Hubbry Logo
Geometric graph theoryGeometric graph theoryMain
Open search
Geometric graph theory
Community hub
Geometric graph theory
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Geometric graph theory
Geometric graph theory
Geometric graph theory
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Network science
Internet_map_1024.jpg
Network types
Graphs
Features
Types
Models
Topology
Dynamics
  • Lists
  • Categories

Geometric graph theory in the broader sense is a large and amorphous subfield of graph theory, concerned with graphs defined by geometric means. In a stricter sense, geometric graph theory studies combinatorial and geometric properties of geometric graphs, meaning graphs drawn in the Euclidean plane with possibly intersecting straight-line edges, and topological graphs, where the edges are allowed to be arbitrary continuous curves connecting the vertices; thus, it can be described as "the theory of geometric and topological graphs" (Pach 2013). Geometric graphs are also known as spatial networks.

Different types of geometric graphs

[edit]

A planar straight-line graph is a graph in which the vertices are embedded as points in the Euclidean plane, and the edges are embedded as non-crossing line segments. Fáry's theorem states that any planar graph may be represented as a planar straight line graph. A triangulation is a planar straight line graph to which no more edges may be added, so called because every face is necessarily a triangle; a special case of this is the Delaunay triangulation, a graph defined from a set of points in the plane by connecting two points with an edge whenever there exists a circle containing only those two points.

The 1-skeleton of a polyhedron or polytope is the set of vertices and edges of said polyhedron or polytope. The skeleton of any convex polyhedron is a planar graph, and the skeleton of any k-dimensional convex polytope is a k-connected graph. Conversely, Steinitz's theorem states that any 3-connected planar graph is the skeleton of a convex polyhedron; for this reason, this class of graphs is also known as the polyhedral graphs.

A Euclidean graph is a graph in which the vertices represent points in the plane, and each edge is assigned the length equal to the Euclidean distance between its endpoints. The Euclidean minimum spanning tree is the minimum spanning tree of a Euclidean complete graph. It is also possible to define graphs by conditions on the distances; in particular, a unit distance graph is formed by connecting pairs of points that are a unit distance apart in the plane. The Hadwiger–Nelson problem concerns the chromatic number of these graphs.

An intersection graph is a graph in which each vertex is associated with a set and in which vertices are connected by edges whenever the corresponding sets have a nonempty intersection. When the sets are geometric objects, the result is a geometric graph. For instance, the intersection graph of line segments in one dimension is an interval graph; the intersection graph of unit disks in the plane is a unit disk graph. The Circle packing theorem states that the intersection graphs of non-crossing circles are exactly the planar graphs. Scheinerman's conjecture (proven in 2009) states that every planar graph can be represented as the intersection graph of line segments in the plane.

A Levi graph of a family of points and lines has a vertex for each of these objects and an edge for every incident point-line pair. The Levi graphs of projective configurations lead to many important symmetric graphs and cages.

The visibility graph of a closed polygon connects each pair of vertices by an edge whenever the line segment connecting the vertices lies entirely in the polygon. It is not known how to test efficiently whether an undirected graph can be represented as a visibility graph.

A partial cube is a graph for which the vertices can be associated with the vertices of a hypercube, in such a way that distance in the graph equals Hamming distance between the corresponding hypercube vertices. Many important families of combinatorial structures, such as the acyclic orientations of a graph or the adjacencies between regions in a hyperplane arrangement, can be represented as partial cube graphs. An important special case of a partial cube is the skeleton of the permutohedron, a graph in which vertices represent permutations of a set of ordered objects and edges represent swaps of objects adjacent in the order. Several other important classes of graphs including median graphs have related definitions involving metric embeddings (Bandelt & Chepoi 2008).

