\hideLIPIcs

Institute of Software Technology, Graz University of Technology, [email protected]://orcid.org/0000-0002-2364-0583Partially supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) grant W1230 Institute of Software Technology, Graz University of Technology, [email protected]://orcid.org/0000-0002-9982-0070Supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) grant W1230 Institute of Software Technology, Graz University of Technology, [email protected]://orcid.org/0000-0002-7166-4467Partially supported by Austrian Science Fund within the collaborative DACH project Arrangements and Drawings as FWF project I 3340-N35 \ccsdesc[500]Mathematics of computing Combinatorics \ccsdesc[500]Mathematics of computing Graph theory \ccsdesc[500]Theory of computation Computational geometry

Acknowledgements.
We thank Alexandra Weinberger for fruitful discussions during the early stages of our research and we thank the anonymous referees for helpful comments on the paper.

Separable Drawings: Extendability and Crossing-Free Hamiltonian Cycles

Oswin Aichholzer    Joachim Orthaber    Birgit Vogtenhuber
Abstract

Generalizing pseudospherical drawings, we introduce a new class of simple drawings, which we call separable drawings. In a separable drawing, every edge can be closed to a simple curve that intersects each other edge at most once. Curves of different edges might interact arbitrarily.
Most notably, we show that (1) every separable drawing of any graph on n𝑛nitalic_n vertices in the plane can be extended to a simple drawing of the complete graph Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, (2) every separable drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT contains a crossing-free Hamiltonian cycle and is plane Hamiltonian connected, and (3) every generalized convex drawing and every 2-page book drawing is separable. Further, the class of separable drawings is a proper superclass of the union of generalized convex and 2-page book drawings. Hence, our results on plane Hamiltonicity extend recent work on generalized convex drawings by Bergold et al. (SoCG 2024).

keywords:
Simple drawings, Pseudospherical drawings, Generalized convex drawings, Plane Hamiltonicity, Extendability of drawings, Recognition of drawing classes
category:
\relatedversion

1 Introduction

A simple drawing of a graph G𝐺Gitalic_G is a representation of G𝐺Gitalic_G in the plane (or on the sphere) such that the vertices of G𝐺Gitalic_G are mapped to distinct points and the edges of G𝐺Gitalic_G are mapped to Jordan arcs connecting their respective end-vertices. Furthermore, every pair of edges is allowed to have at most one point in common, which is either a common end-vertex or a proper crossing. Simple drawings of graphs are widely studied combinatorial objects that have received considerable attention in different areas of graph drawing, for example, every crossing-minimizing drawing of a graph is simple.

Several classes of simple drawings have been considered, including straight-line drawings (where the edges are straight-line segments), x𝑥xitalic_x-monotone drawings (where the edges are x𝑥xitalic_x-monotone curves), 2-page book drawings1112-page book drawings are also known as linear layouts (where all vertices lie on a straight line and the edges are drawn as half-circles), pseudolinear drawings (for which there exists an arrangement of pseudolines such that every edge lies on one pseudoline), and pseudocircular drawings (for which there exists an arrangement of pseudocircles such that every edge lies on one pseudocircle). For details on and relations between these and several more classes (some of which are mentioned later) see for example [3].

A drawing class that was introduced by Arroyo, Richter, and Sunohara [7] and that is of special interest for this work is the class of pseudospherical drawings. These are pseudocircular drawings with the additional property that every edge of the drawing intersects every pseudocircle of the underlying arrangement at most once. Stated differently, a pseudospherical drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of a graph G𝐺Gitalic_G is a simple drawing in which every edge e𝑒eitalic_e is contained in a simple closed curve γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that

  1. 1.

    the only two vertices of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D on γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the end-vertices of e𝑒eitalic_e,

  2. 2.

    for any two edges ef𝑒𝑓e\neq fitalic_e ≠ italic_f the curves γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and γfsubscript𝛾𝑓\gamma_{f}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT intersect in exactly two crossing points, and

  3. 3.

    γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT intersects every edge fe𝑓𝑒f\neq eitalic_f ≠ italic_e of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D at most once, either in a crossing or in an end-vertex.

In this work we introduce a new class of simple drawings, which we call separable drawings. These are all simple drawings that fulfill Properties 1 and 3 of pseudospherical drawings (but not necessarily Property 2). Separable drawings can also be seen as ?locally pseudospherical? because locally for every edge, they look like pseudospherical drawings, but the curves γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and γfsubscript𝛾𝑓\gamma_{f}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of different edges e𝑒eitalic_e and f𝑓fitalic_f of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D may interact arbitrarily. This additional freedom gives the advantage that for recognizing separable drawings, it is sufficient to independently find a curve for each edge of the drawing. That is, we do not have to consider the set of potential such curves for all edges simultaneously, which can be relevant from a computational point of view. Moreover, we show that it is a real additional freedom in the sense that the class of separable drawings is strictly larger than the one of pseudospherical drawings.

Note that pseudocircular drawings are all simple drawings that fulfill Properties 1 and 2 of the definition of pseudospherical drawings. Hence the class of pseudospherical drawings is the intersection of the classes of separable and pseudocircular drawings.

Our motivation for studying separable drawings stems from the quest of solving two classic graph drawing questions for simple drawings, namely, the extendability to simple drawings of complete graphs and the existence of crossing-free Hamiltonian cycles in drawings of complete graphs. In this work, we answer both questions for the class of separable drawings and elucidate the relation of separable drawings to further classes of simple drawings.

Edge extension of simple drawings.

It is easy to see that every straight-line drawing in the plane on n𝑛nitalic_n vertices in general position can be extended to a straight-line drawing of the complete graph Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. As a consequence of Levi’s Enlargement Lemma [17], an analogous statement is true for pseudolinear drawings. For simple drawings the situation is very different. Kynčl showed that extendability to complete graphs is not always possible [14]. Further, there exist simple drawings of graphs with only a linear number of edges, which cannot be extended by any of the missing edges without violating simplicity [11]. The decision problem of whether a given drawing can be extended by some given edges is NP-complete [4], even for a single edge and if the drawing is pseudocircular [5]. To the positive, the edge extension problem is fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) when parameterized by the number of edges to insert and an upper bound on newly created crossings [9]. The complexity of deciding whether a simple drawing (of some class) can be extended to a simple drawing of the complete graph is still an open problem. Recently, Kynčl and Soukup [16] showed that every x𝑥xitalic_x-monotone drawing admits an extension to an x𝑥xitalic_x-monotone drawing of the complete graph.

Crossing-free Hamiltonian cycles and paths.

It is well known that every straight-line drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT contains a crossing-free Hamiltonian cycle, and that this property does not hold for straight-line drawings of general graphs (it already breaks for Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT minus one edge). In 1988, Rafla [20] conjectured that the same is true for simple drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Conjecture 1.1.

Every simple drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with n3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n ≥ 3 vertices contains a crossing-free Hamiltonian cycle.

If 1.1 is true, then every simple drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT also contains at least n𝑛nitalic_n crossing-free Hamiltonian paths and 2222 crossing-free perfect matchings. Pach, Solymosi, and Tóth [18] made the study of crossing-free subdrawings popular. For simple drawings, a lot of effort went into the search for crossing-free matchings, with the current best lower bound for their size being Ω(n)Ω𝑛\Omega(\sqrt{n})roman_Ω ( square-root start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) [2]. With regard to special drawing classes, the existence of a crossing-free Hamiltonian cycle is an easy exercise for 2-page book drawings and x𝑥xitalic_x-monotone drawings. Further, 1.1 was proven to hold for generalized twisted drawings on an odd number of vertices [2]. In a previous work, we also confirmed it for cylindrical drawings as well as strongly c-monotone drawings [3]. In that work, we further stated the following conjecture, which we showed to be a strengthening of 1.1 in the sense of an affirmative answer for all simple drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (but not necessarily for a restricted class of simple drawings). Further, we showed that the implication holds for cylindrical and strongly c-monotone drawings and confirmed both conjectures for them.

Conjecture 1.2.

Every simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2 vertices contains, for each pair of vertices vw𝑣𝑤v\neq witalic_v ≠ italic_w in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, a crossing-free Hamiltonian path with end-vertices v𝑣vitalic_v and w𝑤witalic_w.

Very recently, both conjectures have been verified for the large class of g-convex222G-convex drawings are just called convex drawings in [6, 8]. However, we prefer the term generalized convex or g-convex to avoid confusion, since the term convex drawing classically refers to a straight-line drawing with vertices in convex position. (short for generalized convex) drawings [8], where the authors also coined the term plane Hamiltonian connected for drawings fulfilling 1.2.

A simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is called g-convex if every triangle in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D has a convex side. A triangle in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D is the simple closed curve formed by an induced subdrawing on three vertices in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. Every triangle splits the plane (or sphere) into two connected components, their closures are the sides of the triangle. A side S𝑆Sitalic_S of a triangle is called convex if the subdrawing of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D that is induced by all vertices in S𝑆Sitalic_S is completely contained in S𝑆Sitalic_S (that is, no edge between two such vertices crosses the triangle).

G-convex drawings have been introduced by Arroyo, McQuillan, Richter, and Salazar [6] as the largest class of a hierarchy of classes of simple drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, all of which are combinatorial generalizations of straight-line drawings. Hence the results of [8] on plane Hamiltonicity are quite strong.

Our contribution.

In Section 2 we introduce some more notation and show first properties of separable drawings, also explaining why we chose the name ?separable?. We further observe that every 2-page book drawing is separable (Section 2) and show that for simple drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT being separable is a property of the rotation system (Lemma 2.3).

In Section 3 we consider the extension problem. We prove that for every graph G𝐺Gitalic_G on n𝑛nitalic_n vertices, every separable drawing of G𝐺Gitalic_G can be completed to a simple drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and that the same holds for crossing-minimizing drawings of G𝐺Gitalic_G (Theorems 3.3 and 3.5). We further discuss that extension to simple drawings is the best we can hope for by presenting an example of a separable drawing that cannot be extended to any separable drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (Figure 4).

In Section 4, we turn our attention to the plane Hamiltonicity problem. We show that all separable drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT fulfill both 1.1 (Theorem 4.3) and 1.2 (Theorem 4.1). Further, we prove that separable drawings are a proper superclass of g-convex drawings (Theorem 4.5). Thus our results on plane Hamiltonicity constitute a strengthening of the according results on g-convex drawings in [8].

Finally, we consider the question of recognizing separable drawings in Section 5. We show that the recognition problem is solvable in polynomial time for simple drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (Theorem 5.1) and NP-complete for simple drawings of general graphs (Theorem 5.3).

We conclude with some open problems in Section 6.

2 Preliminaries

Before we get to first properties of separable drawings, we introduce some more notation to facilitate argumentation. We call an edge e𝑒eitalic_e of a simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D a separator edge if there exists a simple closed curve γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT containing e𝑒eitalic_e such that the only vertices of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D on γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the end-vertices of e𝑒eitalic_e and such that, for each edge fe𝑓𝑒f\neq eitalic_f ≠ italic_e of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has at most one point in common with f𝑓fitalic_f. We call the curve γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT a witness for e𝑒eitalic_e. With this definition, a simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D is separable if and only if every edge of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D is a separator edge.

Note that a simple closed curve γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ partitions the plane into two connected components. We call the closures of these components the sides of γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ. To ease reasoning, we sometimes refer to the bounded side of γ𝛾\gammaitalic_γ in the plane as the inside and the other side as the outside.

The following lemma motivates why we call separable drawings ?separable?.

Lemma 2.1.

Let γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a witness of a separator edge e𝑒eitalic_e in a simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. Then every edge f𝑓fitalic_f of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D that connects two vertices on the same side of γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is fully contained in that side.

Proof 2.2.

The statement is clear for e𝑒eitalic_e itself. Further, by the definition of a separator edge, each edge fe𝑓𝑒f\neq eitalic_f ≠ italic_e of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D has at most one point in common with γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Every edge f𝑓fitalic_f incident to e𝑒eitalic_e already has an end-vertex in common with γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and, therefore, is contained in one side of γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Finally, every edge f𝑓fitalic_f with both end-vertices on the same side of γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and not incident to e𝑒eitalic_e crosses γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT an even number of times. Since f𝑓fitalic_f crosses γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at most once, it does not cross γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at all, which implies that f𝑓fitalic_f is contained in one side of γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Lemma 2.1 tells us that, for every edge e𝑒eitalic_e in a separable drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, each witness γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of e𝑒eitalic_e separates 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D into two induced subdrawings that together cover all vertices of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, and that do not interact with each other except for sharing the common edge e𝑒eitalic_e. In Lemma 2.3 (Item 2) we show that, for simple drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the existence of two such induced subdrawings is an equivalent characterization of separability. This implies that, for complete graphs, we do not need to check edges between the two sides of γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for multiple intersections with γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

A special case of a separator edge is an uncrossed edge e𝑒eitalic_e. Indeed, we can close e𝑒eitalic_e to a simple curve γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in a small neighborhood of e𝑒eitalic_e itself. Then γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has one point in common with every edge incident to e𝑒eitalic_e and no point in common with any other edge. With respect to the separation into two subdrawings, this means that one of them only consists of the edge e𝑒eitalic_e.

{observation}

Every uncrossed edge is a separator edge.

A classic combinatorial abstraction of a simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is its rotation system. The rotation of a vertex in a simple drawing is the (clockwise) cyclic order of its incident edges, which is classically given by an accordingly sorted list of its adjacent vertices. The rotation system of a simple drawing is the collection of the rotations of all of its vertices. Gioan [10] and Kynčl [13] independently showed that two simple drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have the same set of crossings if and only if they have the same rotation system. An abstract rotation system of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT gives, for each vertex, a (potentially arbitrary) cyclic order of its incident edges. An abstract rotation system of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is called realizable if there exists a simple drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with this rotation system. As shown by Kynčl [15] in combination with computational results from [1], an abstract rotation system is realizable if and only if all its subrotation systems on five vertices are. This implies that deciding whether an abstract rotation system of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is realizable can be done in O(n5)𝑂superscript𝑛5O(n^{5})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) time.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Figure 1: 1(a) A rotation system corresponding to a convex straight-line drawing of K7subscript𝐾7K_{7}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The only possible flip of the edge e={2,6}𝑒26e=\{2,6\}italic_e = { 2 , 6 } is marked. 1(b) As we implicitly show in the proof of Lemma 2.3, Item 3 \Rightarrow Item 1, a flip of e𝑒eitalic_e in the rotation system corresponds to redrawing e𝑒eitalic_e (the dashed version is after the flip, the solid version before) in any simple drawing realizing the rotation system.

We next discuss that for a simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, separability only depends on the rotation system of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. To this end, we first introduce local changes in rotation systems, which we call flips. A flip in the rotation system of a simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, see Figure 1 for an example illustration, is the operation of removing an edge e={v,w}𝑒𝑣𝑤e=\{v,w\}italic_e = { italic_v , italic_w } in the rotations of its two incident vertices and adding it again in a different position such that

  1. 1.

    in the counter-clockwise rotation of v𝑣vitalic_v and the clockwise rotation of w𝑤witalic_w, the sets of vertices between the position of e𝑒eitalic_e before and after the operation coincide and are non-empty, and

  2. 2.

    the resulting (abstract) rotation system is realizable.

To relate separator edges to flips in rotation systems (Item 3 of Lemma 2.3) we will make use of a result by Schaefer [21]. It states that every pair of drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT minus a non-perfect matching having the same set of crossings can be transformed into each other via triangle mutations (the operation of moving an edge over the crossing between two other edges; see also Figure 2), plus a homeomorphism of the plane.

Lemma 2.3.

Let 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D be a simple drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and let e={v,w}𝑒𝑣𝑤e=\{v,w\}italic_e = { italic_v , italic_w } be an edge of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. Then the following are equivalent:

  1. 1.

    The edge e𝑒eitalic_e is a separator edge.

  2. 2.

    The edge e𝑒eitalic_e can be closed to a simple curve γesubscriptsuperscript𝛾𝑒\gamma^{\prime}_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that every edge f𝑓fitalic_f of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D that connects two vertices on the same side of γesubscriptsuperscript𝛾𝑒\gamma^{\prime}_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is fully contained in that side.

  3. 3.

    The edge e𝑒eitalic_e is either uncrossed or it can be flipped to an edge esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that e𝑒eitalic_e and esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cross disjoint sets of edges.

Proof 2.4.

In the following we show that Item 1 is equivalent to Item 2 and that Item 1 is equivalent to Item 3. The implication Item 1 \Rightarrow Item 2 is given by Lemma 2.1. Hence, there are three implications left to show.

