11institutetext: Department of Applied Mathematics, Charles University, Prague, Czechia 11email: {todor,glisic}@kam.mff.cuni.cz
22institutetext: Computer Science Institute of Charles University, Prague, Czechia 22email: [email protected]

Reconfigurations of Plane Caterpillars and Paths

Todor AntiΔ‡ \orcidlink0009-0008-6521-7987 Supported by project 23-04949X of the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR) and by scholarships provided by the Visegrad Fund.11    Guillermo Gamboa Quintero \orcidlink0000-0002-8968-6269 Supported by the GAČR grant 22-17398S.22    Jelena GliΕ‘iΔ‡ 11footnotemark: 1\orcidlink0009-0002-0792-3070 11
Abstract

Let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a point set in the plane, 𝒫⁒(S)𝒫𝑆\mathcal{P}(S)caligraphic_P ( italic_S ) and π’žβ’(S)π’žπ‘†\mathcal{C}(S)caligraphic_C ( italic_S ) sets of all plane spanning paths and caterpillars on S𝑆Sitalic_S. We study reconfiguration operations on 𝒫⁒(S)𝒫𝑆\mathcal{P}(S)caligraphic_P ( italic_S ) and π’žβ’(S)π’žπ‘†\mathcal{C}(S)caligraphic_C ( italic_S ). In particular, we prove that all of the commonly studied reconfigurations on plane spanning trees still yield connected reconfiguration graphs for caterpillars when S𝑆Sitalic_S is in convex position. If S𝑆Sitalic_S is in general position, we show that the rotation, compatible flip and flip graphs of π’žβ’(S)π’žπ‘†\mathcal{C}(S)caligraphic_C ( italic_S ) are connected while the slide graph is disconnected. For paths, we prove the existence of a connected component of size at least 2nβˆ’1superscript2𝑛12^{n-1}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and that no component of size at most 7777 can exist in the flip graph on 𝒫⁒(S)𝒫𝑆\mathcal{P}(S)caligraphic_P ( italic_S ).

Keywords:
Reconfiguration graph, Geometric graph, Caterpillar, Path

1 Introduction

Given a set of structures C𝐢Citalic_C, and a reconfiguration operation that transforms one object in C𝐢Citalic_C to another, the reconfiguration graph is a graph with vertex set C𝐢Citalic_C in which two vertices form an edge if one can be transformed into the other using a single reconfiguration operation. Often, in computer science, objects are solutions to a problem and reconfigurations are local changes that transform one solution into another. Then, to understand the solution space of a problem, it is important to study both the structural properties of the reconfiguration graph (connectivity, hamiltonicity, etc.) and algorithmic questions (how to find the shortest reconfiguration sequence). For an introduction to the topic of reconfiguration, see [17]. We focus on reconfigurations in the following setting.

Given a point set S𝑆Sitalic_S in the plane, a plane spanning tree on S𝑆Sitalic_S is a spanning tree of S𝑆Sitalic_S whose edges are straight line segments that do not cross. Let 𝒯⁒(S)𝒯𝑆\mathcal{T}(S)caligraphic_T ( italic_S ) be the set of all plane spanning trees on S𝑆Sitalic_S. We define the following five reconfigurations on 𝒯⁒(S)𝒯𝑆\mathcal{T}(S)caligraphic_T ( italic_S ). For the following, we are given plane spanning trees T1=(S,E1),T2=(S,E2)βˆˆπ’―β’(S)formulae-sequencesubscript𝑇1𝑆subscript𝐸1subscript𝑇2𝑆subscript𝐸2𝒯𝑆T_{1}=(S,E_{1}),T_{2}=(S,E_{2})\in\mathcal{T}(S)italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_S , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_S , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ caligraphic_T ( italic_S ), then we say that:

  1. 1.

    T1subscript𝑇1T_{1}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and T2subscript𝑇2T_{2}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are connected by a flip if E2=E1βˆ–{e}βˆͺ{f}subscript𝐸2subscript𝐸1𝑒𝑓E_{2}=E_{1}\setminus\{e\}\cup\{f\}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– { italic_e } βˆͺ { italic_f } for some edges e,f𝑒𝑓e,fitalic_e , italic_f.

  2. 2.

    T1subscript𝑇1T_{1}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and T2subscript𝑇2T_{2}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are connected by a compatible flip if E2=E1βˆ–{e}βˆͺ{f}subscript𝐸2subscript𝐸1𝑒𝑓E_{2}=E_{1}\setminus\{e\}\cup\{f\}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– { italic_e } βˆͺ { italic_f } for some edges e,f𝑒𝑓e,fitalic_e , italic_f which do not cross.

  3. 3.

    T1subscript𝑇1T_{1}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and T2subscript𝑇2T_{2}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are connected by a rotation if E2=E1βˆ–{e}βˆͺ{f}subscript𝐸2subscript𝐸1𝑒𝑓E_{2}=E_{1}\setminus\{e\}\cup\{f\}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– { italic_e } βˆͺ { italic_f } for some edges e,f𝑒𝑓e,fitalic_e , italic_f which share an endpoint.

  4. 4.

    T1subscript𝑇1T_{1}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and T2subscript𝑇2T_{2}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are connected by an empty triangle rotation if E2=E1βˆ–{e}βˆͺ{f}subscript𝐸2subscript𝐸1𝑒𝑓E_{2}=E_{1}\setminus\{e\}\cup\{f\}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– { italic_e } βˆͺ { italic_f } for some edges e,f𝑒𝑓e,fitalic_e , italic_f which share an endpoint and the triangle spanned by their endpoints is empty.

  5. 5.

    T1subscript𝑇1T_{1}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and T2subscript𝑇2T_{2}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are connected by a slide if E2=E1βˆ–{e}βˆͺ{f}subscript𝐸2subscript𝐸1𝑒𝑓E_{2}=E_{1}\setminus\{e\}\cup\{f\}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ– { italic_e } βˆͺ { italic_f } for some edges e,f𝑒𝑓e,fitalic_e , italic_f which share an endpoint and the triangle spanned by their endpoints is empty and if e=a⁒bπ‘’π‘Žπ‘e=abitalic_e = italic_a italic_b and f=a⁒cπ‘“π‘Žπ‘f=acitalic_f = italic_a italic_c then b⁒c∈E1∩E2𝑏𝑐subscript𝐸1subscript𝐸2bc\in E_{1}\cap E_{2}italic_b italic_c ∈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

For a visualization of all of the reconfiguration operations described above, see Figure 1. From the description of these operations, one can notice that there exists a linear hierarchy. Every slide is an empty triangle rotation, every empty triangle rotation is a rotation, and so on. This hierarchy is useful when studying the structural properties of the corresponding reconfiguration graphs. For example, if the slide graph of plane spanning trees is connected then so are all of the other reconfiguration graphs.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: a) A plane spanning tree. Reconfiguration of the tree by changing the dashed line to the dotted line is: b) a flip, c) a compatible flip, d) a rotation, e) an empty triangle rotation and f) a slide.

The reconfiguration graphs associated with the operations described above have been a topic of interest for a long time with many results appearing through the years. These results have concerned connectivity [1, 7, 16], lower and upper bounds on the diameter [2, 8, 9], etc. However, there has been little research on induced subgraphs of these reconfiguration graphs. The only such subgraph that has been explored is the subgraph induced by plane spanning paths. And even then, some of the main questions have been for a long time. We aim to expand on the study of induced subgraphs of reconfiguration graphs of plane spanning trees by exploring the previously unexplored problem of reconfigurations of plane spanning caterpillars, and by expanding on the topic of reconfigurations of plane spanning paths.

1.1 Our contribution

A caterpillar is a tree in which all non-leaf vertices form a path. Possibly, this path is a single vertex or empty if the caterpillar is a single edge. We call this path the spine of the caterpillar. For a point set S𝑆Sitalic_S in the plane, a plane spanning caterpillar of S𝑆Sitalic_S is a plane spanning tree of S𝑆Sitalic_S which is a caterpillar. We call the two endpoints of the spine the head and the tail (we may choose which one is which) and leaves connected to these vertices head-leaves and tail-leaves. For a set S𝑆Sitalic_S, we will denote by π’žβ’(S)π’žπ‘†\mathcal{C}(S)caligraphic_C ( italic_S ) the set of all plane spanning caterpillars on S𝑆Sitalic_S. We will denote the reconfiguration graphs on π’žβ’(S)π’žπ‘†\mathcal{C}(S)caligraphic_C ( italic_S ) by Gπ’žflip⁒(S),Gπ’žcomp-flip⁒(S),Gπ’žrot⁒(S),Gπ’žemp-rot⁒(S),Gπ’žslide⁒(S).superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žflip𝑆superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žcomp-flip𝑆superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žrot𝑆superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žemp-rot𝑆superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{flip}}(S),G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{comp-flip}}(S),G_{% \mathcal{C}}^{\text{rot}}(S),G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{emp-rot}}(S),G_{\mathcal{C% }}^{\text{slide}}(S).italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT flip end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) , italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT comp-flip end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) , italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT rot end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) , italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT emp-rot end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) , italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) .