A flip graph is a graph formed from the triangulations of a point set, in which each vertex represents a triangulation and two triangulations are connected by an edge if they differ by the replacement of one edge for another. It is also possible to define related flip graphs for partitions into quadrilaterals or pseudotriangles, and for higher-dimensional triangulations. The flip graph of triangulations of a convex polygon forms the skeleton of the associahedron or Stasheff polytope. The flip graph of the regular triangulations of a point set (projections of higher-dimensional convex hulls) can also be represented as a skeleton, of the so-called secondary polytope.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Geometric graph theory

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Geometric graph theory is a branch of that examines the combinatorial and geometric properties of graphs drawn in the , where vertices are represented as points in and edges as straight-line segments, potentially allowing crossings. These graphs, often called geometric graphs, extend classical abstract by incorporating spatial constraints and embeddings, focusing on phenomena such as edge intersections, planarity, and extremal configurations. In contrast, topological graphs generalize this by permitting curvilinear edges instead of straight lines, broadening the study to include more flexible embeddings while preserving topological properties. The field originated in the early 20th century with foundational problems posed by mathematicians like and Erika Pannwitz in 1934, who investigated the maximum number of edges in certain geometric graphs without specific substructures. significantly advanced the area in 1946 through his work on diameter graphs and distinct distances among points, establishing key bounds such as the fact that the diameter graph of n points in the plane has at most n edges. By the late 20th century, geometric graph theory had emerged as a distinct discipline, intersecting with combinatorial geometry and , driven by extremal problems analogous to Ramsey and Turán theorems but adapted to planar embeddings. Central topics include the crossing number of a graph—the minimum number of edge crossings in any drawing—and related extremal questions, such as the maximum number of edges in a geometric graph avoiding certain forbidden subgraphs like K_{3,3}^ or multiple disjoint edges. Notable results encompass Fáry's Theorem, which guarantees that every admits a crossing-free straight-line , and the Crossing Lemma, stating that for a simple graph with n vertices and e edges, the crossing number satisfies cr(G) ≥ c e³ / n² for some constant c. The Hanani-Tutte Theorem further connects even-crossing drawings to planarity, providing a criterion for redrawability without crossings. These theorems underpin applications in areas like network , VLSI layout, and sensor networks, where geometric constraints model real-world spatial relationships.

Fundamentals

Definition and Basic Concepts

Geometric graph theory is a branch of mathematics that examines the combinatorial and geometric properties of graphs embedded in the Euclidean plane. A geometric graph is defined as an abstract graph whose vertices are represented by distinct points in the plane and whose edges are straight-line segments connecting these points, allowing for possible intersections between edges. More generally, edges can be Jordan arcs—simple continuous curves from one vertex to another without self-intersections—leading to the related notion of topological graphs when curves are not restricted to straight lines. This embedding introduces spatial constraints and geometric incidences, such as crossings, that are absent in purely abstract graph representations. To understand geometric graphs, it is essential to distinguish them from abstract graphs, which consist solely of a set of vertices and edges defined by adjacency relations without any spatial layout. In an abstract graph, edges represent connections without regard to position or ; a geometric realization, however, maps vertices to points in R2\mathbb{R}^2 and edges to curves, thereby incorporating metric and topological like distances, angles, and crossing points. This realization does not presuppose planarity, meaning edges may at interior points, creating a that captures both graph-theoretic and Euclidean geometric features. Basic include the requirement that vertices are in (no three collinear, unless specified otherwise) and that edges are non-self-intersecting, though distinct edges may share interior points at crossings. A simple geometric graph further prohibits multiple edges between the same pair of vertices and self-loops, ensuring a clean without degenerate overlaps. Illustrative examples highlight these concepts. A triangle forms a simple geometric graph where three points in the plane are connected by straight-line edges with no crossings, embodying a cycle in the abstract sense but with precise Euclidean lengths and angles. In contrast, the complete graph K4K_4 on four points in convex position, with all six possible edges drawn as straight lines, necessarily includes crossings, as the diagonals intersect at an interior point, demonstrating how geometric embeddings can force intersections even in non-planar abstract graphs. These basic constructions underscore the interplay between combinatorial structure and geometric placement central to the field.

