here illust-rates only the configuration rr...r.
No two L-shapes share the same bottom node segment;otherwise, it violates Observation 2. Thus, there existonly four possible configurations rr...r, rr...rl, ll...l, rll...l.Here illustrate configurations rr...r, rr...rl.
a1
.........
a1
...
or
(width + 2) (width + 1) (width + 1)
=⇒ The sum of widths of six drawings is increased by 2× (+2+1+1) = +8 units.
Observation
There exists a U-shaped constructive ordering for the drawingsproduced by our algorithm.
5
9
1
3
2
7
6
4
8
15/19
Analysis
Example
There exists a certainU-shaped construct. order.of the final six drawingssuch thatwe rebuild visibility drawingsaccording to the ordering inwhich the final drawing withthe same visibility drawingembedding of our outputhas the minimum width.
Hence, the drawing with theminimum width must be nowider than the average of8n−12, i.e.,b 8n−12
6 c= b 4n3 c−2.
So our output must be nowider than b 4n
3 c−2.
1
23
2
31
3
12
deg-3U-detach
1
32
5
2
13
5
3
21
5
deg-3U-detach
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
deg-5U-detach
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
our output
1
32
45
61
32
45
1
32
5
1
23
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
2
13
5
3
21
5
2
31
3
12
+1
+2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
min. among all
12 +8 +8 +8= 12+(n−3)×8 = 8n−12
16/19
Analysis
Example
There exists a certainU-shaped construct. order.of the final six drawingssuch thatwe rebuild visibility drawingsaccording to the ordering inwhich the final drawing withthe same visibility drawingembedding of our outputhas the minimum width.
Hence, the drawing with theminimum width must be nowider than the average of8n−12, i.e.,b 8n−12
6 c= b 4n3 c−2.
So our output must be nowider than b 4n
3 c−2.
1
23
2
31
3
12
deg-3U-detach
1
32
5
2
13
5
3
21
5
deg-3U-detach
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
deg-5U-detach
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
our output
1
32
45
61
32
45
1
32
5
1
23
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
2
13
5
3
21
5
2
31
3
12
+1
+2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
min. among all
12 +8 +8 +8= 12+(n−3)×8 = 8n−12
16/19
Analysis
Example
There exists a certainU-shaped construct. order.of the final six drawingssuch thatwe rebuild visibility drawingsaccording to the ordering inwhich the final drawing withthe same visibility drawingembedding of our outputhas the minimum width.
Hence, the drawing with theminimum width must be nowider than the average of8n−12, i.e.,b 8n−12
6 c= b 4n3 c−2.
So our output must be nowider than b 4n
3 c−2.
1
23
2
31
3
12
deg-3U-detach
1
32
5
2
13
5
3
21
5
deg-3U-detach
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
deg-5U-detach
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
our output
1
32
45
61
32
45
1
32
5
1
23
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
2
13
5
3
21
5
2
31
3
12
+1
+2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
min. among all
12 +8 +8 +8= 12+(n−3)×8 = 8n−12
16/19
Analysis
Example
There exists a certainU-shaped construct. order.of the final six drawingssuch thatwe rebuild visibility drawingsaccording to the ordering inwhich the final drawing withthe same visibility drawingembedding of our outputhas the minimum width.
Hence, the drawing with theminimum width must be nowider than the average of8n−12, i.e.,b 8n−12
6 c= b 4n3 c−2.
So our output must be nowider than b 4n
3 c−2.
1
23
2
31
3
12
deg-3U-detach
1
32
5
2
13
5
3
21
5
deg-3U-detach
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
deg-5U-detach
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
our output
1
32
45
61
32
45
1
32
5
1
23
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
2
13
5
3
21
5
2
31
3
12
+1
+2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
min. among all
12
+8 +8 +8= 12+(n−3)×8 = 8n−12
16/19
Analysis
Example
There exists a certainU-shaped construct. order.of the final six drawingssuch thatwe rebuild visibility drawingsaccording to the ordering inwhich the final drawing withthe same visibility drawingembedding of our outputhas the minimum width.
Hence, the drawing with theminimum width must be nowider than the average of8n−12, i.e.,b 8n−12
6 c= b 4n3 c−2.
So our output must be nowider than b 4n
3 c−2.
1
23
2
31
3
12
deg-3U-detach
1
32
5
2
13
5
3
21
5
deg-3U-detach
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
deg-5U-detach
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
our output
1
32
45
61
32
45
1
32
5
1
23
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
2
13
5
3
21
5
2
31
3
12
+1
+2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
min. among all
12 +8
+8 +8= 12+(n−3)×8 = 8n−12
16/19
Analysis
Example
There exists a certainU-shaped construct. order.of the final six drawingssuch thatwe rebuild visibility drawingsaccording to the ordering inwhich the final drawing withthe same visibility drawingembedding of our outputhas the minimum width.