First, we focus on the case where S𝑆Sitalic_S is in convex position. We show that the slide graph Gπ’žslidesuperscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslideG_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is connected in this case.

Theorem 1.1

Let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a set of nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3 points in convex position in the plane. Then, the graph Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) is connected with diameter at most 3⁒nβˆ’83𝑛83n-83 italic_n - 8.

Of course, this immediately implies that all of the other reconfiguration graphs are connected for a point set S𝑆Sitalic_S in convex position. Then, we consider the case where S𝑆Sitalic_S is a point set in general position. Here the situation is very different. Mainly, for each nβ‰₯9𝑛9n\geq 9italic_n β‰₯ 9, it is possible to find sets S𝑆Sitalic_S of n𝑛nitalic_n points such that Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) has isolated vertices. On the other hand, we can prove connectivity for the rotation graph Gπ’žrot⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žrot𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{rot}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT rot end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ).

Proposition 1

Let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a set of points in general position in the plane. Then, the graph Gπ’žrot⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žrot𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{rot}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT rot end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) is connected.

The above proposition again implies that the flip graph Gπ’žflip⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žflip𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{flip}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT flip end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) and compatible flip graph Gπ’žcomp-flip⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žcomp-flip𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{comp-flip}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT comp-flip end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) of plane spanning caterpillars are connected for each S𝑆Sitalic_S in general position. However, our results do not imply connectivity of the empty rotation graph Gπ’žemp-rot⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žemp-rot𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{emp-rot}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT emp-rot end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ), so the following question remains open.

Question 1

Is Gπ’žemp-rot⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žemp-rot𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{emp-rot}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT emp-rot end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) connected for S𝑆Sitalic_S in general position?

Given the disconnectedness of Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ), it becomes more interesting to find large connected components in this graph. To do this, we consider special subclasses of caterpillars and show that these are connected in Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ). We write star⁑(x)starπ‘₯\operatorname{star}(x)roman_star ( italic_x ) for a spanning star with center xπ‘₯xitalic_x.

Lemma 1

Let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a set of n𝑛nitalic_n points in general position in the plane and u,v∈S𝑒𝑣𝑆u,v\in Sitalic_u , italic_v ∈ italic_S be adjacent in the convex hull of S𝑆Sitalic_S. Then, star⁑(u)star𝑒\operatorname{star}(u)roman_star ( italic_u ) and star⁑(v)star𝑣\operatorname{star}(v)roman_star ( italic_v ) are both connected to any double star with centers u𝑒uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v in Gπ’žβ’(S)subscriptπΊπ’žπ‘†G_{\mathcal{C}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ).

For a caterpillar Cβˆˆπ’žβ’(S)πΆπ’žπ‘†C\in\mathcal{C}(S)italic_C ∈ caligraphic_C ( italic_S ), and consecutive spine vertices vi,…,vjsubscript𝑣𝑖…subscript𝑣𝑗v_{i},\dots,v_{j}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of C𝐢Citalic_C, we write Si,jsubscript𝑆𝑖𝑗S_{i,j}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for the point set consisting of the spine vertices and all of the leaves attached to them. We call Cβˆˆπ’žβ’(S)πΆπ’žπ‘†C\in\mathcal{C}(S)italic_C ∈ caligraphic_C ( italic_S ) with spine v1,v2,…,vksubscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2…subscriptπ‘£π‘˜v_{1},v_{2},\dots,v_{k}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT a well-separated caterpillar if for each iβ‰₯1𝑖1i\geq 1italic_i β‰₯ 1, the convex hull of S1,isubscript𝑆1𝑖S_{1,i}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is disjoint from the rest of S𝑆Sitalic_S. As a consequence of Lemma 1, we get that all caterpillars in this relatively general class are mutually connected in Gπ’žβ’(S)subscriptπΊπ’žπ‘†G_{\mathcal{C}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ).

Theorem 1.2

Any two well-separated caterpillars are connected by a sequence of slides in Gπ’žβ’(S)subscriptπΊπ’žπ‘†G_{\mathcal{C}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ).

Then, we solve the connectivity of Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) for S𝑆Sitalic_S in general position.

Theorem 1.3

Let n𝑛nitalic_n be a natural number. Then Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) is connected for every set S𝑆Sitalic_S of n𝑛nitalic_n points in the plane if n≀7𝑛7n\leq 7italic_n ≀ 7. If nβ‰₯8𝑛8n\geq 8italic_n β‰₯ 8, there exists a set S𝑆Sitalic_S of n𝑛nitalic_n points such that Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) has isolated vertices.

Lastly, we shift our focus to the study of connected components of the reconfiguration graph of plane spanning paths. Given a set of points in general position S𝑆Sitalic_S, we will refer to the corresponding flip graph of plane spanning paths as G𝒫⁒(S)subscript𝐺𝒫𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ). Currently, the main open problem related to such flips is deciding if G𝒫⁒(S)subscript𝐺𝒫𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ) is connected. In this direction, we prove the following result.

Theorem 1.4

Let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a set of n𝑛nitalic_n points in general position. Then G𝒫⁒(S)subscript𝐺𝒫𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ) contains a connected component of size Ω⁒(2nβˆ’1)Ξ©superscript2𝑛1\Omega(2^{n-1})roman_Ξ© ( 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

In particular, this component consists of the paths which we call generalized peeling paths. We introduce this subclass in Section 4.

We note that Theorem 1.4 was independently discovered by Kleist, Kramer and Rieck [14, 15]. We still include it here because we use the number of generalized peeling paths to prove that there are at least 12⁒(3nβˆ’1)12superscript3𝑛1\frac{1}{2}(3^{n}-1)divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( 3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) well-separated caterpillars which implies that Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) has a component of at least this size.

Finally, we investigate the minimal size of components in G𝒫⁒(S)subscript𝐺𝒫𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ). In this direction, we prove the following result.

Theorem 1.5

Let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a point set of nβ‰₯5𝑛5n\geq 5italic_n β‰₯ 5 points in general position. Then, G𝒫⁒(S)subscript𝐺𝒫𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ) contains no connected component of size at most 7777.

1.2 Previous work

Reconfiguration graphs of plane spanning trees

It is known that the reconfiguration graph of plane spanning trees is connected even in the most restrictive case when the reconfigurations are slides [1]. Consequently, so are the reconfiguration graphs for all other types of reconfigurations we have defined. In the case of slides, a tight Θ⁒(n2)Θsuperscript𝑛2\Theta(n^{2})roman_Θ ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) bound on the diameter is shown in [4]. For the empty triangle rotations, an upper bound of O⁒(n⁒log⁑n)𝑂𝑛𝑛O(n\log n)italic_O ( italic_n roman_log italic_n ) on the diameter was shown in [16], while for the remaining reconfigurations a linear upper bound is known [7]. In [2], an upper bound of 2⁒nβˆ’32𝑛32n-32 italic_n - 3 is shown for flip graphs. With the exception of slide graphs, the best known lower bound on the diameter of the reconfiguration graphs is 1.5⁒nβˆ’51.5𝑛51.5n-51.5 italic_n - 5, as per [13].

Reconfiguration graphs of plane spanning paths

The reconfiguration graph of plane spanning paths has been thoroughly studied for convex point sets. It is known that the flip graph is connected [5] and that for a convex point set of size n𝑛nitalic_n the flip graph has diameter 2⁒nβˆ’52𝑛52n-52 italic_n - 5 for n∈{3,4}𝑛34n\in\{3,4\}italic_n ∈ { 3 , 4 } and 2⁒nβˆ’62𝑛62n-62 italic_n - 6 for nβ‰₯5𝑛5n\geq 5italic_n β‰₯ 5 [10]. Moreover, the flip graph is Hamiltonian [18] and it has chromatic number n𝑛nitalic_n [12]. Also, it is known that the flip graph of a convex point set of size n𝑛nitalic_n where the paths considered have a fixed start vertex has diameter 2⁒nβˆ’52𝑛52n-52 italic_n - 5 and radius nβˆ’2𝑛2n-2italic_n - 2 for nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3 [15]. Finally, the flip graph of a point sets with at most two convex layers is connected [15]. For point sets in general position connectivity was first conjectured by Akl et al. [5].

Conjecture 1 (Akl. et. al. [5])

Let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a point set in general position. Then the flip graph of plane spanning paths on S𝑆Sitalic_S is connected.

Despite this conjecture being around 17 years old, there has been relatively little progress towards solving it. Connectivity has been shown for point sets of size n≀8𝑛8n\leq 8italic_n ≀ 8 in general position [5] and for generalized double circles [3].