Item 2 \Rightarrow Item 1

Let 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the subdrawing of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D induced by all vertices of the inside of γesubscriptsuperscript𝛾𝑒\gamma^{\prime}_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and similarly 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all vertices of the outside of γesubscriptsuperscript𝛾𝑒\gamma^{\prime}_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since γesubscriptsuperscript𝛾𝑒\gamma^{\prime}_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT separates 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, any edge in 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has at most one point in common with γesubscriptsuperscript𝛾𝑒\gamma^{\prime}_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It remains to consider edges f={v1,v2}𝑓subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2f=\{v_{1},v_{2}\}italic_f = { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } with v1𝒟1subscript𝑣1subscript𝒟1v_{1}\in\mathcal{D}_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and v2𝒟2subscript𝑣2subscript𝒟2v_{2}\in\mathcal{D}_{2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If f𝑓fitalic_f crosses e𝑒eitalic_e, which it can cross at most once, then f𝑓fitalic_f lies in the inside of the crossing K4subscript𝐾4K_{4}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on the vertices {v,v1,w,v2}𝑣subscript𝑣1𝑤subscript𝑣2\{v,v_{1},w,v_{2}\}{ italic_v , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, or, in other words, it is separated from γeesubscriptsuperscript𝛾𝑒𝑒\gamma^{\prime}_{e}\setminus eitalic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∖ italic_e by the 4444-cycle v,v1,w,v2𝑣subscript𝑣1𝑤subscript𝑣2v,v_{1},w,v_{2}italic_v , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Hence it cannot cross γesubscriptsuperscript𝛾𝑒\gamma^{\prime}_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT a second time. The remaining case is that f𝑓fitalic_f crosses γeesubscriptsuperscript𝛾𝑒𝑒\gamma^{\prime}_{e}\setminus eitalic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∖ italic_e. Let \mathcal{B}caligraphic_B be the boundary of the unbounded cell of 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We show that f𝑓fitalic_f crosses \mathcal{B}caligraphic_B exactly once.

Assume for a contradiction that f𝑓fitalic_f crosses \mathcal{B}caligraphic_B more than once. Let x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be two consecutive such crossings along f𝑓fitalic_f such that the part fsuperscript𝑓f^{\prime}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT between x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT lies inside \mathcal{B}caligraphic_B. Then fsuperscript𝑓f^{\prime}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT crosses 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and separates the inside of \mathcal{B}caligraphic_B into two connected components F1subscript𝐹1F_{1}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and F2subscript𝐹2F_{2}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Let F1subscript𝐹1F_{1}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the component that contains e𝑒eitalic_e. If no vertex of 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT lies in F2subscript𝐹2F_{2}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then every edge in 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that is crossed by fsuperscript𝑓f^{\prime}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT would have to be crossed at least twice, a contradiction to 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D being simple. Hence, there is some vertex z𝑧zitalic_z of 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in F2subscript𝐹2F_{2}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. If v1subscript𝑣1v_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT lies in F1subscript𝐹1F_{1}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then {v1,z}subscript𝑣1𝑧\{v_{1},z\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_z } crosses its incident edge f𝑓fitalic_f. If v1subscript𝑣1v_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT lies in F2subscript𝐹2F_{2}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then {v1,v}subscript𝑣1𝑣\{v_{1},v\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v } and {v1,w}subscript𝑣1𝑤\{v_{1},w\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w } cross their incident edge f𝑓fitalic_f. Since we have a contradiction in both cases, f𝑓fitalic_f crosses \mathcal{B}caligraphic_B exactly once.

We reroute γeesubscriptsuperscript𝛾𝑒𝑒\gamma^{\prime}_{e}\setminus eitalic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∖ italic_e arbitrarily close to \mathcal{B}caligraphic_B along the outside of \mathcal{B}caligraphic_B. This does not change any crossings with 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and, by the arguments above, every edge f𝑓fitalic_f between the two subdrawings 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is crossed exactly once by the adapted curve γesubscriptsuperscript𝛾𝑒\gamma^{\prime}_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Consequently, e𝑒eitalic_e is a separator edge.

Item 1 \Rightarrow Item 3

Recall that γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has at most one point in common with every edge fe𝑓𝑒f\neq eitalic_f ≠ italic_e in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. Hence, replacing e𝑒eitalic_e by e=γeesuperscript𝑒subscript𝛾𝑒𝑒e^{\prime}=\gamma_{e}\setminus eitalic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∖ italic_e gives a simple drawing 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. If 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D and 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT have the same crossings, then both e𝑒eitalic_e and esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are uncrossed. Otherwise the rotation system must have changed and, by Lemma 2.1, the change is exactly as defined for a flip.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Refer to caption
(c)
Figure 2: 2(a) If after a triangle mutation the redrawn edge f𝑓fitalic_f (dashed) would cross esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT twice, then 2(b) we first move esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over the respective crossing and then 2(c) redraw f𝑓fitalic_f as planned.
Item 3 \Rightarrow Item 1

If e𝑒eitalic_e is uncrossed, then e𝑒eitalic_e is a separator edge by Section 2. So assume that e𝑒eitalic_e can be flipped to esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that no edge is crossed by both e𝑒eitalic_e and esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and let 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a simple drawing realizing the rotation system with esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT instead of e𝑒eitalic_e.

We first show that 𝒟e𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}-ecaligraphic_D - italic_e and 𝒟esuperscript𝒟superscript𝑒\mathcal{D}^{\prime}-e^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT have the same crossing edge pairs. Recall that for a rotation system of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, n4𝑛4n\geq 4italic_n ≥ 4, and any pair f,g𝑓𝑔f,gitalic_f , italic_g of independent edges, the subrotation system on the 4-tuple of the four end-vertices of f𝑓fitalic_f and g𝑔gitalic_g determines whether or not f𝑓fitalic_f and g𝑔gitalic_g cross. When flipping e𝑒eitalic_e to esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the subrotation system of any 4-tuple that contains at most one end-vertex of e𝑒eitalic_e remains unchanged. Hence it remains to consider 4-tuples v,w,v1,v2𝑣𝑤subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2v,w,v_{1},v_{2}italic_v , italic_w , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that involve both end-vertices of e𝑒eitalic_e. If in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, such a 4-tuple forms a crossing that does not involve e𝑒eitalic_e, then the order of v1subscript𝑣1v_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and v2subscript𝑣2v_{2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the counter-clockwise rotation around v𝑣vitalic_v and the clockwise rotation around w𝑤witalic_w (when starting with {v,w}𝑣𝑤\{v,w\}{ italic_v , italic_w }) is inverse, implying that the subrotation system after the flip is the same as the one before the flip and hence that the same edge pair also crosses in 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. If in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, such a 4-tuple is non-crossing or contains the crossing between e𝑒eitalic_e and {v1,v2}subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2\{v_{1},v_{2}\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, then the order of v1subscript𝑣1v_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and v2subscript𝑣2v_{2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the counter-clockwise rotation around v𝑣vitalic_v and the clockwise rotation around w𝑤witalic_w (when starting with {v,w}𝑣𝑤\{v,w\}{ italic_v , italic_w }) is the same. Hence, after the flip, the subrotation system again is either non-crossing or forms the crossing between esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and {v1,v2}subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2\{v_{1},v_{2}\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }. Altogether, this implies that all crossing edge pairs that exist in exactly one of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D and 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT involve e𝑒eitalic_e or esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Since 𝒟e𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}-ecaligraphic_D - italic_e and 𝒟esuperscript𝒟superscript𝑒\mathcal{D}^{\prime}-e^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT have the same crossing edge pairs, they at most differ in the order of crossings along edges. Hence we can apply Schaefer’s generalization of Gioan’s theorem [21] to transform 𝒟esuperscript𝒟superscript𝑒\mathcal{D}^{\prime}-e^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to 𝒟e𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}-ecaligraphic_D - italic_e via triangle mutations, potentially also transforming esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. More exactly, whenever we want to move an edge f𝑓fitalic_f over a crossing and esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT lies between the edge and the crossing, we first move esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over that crossing and then make the originally planned move with f𝑓fitalic_f; see Figure 2 for an illustration. This process may change the order of crossings along esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, but changes neither the crossing edge pairs nor the rotation at any vertex. Hence, once we have transformed 𝒟esuperscript𝒟superscript𝑒\mathcal{D}^{\prime}-e^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to 𝒟e𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}-ecaligraphic_D - italic_e, we have obtained a transformed edge esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that 𝒟e+e𝒟𝑒superscript𝑒\mathcal{D}-e+e^{\prime}caligraphic_D - italic_e + italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a realization of the flipped rotation system. Since no edge of 𝒟e𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}-ecaligraphic_D - italic_e is crossed by both e𝑒eitalic_e and esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and no edge incident to e𝑒eitalic_e crosses any of e𝑒eitalic_e and esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the union of e𝑒eitalic_e and esuperscript𝑒e^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fulfills the properties of a witness γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which shows that e𝑒eitalic_e is a separator edge.