Hence, the drawing with theminimum width must be nowider than the average of8n−12, i.e.,b 8n−12
6 c= b 4n3 c−2.
So our output must be nowider than b 4n
3 c−2.
1
23
2
31
3
12
deg-3U-detach
1
32
5
2
13
5
3
21
5
deg-3U-detach
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
deg-5U-detach
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
our output
1
32
45
61
32
45
1
32
5
1
23
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
2
13
5
3
21
5
2
31
3
12
+1
+2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
min. among all
12 +8 +8
+8= 12+(n−3)×8 = 8n−12
16/19
Analysis
Example
There exists a certainU-shaped construct. order.of the final six drawingssuch thatwe rebuild visibility drawingsaccording to the ordering inwhich the final drawing withthe same visibility drawingembedding of our outputhas the minimum width.
Hence, the drawing with theminimum width must be nowider than the average of8n−12, i.e.,b 8n−12
6 c= b 4n3 c−2.
So our output must be nowider than b 4n
3 c−2.
1
23
2
31
3
12
deg-3U-detach
1
32
5
2
13
5
3
21
5
deg-3U-detach
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
deg-5U-detach
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
our output
1
32
45
61
32
45
1
32
5
1
23
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
2
13
5
3
21
5
2
31
3
12
+1
+2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
min. among all
12 +8 +8 +8
= 12+(n−3)×8 = 8n−12
16/19
Analysis
Example
There exists a certainU-shaped construct. order.of the final six drawingssuch thatwe rebuild visibility drawingsaccording to the ordering inwhich the final drawing withthe same visibility drawingembedding of our outputhas the minimum width.
Hence, the drawing with theminimum width must be nowider than the average of8n−12, i.e.,b 8n−12
6 c= b 4n3 c−2.
So our output must be nowider than b 4n
3 c−2.
1
23
2
31
3
12
deg-3U-detach
1
32
5
2
13
5
3
21
5
deg-3U-detach
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
deg-5U-detach
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
our output
1
32
45
61
32
45
1
32
5
1
23
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
2
13
5
3
21
5
2
31
3
12
+1
+2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
min. among all
12 +8 +8 +8= 12+(n−3)×8 = 8n−12
16/19
Analysis
Example
There exists a certainU-shaped construct. order.of the final six drawingssuch thatwe rebuild visibility drawingsaccording to the ordering inwhich the final drawing withthe same visibility drawingembedding of our outputhas the minimum width.
Hence, the drawing with theminimum width must be nowider than the average of8n−12, i.e.,b 8n−12
6 c= b 4n3 c−2.
So our output must be nowider than b 4n
3 c−2.
1
23
2
31
3
12
deg-3U-detach
1
32
5
2
13
5
3
21
5
deg-3U-detach
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
deg-5U-detach
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
our output
1
32
45
61
32
45
1
32
5
1
23
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
2
13
5
3
21
5
2
31
3
12
+1
+2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
min. among all
12 +8 +8 +8= 12+(n−3)×8 = 8n−12
16/19
Analysis
Example
There exists a certainU-shaped construct. order.of the final six drawingssuch thatwe rebuild visibility drawingsaccording to the ordering inwhich the final drawing withthe same visibility drawingembedding of our outputhas the minimum width.
Hence, the drawing with theminimum width must be nowider than the average of8n−12, i.e.,b 8n−12
6 c= b 4n3 c−2.
So our output must be nowider than b 4n
3 c−2.
1
23
2
31
3
12
deg-3U-detach
1
32
5
2
13
5
3
21
5
deg-3U-detach
1
32
45
2
13
54
3
21
45
deg-5U-detach
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
1
32
45
6
our output
1
32
45
61
32
45
1
32
5
1
23
2
13
54
3
21
45
3
21
45
6
2
13
54
6
2
13
5
3
21
5
2
31
3
12
+1
+2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
min. among all
12 +8 +8 +8= 12+(n−3)×8 = 8n−12
16/19
Analysis
Main Problem: Consecutive Degree-3 U-Shaped Insertions
1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb = 1wb + 2
vk+1
vp
vq
vr
(ii) For L-shapes with wb = 1
wb + 1
vk+1
vp
vq
vr
1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb
(i) For L-sahpes with wb >1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb
or
(width + 1) (width + 2)
For example, if we insert a degree-3 node into the following purple drawings ...
v4
v3
v1
v2
v5
v5
v1
v2
v3
v4
v4
v2
v3
v1
v5
(width +1)
(width +2)
(width +2)
1
The sum of the widths of the 6 drawings is increased by at least 2× (+1+2+2) = +10
units.