2 Slide Graph of Caterpillars in Convex Position

In this section, let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a set of n𝑛nitalic_n points in convex position. Our goal is to prove that Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) is connected. We start with the following lemma.

Lemma 2

Let Cβˆˆπ’žβ’(S)πΆπ’žπ‘†C\in\mathcal{C}(S)italic_C ∈ caligraphic_C ( italic_S ) be a caterpillar and let s𝑠sitalic_s be one of the endpoints of its spine. Then C𝐢Citalic_C can be transformed into star⁑(s)star𝑠\operatorname{star}(s)roman_star ( italic_s ) using at most nβˆ’1βˆ’deg⁑(s)𝑛1degree𝑠n-1-\deg(s)italic_n - 1 - roman_deg ( italic_s ) slides.

Proof

Recall that s𝑠sitalic_s is not a leaf vertex in C𝐢Citalic_C, and therefore has degree at least 2222. Assume that the spine of C𝐢Citalic_C is the path s,v2,…,vk𝑠subscript𝑣2…subscriptπ‘£π‘˜s,v_{2},\dots,v_{k}italic_s , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For each i∈{2,…,k}𝑖2β€¦π‘˜i\in\{2,\dots,k\}italic_i ∈ { 2 , … , italic_k }, starting with v2subscript𝑣2v_{2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, first slide all of the leaves attached to visubscript𝑣𝑖v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT visible from s𝑠sitalic_s to s𝑠sitalic_s, starting from the one closest to s𝑠sitalic_s. Then, slide edge vi⁒vi+1subscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑖1v_{i}v_{i+1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT along the edge s⁒vi𝑠subscript𝑣𝑖sv_{i}italic_s italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since all previously slid edges form a star, s𝑠sitalic_s is an endpoint of the spine, and the rest is part of the original caterpillar, this is a valid slide (see Figure 2). Now, at least one of the leaves attached to visubscript𝑣𝑖v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is visible from s𝑠sitalic_s, so slide it to s𝑠sitalic_s. Repeat this until visubscript𝑣𝑖v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT becomes a leaf. In the entire procedure, each edge is slid exactly once except for the edges at s𝑠sitalic_s in the initial caterpillar C𝐢Citalic_C, thus we need at most nβˆ’1βˆ’deg⁑(s)𝑛1degree𝑠n-1-\deg(s)italic_n - 1 - roman_deg ( italic_s ) slides. ∎

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Edge v2⁒v3subscript𝑣2subscript𝑣3v_{2}v_{3}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blocks leaves l1,l2subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2l_{1},l_{2}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from being slid to s𝑠sitalic_s. Sliding the edge v2⁒v3subscript𝑣2subscript𝑣3v_{2}v_{3}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT results in caterpillar with spine v2⁒s⁒v3⁒tsubscript𝑣2𝑠subscript𝑣3𝑑v_{2}sv_{3}titalic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t, which allows l1,l2subscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2l_{1},l_{2}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to be slid to s𝑠sitalic_s.

We now observe that for all u,v∈S𝑒𝑣𝑆u,v\in Sitalic_u , italic_v ∈ italic_S, star⁑(u)star𝑒\operatorname{star}(u)roman_star ( italic_u ) and star⁑(v)star𝑣\operatorname{star}(v)roman_star ( italic_v ) can be transformed into one another using nβˆ’2𝑛2n-2italic_n - 2 slides. Then, Theorem 1.1 follows from this fact together with Lemma 2. Given two caterpillars C1subscript𝐢1C_{1}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, C2subscript𝐢2C_{2}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on S𝑆Sitalic_S, we first transform C1subscript𝐢1C_{1}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to a star in at most nβˆ’3𝑛3n-3italic_n - 3 steps, then one star into another in at most nβˆ’2𝑛2n-2italic_n - 2 steps and lastly we transform the star into C2subscript𝐢2C_{2}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in at most nβˆ’3𝑛3n-3italic_n - 3 more steps. We get the following result as a corollary.

Corollary 1

Let nβ‰₯5𝑛5n\geq 5italic_n β‰₯ 5 and P,Q𝑃𝑄P,Qitalic_P , italic_Q be two plane spanning paths on S𝑆Sitalic_S. Then, P𝑃Pitalic_P can be transformed into Q𝑄Qitalic_Q using at most 2⁒nβˆ’62𝑛62n-62 italic_n - 6 slides in Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ).

Proof

Since nβ‰₯5𝑛5n\geq 5italic_n β‰₯ 5, there exists a vertex v𝑣vitalic_v of S𝑆Sitalic_S which has degree at least 2222 in both P𝑃Pitalic_P and Q𝑄Qitalic_Q. Then, if we split both P𝑃Pitalic_P and Q𝑄Qitalic_Q at v𝑣vitalic_v and perform the algorithm from Theorem 1.1 on all 4444 subpaths, we will transform both P𝑃Pitalic_P and Q𝑄Qitalic_Q to star⁑(v)star𝑣\operatorname{star}(v)roman_star ( italic_v ) in at most nβˆ’3𝑛3n-3italic_n - 3 moves each. Thus, since all moves are reversible we can slide from P𝑃Pitalic_P to star⁑(v)star𝑣\operatorname{star}(v)roman_star ( italic_v ) and finally to Q𝑄Qitalic_Q in 2⁒nβˆ’62𝑛62n-62 italic_n - 6 moves. We can choose v𝑣vitalic_v arbitrarily since in a path there are no leaves that are not head/tail-leaves. ∎

The upper bound on the diameter of Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) that we obtain in Theorem 1.1 is most likely not tight. As mentioned before, it is known that for slides in plane trees, there is a lower bound of 1.5⁒nβˆ’51.5𝑛51.5n-51.5 italic_n - 5 [13]. Even further, the trees that achieve this lower bound are caterpillars, thus the gap between the lower and upper bound is big. Thus, it would be interesting to find better lower bounds for all of the reconfiguration graphs for S𝑆Sitalic_S in convex position.

3 Reconfiguration Graphs of Caterpillars in General Position

In this section, let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a set of n𝑛nitalic_n points in general position in the plane. As mentioned in the introduction, we can show that if nβ‰₯9𝑛9n\geq 9italic_n β‰₯ 9, then Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) has at least one isolated vertex. We give examples for the cases of n=9,10𝑛910n=9,10italic_n = 9 , 10 in Figure 3. The construction of the examples can easily be generalized to larger point sets.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Caterpillars on 9999 and 10101010 points with no available slides.

Now, we move on to the proof of Lemma 1. We will instead prove the following stronger statement which implies Lemma 1.

Statement A: Assume that C𝐢Citalic_C is a plane spanning double-star on a point set S𝑆Sitalic_S such that |S|=n𝑆𝑛|S|=n| italic_S | = italic_n. Let u𝑒uitalic_u, v𝑣vitalic_v be the centers of C𝐢Citalic_C. Then there exists a slide sequence in Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) from C𝐢Citalic_C to star⁑(v)star𝑣\operatorname{star}(v)roman_star ( italic_v ). Moreover, u𝑒uitalic_u is a spine vertex or a head/tail-leaf at every step of the sequence.

For a set of points S𝑆Sitalic_S and two adjacent vertices u,v𝑒𝑣u,vitalic_u , italic_v on convex hull of S𝑆Sitalic_S, we define the radial u⁒v𝑒𝑣uvitalic_u italic_v path as the spanning path between u𝑒uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v which visits the vertices of S𝑆Sitalic_S in the order they are seen when rotating the line through u⁒v𝑒𝑣uvitalic_u italic_v around v𝑣vitalic_v towards the interior of S𝑆Sitalic_S, see Figure 4.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Radial u⁒v𝑒𝑣uvitalic_u italic_v path.

Statement B: Let u,v𝑒𝑣u,vitalic_u , italic_v be two adjacent vertices of the convex hull of a point set T𝑇Titalic_T. Let P𝑃Pitalic_P be a radial u⁒v𝑒𝑣uvitalic_u italic_v path in T𝑇Titalic_T. Then, there is a slide sequence in Gπ’žβ’(T)subscriptπΊπ’žπ‘‡G_{\mathcal{C}}(T)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) which transforms P𝑃Pitalic_P to a caterpillar whose spine uses all of the edges of the convex hull of T𝑇Titalic_T except the edge u⁒v𝑒𝑣uvitalic_u italic_v. Moreover, u𝑒uitalic_u is a spine vertex or a head/tail-leaf at every step of the sequence.

To prove Statement A for a point set S𝑆Sitalic_S of n𝑛nitalic_n points, we will assume that Statement B is true for any point set T𝑇Titalic_T of size at most nβˆ’1𝑛1n-1italic_n - 1. Then we will prove correctness of Statement B, using Statement A for point sets of size at most nβˆ’2𝑛2n-2italic_n - 2. We now prove Statement A.