Historical Development

Geometric graph theory emerged in the early as a subfield of intertwined with combinatorial and the study of planar graphs. A foundational contribution came from Kazimierz Kuratowski, who in characterized planar graphs by identifying forbidden subgraphs (subdivisions of K5K_5 or K3,3K_{3,3}) that prevent embedding in the plane without crossings, thereby establishing criteria for geometric realizations of graphs. This theorem, bridging abstract graph properties with topological embeddings, influenced subsequent investigations into how graphs could be drawn with specific geometric constraints. In and 1940s, early extremal problems specific to geometric settings gained prominence. and Erika Pannwitz demonstrated in 1934 that any geometric graph on nn points with no two disjoint edges contains at most nn edges, initiating studies on edge restrictions under geometric conditions. The field progressed with embedding theorems in the late 1940s: István Fáry proved in 1948 that every simple admits a crossing-free straight-line in the plane. Key figures during this era included Hugo Hadwiger, whose 1943 conjecture on graph contractions linked chromatic numbers to clique minors and impacted geometric coloring problems, and Gerhard Ringel, who advanced embeddings through his 1952 proof of the Heawood conjecture for nonorientable surfaces. These developments, influenced by combinatorial geometry and , solidified the theoretical underpinnings of geometric graph theory in the 1930s–1950s. Post-1960s, the discipline expanded with computational aspects, including algorithms for realizing straight-line embeddings, and the study of intersection graphs such as unit disk graphs. By the and , focus shifted from pure planarity to broader constraints like unit distances—sparked by Paul Erdős's 1946 query on the minimum number of distinct distances among nn points in the plane—and crossing properties in non-planar settings. Recent evolution has emphasized Ramsey-type results for geometric graphs, with seminal contributions from János Pach and collaborators since the exploring monochromatic substructures under geometric embeddings.

Types of Geometric Graphs

Planar Straight-Line Graphs

Planar straight-line graphs are a fundamental subclass of geometric graphs, consisting of a of distinct points in the as vertices and straight-line segments connecting pairs of these points as edges, with the condition that no two edges intersect except at shared endpoints. The vertices are typically placed in , ensuring no three points are collinear, which prevents unintended degeneracies in the . This structure inherently satisfies planarity, as the straight-line edges divide the plane into non-overlapping regions without crossings. Key properties of planar straight-line graphs include their adherence to classical planarity constraints, such as the bound on the number of edges. A maximal planar straight-line graph on v≥3v \geq 3 vertices is a , meaning every face—including the unbounded outer face—is a bounded by three edges. For such connected graphs, applies: v−e+f=2v - e + f = 2, where ee denotes the number of edges and ff the number of faces. Given that each triangular face is incident to three edges and each edge is shared by two faces, the relation 2e=3f2e = 3f follows, leading to e=3v−6e = 3v - 6 and f=2v−4f = 2v - 4. These relations establish the structural density of maximal instances, ensuring no additional straight-line edge can be added without introducing a crossing./03:_Graph_Theory/15:_Planar_Graphs/15.02:_Eulers_Formula) Representative examples of planar straight-line graphs include triangulations of finite point sets in the plane. The of the point set forms the boundary of the outer face in any such , providing a simple non-maximal case. A prominent maximal example is the , which connects points such that no point lies inside the of any ; this construction not only maximizes the minimum angle among all possible triangulations but also ensures the empty property for each face. The construction of planar straight-line graphs often involves embedding abstract planar graphs with straight edges. Fáry's theorem guarantees that every simple planar graph admits such an embedding without crossings, a result independently proved by Wagner in the same year. This theorem enables the realization of any as a planar straight-line graph, with algorithms like the shift method producing O(n)-time drawings on a grid of size O(n) × O(n) for n-vertex maximal plane graphs.

Intersection Graphs

In geometric graph theory, an is formed from a collection of geometric objects in the plane or higher dimensions, where each vertex corresponds to one object, and an edge exists between two vertices if and only if their associated objects intersect. This framework generalizes various graph classes by varying the types of objects, such as disks, line segments, or curves, allowing the study of combinatorial properties through geometric realizations. Prominent subclasses include unit disk graphs, where vertices represent disks of equal radius (typically unit radius) and edges connect intersecting disks. These graphs model networks where nodes communicate if within a fixed range, capturing proximity-based connectivity. Interval graphs form another key example, arising from intervals on a real line, with edges between overlapping intervals; they represent scheduling problems where tasks conflict if their time periods overlap. Further examples encompass circle graphs, defined as intersection graphs of chords in a circle, where vertices correspond to chords and edges indicate crossings inside the circle. String graphs generalize this to intersections of arbitrary continuous curves (strings) in the plane, without self-intersections, modeling more flexible topological interactions. Certain intersection graphs exhibit strong structural properties. Chordal graphs, characterized by the absence of induced cycles longer than three vertices, are precisely the intersection graphs of subtrees in a tree. Moreover, classes like interval graphs and chordal graphs are perfect, meaning the chromatic number equals the clique number for every induced subgraph, enabling efficient coloring and optimization. Recognition of intersection graphs varies in complexity. Interval graphs can be recognized in linear time using lexicographic to verify a consecutive ones property in their maximal cliques matrix. In contrast, recognizing general string graphs is NP-complete, as it requires determining if a graph admits a curve intersection representation, a problem both NP-hard and in NP.