17/19
Analysis
Main Problem: Consecutive Degree-3 U-Shaped Insertions
1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb = 1wb + 2
vk+1
vp
vq
vr
(ii) For L-shapes with wb = 1
wb + 1
vk+1
vp
vq
vr
1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb
(i) For L-sahpes with wb >1
Fk,1
vp
vq
vr
wb
or
(width + 1) (width + 2)
For example, if we insert a degree-3 node into the following purple drawings ...
v4
v3
v1
v2
v5
v5
v1
v2
v3
v4
v4
v2
v3
v1
v5
(width +1)
(width +2)
(width +2)
1
The sum of the widths of the 6 drawings is increased by at least 2× (+1+2+2) = +10
units. 17/19
Analysis
Borrowing and Returning Widths
in the 2nd pair
in the 1st pair
v4
v3
v1
v2
v5
in the 3rd pair
v5
v1
v2
v3
v4
borrowa unit
from v2v3v4.
v4
v2
v3
v1
v5
v4
v2
v3
v1
v5
A unit is
retrunedto v2v3v4.
v5
v1
v2
v3
v4
v6
v4
v3
v1
v2
v5
v6
v4
v3
v1
v2
v5
v6
v4
v2
v3
v1
v5v6
1
(width + 1)
(width + 1)
(width + 2)
18/19
Analysis
Borrowing and Returning Widths
in the 2nd pair
in the 1st pair
v4
v3
v1
v2
v5
in the 3rd pair
v5
v1
v2
v3
v4
borrowa unit
from v2v3v4.
v4
v2
v3
v1
v5
v4
v2
v3
v1
v5
A unit is
retrunedto v2v3v4.
v5
v1
v2
v3
v4
v6
v4
v3
v1
v2
v5
v6
v4
v3
v1
v2
v5
v6
v4
v2
v3
v1
v5v6
1
(width + 1)
(width + 1)
(width + 2)
18/19
Conclusion
Conclusion
A linear-time algorithm to find a visibility drawing of a planetriangulation no wider than b4n
3 c−2 has been proposed in thiswork.
Our result improves upon the previously known upper bound4n3 +2d
√ne, providing a positive answer to a conjecture about
whether an upper bound 4n3 +O(1) on the required width can be
achieved for an arbitrary plane graph.
Our result achieves optimality in the upper bound of widthbecause the bound differs from the previously known lowerbound b4n
3 c−3 only by one unit.
A line of future work is to try to use our technique to find theheight-optimal visibility drawing.
19/19
Conclusion
Conclusion
A linear-time algorithm to find a visibility drawing of a planetriangulation no wider than b4n
3 c−2 has been proposed in thiswork.
Our result improves upon the previously known upper bound4n3 +2d
√ne, providing a positive answer to a conjecture about
whether an upper bound 4n3 +O(1) on the required width can be
achieved for an arbitrary plane graph.
Our result achieves optimality in the upper bound of widthbecause the bound differs from the previously known lowerbound b4n
3 c−3 only by one unit.
A line of future work is to try to use our technique to find theheight-optimal visibility drawing.
19/19
Conclusion
Conclusion
A linear-time algorithm to find a visibility drawing of a planetriangulation no wider than b4n
3 c−2 has been proposed in thiswork.
Our result improves upon the previously known upper bound4n3 +2d
√ne, providing a positive answer to a conjecture about
whether an upper bound 4n3 +O(1) on the required width can be
achieved for an arbitrary plane graph.
Our result achieves optimality in the upper bound of widthbecause the bound differs from the previously known lowerbound b4n
3 c−3 only by one unit.
A line of future work is to try to use our technique to find theheight-optimal visibility drawing.
19/19
Conclusion
Conclusion
A linear-time algorithm to find a visibility drawing of a planetriangulation no wider than b4n
3 c−2 has been proposed in thiswork.
Our result improves upon the previously known upper bound4n3 +2d
√ne, providing a positive answer to a conjecture about
whether an upper bound 4n3 +O(1) on the required width can be
achieved for an arbitrary plane graph.
Our result achieves optimality in the upper bound of widthbecause the bound differs from the previously known lowerbound b4n
3 c−3 only by one unit.
A line of future work is to try to use our technique to find theheight-optimal visibility drawing.
19/19
top related