Proof (of Statement A)

If n=2𝑛2n=2italic_n = 2, there is nothing to do, so we assume that we can construct a slide sequence for all point sets of size at most nβˆ’1𝑛1n-1italic_n - 1. As long as we can slide an edge connecting u𝑒uitalic_u to a leaf so that it is attached to v𝑣vitalic_v, we do it. After some number of steps, we reach a leaf xπ‘₯xitalic_x such that the triangle spanned by u𝑒uitalic_u, xπ‘₯xitalic_x and v𝑣vitalic_v contains some leaves l1,l2⁒…⁒ljsubscript𝑙1subscript𝑙2…subscript𝑙𝑗l_{1},l_{2}\dots l_{j}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (ordered as seen from v𝑣vitalic_v when rotating u⁒v𝑒𝑣uvitalic_u italic_v towards xπ‘₯xitalic_x) attached to v𝑣vitalic_v in the interior of the triangle, as in the first part of Figure 5. But now, we can apply Statement A inductively on the set of points inside the triangle spanned by u𝑒uitalic_u, xπ‘₯xitalic_x, and v𝑣vitalic_v and make a star at v𝑣vitalic_v on this point set without altering any of the edges outside of it. The only problematic case is if u𝑒uitalic_u, xπ‘₯xitalic_x, and v𝑣vitalic_v span the entire convex hull of S𝑆Sitalic_S. In this case, we use the sequence of slides which can be seen in Figure 5, which constructs a radial path P𝑃Pitalic_P from u𝑒uitalic_u to v𝑣vitalic_v. Let C0subscript𝐢0C_{0}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the resulting caterpillar, whose spine contains P𝑃Pitalic_P as a subpath.

We now apply Statement B on path P𝑃Pitalic_P and point set T𝑇Titalic_T spanned by P𝑃Pitalic_P to obtain a caterpillar Cβˆˆπ’žπΆπ’žC\in\mathcal{C}italic_C ∈ caligraphic_C. Note that the sequence of slides transforming P𝑃Pitalic_P to C𝐢Citalic_C in Gπ’žslide⁒(T)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑇G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(T)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_T ) kept u,v𝑒𝑣u,vitalic_u , italic_v as either endpoints of the spine or head/tail-leaves at every step, and hence it is a valid sequence of slides transforming C0subscript𝐢0C_{0}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to a caterpillar C1subscript𝐢1C_{1}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with C𝐢Citalic_C as a subcaterpillar in Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ).

Now, we can slide the edge u⁒x𝑒π‘₯uxitalic_u italic_x along the spine of C𝐢Citalic_C to v𝑣vitalic_v. Then, we reverse all of the steps that created C𝐢Citalic_C and P𝑃Pitalic_P and thus prove the theorem. It is important to note that we never create a tree that is not a caterpillar since our induction hypothesis preserves u𝑒uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v as spine vertices. Even when we create the path P𝑃Pitalic_P, we add extra edges of the spine between u𝑒uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v, but we still maintain the property that u𝑒uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v are vertices of the spine. ∎

Refer to caption
Figure 5: Constructing the radial path from u𝑒uitalic_u to v𝑣vitalic_v.

Now we prove Statement B.

Proof (of Statement B)

We prove Statement B by induction on T𝑇Titalic_T with base case T=4𝑇4T=4italic_T = 4 seen in Figure 7. We write P=u,v1,v2,…,vk,v𝑃𝑒subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2…subscriptπ‘£π‘˜π‘£P=u,v_{1},v_{2},\dots,v_{k},vitalic_P = italic_u , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v. Let i,j𝑖𝑗i,jitalic_i , italic_j be the smallest numbers such that vi⁒vjsubscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑗v_{i}v_{j}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an edge of the convex hull of T𝑇Titalic_T which is not in P𝑃Pitalic_P. We consider the point set Sij={vi,vi+1⁒…,vj,v}superscriptsubscript𝑆𝑖𝑗subscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑖1…subscript𝑣𝑗𝑣S_{i}^{j}=\{v_{i},v_{i+1}\dots,v_{j},v\}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v }. Let p𝑝pitalic_p be the point inside the convex hull of Sijsuperscriptsubscript𝑆𝑖𝑗S_{i}^{j}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT which is visible from both visubscript𝑣𝑖v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and vjsubscript𝑣𝑗v_{j}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and closest to the segment vi⁒vjsubscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑗v_{i}v_{j}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then the path vi,…,psubscript𝑣𝑖…𝑝v_{i},\dots,pitalic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_p is a radial path from visubscript𝑣𝑖v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to p𝑝pitalic_p. By applying the reverse of the procedure in Figure 5 to the path vi,…,psubscript𝑣𝑖…𝑝v_{i},\dots,pitalic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_p, it can be transformed into a double star with centers visubscript𝑣𝑖v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and p𝑝pitalic_p, see Step 1111 in Figure 6. Again p,…,vj𝑝…subscript𝑣𝑗p,\dots,v_{j}italic_p , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a radial path from p𝑝pitalic_p to vjsubscript𝑣𝑗v_{j}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so we transform p,…,vj𝑝…subscript𝑣𝑗p,\dots,v_{j}italic_p , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT into a double star with centers p,vj𝑝subscript𝑣𝑗p,v_{j}italic_p , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in exactly the same way, see Step 2222 in Figure 6. Now, by inductively applying Statement A on the set of points inside the triangle vi,p,vsubscript𝑣𝑖𝑝𝑣v_{i},p,vitalic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p , italic_v, we can transform the double star with centers vi,psubscript𝑣𝑖𝑝v_{i},pitalic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p into a star with center visubscript𝑣𝑖v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then, we apply Statement A to transform the double star at p,vj𝑝subscript𝑣𝑗p,v_{j}italic_p , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to the star at vjsubscript𝑣𝑗v_{j}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we can do this since vj,psubscript𝑣𝑗𝑝v_{j},pitalic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p are consecutive along the convex hull of Sijβˆ–{vi}superscriptsubscript𝑆𝑖𝑗subscript𝑣𝑖S_{i}^{j}\setminus\{v_{i}\}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }. Lastly, we slide the edge vj⁒psubscript𝑣𝑗𝑝v_{j}pitalic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p to visubscript𝑣𝑖v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. See Steps 3 and 4 in Figure 6, respectively. We repeat this entire procedure for every edge of the convex hull of Sβ€²superscript𝑆′S^{\prime}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT which is not in P𝑃Pitalic_P. ∎

Refer to caption
Figure 6: The process of adding the edge vi⁒vjsubscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑗v_{i}v_{j}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to the caterpillar in proof of Statement B
Refer to caption
Figure 7: Base case for proof of Statement B

With some extra work, we can drop the requirement that u𝑒uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v are on the convex hull of S𝑆Sitalic_S.

Corollary 2

Let u𝑒uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v be arbitrary vertices of S𝑆Sitalic_S. Then both star⁑(u)star𝑒\operatorname{star}(u)roman_star ( italic_u ) and star⁑(v)star𝑣\operatorname{star}(v)roman_star ( italic_v ) are connected to any double star with centers at u𝑒uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v.

Proof

The line through u𝑒uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v divides S𝑆Sitalic_S into two point sets T,T′𝑇superscript𝑇′T,T^{\prime}italic_T , italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that u𝑒uitalic_u and v𝑣vitalic_v are adjacent on the convex hull of both T𝑇Titalic_T and Tβ€²superscript𝑇′T^{\prime}italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We then apply Lemma 1 on the double star with centers u,v𝑒𝑣u,vitalic_u , italic_v in T𝑇Titalic_T and Tβ€²superscript𝑇′T^{\prime}italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. ∎

Using Corollary 2, we prove Theorem 1.2.

Proof (of Theorem 1.2)

We first prove that C𝐢Citalic_C can be transformed into a star. Denote the vertices of the spine of C𝐢Citalic_C by v1,v2,…,vksubscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2…subscriptπ‘£π‘˜v_{1},v_{2},\dots,v_{k}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We proceed by induction on kπ‘˜kitalic_k. The case k=1π‘˜1k=1italic_k = 1 is covered by Corollary 2. Now, as C𝐢Citalic_C is well-separated, we know that the convex hull of S1,2subscript𝑆12S_{1,2}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is disjoint from the rest of S𝑆Sitalic_S. Thus we can apply Corollary 2 to S1,2subscript𝑆12S_{1,2}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and reduce the length of the spine of C𝐢Citalic_C by one. Then the result follows by induction and Corollary 2. ∎

Before proving Theorem 1.3, we need the following slight strengthening of Corollary 2.

Lemma 3

Let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a set of points in the plane and C𝐢Citalic_C a plane spanning caterpillar on S𝑆Sitalic_S with spine consisting of three vertices. Then, there is a slide sequence transforming C𝐢Citalic_C to a star.