Note that in the proof of Item 2 \Rightarrow Item 1 the subdrawings 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are interchangeable. That is, we could also reroute γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT close to the boundary of 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Furthermore, in the proof of Item 3 \Rightarrow Item 1 the drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D can be an arbitrary realization of the respective rotation system. Therefore, every simple drawing that corresponds to a rotation system that has at least one realization as a separable drawing is itself a separable drawing. This makes being separable a property of the rotation system for simple drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Before we come to the main results of this paper, let us mention 2-page book drawings 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. There the vertices lie on a common line and all edges e𝑒eitalic_e are drawn as half-circles. Hence, by closing e𝑒eitalic_e to a circle, we get a simple closed curve that has at most one point in common with any edge fe𝑓𝑒f\neq eitalic_f ≠ italic_e of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D.

{observation}

Every 2-page book drawing is separable.

3 Extendability

In the following we prove that every separable drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of a graph G𝐺Gitalic_G on n𝑛nitalic_n vertices can be completed to a simple drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. As a first step we show how to add one edge to 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. To do so, we impose a minimality condition regarding the witnesses of all edges in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. In particular, we call a collection 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\circ}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of witnesses, one for every edge in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, a witness set for 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. Further, for an edge {u,v}𝑢𝑣\{u,v\}{ italic_u , italic_v } not in G𝐺Gitalic_G, we call a continuous curve that connects the drawn end-vertices 𝒟(u)𝒟𝑢\mathcal{D}(u)caligraphic_D ( italic_u ) and 𝒟(v)𝒟𝑣\mathcal{D}(v)caligraphic_D ( italic_v ) in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D a realization of {u,v}𝑢𝑣\{u,v\}{ italic_u , italic_v } in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D.

Lemma 3.1.

Let 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D be a separable drawing of a non-complete graph G𝐺Gitalic_G and let 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\circ}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a witness set for 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. For a fixed edge {u,v}𝑢𝑣\{u,v\}{ italic_u , italic_v } not in G𝐺Gitalic_G, let e𝑒eitalic_e be a realization of {u,v}𝑢𝑣\{u,v\}{ italic_u , italic_v } in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D that, over all possible realizations, minimizes the number of crossings with the witness set 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\circ}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then the drawing 𝒟=𝒟+esuperscript𝒟𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}^{\prime}=\mathcal{D}+ecaligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = caligraphic_D + italic_e is simple.

Proof 3.2.

Let e𝑒eitalic_e be as described and assume, to the contrary, that 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is not simple. The minimality condition implies that e𝑒eitalic_e is self-avoiding, hence, the assumption implies that e𝑒eitalic_e has more than one point in common with an edge f𝑓fitalic_f of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D; see Figure 3 for an example illustration. Let x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be two of those common points that are consecutive along f𝑓fitalic_f. Then the parts e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and f1subscript𝑓1f_{1}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of e𝑒eitalic_e and f𝑓fitalic_f, respectively, between x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT each, form a simple closed curve. Since every witness γgsubscript𝛾𝑔\gamma_{g}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\circ}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for an edge g𝑔gitalic_g in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D has at most one point in common with f𝑓fitalic_f it follows that, if γgsubscript𝛾𝑔\gamma_{g}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT crosses f1subscript𝑓1f_{1}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then γgsubscript𝛾𝑔\gamma_{g}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT also has to cross e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Therefore, rerouting e𝑒eitalic_e along f𝑓fitalic_f between x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT reduces the number of crossings of e𝑒eitalic_e with 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\circ}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by at least one; a contradiction to the minimality condition on e𝑒eitalic_e.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Refer to caption
(c)
Figure 3: 3(a) The edges e𝑒eitalic_e and f𝑓fitalic_f have more than one point in common, with x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT being consecutive common points on f𝑓fitalic_f. 3(b) Every witness γgsubscript𝛾𝑔\gamma_{g}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that crosses f1subscript𝑓1f_{1}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT also has to cross e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. 3(c) The result of rerouting e𝑒eitalic_e along f𝑓fitalic_f between x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

A natural way to get to a simple drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT would be to iterate the argument of Lemma 3.1. However, we would need the drawing in each step to be separable, which might not be the case. In particular, Figure 4(a) shows an example of a separable drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D on 9999 vertices that cannot be completed to a separable drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Figure 4(b) shows a witness set for 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, and Figure 4(c) indicates that, with respect to crossings, there are only two different ways to add the edge e𝑒eitalic_e between the leftmost and rightmost vertex in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. Hence the witness of e𝑒eitalic_e would have to be the union of these two options. However, both cross the rightmost edge in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D (orange), which is not allowed for a witness.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Refer to caption
(c)
Figure 4: A separable drawing of a non-complete graph that cannot be extended to any separable drawing of a complete graph.

By imposing a second minimality condition, however, we can still extend to a simple drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Theorem 3.3.

Let 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D be a separable drawing of a non-complete graph on n𝑛nitalic_n vertices. Then 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D can be extended to a simple drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proof 3.4.

Let 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\circ}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a witness set for 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. We extend 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D to a drawing 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that (1) each added edge e𝑒eitalic_e creates a minimum number of additional crossings when being added to 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\circ}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and such that under this condition (2) 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has the least total number of crossings. Then, by Lemma 3.1, 𝒟+e𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}+ecaligraphic_D + italic_e is simple for each of those added edges.

Hence, an obstruction to simplicity can only occur between two added edges e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and e2subscript𝑒2e_{2}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT; see Figure 5 for an example illustration. Let x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be two consecutive common points on e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and let e1superscriptsubscript𝑒1e_{1}^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and e2superscriptsubscript𝑒2e_{2}^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the respective parts between x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By the first minimality condition, e1superscriptsubscript𝑒1e_{1}^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and e2superscriptsubscript𝑒2e_{2}^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT must have the same number of crossings with 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\circ}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, otherwise we could reroute one of e1superscriptsubscript𝑒1e_{1}^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT or e2superscriptsubscript𝑒2e_{2}^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT along (a part of) the other to get fewer crossings. But then exchanging e1superscriptsubscript𝑒1e_{1}^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and e2superscriptsubscript𝑒2e_{2}^{\prime}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT produces a drawing 𝒟′′superscript𝒟′′\mathcal{D}^{\prime\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fulfilling the first minimality condition but with fewer crossings than 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT; a contradiction to the second minimality condition on 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Refer to caption
(c)
Figure 5: 5(a) The edges e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and e2subscript𝑒2e_{2}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have more than one point in common, with x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT being consecutive common points on e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. 5(b) The parts e1subscriptsuperscript𝑒1e^{\prime}_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and e2subscriptsuperscript𝑒2e^{\prime}_{2}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT must have the same number of common points (4444 each in this example) with the witness set 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\circ}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. 5(c) The result of exchanging e1subscriptsuperscript𝑒1e^{\prime}_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and e2subscriptsuperscript𝑒2e^{\prime}_{2}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Inspired by the question whether every crossing-minimizing drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is pseudosphercial, we also investigate the extendability of crossing-minimizing drawings of non-complete graphs. Interestingly, the proof works rather similar to that for separable drawings, we only need to replace the arguments regarding the witness set with arguments using that the initial drawing is crossing-minimizing. We give the details in Appendix A.

Theorem 3.5.

Let 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D be a crossing-minimizing drawing of a non-complete graph on n𝑛nitalic_n vertices. Then 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D can be extended to a simple drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

4 Crossing-free Hamiltonian cycles and paths

This section is about separable drawings of the complete graph Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We first show that they are plane Hamiltonian connected, that is, there exists a crossing-free Hamiltonian path between each pair of vertices, which proves 1.2 for this class.

Theorem 4.1.

Every separable drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT contains, for each pair of vertices vw𝑣𝑤v\neq witalic_v ≠ italic_w in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, a crossing-free Hamiltonian path with end-vertices v𝑣vitalic_v and w𝑤witalic_w.

Proof 4.2.

The proof is by induction on n𝑛nitalic_n. For n2𝑛2n\leq 2italic_n ≤ 2 the statement is trivially true. For the induction step, let n3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n ≥ 3, let vw𝑣𝑤v\neq witalic_v ≠ italic_w be two arbitrary vertices in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, and consider some edge e={v,v}𝑒𝑣superscript𝑣e=\{v,v^{\prime}\}italic_e = { italic_v , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } with vwsuperscript𝑣𝑤v^{\prime}\neq witalic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≠ italic_w and witness γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Further, let 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the subdrawing of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D induced by the set of vertices on the side of γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT not containing w𝑤witalic_w and let 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the subdrawing of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D induced by the set of vertices on the other side of γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT but without vertex v𝑣vitalic_v.