Other Specialized Graphs

Polyhedral graphs are the 1-skeletons of three-dimensional convex polyhedra, which can be realized as straight-line embeddings in the plane due to their inherent planarity. These graphs are characterized as simple, 3-connected planar graphs, where every face is bounded by a cycle and the embedding corresponds to a projection of the polyhedral structure without crossings. Visibility graphs generalize point sets by incorporating obstacles, such as simple polygons or line segments, in the plane. In this framework, vertices represent points (often the vertices of the obstacles), and edges connect pairs of points if the straight-line segment between them lies entirely within the free space, unobstructed by any obstacle interiors or boundaries except at endpoints. Flip graphs arise in the context of triangulations of point sets or polygons, where vertices correspond to distinct triangulations, and edges represent elementary transformations known as flips. A flip replaces one diagonal of a convex quadrilateral in the triangulation with the opposite diagonal, connecting two triangulations that differ by exactly this operation. These graphs are connected, meaning any two triangulations can be transformed into each other via a sequence of flips, and for a set of n points in , the —the maximum flip distance between any pair—is Θ(n²).

Key Theorems and Results

Embeddings and Planarity

In geometric graph theory, embeddings of graphs in the Euclidean plane play a central role in determining whether abstract planar graphs can be realized with specific geometric constraints, such as straight-line edges or particular intersection patterns, while preserving non-crossing properties. A key focus is on straight-line embeddings, where vertices are mapped to points in the plane and edges to line segments, ensuring no unintended crossings occur. These realizations bridge combinatorial structure with geometric configuration, enabling applications in visualization and computational geometry. Seminal results characterize the existence of such embeddings for planar graphs, often relying on connectivity conditions or auxiliary geometric constructions. Fáry's theorem asserts that every simple planar graph admits a straight-line embedding in the plane without edge crossings. Published in 1948, this result independently rediscovered an earlier idea by Wagner from 1936, confirming that curved-edge planar drawings can always be "straightened" while maintaining planarity. The proof involves iteratively adjusting vertex positions to convexify faces, starting from a combinatorial embedding and using properties of planar maps to avoid crossings. A practical algorithmic realization of Fáry's theorem employs canonical orderings, introduced by de Fraysseix, Pach, and Pollack in 1990, where vertices are added sequentially in a linear-time process that maintains convexity of the outer face and non-crossing edges through barycentric coordinate assignments. Steinitz's theorem provides a characterization in three dimensions, stating that a graph is the 1-skeleton of a convex polyhedron if and only if it is planar and 3-connected. Formulated in 1928, this theorem links graph connectivity to polyhedral realizability, implying that such graphs have straight-line embeddings in the plane as a projection of their 3D convex hull. The sufficiency direction constructs coordinates for vertices using facial cycles and linear programming to ensure convexity, while the necessity follows from Euler's formula and separation properties of convex polyhedra. This result extends planar embeddings by embedding the graph on the boundary of a 3D object, with the 3-connectedness ensuring a unique combinatorial embedding up to relabeling. The circle packing theorem establishes that every simple planar graph is the contact graph of a collection of non-overlapping circles in the plane, where two circles touch externally the corresponding vertices are adjacent. First proved by Koebe in 1936 using conformal mapping techniques for multiply connected domains, the theorem was generalized by Thurston in the 1980s through a discrete analogue of the , applying circle packings to approximate uniformization. Andreev's 1965 work filled gaps for triangulations, completing the picture. High-level proofs involve solving a for circle radii and centers based on the graph's dual, ensuring tangency via optimization or fixed-point theorems, with the packing being unique up to Möbius transformations fixing the plane. Scheinerman's conjecture, proposed in 1984, posits that every is the of line segments in the plane. Proved affirmatively by Chalopin and Gonçalves in 2009, the result shows that segments can be arranged to intersect precisely when vertices are adjacent, without requiring straight-line non-crossing. The proof decomposes the graph into bipartite subgraphs, each realizable as segment intersections via track layouts and universal point sets, then combines them using layered constructions to preserve intersections. This extends Fáry's framework by allowing crossings in the realization but enforcing intersection patterns, highlighting the flexibility of segment representations for s.