Proof

Let v1subscript𝑣1v_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, v2subscript𝑣2v_{2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and v3subscript𝑣3v_{3}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the three spine vertices of C𝐢Citalic_C, where v2subscript𝑣2v_{2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the central one. We will show that there exists a sequence of slides which shortens the spine to the vertices v2subscript𝑣2v_{2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and v3subscript𝑣3v_{3}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then, by Corollary 2, C𝐢Citalic_C will be connected to both star⁑(v2)starsubscript𝑣2\operatorname{star}(v_{2})roman_star ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and star⁑(v3)starsubscript𝑣3\operatorname{star}(v_{3})roman_star ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Consider the set S1,2subscript𝑆12S_{1,2}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If its convex hull contains no points connected to v3subscript𝑣3v_{3}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we are done. Otherwise, let u𝑒uitalic_u be the first such point we encounter when rotating the edge v2⁒v3subscript𝑣2subscript𝑣3v_{2}v_{3}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with v3subscript𝑣3v_{3}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT fixed. If the triangle defined by {u,v2,v3}𝑒subscript𝑣2subscript𝑣3\{u,v_{2},v_{3}\}{ italic_u , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } contains no points connected to v1subscript𝑣1v_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, by Lemma 1, we may slide u⁒v3𝑒subscript𝑣3uv_{3}italic_u italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to u⁒v2𝑒subscript𝑣2uv_{2}italic_u italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Otherwise, let w𝑀witalic_w be such a point. Since u𝑒uitalic_u was chosen to be minimal, the triangle of {w,v1,v2}𝑀subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2\{w,v_{1},v_{2}\}{ italic_w , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } contains no points connected to v3subscript𝑣3v_{3}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and thus by Lemma 1 we can slide w⁒v1𝑀subscript𝑣1wv_{1}italic_w italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to w⁒v2𝑀subscript𝑣2wv_{2}italic_w italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, see Figure 8 for the visualization of the entire process. By repeating this process, we are left with no points connected to v3subscript𝑣3v_{3}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT inside the convex hull of S1,2subscript𝑆12S_{1,2}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and thus can slide all leaves connected to v1subscript𝑣1v_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT into leaves connected to v2subscript𝑣2v_{2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, finishing the proof. ∎

Refer to caption
Figure 8: Visualization of the proof of Lemma 3. At every step, we use Lemma 1 on the point set inside the dashed line.
Proof (of Theorem 1.3)

If nβ‰₯9𝑛9n\geq 9italic_n β‰₯ 9, Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) is disconnected by examples seen in Figure 3. If n≀6𝑛6n\leq 6italic_n ≀ 6 then every tree is a caterpillar so the result follows from [1]. If n=7𝑛7n=7italic_n = 7 we checked the results computationally [6]. To make our computations more efficient we used Lemma 3 which tells us that we only need to check caterpillars with spine of at least 4444 vertices and that we could stop computations as soon as we decreased the length of spine by one. If n=8𝑛8n=8italic_n = 8 we used the same approach but we found an isolated vertex. ∎

To end the section, we now focus on rotations and prove Proposition 1.

Proof (of Proposition 1)

We will prove that for any caterpillar Cβˆˆπ’žβ’(S)πΆπ’žπ‘†C\in\mathcal{C}(S)italic_C ∈ caligraphic_C ( italic_S ) we can find a sequence of rotations transforming C𝐢Citalic_C into a star. We will prove this by induction on kπ‘˜kitalic_k, where kπ‘˜kitalic_k is the length of the spine of C𝐢Citalic_C. Case k=2π‘˜2k=2italic_k = 2 follows from Corollary 2 as every slide is a rotation. Now assume that the statement holds for kβˆ’1π‘˜1k-1italic_k - 1 and let C𝐢Citalic_C be a caterpillar with spine v1,v2,…,vksubscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2…subscriptπ‘£π‘˜v_{1},v_{2},\dots,v_{k}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If the convex hull of Skβˆ’1,ksubscriptπ‘†π‘˜1π‘˜S_{k-1,k}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is disjoint from the rest of S𝑆Sitalic_S, the result follows by inductive hypothesis and Corollary 2. Thus, we may assume that there are some vertices of Sβˆ–Skβˆ’1,k𝑆subscriptπ‘†π‘˜1π‘˜S\setminus S_{k-1,k}italic_S βˆ– italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT inside the convex hull of Skβˆ’1,ksubscriptπ‘†π‘˜1π‘˜S_{k-1,k}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Let I𝐼Iitalic_I be the set of all such vertices. We now divide the algorithm into two phases, see Figure 9.

Phase 1: Let LβŠ†I𝐿𝐼L\subseteq Iitalic_L βŠ† italic_I be the subset of I𝐼Iitalic_I such that a vertex is in L𝐿Litalic_L if and only if it is a leaf connected to a vertex of the spine which is outside the convex hull of Sk,kβˆ’1subscriptπ‘†π‘˜π‘˜1S_{k,k-1}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We repeat the following procedure as long as Lβ‰ βˆ…πΏL\neq\emptysetitalic_L β‰  βˆ…. Find a leaf vertex l𝑙litalic_l in L𝐿Litalic_L which sees at least one spine vertex vjsubscript𝑣𝑗v_{j}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT lying inside the convex hull Sk,kβˆ’1subscriptπ‘†π‘˜π‘˜1S_{k,k-1}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (vksubscriptπ‘£π‘˜v_{k}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and vkβˆ’1subscriptπ‘£π‘˜1v_{k-1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT included). Then make a rotation so that l𝑙litalic_l is connected to vjsubscript𝑣𝑗v_{j}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Phase 2: Repeat the following procedure until vksubscriptπ‘£π‘˜v_{k}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has no leaves attached to it and thus becomes a head-leaf itself. Pick a leaf l𝑙litalic_l attached to vksubscriptπ‘£π‘˜v_{k}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that l𝑙litalic_l sees at least one spine vertex vjsubscript𝑣𝑗v_{j}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in I𝐼Iitalic_I, such that jβ‰ kπ‘—π‘˜j\neq kitalic_j β‰  italic_k. After Phase 1 is completed such a leaf always exists. Now make a rotation so that l𝑙litalic_l is connected to vjsubscript𝑣𝑗v_{j}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

See Figure 9 for a visualization of both phases.

After completing both phases the spine of C𝐢Citalic_C is shortened by one and the result follows by induction. ∎

Refer to caption
Figure 9: Algorithm described in the proof of Proposition 1, spine edges are dash-dotted in the picture. Each phase lasts until all of the red edges are rotated.

4 Connected Components in the Flip Graph of Plane Paths

In this section, we shift our focus and consider the flip graph of plane spanning paths, particularly we study the sizes of connected components of this graph. Recall that, for a point set S𝑆Sitalic_S in general position, we denote the set of all plane spanning paths by 𝒫⁒(S)𝒫𝑆\mathcal{P}(S)caligraphic_P ( italic_S ) and the corresponding flip graph by G𝒫⁒(S)subscript𝐺𝒫𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ). We say that a plane spanning path P=v1,…,vn𝑃subscript𝑣1…subscript𝑣𝑛P=v_{1},\dots,v_{n}italic_P = italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a generalized peeling path if v1subscript𝑣1v_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a vertex of the convex hull of S𝑆Sitalic_S and for i>1𝑖1i>1italic_i > 1, the vertex visubscript𝑣𝑖v_{i}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a vertex of the convex hull of Si=Sβˆ–{v1,…,viβˆ’1}subscript𝑆𝑖𝑆subscript𝑣1…subscript𝑣𝑖1S_{i}=S\setminus\{v_{1},\dots,v_{i-1}\}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_S βˆ– { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } and it is visible from viβˆ’1subscript𝑣𝑖1v_{i-1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (so, no edge of the convex hull of Sisubscript𝑆𝑖S_{i}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blocks it). For an illustration, see Figure 10. Obviously, this definition is dependent on the way we orient the path. For example, if we reverse the path on the left of Figure 10 it is not a generalized peeling path. It is not hard to see that for each point set S𝑆Sitalic_S, there are at least 2nβˆ’1superscript2𝑛12^{n-1}2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT generalized peeling paths. This is because at every step of constructing a generalized peeling path, we have at least two choices for the next vertex along the path (except at the last step). Therefore, to prove Theorem 1.4 we only need to prove that generalized peeling paths lie in a single component of G𝒫⁒(S)subscript𝐺𝒫𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ).

Refer to caption
Figure 10: The path on the left is a generalized peeling path, the path on the right is not due to the edge v3⁒v4subscript𝑣3subscript𝑣4v_{3}v_{4}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT crossing into the convex hull of {v4,…,v9}subscript𝑣4…subscript𝑣9\{v_{4},\dots,v_{9}\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 9 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }.