Then 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are both proper subdrawings of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. Hence, by the induction hypothesis, there exists a crossing-free Hamiltonian path 𝒫1subscript𝒫1\mathcal{P}_{1}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with end-vertices v𝑣vitalic_v and vsuperscript𝑣v^{\prime}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and there exists a crossing-free Hamiltonian path 𝒫2subscript𝒫2\mathcal{P}_{2}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with end-vertices vsuperscript𝑣v^{\prime}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and w𝑤witalic_w. By Lemma 2.1, no edge of the path 𝒫1subscript𝒫1\mathcal{P}_{1}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT crosses any edge of the path 𝒫2subscript𝒫2\mathcal{P}_{2}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Consequently, the union of 𝒫1subscript𝒫1\mathcal{P}_{1}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝒫2subscript𝒫2\mathcal{P}_{2}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT forms a crossing-free Hamiltonian path in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D with end-vertices v𝑣vitalic_v and w𝑤witalic_w.

Figure 6(a) gives an illustration of the proof. With a similar approach we obtain that separable drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT also contain a crossing-free Hamiltonian cycle, by this proving 1.1 for them. Figure 6(b) shows an illustration of how to get the Hamiltonian cycle.

Theorem 4.3.

Every separable drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with n3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n ≥ 3 vertices contains a crossing-free Hamiltonian cycle.

Proof 4.4.

Let e={v,w}𝑒𝑣𝑤e=\{v,w\}italic_e = { italic_v , italic_w } be an arbitrary edge in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D with witness γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and let 𝒟1subscript𝒟1\mathcal{D}_{1}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝒟2subscript𝒟2\mathcal{D}_{2}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the subdrawings of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D induced by the vertices on the two sides of γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, respectively. By Theorem 4.1, there exists a crossing-free Hamiltonian path 𝒫isubscript𝒫𝑖\mathcal{P}_{i}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in 𝒟isubscript𝒟𝑖\mathcal{D}_{i}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with end-vertices v𝑣vitalic_v and w𝑤witalic_w, for i{1,2}𝑖12i\in\{1,2\}italic_i ∈ { 1 , 2 }. By Lemma 2.1, no edge of 𝒫1subscript𝒫1\mathcal{P}_{1}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT crosses any edge of 𝒫2subscript𝒫2\mathcal{P}_{2}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Hence, the union of 𝒫1subscript𝒫1\mathcal{P}_{1}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝒫2subscript𝒫2\mathcal{P}_{2}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT forms a crossing-free Hamiltonian cycle in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Figure 6: 6(a) Finding a crossing-free Hamiltonian path between two given vertices and 6(b) finding a crossing-free Hamiltonian cycle in a separable drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

For the proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.3 it is actually sufficient that for every pair of vertices v𝑣vitalic_v and w𝑤witalic_w, one of them is incident to a separator edge that is not {v,w}𝑣𝑤\{v,w\}{ italic_v , italic_w }. In particular, this is the case when every vertex is incident to at least 2222 separator edges. We call this property degree-2-separable. In the proof we further rely on induction. Therefore, we call a class 𝒮𝒮\mathcal{S}caligraphic_S of simple drawings subset-closed if every subdrawing of a drawing in 𝒮𝒮\mathcal{S}caligraphic_S is itself in 𝒮𝒮\mathcal{S}caligraphic_S. With this we get the following observation, which might be helpful to show 1.1 for even larger classes of simple drawings.

{observation}

Let 𝒮𝒮\mathcal{S}caligraphic_S be a subset-closed class of simple drawings of complete graphs such that every drawing in 𝒮𝒮\mathcal{S}caligraphic_S is degree-2-separable. Then every drawing in 𝒮𝒮\mathcal{S}caligraphic_S contains a crossing-free Hamiltonian cycle.

Let us further mention that a single separator edge is enough to find a crossing-free matching of linear size; let us call this property 1-separable for a subset-closed class of simple drawings. Indeed, we can add the separator edge e𝑒eitalic_e to the matching and then recurse on the subdrawings in the two sides of the witness γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In the worst case, for each edge that we add, we get two subdrawings with only one vertex each that cannot be matched anymore.

{observation}

Let 𝒮𝒮\mathcal{S}caligraphic_S be a subset-closed class of simple drawings of complete graphs such that every drawing in 𝒮𝒮\mathcal{S}caligraphic_S is 1-separable. Then every drawing in 𝒮𝒮\mathcal{S}caligraphic_S contains a crossing-free matching of linear size in n𝑛nitalic_n.

Unfortunately there exist simple drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT without a single separator edge. Figure 7 shows the (up to weak isomorphism333Two simple drawings of a graph are weakly isomorphic if they have the same crossing edge pairs. For simple drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, weak isomorphism is equivalent to having the same rotation system [10, 13].) only two simple drawings of K8subscript𝐾8K_{8}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with this property; the different edge colors are just for better visibility. This result has been obtained by applying the algorithm of Theorem 5.1 to all different rotation systems of K8subscript𝐾8K_{8}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as given in [1]. Note that Harborth and Mengersen [12] proved that simple drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for n7𝑛7n\leq 7italic_n ≤ 7 always have uncrossed edges, and therefore, they have separator edges by Section 2. Hence, the drawings depicted in Figure 7 are the smallest examples without any separator edge.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Figure 7: The two simple drawings of K8subscript𝐾8K_{8}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that do not have a single separator edge.

We conclude this section by proving that all g-convex drawings are separable, therefore showing that our results on plane Hamiltonicity improve upon the work of Bergold, Felsner, M. Reddy, Orthaber, and Scheucher [8]. Our proof is inspired by the proof of Arroyo, Richter, and Sunohara [7] that all so-called hereditarily convex drawings (of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) are pseudospherical.

Theorem 4.5.

Every g-convex drawing (of Kn)K_{n})italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is separable.

Proof 4.6.

We show that every edge e={a,b}𝑒𝑎𝑏e=\{a,b\}italic_e = { italic_a , italic_b } in a g-convex drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D is a separator edge. If e𝑒eitalic_e is uncrossed, then it is a separator edge by Section 2. Hence, we can assume that e𝑒eitalic_e is crossed by at least one edge. In the following we find a simple closed curve γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT fulfilling Item 2 of Lemma 2.3, thereby showing that e𝑒eitalic_e is a separator edge. In particular, we find vertex sets VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and VRsubscript𝑉𝑅V_{R}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that will correspond to the vertices on the two sides of γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, respectively.

We fix an orientation of e𝑒eitalic_e and say that a vertex v𝑣vitalic_v of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D lies on the left or on the right of e𝑒eitalic_e if the convex side of the triangle spanned by e𝑒eitalic_e and v𝑣vitalic_v lies to the left or right of the oriented edge e𝑒eitalic_e, respectively. Recall that both sides of such a triangle can be convex and that the convex side is unique if and only if it is part of a crossing K4={a,b,v,w}subscript𝐾4𝑎𝑏𝑣𝑤K_{4}=\{a,b,v,w\}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_a , italic_b , italic_v , italic_w }. In this K4subscript𝐾4K_{4}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, e𝑒eitalic_e can either be a diagonal or a boundary edge. In the first case v𝑣vitalic_v and w𝑤witalic_w lie on different sides of e𝑒eitalic_e and in the second case they lie on the same side of e𝑒eitalic_e; see Figure 8 for an illustration.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Figure 8: In a crossing K4subscript𝐾4K_{4}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, e𝑒eitalic_e is either 8(a) a diagonal edge or 8(b) a boundary edge.

We start with VL=VR={a,b}subscript𝑉𝐿subscript𝑉𝑅𝑎𝑏V_{L}=V_{R}=\{a,b\}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_a , italic_b }. In a first step, we consider crossing K4subscript𝐾4K_{4}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT’s where e𝑒eitalic_e is a diagonal and we add the respective vertices v𝑣vitalic_v that are to the left of e𝑒eitalic_e to VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Since 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D is g-convex, the respective vertices w𝑤witalic_w that are to the right of e𝑒eitalic_e will never be added to VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In a second step, we successively add vertices v𝑣vitalic_v to VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if there exists a crossing K4={a,b,v,v}subscript𝐾4𝑎𝑏superscript𝑣𝑣K_{4}=\{a,b,v^{\prime},v\}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_a , italic_b , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_v } such that e𝑒eitalic_e is a boundary edge and vsuperscript𝑣v^{\prime}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT was already added to VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT before. Once we cannot add anymore vertices to VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in this manner, we add all remaining vertices to VRsubscript𝑉𝑅V_{R}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Note that for all vertices v𝑣vitalic_v in VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the unique convex side of the triangle spanned by v𝑣vitalic_v and e𝑒eitalic_e is to the left of e𝑒eitalic_e.