Intersection and Crossing Properties

In geometric graph theory, the crossing number of a graph GG, denoted cr(G)\mathrm{cr}(G), is defined as the minimum number of edge crossings over all possible drawings of GG in the plane, where edges are represented as arcs and crossings occur only at interior points of edges. This measure quantifies the inherent non-planarity of graphs and plays a central role in analyzing how edges must intersect when embedded geometrically. For the KnK_n, an upper bound on the crossing number is given by cr(Kn)≤14⌊n2⌋⌊n−12⌋⌊n−22⌋⌊n−32⌋,\mathrm{cr}(K_n) \leq \frac{1}{4} \left\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \right\rfloor \left\lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \right\rfloor \left\lfloor \frac{n-2}{2} \right\rfloor \left\lfloor \frac{n-3}{2} \right\rfloor, achieved through specific cylindrical or two-sided drawings that minimize intersections. Exact values are known for small nn, such as cr(K5)=1\mathrm{cr}(K_5) = 1, cr(K6)=3\mathrm{cr}(K_6) = 3, cr(K7)=9\mathrm{cr}(K_7) = 9, and cr(K8)=18\mathrm{cr}(K_8) = 18, often verified through exhaustive of optimal drawings. Thrackles represent a class of geometric graphs with highly constrained intersection properties. A thrackle is a drawing of a simple graph in the plane where each edge is a Jordan arc, and every pair of distinct edges intersects exactly once—either at a shared endpoint (if adjacent) or at a proper crossing (if non-adjacent)—with no three edges concurrent at a crossing point. Introduced informally by John Conway, thrackles explore extremal configurations where intersections are both mandatory and uniquely controlled. Conway's thrackle conjecture posits that no thrackle can have more edges than vertices, i.e., ∣E∣≤∣V∣|E| \leq |V|, which would imply thrackles are sparse compared to general graphs. While the conjecture remains open, it has been established that every thrackle satisfies ∣E∣≤2∣V∣−3|E| \leq 2|V| - 3 for ∣V∣≥3|V| \geq 3, providing a linear upper bound on density. The happy ending problem investigates intersection-free subsets in point sets, linking to convex position and monotone chains. Originating from a question posed by Erdős to Szekeres, it asks for the smallest number ES(k)ES(k) such that any set of ES(k)ES(k) points in the plane, in (no three collinear), contains a of kk points forming the vertices of a convex kk-gon. The resolves this by proving that any such set of at least (2k−4k−2)+1\binom{2k-4}{k-2} + 1 points contains a convex kk-gon, establishing an upper bound on ES(k)ES(k). Known exact values include ES(3)=3ES(3) = 3, ES(4)=5ES(4) = 5, ES(5)=9ES(5) = 9, and ES(6)=17ES(6) = 17; exact values for larger kk remain unknown, with the theorem implying that sufficiently large point sets inevitably form large convex polygons without internal intersections. The Szemerédi–Trotter theorem provides a foundational bound on incidences that directly informs crossing properties in geometric graphs. It states that for a set of pp points and ℓ\ell lines in the , the number of point-line incidences II satisfies I=O(p2/3ℓ2/3+p+ℓ).I = O\left( p^{2/3} \ell^{2/3} + p + \ell \right). This result is tight up to constants, as shown by lattice point configurations, and applies to crossing counts by modeling edges as lines and potential crossings as incidences between pairs of edges. In geometric graphs, it implies that drawings with many edges must incur numerous crossings unless structured to avoid high-incidence configurations, influencing bounds on crossing numbers via probabilistic or extremal arguments. Unit distance graphs exemplify intersection behaviors in geometric settings, where vertices are points in the plane and edges connect pairs at exactly unit distance, drawn as straight-line segments. These graphs inherently permit crossings, as non-adjacent unit segments may intersect. For instance, the Moser spindle, a unit distance graph with 7 vertices and 11 edges, requires crossings in any embedding and serves as a rigid structure demonstrating unavoidable intersections. More generally, the crossing behaviors of unit distance graphs are studied through kk-planar variants, where each edge is involved in at most kk crossings; the maximum number of edges in such a graph on nn vertices is Θ(n)\Theta(n) for fixed kk, contrasting with the denser O(n4/3)O(n^{4/3}) edges possible in general unit distance graphs without crossing restrictions. These properties highlight how unit distances constrain yet amplify intersection complexity in geometric realizations.