As mentioned before, we move the proof of Theorem 1.4 to the appendix. Instead, we will use the generalized peeling paths to estimate the number of well-separated caterpillars.

One can easily observe that any generalized peeling path on kπ‘˜kitalic_k vertices is also a well-separated caterpillar on kπ‘˜kitalic_k vertices when the orientation is reversed. Further, if S𝑆Sitalic_S is a point set on n𝑛nitalic_n points and Sβ€²βŠ†Ssuperscript𝑆′𝑆S^{\prime}\subseteq Sitalic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ† italic_S is a subset of k≀nπ‘˜π‘›k\leq nitalic_k ≀ italic_n points then it is easily seen that any generalized peeling path on Sβ€²superscript𝑆′S^{\prime}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT defines at least one well-separated caterpillar on S𝑆Sitalic_S, again with spine having reverse orientation of the original path. Therefore, we get a lower bound on the number of well-separated caterpillars as follows. If GP⁒(k)GPπ‘˜\text{GP}(k)GP ( italic_k ) is the number of generalized peeling paths on kπ‘˜kitalic_k vertices and WS⁒(n)WS𝑛\text{WS}(n)WS ( italic_n ) is the number of well-separated caterpillars on n𝑛nitalic_n vertices, then

WS⁒(n)β‰₯βˆ‘k=1n(nk)⁒GP⁒(k)β‰₯βˆ‘k=1n(nk)⁒2kβˆ’1=12⁒(3nβˆ’1).WS𝑛superscriptsubscriptπ‘˜1𝑛binomialπ‘›π‘˜GPπ‘˜superscriptsubscriptπ‘˜1𝑛binomialπ‘›π‘˜superscript2π‘˜112superscript3𝑛1\text{WS}(n)\geq\sum_{k=1}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\text{GP}(k)\geq\sum_{k=1}^{n}\binom% {n}{k}2^{k-1}=\frac{1}{2}(3^{n}-1).WS ( italic_n ) β‰₯ βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) GP ( italic_k ) β‰₯ βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( 3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) .

Therefore, we have proven that Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) has a connected component of size at least 12⁒(3nβˆ’1)12superscript3𝑛1\frac{1}{2}(3^{n}-1)divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( 3 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ).

In order to prove Theorem 1.5 we first need to collect some results regarding the flip graph of all plane spanning paths with a fixed endpoint u∈S𝑒𝑆u\in Sitalic_u ∈ italic_S, denoted by G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ).

Lemma 4

The graph G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) has girth of at least six.

Proof

In G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) any flip that changes both endpoints of a path is forbidden. Thus, any allowed flip can be viewed as a suffix reversal of the path, changing a path of the form u,v2,…,vn𝑒subscript𝑣2…subscript𝑣𝑛u,v_{2},\dots,v_{n}italic_u , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to u,v2,…,vkβˆ’1,vn,vnβˆ’1,…,vk𝑒subscript𝑣2…subscriptπ‘£π‘˜1subscript𝑣𝑛subscript𝑣𝑛1…subscriptπ‘£π‘˜u,v_{2},\dots,v_{k-1},v_{n},v_{n-1},\dots,v_{k}italic_u , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for a choice of vksubscriptπ‘£π‘˜v_{k}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT which keeps the resulting path plane. Therefore, G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) can be considered as a subgraph of the corresponding suffix reversal graph (also known as the pancake graph), which is well known to have girth 6Β [11]. ∎

Lemma 5

The graph G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) has no isolated vertices.

Proof

Assume that P=u,v2,…,vnβˆ’1,vn𝑃𝑒subscript𝑣2…subscript𝑣𝑛1subscript𝑣𝑛P=u,v_{2},\dots,v_{n-1},v_{n}italic_P = italic_u , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is isolated in G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ). This means that vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sees no vertex of S𝑆Sitalic_S other than vnβˆ’1subscript𝑣𝑛1v_{n-1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. However, the first vertex seen when rotating vn⁒vnβˆ’1subscript𝑣𝑛subscript𝑣𝑛1v_{n}v_{n-1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT towards vnβˆ’2subscript𝑣𝑛2v_{n-2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is either on the interior of the triangle vn,vnβˆ’1,vnβˆ’2subscript𝑣𝑛subscript𝑣𝑛1subscript𝑣𝑛2v_{n},v_{n-1},v_{n-2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or vnβˆ’2subscript𝑣𝑛2v_{n-2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and is therefore always visible from vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. ∎

The following lemma characterizes vertices of degree one in G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ). The proof is technical and involved so we move it to the appendix.

Lemma 6

If P=u,v2,…,vn𝑃𝑒subscript𝑣2…subscript𝑣𝑛P=u,v_{2},\dots,v_{n}italic_P = italic_u , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a path of degree one in G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ), then vnβˆ’1subscript𝑣𝑛1v_{n-1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and vnβˆ’2subscript𝑣𝑛2v_{n-2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are consecutive vertices of the convex hull of S𝑆Sitalic_S and the interior of the triangle vnβˆ’1,vn,vnβˆ’2subscript𝑣𝑛1subscript𝑣𝑛subscript𝑣𝑛2v_{n-1},v_{n},v_{n-2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is disjoint from S𝑆Sitalic_S.

Refer to caption
Figure 11: Path of degree one and effect of the single flip on it.

We put everything together in the following proposition.

Proposition 2

Let S𝑆Sitalic_S be a set of points in general position and u𝑒uitalic_u a vertex of S𝑆Sitalic_S. Then G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) does not have a connected component on at most 4444 vertices.

Proof

By Lemma 5, the graph G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) has no isolated vertices. Further, if P=u,…,pnβˆ’1,pn𝑃𝑒…subscript𝑝𝑛1subscript𝑝𝑛P=u,\dots,p_{n-1},p_{n}italic_P = italic_u , … , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Q=u,…,qnβˆ’1,qn𝑄𝑒…subscriptπ‘žπ‘›1subscriptπ‘žπ‘›Q=u,\dots,q_{n-1},q_{n}italic_Q = italic_u , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are two distinct paths of degree one in G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) then they admit a single flip which transforms them to Pβ€²=u,…,pn,pnβˆ’1superscript𝑃′𝑒…subscript𝑝𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛1P^{\prime}=u,\dots,p_{n},p_{n-1}italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_u , … , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Qβ€²=u,…,qn,qnβˆ’1superscript𝑄′𝑒…subscriptπ‘žπ‘›subscriptπ‘žπ‘›1Q^{\prime}=u,\dots,q_{n},q_{n-1}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_u , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT respectively. And as Pβ‰ Q𝑃𝑄P\neq Qitalic_P β‰  italic_Q, it follows that Pβ€²β‰ Qβ€²superscript𝑃′superscript𝑄′P^{\prime}\neq Q^{\prime}italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β‰  italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This forbids K1,3,P2subscript𝐾13subscript𝑃2K_{1,3},P_{2}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and P3subscript𝑃3P_{3}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as connected components of GPu⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝑃𝑒𝑆G_{P}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ), see Figure 11. By Lemma 4, cycles of length 3333 and 4444 are also forbidden. Therefore, the only remaining graph on 4444 vertices that may be a connected component is P4subscript𝑃4P_{4}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The proof of this fact is rather technical and moved to the appendix. ∎

Finally, we prove Theorem 1.5.

Proof (of Theorem 1.5)

Assume that G𝒫⁒(S)subscript𝐺𝒫𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ) contains a connected component on 7777 vertices. Call these vertices P1,P2,…⁒P7subscript𝑃1subscript𝑃2…subscript𝑃7P_{1},P_{2},\dots P_{7}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Consider P1subscript𝑃1P_{1}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, a plane spanning path on S𝑆Sitalic_S with endpoints u,v𝑒𝑣u,vitalic_u , italic_v. By Proposition 2, we know that if we fix u𝑒uitalic_u, P1subscript𝑃1P_{1}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is still connected to 4444 vertices via flips in G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ). If any of these 4444 is not one of P2,P3,…⁒P7subscript𝑃2subscript𝑃3…subscript𝑃7P_{2},P_{3},\dots P_{7}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we get a component of size at least 8888, contradicting our assumption. Therefore we may assume that those 4444 vertices are P2,P3,P4,P5subscript𝑃2subscript𝑃3subscript𝑃4subscript𝑃5P_{2},P_{3},P_{4},P_{5}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which all need to have u𝑒uitalic_u as one of their endpoints. By a symmetric argument, we see that 4444 more of the vertices P2,P3,…⁒P7subscript𝑃2subscript𝑃3…subscript𝑃7P_{2},P_{3},\dots P_{7}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT need to have v𝑣vitalic_v as one of their endpoints. Thus by the pigeonhole principle, we can assume that P1,P2,P3subscript𝑃1subscript𝑃2subscript𝑃3P_{1},P_{2},P_{3}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT all have u,v𝑒𝑣u,vitalic_u , italic_v as endpoints. But now we can apply the identical argument to P4subscript𝑃4P_{4}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT which has endpoints u,w𝑒𝑀u,witalic_u , italic_w where wβ‰ v𝑀𝑣w\neq vitalic_w β‰  italic_v. Therefore in the 7777 paths P1,P2,…,P7subscript𝑃1subscript𝑃2…subscript𝑃7P_{1},P_{2},\dots,P_{7}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at least 3333 have u,v𝑒𝑣u,vitalic_u , italic_v as endpoints, at least 3333 have u,w𝑒𝑀u,witalic_u , italic_w as endpoints and for each x∈{u,v,w}π‘₯𝑒𝑣𝑀x\in\{u,v,w\}italic_x ∈ { italic_u , italic_v , italic_w } at least 4444 of the paths have xπ‘₯xitalic_x as one the endpoints. This is clearly impossible so the result follows. ∎