Let 𝒟Lsubscript𝒟𝐿\mathcal{D}_{L}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝒟Rsubscript𝒟𝑅\mathcal{D}_{R}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the subdrawings of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D induced by the vertices VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and VRsubscript𝑉𝑅V_{R}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, respectively. Note that e𝑒eitalic_e is uncrossed in both those subdrawings. Consider the cell Fsubscript𝐹F_{\infty}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in 𝒟Lsubscript𝒟𝐿\mathcal{D}_{L}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that is incident to e𝑒eitalic_e and to its right. We show that all vertices of VRsubscript𝑉𝑅V_{R}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT lie in Fsubscript𝐹F_{\infty}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Assume first that a vertex z𝑧zitalic_z of VRsubscript𝑉𝑅V_{R}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT lies in the convex side of a triangle spanned by e𝑒eitalic_e and a vertex v𝑣vitalic_v added to VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the first step, that is, there is an edge {v,w}𝑣𝑤\{v,w\}{ italic_v , italic_w } that crosses e𝑒eitalic_e. Then, by convexity, the edge {z,w}𝑧𝑤\{z,w\}{ italic_z , italic_w } must lie in the crossing side of the K4subscript𝐾4K_{4}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT spanned by {v,a,w,b}𝑣𝑎𝑤𝑏\{v,a,w,b\}{ italic_v , italic_a , italic_w , italic_b } and hence {z,w}𝑧𝑤\{z,w\}{ italic_z , italic_w } also crosses e𝑒eitalic_e; see Figure 8(a) for an example. But this implies that z𝑧zitalic_z lies to the left of e𝑒eitalic_e and was added to VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the first step; a contradiction to zVR𝑧subscript𝑉𝑅z\in V_{R}italic_z ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Assume next that z𝑧zitalic_z lies in the unique convex side of a triangle added to VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the second step but not in one added in the first step. Then either {z,a}𝑧𝑎\{z,a\}{ italic_z , italic_a } or {z,b}𝑧𝑏\{z,b\}{ italic_z , italic_b } has to cross a triangle spanned by e𝑒eitalic_e and a vertex vsuperscript𝑣v^{\prime}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; see Figure 8(b) for an example. Therefore, z𝑧zitalic_z is added to VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the second step; again a contradiction.

Assume last that z𝑧zitalic_z lies neither in Fsubscript𝐹F_{\infty}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT nor in any of the triangles spanned by e𝑒eitalic_e and VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then the edges {z,a}𝑧𝑎\{z,a\}{ italic_z , italic_a } and {z,b}𝑧𝑏\{z,b\}{ italic_z , italic_b } cannot cross any of those triangle edges as argued before. Further, no vertex of VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can lie in the triangle spanned by z𝑧zitalic_z and e𝑒eitalic_e to the right of e𝑒eitalic_e because we would not have added it to VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT then. Since z𝑧zitalic_z does not lie in Fsubscript𝐹F_{\infty}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, some part of 𝒟Lsubscript𝒟𝐿\mathcal{D}_{L}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT separates it from there. Hence, there is an edge f={v1,v2}𝑓subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2f=\{v_{1},v_{2}\}italic_f = { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } in 𝒟Lsubscript𝒟𝐿\mathcal{D}_{L}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT crossing {z,a}𝑧𝑎\{z,a\}{ italic_z , italic_a } or {z,b}𝑧𝑏\{z,b\}{ italic_z , italic_b }. Since v1subscript𝑣1v_{1}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and v2subscript𝑣2v_{2}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are on the same side of the triangle {z,a,b}𝑧𝑎𝑏\{z,a,b\}{ italic_z , italic_a , italic_b } and f𝑓fitalic_f does not cross e𝑒eitalic_e, f𝑓fitalic_f crosses both {z,a}𝑧𝑎\{z,a\}{ italic_z , italic_a } and {z,b}𝑧𝑏\{z,b\}{ italic_z , italic_b }; see Figure 9(a) for an illustration. Consequently, the triangles {v1,v2,a}subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2𝑎\{v_{1},v_{2},a\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a } and {v1,v2,b}subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣2𝑏\{v_{1},v_{2},b\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b } have no convex side; a contradiction to 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D being g-convex.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Figure 9: Two situations leading to a triangle (marked orange) not having a convex side.

It remains to show that no edge f={w1,w2}𝑓subscript𝑤1subscript𝑤2f=\{w_{1},w_{2}\}italic_f = { italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } of 𝒟Rsubscript𝒟𝑅\mathcal{D}_{R}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can cross any edge of 𝒟Lsubscript𝒟𝐿\mathcal{D}_{L}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We first show that f𝑓fitalic_f cannot cross any edge incident to e𝑒eitalic_e. If f𝑓fitalic_f itself is incident to e𝑒eitalic_e, this cannot happen similar to before. Otherwise, since both w1subscript𝑤1w_{1}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and w2subscript𝑤2w_{2}italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are in Fsubscript𝐹F_{\infty}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, f𝑓fitalic_f has to pass through a triangle spanned by e𝑒eitalic_e and a vertex v𝑣vitalic_v of VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; see Figure 9(b) for an illustration. This results in the triangles {w1,w2,a}subscript𝑤1subscript𝑤2𝑎\{w_{1},w_{2},a\}{ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a } and {w1,w2,b}subscript𝑤1subscript𝑤2𝑏\{w_{1},w_{2},b\}{ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b } not having a convex side. Consequently, f𝑓fitalic_f can only cross some edge in 𝒟Lsubscript𝒟𝐿\mathcal{D}_{L}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that is independent to e𝑒eitalic_e. But then f𝑓fitalic_f has to cross that edge more than once. This is a contradiction in both cases.

Hence, we can close the edge e𝑒eitalic_e in Fsubscript𝐹F_{\infty}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT close to the boundary of 𝒟Lsubscript𝒟𝐿\mathcal{D}_{L}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to a simple curve γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that fulfills all properties of a witness, that is, e𝑒eitalic_e is a separator edge.

Note that we could not just add all vertices to the left or right of e𝑒eitalic_e to VLsubscript𝑉𝐿V_{L}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or VRsubscript𝑉𝑅V_{R}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_R end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, respectively. Figure 10(a) shows an example where this would not result in two separated subdrawings.

Further, to see that separable drawings are not only the union of g-convex and 2-page book drawings, for example, consider a straight-line drawing with at least 5555 vertices {v1,,vk}subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣𝑘\{v_{1},\ldots,v_{k}\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } on the convex hull and reroute the edges {v1,v3}subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣3\{v_{1},v_{3}\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } and {v2,v4}subscript𝑣2subscript𝑣4\{v_{2},v_{4}\}{ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } outside of the convex hull. This is always separable, not g-convex, and in most cases also not weakly isomorphic to any 2-page book drawing. Figure 10(b) shows the smallest such example.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Figure 10: 10(a) A g-convex drawing where a complete left-right splitting via convex sides is not possible. 10(b) A separable drawing that is neither g-convex nor a 2-page book drawing.

5 Recognition

We have shown in Section 2 that for simple drawings 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of the complete graph Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT being separable is a property of the rotation system (Item 3 of Lemma 2.3). From this we obtain a polynomial time recognition algorithm for separable drawings (and rotation systems) of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Theorem 5.1.

It can be decided in 𝒪(n6)𝒪superscript𝑛6\mathcal{O}(n^{6})caligraphic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) time whether a given simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is separable.

Proof 5.2.

We check, for each edge e={v,w}𝑒𝑣𝑤e=\{v,w\}italic_e = { italic_v , italic_w } in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, whether it is a separator edge. If e𝑒eitalic_e is uncrossed, then it is a separator edge by Section 2 and we are done. Otherwise we use the relation between separator edges and flips in rotation systems given by Item 3 of Lemma 2.3 to determine all possible flips of e𝑒eitalic_e in the rotation system. Recall that by Lemma 2.3, separability of a simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a property of the rotation system of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. Given the drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, its rotation system can be computed in 𝒪(n2)𝒪superscript𝑛2\mathcal{O}(n^{2})caligraphic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) time in a straight forward way. In the following, we use this rotation system to check separability.

By the definition of a flip of e𝑒eitalic_e in the rotation system, the subsets in the counter-clockwise rotation of v𝑣vitalic_v and the clockwise rotation of w𝑤witalic_w between the position of e𝑒eitalic_e before and after the flip must coincide. We get all such possibilities of potential flips for e𝑒eitalic_e in 𝒪(n)𝒪𝑛\mathcal{O}(n)caligraphic_O ( italic_n ) time, by going through the rotations of v𝑣vitalic_v and w𝑤witalic_w in parallel (starting with {v,w}𝑣𝑤\{v,w\}{ italic_v , italic_w }) and keeping a parity list of all vertices how often they appeared in the subsets. A counter is used to see how many of the vertices appeared an odd number of times, that is, showed up in only one of the two subsets so far. Every time this counter is zero we have a potential flip.