Chromatic and Ramsey-Type Results

The seeks to determine the chromatic number of the plane, which is the smallest number of colors required to color all points in the such that no two points exactly distance 1 apart share the same color. This problem, first posed by in 1950, building on related work by Hugo Hadwiger from 1945, models the unit distance graph of the plane where vertices are all points in R2\mathbb{R}^2 and edges connect pairs at unit distance. The chromatic number χ\chi satisfies 5≤χ≤75 \leq \chi \leq 7. The upper bound of 7 arises from a 7-coloring based on a of the plane, where each tile is a regular with diameter slightly less than 1, ensuring no monochromatic unit distances within or across tiles; this construction dates to work by John Isbell in 1950. The lower bound of 4 was established in 1961 by the Moser spindle, a finite unit distance graph with 7 vertices that requires 4 colors and embeds in the plane without crossings. This graph consists of two rhombi with 60-degree angles, connected in a way that forces a 4-coloring. In 2018, improved the lower bound to 5 by constructing a unit distance graph with 1581 vertices that is not 4-colorable, using a computer-assisted search starting from the Moser spindle and Golomb graph. The Golomb graph, a 10-vertex unit distance graph also requiring 4 colors, played a role in exploring such constructions but does not achieve the bound of 5. These finite unit distance graphs provide lower bounds for the chromatic number of the plane, as the plane's coloring must accommodate any finite subgraph. Ramsey-type results in geometric graph theory examine guaranteed monochromatic structures in edge-colored geometric graphs, often with vertices in convex position to leverage geometric constraints like non-crossing edges. Unlike classical , geometric variants exploit planarity and intersection properties to yield tighter bounds. For example, in a 2-edge-coloring of the complete geometric graph on nn points in convex position, off-diagonal Ramsey numbers quantify the minimal nn ensuring a monochromatic in one color or a monochromatic ℓ\ell-cycle in the other. Specifically, for ℓ≥3\ell \geq 3, the geometric Ramsey number Rg(C3,Cℓ)=3ℓ−3R_g(C_3, C_\ell) = 3\ell - 3, meaning any 2-coloring of the edges of the complete geometric graph on 3ℓ−23\ell - 2 vertices contains either a monochromatic 3-cycle (triangle) or a monochromatic ℓ\ell-cycle, while there exists a coloring of 3ℓ−43\ell - 4 vertices avoiding both. Similar results hold for triangulated cycles, with Rg(D3,Dℓ)=3ℓ−3R_g(D_3, D_\ell) = 3\ell - 3. These bounds highlight how geometric embeddings restrict Ramsey numbers compared to abstract graphs, where classical off-diagonal numbers grow exponentially. Broader results include guarantees for monochromatic non-crossing paths or versus outerplanar graphs, such as Rg(Pk,H)≤(k−1)(ℓ−1)+1R_g(P_k, H) \leq (k-1)(\ell-1) + 1 for an HH with ℓ\ell vertices.