As a possible step towards resolving Conjecture 1, it would be interesting to determine if similar observations about the structure of G𝒫⁒(S)subscript𝐺𝒫𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ) and G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) can be used to show nonexistence of larger sized connected components in G𝒫⁒(S)subscript𝐺𝒫𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_S ).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jan Kynčl and Pavel Valtr for proposing this problem to us in the Combinatorial Problems Seminar at Charles University where this work started and for all of their advice and help during the work on this problem. We also thank Daniel Perz for pointing out the existence of an isolated vertex in Gπ’žslide⁒(S)superscriptsubscriptπΊπ’žslide𝑆G_{\mathcal{C}}^{\text{slide}}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_C end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT slide end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ), for his help in finding literature for this paper and helpful comments.

References

  • [1] Oswin Aichholzer, Franz Aurenhammer, and Ferran Hurtado. Sequences of spanning trees and a fixed tree theorem. Comput. Geom., 21(1-2):3–20, 2002.
  • [2] Oswin Aichholzer, Brad Ballinger, Therese Biedl, Mirela Damian, ErikΒ D. Demaine, Matias Korman, Anna Lubiw, Jayson Lynch, Josef Tkadlec, and Yushi Uno. Reconfiguration of non-crossing spanning trees, 2022.
  • [3] Oswin Aichholzer, Kristin Knorr, Wolfgang Mulzer, Johannes Obenaus, Rosna Paul, and Birgit Vogtenhuber. Flipping plane spanning paths. In WALCOM, volume 13973 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 49–60. Springer, 2023.
  • [4] Oswin Aichholzer and Klaus Reinhardt. A quadratic distance bound on sliding between crossing-free spanning trees. Comput. Geom., 37(3):155–161, 2007.
  • [5] SelimΒ G. Akl, Kamrul Islam, and Henk Meijer. On planar path transformation. Inf. Process. Lett., 104(2):59–64, 2007.
  • [6] Todor AntiΔ‡, GuillermoΒ Gamboa Quintero, and Jelena GliΕ‘iΔ‡. https://github.com/jelena-glisic/Caterpillar-Slides.
  • [7] David Avis and Komei Fukuda. Reverse search for enumeration. Discret. Appl. Math., 65(1-3):21–46, 1996.
  • [8] Nicolas Bousquet, Lucas deΒ Meyer, ThΓ©o Pierron, and Alexandra Wesolek. Reconfiguration of Plane Trees in Convex Geometric Graphs. In Wolfgang Mulzer and JeffΒ M. Phillips, editors, 40th International Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG 2024), volume 293 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 22:1–22:17, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2024. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum fΓΌr Informatik.
  • [9] Nicolas Bousquet, Valentin Gledel, Jonathan Narboni, and ThΓ©o Pierron. A note on the flip distance between non-crossing spanning trees. Comput. Geom. Topol., 2(1):8:1–8:7, 2023.
  • [10] Jou-Ming Chang and Ro-Yu Wu. On the diameter of geometric path graphs of points in convex position. Inf. Process. Lett., 109(8):409–413, 2009.
  • [11] Phillip E.Β C. Compeau. Girth of pancake graphs. Discret. Appl. Math., 159(15):1641–1645, 2011.
  • [12] Ruy Fabila-Monroy, David Flores-PeΓ±aloza, Clemens Huemer, Ferran Hurtado, Jorge Urrutia, and DavidΒ R. Wood. On the chromatic number of some flip graphs. Discrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 11 no. 2, January 2009.
  • [13] M.Β Carmen Hernando, Ferran Hurtado, Alberto MΓ‘rquez, MercΓ¨ Mora, and Marc Noy. Geometric tree graphs of points in convex position. Discret. Appl. Math., 93(1):51–66, 1999.
  • [14] Linda Kleist, Peter Kramer, and Christian Rieck. Personal communication.
  • [15] Linda Kleist, Peter Kramer, and Christian Rieck. On the connectivity of the flip graph of plane spanning paths, 2024.
  • [16] TorrieΒ L. Nichols, Alexander Pilz, CsabaΒ D. TΓ³th, and AhadΒ N. Zehmakan. Transition operations over plane trees. Discrete Mathematics, 343(8):111929, 2020.
  • [17] Naomi Nishimura. Introduction to reconfiguration. Algorithms, 11(4), 2018.
  • [18] Eduardo Rivera-Campo and Virginia Urrutia-Galicia. Hamilton cycles in the path graph of a set of points in convex position. Comput. Geom., 18(2):65–72, 2001.

Appendix 0.A Proof of Theorem 1.4

First, we show that for any vertex u𝑒uitalic_u of the convex hull S𝑆Sitalic_S, all generalized peeling paths starting at u𝑒uitalic_u are in the same component of G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ). Clearly, the result holds for n=3𝑛3n=3italic_n = 3 so we assume that n>3𝑛3n>3italic_n > 3 and proceed by induction. Let P=u,p2,…,pn𝑃𝑒subscript𝑝2…subscript𝑝𝑛P=u,p_{2},\dots,p_{n}italic_P = italic_u , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Q=u,q2,…,qn𝑄𝑒subscriptπ‘ž2…subscriptπ‘žπ‘›Q=u,q_{2},\dots,q_{n}italic_Q = italic_u , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be generalized peeling paths. If p2=q2subscript𝑝2subscriptπ‘ž2p_{2}=q_{2}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the result follows by induction so we assume p2β‰ q2subscript𝑝2subscriptπ‘ž2p_{2}\neq q_{2}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We construct a generalized peeling path F𝐹Fitalic_F on Sβˆ–{u}𝑆𝑒S\setminus\{u\}italic_S βˆ– { italic_u } with endpoints p2,q2subscript𝑝2subscriptπ‘ž2p_{2},q_{2}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as follows. Let C𝐢Citalic_C be the convex hull of Sβˆ–({u}βˆͺβ„±)𝑆𝑒ℱS\setminus(\{u\}\cup\mathcal{F})italic_S βˆ– ( { italic_u } βˆͺ caligraphic_F ) where β„±β„±\mathcal{F}caligraphic_F is the set of points currently added to F𝐹Fitalic_F. Let p𝑝pitalic_p be the last point added to F𝐹Fitalic_F. Choose the longer of the two paths from p𝑝pitalic_p to q2subscriptπ‘ž2q_{2}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT along the boundary of C𝐢Citalic_C and add those vertices to F𝐹Fitalic_F. Repeat this process until C={q2}𝐢subscriptπ‘ž2C=\{q_{2}\}italic_C = { italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } and then add q2subscriptπ‘ž2q_{2}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to F𝐹Fitalic_F. Now, by induction, we can transform Pβˆ–{u}𝑃𝑒P\setminus\{u\}italic_P βˆ– { italic_u } to F𝐹Fitalic_F, and then by a single flip we can transform the path u,F𝑒𝐹u,Fitalic_u , italic_F to a path with starting edge u⁒q2𝑒subscriptπ‘ž2uq_{2}italic_u italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Again, by induction, we can transform this new path to Q𝑄Qitalic_Q. This proves that all generalized peeling paths starting at a vertex u𝑒uitalic_u are in the same connected component of G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ). Further, for any other vertex uβ€²superscript𝑒′u^{\prime}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT on the convex hull of S𝑆Sitalic_S, we can construct a generalized peeling path from u𝑒uitalic_u to uβ€²superscript𝑒′u^{\prime}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as before, thus finishing the proof.