Checking whether the new rotation system after a potential flip is realizable takes 𝒪(n3)𝒪superscript𝑛3\mathcal{O}(n^{3})caligraphic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) time because we only need to test all 5555-tuples that contain the flipped edge [15]. Further, checking whether the flipped edge has all different crossings from the original edge takes 𝒪(n2)𝒪superscript𝑛2\mathcal{O}(n^{2})caligraphic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) time by testing for all O(n2)𝑂superscript𝑛2O(n^{2})italic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) new crossings whether they also existed before.

In total there are 𝒪(n2)𝒪superscript𝑛2\mathcal{O}(n^{2})caligraphic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) many edges e𝑒eitalic_e, each of them has 𝒪(n)𝒪𝑛\mathcal{O}(n)caligraphic_O ( italic_n ) potential flips, and testing whether such a flip yields a witness for e𝑒eitalic_e takes 𝒪(n3)𝒪superscript𝑛3\mathcal{O}(n^{3})caligraphic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) time as argued. Hence, we can decide in 𝒪(n6)𝒪superscript𝑛6\mathcal{O}(n^{6})caligraphic_O ( italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) time whether a simple drawing of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is separable.

Unfortunately, the situation is very different for simple drawings of arbitrary graphs. In particular, we construct simple drawings of matchings in the following where it is NP-hard to decide whether they are separable. For this we use a reduction from linked planar 3-SAT with negated edges on one side, which was shown to be NP-hard by Pilz [19, Theorem 10].

The incidence graph Gϕsubscript𝐺italic-ϕG_{\phi}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of a 3-SAT formula ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ has one vertex for each variable and each clause in ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ and an edge between a variable vertex and a clause vertex if the variable occurs in the clause (as a positive or negative literal). If Gϕsubscript𝐺italic-ϕG_{\phi}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a planar graph, then ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ is a planar 3-SAT instance. For linked planar 3-SAT there is a Hamiltonian cycle 𝒞𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C that first visits all variable vertices and then all clause vertices such that the union of Gϕsubscript𝐺italic-ϕG_{\phi}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 𝒞𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C is still a planar graph. Further, in the restriction ?with negated edges on one side?, there exists an embedding of Gϕ𝒞subscript𝐺italic-ϕ𝒞G_{\phi}\cup\mathcal{C}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∪ caligraphic_C such that all edges in Gϕsubscript𝐺italic-ϕG_{\phi}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT corresponding to positive literals are drawn inside of 𝒞𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C and all edges corresponding to negative literals are drawn outside of 𝒞𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C.

Theorem 5.3.

It is NP-complete to decide whether a given simple drawing of an arbitrary graph is separable.

Proof 5.4.

Given a 3-SAT formula ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ that is an instance of linked planar 3-SAT with negated edges on one side, we construct a simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D containing a special edge e𝑒eitalic_e such that e𝑒eitalic_e is a separator edge if and only if ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ is satisfiable. Therefore, it is NP-hard to decide whether e𝑒eitalic_e is a separator edge. Moreover, we show that all other edges in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D are definitely separator edges. Consequently, it is NP-hard to decide whether 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D is separable. In Figure 11 we illustrate the individual gadgets of the following construction and in Figure 12 we show an example of the complete drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D corresponding to a small 3-SAT formula.

Given an embedding of the union of the incidence graph Gϕsubscript𝐺italic-ϕG_{\phi}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the Hamiltonian cycle 𝒞𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C, we let e𝑒eitalic_e be the part of 𝒞𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C between the clause vertices and the variable vertices. We then add four boundary edges, close to 𝒞𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C and on both sides next to the variable and the clause part each, crossing e𝑒eitalic_e and crossing each other in the middle; see Figures 11(a), 11(c) and 11(f). Thereby we restrict the potential witness γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of e𝑒eitalic_e to be drawn within a strip close to 𝒞𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C.

For each edge of Gϕsubscript𝐺italic-ϕG_{\phi}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we also add an edge to 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D. We call these edges literal edges. Instead of the variable vertices of Gϕsubscript𝐺italic-ϕG_{\phi}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we let the incident literal edges in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D cross in a grid such that edges for positive literals are drawn in one direction and those for negative literals in the other direction; see Figure 11(b). This is possible because 𝒞𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C splits those edges into inside and outside, respectively. In that way we force γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to either cross all positive or all negative literal edges of the corresponding variable. In the following, crossing the positive side encodes the variable being set to FALSE and vice versa.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Refer to caption
(c)
Refer to caption
(d)
Refer to caption
(e)
Refer to caption
(f)
Figure 11: The variable gadget 11(b) and the two clause gadgets 11(d) and 11(e). Boundary edges are drawn green, literal edges darkorange, auxiliary edges purple, and local edges lightblue.

For the clause variables of Gϕsubscript𝐺italic-ϕG_{\phi}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we construct special clause gadgets depending on how many positive/negative literals are in the clause. We can assume, for simplicity and without loss of generality, that all clauses contain exactly three literals (duplicating one literal if necessary). Hence we have two cases, either all literals are of the same type (negated or not) or two are of one type and one of the other. See Figures 11(d) and 11(e) for the two constructions of clause gadgets. In addition to the literal edges, we need some auxiliary edges that cross e𝑒eitalic_e and a boundary edge, and some local edges in the gadgets. Since auxiliary edges cross e𝑒eitalic_e, they cannot be crossed by γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT again. Further, literal edges can only be crossed if they were not yet crossed in the variable gadget, that is, if they have the value TRUE. Finally, γesubscript𝛾𝑒\gamma_{e}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can pass through a clause gadget without crossing any local edge twice if and only if it can cross at least one literal edge.

So far we have shown that e𝑒eitalic_e is a separator edge if and only if ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ is satisfiable. It remains to show that all other edges in the construction are separator edges in any case. The local edges can be closed locally within the gadget. The boundary edges can be closed next to the boundary edge on the other side of the strip. Further, we let the auxiliary edges in the construction cross e𝑒eitalic_e in reverse order (nested) to how they enter the strip within the boundary edges. Therefore they pairwise do not cross and can be closed outside of the other side of the strip. For the literal edges we go back next to the boundary on the other side of the strip. Since Gϕsubscript𝐺italic-ϕG_{\phi}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is planar, we can cross all other literal edges except for those corresponding to the same variable. In each clause gadget we can cross the auxiliary edge or at least one of the three literal edges. Between the clause and variable gadgets (Figure 11(c)) we change sides and then cross all literal edges on the same side.

This finishes the proof for NP-hardness. For NP-completeness observe that a witness set for 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D can be encoded and checked in polynomial space and time.

Refer to caption
Figure 12: The simple drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D corresponding to the 3-SAT formula (ab)(¬abc)(¬b¬c)𝑎𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑐𝑏𝑐(a\vee b)\wedge(\neg a\vee b\vee c)\wedge(\neg b\vee\neg c)( italic_a ∨ italic_b ) ∧ ( ¬ italic_a ∨ italic_b ∨ italic_c ) ∧ ( ¬ italic_b ∨ ¬ italic_c ) as an instance to decide whether the edge e𝑒eitalic_e (darkblue) is a separator edge. The first and third clause use the same gadget, just upside down, and the literals a𝑎aitalic_a and ¬c𝑐\neg c¬ italic_c, respectively, are duplicated to have exactly 3 literals in all clauses.

6 Future Work

Extending the question whether all crossing-minimizing drawings of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are g-convex [6] we ask the following.

Question 6.1.

Is every crossing-minimizing drawing of an arbitrary graph separable?

Further, we showed NP-hardness for recognizing separable drawings. The corresponding question for pseudospherical drawings [7] is still open to the best of our knowledge.

Question 6.2.

Is it NP-hard to decide whether a simple drawing of an arbitrary graph is pseudospherical?