Applications

In Computational Geometry

In computational geometry, geometric graph theory underpins efficient algorithms for embedding graphs while respecting geometric constraints such as straight-line edges and non-crossing conditions. A fundamental task is computing straight-line embeddings of planar graphs, which map vertices to points in the plane such that edges are straight segments without intersections. The seminal algorithm by de Fraysseix, Pach, and Pollack achieves this in linear time O(n), producing a crossing-free drawing on a grid of size O(n) × O(n), establishing that every planar graph admits such an embedding with quadratic area. Recognizing whether a given straight-line drawing of a graph is planar—i.e., free of edge crossings—relies on geometric tests for line segment intersections. The Bentley-Ottmann sweep line algorithm efficiently detects all intersections in O((n + k) log n) time, where n is the number of segments and k is the number of reported intersections, enabling verification of planarity in geometric realizations. Data structures derived from geometric graphs play a crucial role in solving proximity problems. Delaunay triangulations, which maximize the minimum angle among all triangulations of a point set, serve as duals to s and facilitate nearest neighbor queries in O(log n) time after preprocessing. Their construction can be performed in O(n log n) time using Fortune's , which simulates a parabolic to build the Voronoi diagram and extract the triangulation. These structures are essential for applications like and spatial indexing, where the triangulation encodes connectivity based on empty circle properties. Key optimization problems in geometric graph drawings include minimizing edge crossings, which is NP-hard even for straight-line representations. Approximation algorithms provide guarantees, such as the O(\log^3 n)-approximation for the sum of vertices and crossings in straight-line drawings of bounded-degree graphs. More recent advances, as of 2022, achieve subpolynomial approximations O(2^{O((\log n)^{7/8} \log \log n)} \cdot \Delta) for the crossing number in general graphs. graphs, modeling line-of-sight connections in , apply the art gallery theorem to guarding problems; for instance, they help select vertex guards to cover a simple with at most floor(n/3) points, as proven by Chvátal, with algorithms computing such guards in polynomial time for special cases like orthogonal . Delaunay triangulations, referenced as a canonical planar straight-line graph, further support these visibility computations by providing a triangulation backbone for decomposition. Certain recognition problems in geometric graph theory exhibit high complexity. Recognizing unit disk graphs—intersection graphs of equal-radius disks in the plane—is NP-hard, as shown by reduction from 3-SAT, implying challenges in verifying geometric realizations for wireless network modeling.

In Network Theory

Geometric graph theory finds significant applications in network theory, particularly in modeling real-world communication systems where spatial constraints influence connectivity and performance. Geometric graphs, such as unit disk graphs and visibility graphs, provide a natural framework for representing networks embedded in Euclidean space, enabling the analysis of connectivity, routing efficiency, and interference under physical limitations like transmission ranges or line-of-sight requirements. These models are essential for designing robust infrastructures in environments where nodes have fixed or dynamic positions, such as sensor deployments or mobile ad hoc setups. In wireless sensor networks (WSNs), unit disk graphs model connectivity by assuming each node has a fixed transmission range, represented as equal-radius disks centered at node positions; two nodes are connected if their disks intersect. This abstraction captures the geometric constraints of signal propagation, facilitating the study of formation and maintenance. For instance, unit disk graphs are used to ensure reliable communication in dense deployments, where edge existence depends solely on . Coverage problems in WSNs, which aim to monitor an area or targets with minimal sensor overlap or redundancy, often leverage derived from these models; the sensing regions form an where overlapping areas indicate potential coverage redundancy. Seminal work has shown that optimal coverage in such graphs is NP-hard, but geometric properties allow for efficient approximations using techniques like Voronoi diagrams to partition the space and select representative sensors. Spatial networks, which embed nodes in physical space for applications like urban infrastructure or , utilize Euclidean minimum spanning trees (EMSTs) for energy-efficient . An EMST connects all nodes with minimal total edge length based on Euclidean distances, serving as a low-cost backbone for data dissemination; in settings, it approximates minimum-energy broadcast by bounding the power required for transmissions along tree edges. This approach is particularly valuable in static networks, where EMST-based heuristics achieve approximation ratios between 6 and 12 for NP-hard energy minimization problems. graphs further enhance modeling for line-of-sight (LoS) communications, where edges exist only between nodes with unobstructed paths, avoiding barriers like buildings; these graphs are critical for urban networks, enabling path that respects . In obstructed environments, LoS networks extend random geometric graphs by incorporating visibility polygons, improving predictions of connectivity in realistic scenarios. Practical examples illustrate these applications' impact. In ad hoc networks, geometric embeddings—assigning nodes to spatial positions—minimize interference by optimizing transmission radii and channel assignments based on disk overlaps, reducing concurrent transmissions in overlapping regions to enhance throughput. For instance, algorithms that bound the interference degree in unit disk realizations achieve constant-factor approximations for scheduling, crucial in dynamic scenarios like vehicular networks. Social networks with spatial embeddings model user interactions influenced by physical proximity, using geometric graphs where edges form probabilistically based on distance in a ; this captures clustering in location-based services, such as friend recommendations in geo-social platforms. Key challenges in applying geometric graphs to include scalability for large-scale deployments and developing approximations for NP-hard problems like . In expansive WSNs with thousands of nodes, exact structures like EMSTs or connected dominating sets (CDS) becomes computationally intensive due to the quadratic complexity of distance calculations, necessitating distributed algorithms that trade accuracy for efficiency. For , constructing a minimum CDS in unit disk graphs—which forms a connected backbone for message forwarding—is NP-hard, but constant-factor approximations (e.g., 8-approximation) enable practical virtual backbones that reduce overhead while maintaining connectivity. Recent advances in scalable processing, such as sampling-based methods for random geometric graphs, address these issues by ensuring transferability across network sizes without full recomputation.