Appendix 0.B Proof of Lemma 6

Assume that vnβˆ’2,vn,vnβˆ’1subscript𝑣𝑛2subscript𝑣𝑛subscript𝑣𝑛1v_{n-2},v_{n},v_{n-1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are not consecutive vertices of the convex hull. First note that vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sees at least one vertex in the triangle vn,vnβˆ’1,vnβˆ’2subscript𝑣𝑛subscript𝑣𝑛1subscript𝑣𝑛2v_{n},v_{n-1},v_{n-2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, as in the proof of Lemma 5. Assume that it sees only one vertex inside the triangle as otherwise we are done. Therefore we want to prove that it sees a vertex outside the triangle. Let e𝑒eitalic_e be the edge of P𝑃Pitalic_P whose intersection xπ‘₯xitalic_x with the ray rπ‘Ÿritalic_r from vnβˆ’1subscript𝑣𝑛1v_{n-1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT through vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is closest to vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If e𝑒eitalic_e is well defined (if there is at least one edge which crosses rπ‘Ÿritalic_r), then vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sees the first vertex inside the triangle formed by vn,xsubscript𝑣𝑛π‘₯v_{n},xitalic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x together with the endpoints of e𝑒eitalic_e which is encountered when rotating the segment vn⁒xsubscript𝑣𝑛π‘₯v_{n}xitalic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x around vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in either direction, see Figure 12. Otherwise, vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sees the first vertex encountered when rotating rπ‘Ÿritalic_r around vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT towards vnβˆ’2subscript𝑣𝑛2v_{n-2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If this vertex is vnβˆ’2subscript𝑣𝑛2v_{n-2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then we are in one of two situations. Either all of the vertices of S𝑆Sitalic_S are inside the triangle vnβˆ’1,vn,vnβˆ’2subscript𝑣𝑛1subscript𝑣𝑛subscript𝑣𝑛2v_{n-1},v_{n},v_{n-2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, in which case vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT must see at least two of them. Otherwise, all of the points of S𝑆Sitalic_S are on the opposite side of vn⁒vnβˆ’1subscript𝑣𝑛subscript𝑣𝑛1v_{n}v_{n-1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from vnβˆ’2subscript𝑣𝑛2v_{n-2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In this case, vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sees the first vertex encountered when rotating rπ‘Ÿritalic_r around vnsubscript𝑣𝑛v_{n}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT away from vnβˆ’2subscript𝑣𝑛2v_{n-2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Refer to caption
Figure 12: Illustration of the last part of the proof of Lemma 6. Since all of the dashed segments are uncrossed by edges of P𝑃Pitalic_P, the first vertex seen in the triangles bounded by dashed segments plus e𝑒eitalic_e is always visible from v𝑣vitalic_v.

Appendix 0.C Proof that P4subscript𝑃4P_{4}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT cannot be a connected component of G𝒫u⁒(S)superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S )

Recall that |S|β‰₯5𝑆5|S|\geq 5| italic_S | β‰₯ 5. Let P=u,p2,…,pn,Q=u,q2,…,qn∈G𝒫u⁒(S)formulae-sequence𝑃𝑒subscript𝑝2…subscript𝑝𝑛formulae-sequence𝑄𝑒subscriptπ‘ž2…subscriptπ‘žπ‘›superscriptsubscript𝐺𝒫𝑒𝑆P=u,p_{2},\dots,p_{n},Q=u,q_{2},\dots,q_{n}\in G_{\mathcal{P}}^{u}(S)italic_P = italic_u , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Q = italic_u , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_P end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_S ) be two paths of degree one such that pnβˆ’1,pn,pnβˆ’2subscript𝑝𝑛1subscript𝑝𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛2p_{n-1},p_{n},p_{n-2}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and qnβˆ’1,qn,qnβˆ’2subscriptπ‘žπ‘›1subscriptπ‘žπ‘›subscriptπ‘žπ‘›2q_{n-1},q_{n},q_{n-2}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are (not necessarily disjoint) triples of consecutive vertices of the convex hull of S𝑆Sitalic_S. If P𝑃Pitalic_P can be transformed into Q𝑄Qitalic_Q in three flips, such that none of the intermediate paths have degree larger than two, then we would have a connected component P4subscript𝑃4P_{4}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Intermediate paths are Pβ€²=u,…,pnβˆ’2,pn,pnβˆ’1superscript𝑃′𝑒…subscript𝑝𝑛2subscript𝑝𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛1P^{\prime}=u,\dots,p_{n-2},p_{n},p_{n-1}italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_u , … , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Qβ€²=u,…,qnβˆ’2,qn,qnβˆ’1superscript𝑄′𝑒…subscriptπ‘žπ‘›2subscriptπ‘žπ‘›subscriptπ‘žπ‘›1Q^{\prime}=u,\dots,q_{n-2},q_{n},q_{n-1}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_u , … , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Assume that pnβ‰ qnsubscript𝑝𝑛subscriptπ‘žπ‘›p_{n}\neq q_{n}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Let xπ‘₯xitalic_x be the last vertex between u𝑒uitalic_u and qnβˆ’1subscriptπ‘žπ‘›1q_{n-1}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in path Pβ€²superscript𝑃′P^{\prime}italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. If Pβ€²superscript𝑃′P^{\prime}italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Qβ€²superscript𝑄′Q^{\prime}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are connected by a single flip, segments x⁒qnβˆ’1π‘₯subscriptπ‘žπ‘›1xq_{n-1}italic_x italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x⁒pnβˆ’1π‘₯subscript𝑝𝑛1xp_{n-1}italic_x italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are uncrossed by an edge of Qβ€²superscript𝑄′Q^{\prime}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT nor Pβ€²superscript𝑃′P^{\prime}italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Therefore, pnβˆ’1subscript𝑝𝑛1p_{n-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sees vertices pnβˆ’2subscript𝑝𝑛2p_{n-2}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and xπ‘₯xitalic_x. If xπ‘₯xitalic_x is not adjacent to pnβˆ’1subscript𝑝𝑛1p_{n-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT along the convex hull, then we are done as pnβˆ’1subscript𝑝𝑛1p_{n-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT always sees the vertices adjacent to itself on the convex hull, see Figure 13 . If xπ‘₯xitalic_x is adjacent to pnβˆ’1subscript𝑝𝑛1p_{n-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on the convex hull. Let y𝑦yitalic_y be the edge preceding xπ‘₯xitalic_x in Pβ€²superscript𝑃′P^{\prime}italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We know that pnβˆ’2β‰ yβ‰ xsubscript𝑝𝑛2𝑦π‘₯p_{n-2}\neq y\neq xitalic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  italic_y β‰  italic_x as otherwise xπ‘₯xitalic_x would lie between pnβˆ’1subscript𝑝𝑛1p_{n-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and qnβˆ’1subscriptπ‘žπ‘›1q_{n-1}italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in Pβ€²superscript𝑃′P^{\prime}italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Thus, pnβˆ’1subscript𝑝𝑛1p_{n-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT will see the first vertex encountered when rotating segment pnβˆ’1⁒xsubscript𝑝𝑛1π‘₯p_{n-1}xitalic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x towards y𝑦yitalic_y. Intermediate paths have degree more than two and hence this is not the entire connected component.

If pn=qnsubscript𝑝𝑛subscriptπ‘žπ‘›p_{n}=q_{n}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the situation is slightly different. In this case, pnβˆ’2=qnβˆ’1subscript𝑝𝑛2subscriptπ‘žπ‘›1p_{n-2}=q_{n-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and pnβˆ’1=qnβˆ’2subscript𝑝𝑛1subscriptπ‘žπ‘›2p_{n-1}=q_{n-2}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT so we need to consider the line segments pnβˆ’1⁒pnβˆ’3subscript𝑝𝑛1subscript𝑝𝑛3p_{n-1}p_{n-3}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and pnβˆ’2⁒pnβˆ’3subscript𝑝𝑛2subscript𝑝𝑛3p_{n-2}p_{n-3}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If the triangle pnβˆ’1,pnβˆ’2,pnβˆ’3subscript𝑝𝑛1subscript𝑝𝑛2subscript𝑝𝑛3p_{n-1},p_{n-2},p_{n-3}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is empty, then rotating the segment pnβˆ’2⁒pnβˆ’3subscript𝑝𝑛2subscript𝑝𝑛3p_{n-2}p_{n-3}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT around pnβˆ’2subscript𝑝𝑛2p_{n-2}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT inside the path Qβ€²=u,p1,…,pnβˆ’1,pn,pnβˆ’2superscript𝑄′𝑒subscript𝑝1…subscript𝑝𝑛1subscript𝑝𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛2Q^{\prime}=u,p_{1},\dots,p_{n-1},p_{n},p_{n-2}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_u , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT allows pnβˆ’2subscript𝑝𝑛2p_{n-2}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to see three vertices: pnβˆ’1subscript𝑝𝑛1p_{n-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, pnβˆ’3subscript𝑝𝑛3p_{n-3}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the first vertex encountered in the rotation. Therefore P𝑃Pitalic_P and Q𝑄Qitalic_Q cannot be vertices of a connected component isomorphic to P4subscript𝑃4P_{4}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Refer to caption
Figure 13: Transforming a path of degree one into another path of degree one using three flips. Intermediate paths have degree more than two and hence this is not the entire connected component.