References

  1. http://www.csun.edu/~ctoth/Handbook/chap10.pdf
  2. https://math.nyu.edu/~pach/publications/beginnings020713.pdf
  3. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3002&context=gc_etds
  4. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/surveys-in-combinatorics-1999/geometric-graph-theory/E57E1273C7FAA8FD47B1B28F0E539C90
  5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118033203
  6. https://eudml.org/doc/212352
  7. https://www.ams.org/books/spec/108/spec108-endmatter.pdf
  8. https://cs.brown.edu/people/rtamassi/gdhandbook/chapters/straightline.pdf
  9. https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/tamaldey/course/531/planar-graph.pdf
  10. https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cs53100/slides/delaunay.pdf
  11. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/FaryTheorem.html
  12. https://tmc.web.engr.illinois.edu/apsp_int_wads_full.pdf
  13. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.15980
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/interval-graph
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/circle-graph
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/009589569190091W
  17. https://www.math.u-szeged.hu/~hajnal/courses/PhD_Specialis/Gavril.pdf
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012365X06004055
  19. https://ic.unicamp.br/~meidanis/courses/mo640/2006s1/textos/Booth-Lueker-1975.pdf
  20. https://www.cs.rochester.edu/~stefanko/Publications-new/C5.pdf
  21. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.14323
  22. http://www.csun.edu/~ctoth/Handbook/chap33.pdf
  23. http://www.ist.tugraz.at/files/publications/geometry/ahorrss-fgbdt-20120426.pdf
  24. https://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/13574/1/math_011_fasc_004_229-233.pdf
  25. https://archiv.saw-leipzig.de/saw-archive/publikationen-quellen/publikationen/berichte-ueber-die-verhandlungen-der-saechsischen-akademie-der-wissenschaften-zu-leipzig-mathematisch-physische-klasse/berichte-ueber-die-verhandlungen-der-koeniglich-saechsischen-gesellschaft-der-wissenschaften-zu-leipzig-mathematisch-physische-klasse-bd-88/kontaktprobleme-der-konformen-abbildung
  26. https://www.combinatorics.org/files/Surveys/ds21/ds21v3-2017.pdf
  27. https://math.nyu.edu/~pach/publications/thrackle.pdf
  28. https://www.numdam.org/article/CM_1935__2__463_0.pdf
  29. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02579194
  30. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=senior_theses
  31. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.00940
  32. https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02385
  33. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/MoserSpindle.html
  34. https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/11908/11908D.pdf
  35. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02122694
  36. https://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/S0097539700373520
  37. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3519935.3519984
  38. https://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~xiangyangli/paper/Chapter/sensor-long-v5.pdf
  39. https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/wosn/tech/full_papers/Bonato.pdf
  40. http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~xiangyangli/paper/Conf/coverage-icc02.pdf
  41. https://web.stanford.edu/~yyye/cover.pdf
  42. http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~xiangyangli/paper/Conf/energy-INFOCOM01.pdf
  43. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/916310/
  44. https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/soda07-los.pdf
  45. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1080810.1080816
  46. https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.2785
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167739X08000551
  48. https://www.cs.sjtu.edu.cn/~gao-xf/Research/pdf/%282008%29%2520A%2520Better%2520Theoretical%2520Bound%2520to%2520Approximate%2520Connected%2520Dominating%2520Set%2520in%2520Unit%2520Disk%2520Graph.pdf
  49. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.00896
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.