References

  • [1] Bernardo M. Ábrego, Oswin Aichholzer, Silvia Fernández-Merchant, Thomas Hackl, Jürgen Pammer, Alexander Pilz, Pedro Ramos, Gelasio Salazar, and Birgit Vogtenhuber. All good drawings of small complete graphs. In Proceedings of the 31st European Workshop on Computational Geometry (EuroCG 2015), pages 57–60, 2015. URL: https://eurocg15.fri.uni-lj.si/pub/eurocg15-book-of-abstracts.pdf.
  • [2] Oswin Aichholzer, Alfredo García, Javier Tejel, Birgit Vogtenhuber, and Alexandra Weinberger. Twisted ways to find plane structures in simple drawings of complete graphs. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 30:40–66, 2024. doi:10.1007/s00454-023-00610-0.
  • [3] Oswin Aichholzer, Joachim Orthaber, and Birgit Vogtenhuber. Towards crossing-free Hamiltonian cycles in simple drawings of complete graphs. Computing in Geometry and Topology, 3(2):5:1–5:30, 2024. doi:10.57717/cgt.v3i2.47.
  • [4] Alan Arroyo, Martin Derka, and Irene Parada. Extending simple drawings. In Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD 2019), pages 230–243, 2019. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-35802-0_18.
  • [5] Alan Arroyo, Fabian Klute, Irene Parada, Raimund Seidel, Birgit Vogtenhuber, and Tilo Wiedera. Inserting one edge into a simple drawing is hard. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 69(3):745–770, 2023. doi:10.1007/s00454-022-00394-9.
  • [6] Alan Arroyo, Dan McQuillan, R. Bruce Richter, and Gelasio Salazar. Convex drawings of the complete graph: topology meets geometry. Ars Mathematica Contemporanea, 22(3):27, 2022. doi:10.26493/1855-3974.2134.ac9.
  • [7] Alan Arroyo, R. Bruce Richter, and Matthew Sunohara. Extending drawings of complete graphs into arrangements of pseudocircles. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 35(2):1050–1076, 2021. doi:10.1137/20M1313234.
  • [8] Helena Bergold, Stefan Felsner, Meghana M. Reddy, Joachim Orthaber, and Manfred Scheucher. Plane Hamiltonian cycles in convex drawings. In Proceedings of the 40th International Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG 2024), pages 18:1–18:16, 2024. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2024.18.
  • [9] Robert Ganian, Thekla Hamm, Fabian Klute, Irene Parada, and Birgit Vogtenhuber. Crossing-optimal extension of simple drawings. In Proceedings of the 48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2021), pages 72:1–72:17, 2021. doi:10.4230/LIPICS.ICALP.2021.72.
  • [10] Emeric Gioan. Complete graph drawings up to triangle mutations. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 67(4):985–1022, 2022. doi:10.1007/s00454-021-00339-8.
  • [11] Péter Hajnal, Alexander Igamberdiev, Günter Rote, and André Schulz. Saturated simple and 2-simple topological graphs with few edges. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 22(1):117–138, 2018. doi:10.7155/jgaa.00460.
  • [12] Heiko Harborth and Ingrid Mengersen. Edges without crossings in drawings of complete graphs. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 17(3):299–311, 1974. doi:10.1016/0095-8956(74)90035-5.
  • [13] Jan Kynčl. Simple realizability of complete abstract topological graphs in P. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 45(3):383–399, 2011. doi:10.1007/s00454-010-9320-x.
  • [14] Jan Kynčl. Improved enumeration of simple topological graphs. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 50(3):727–770, 2013. doi:10.1007/s00454-013-9535-8.
  • [15] Jan Kynčl. Simple realizability of complete abstract topological graphs simplified. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 64(1):1–27, 2020. doi:10.1007/s00454-020-00204-0.
  • [16] Jan Kynčl and Jan Soukup. Extending simple monotone drawings. In Proceedings of the 40th European Workshop on Computational Geometry (EuroCG 2024), pages 48:1–48:6, 2024. URL: https://eurocg2024.math.uoi.gr/data/uploads/paper_48.pdf, arXiv:2312.17675.
  • [17] Friedrich Levi. Die Teilung der projektiven Ebene durch Gerade oder Pseudogerade. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Mathematisch-Physische Klasse, 78:256–267, 1926. In German.
  • [18] János Pach, József Solymosi, and Géza Tóth. Unavoidable configurations in complete topological graphs. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 30(2):311–320, 2003. doi:10.1007/s00454-003-0012-9.
  • [19] Alexander Pilz. Planar 3-SAT with a clause/variable cycle. Discrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science, 21(3):18:1–18:20, 2019. doi:10.23638/DMTCS-21-3-18.
  • [20] Nabil H. Rafla. The Good Drawings Dnsubscript𝐷𝑛D_{n}italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the Complete Graph Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. PhD thesis, McGill University, Montreal, 1988. URL: https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/x346d4920.
  • [21] Marcus Schaefer. Taking a detour; or, Gioan’s theorem, and pseudolinear drawings of complete graphs. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 66(1):12–31, 2021. doi:10.1007/s00454-021-00296-2.

Appendix A Extendability of crossing-minimizing drawings

Here we give a proof of Theorem 3.5. Similar to the case of separable drawings, we begin by adding one edge.

Lemma A.1.

Let 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D be a crossing-minimizing drawing of a non-complete graph G𝐺Gitalic_G. Let e𝑒eitalic_e be a realization of an edge not in G𝐺Gitalic_G that extends 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D and creates a minimum number of additional crossings in D𝐷Ditalic_D. Then the drawing 𝒟=𝒟+esuperscript𝒟𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}^{\prime}=\mathcal{D}+ecaligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = caligraphic_D + italic_e is simple.

Proof A.2.

Note that e𝑒eitalic_e is clearly self-avoiding and 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D is a simple drawing. Assume now to the contrary that 𝒟=𝒟+esuperscript𝒟𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}^{\prime}=\mathcal{D}+ecaligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = caligraphic_D + italic_e is not simple. Then there exists an edge f𝑓fitalic_f in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D such that e𝑒eitalic_e and f𝑓fitalic_f have more than one point in common.

Let x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be two of those common points that are consecutive along f𝑓fitalic_f and let 𝒟efsuperscriptsubscript𝒟𝑒𝑓\mathcal{D}_{e}^{f}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the drawing obtained from 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by exchanging e𝑒eitalic_e and f𝑓fitalic_f between x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then 𝒟efsuperscriptsubscript𝒟𝑒𝑓\mathcal{D}_{e}^{f}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has one or two crossings less than 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let, in particular, c1esuperscriptsubscript𝑐1𝑒c_{1}^{e}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and c2esuperscriptsubscript𝑐2𝑒c_{2}^{e}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the number of crossings involving e𝑒eitalic_e 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 𝒟efsuperscriptsubscript𝒟𝑒𝑓\mathcal{D}_{e}^{f}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and c1superscriptsubscript𝑐1c_{1}^{-}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and c2superscriptsubscript𝑐2c_{2}^{-}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the number of crossings not involving e𝑒eitalic_e in 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 𝒟efsuperscriptsubscript𝒟𝑒𝑓\mathcal{D}_{e}^{f}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, respectively.

If c2<c1superscriptsubscript𝑐2superscriptsubscript𝑐1c_{2}^{-}<c_{1}^{-}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then removing e𝑒eitalic_e from 𝒟efsuperscriptsubscript𝒟𝑒𝑓\mathcal{D}_{e}^{f}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT results in a drawing 𝒟′′superscript𝒟′′\mathcal{D}^{\prime\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of G𝐺Gitalic_G with fewer crossings than 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D; a contradiction to 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D being crossing-minimizing.

Else, let 𝒟esuperscript𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}^{e}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the drawing after rerouting e𝑒eitalic_e along f𝑓fitalic_f between x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then 𝒟esuperscript𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}^{e}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has at most c2esuperscriptsubscript𝑐2𝑒c_{2}^{e}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (respectively +11+1+ 1, if both x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are crossings and the parts of e𝑒eitalic_e before x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and after x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT lie on a different sides of f𝑓fitalic_f) crossings involving e𝑒eitalic_e (since e𝑒eitalic_e does not cross f𝑓fitalic_f between x1subscript𝑥1x_{1}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and x2subscript𝑥2x_{2}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT). In the +11+1+ 1 case 𝒟efsuperscriptsubscript𝒟𝑒𝑓\mathcal{D}_{e}^{f}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has two crossings less than 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (so c2e+1<c1esuperscriptsubscript𝑐2𝑒1superscriptsubscript𝑐1𝑒c_{2}^{e}+1<c_{1}^{e}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 < italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). In any case, 𝒟esuperscript𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}^{e}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has fewer crossings involving e𝑒eitalic_e than 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT; a contradiction to e𝑒eitalic_e creating a minimum number of additional crossings.

It is not too surprising that the resulting drawing 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT need not be crossing-minimizing anymore. Figure 13(a) shows an example of a crossing-minimizing drawing 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D on 8888 vertices that cannot be extended to a crossing-minimizing drawing of K8subscript𝐾8K_{8}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Indeed, the subdrawing of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D without v𝑣vitalic_v (marked in blue) is a drawing of K7subscript𝐾7K_{7}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with 9999 crossings, which is minimal. There are four edges missing in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D, all of which are incident to v𝑣vitalic_v. The shaded green areas in Figure 13(b) indicate how many edges an edge starting in v𝑣vitalic_v has to cross at least to reach that area. Based on that, the numbers close to the vertices indicate how many edges an edge between v𝑣vitalic_v and the respective vertex has to cross at least. Summing up, we see that any extension of 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D to a simple drawing of K8subscript𝐾8K_{8}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has at least 19191919 crossings. This is one more than the minimum for drawings of K8subscript𝐾8K_{8}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Figure 13: A crossing-minimizing drawing on 8888 vertices that cannot be completed to a crossing-minimizing drawing of K8subscript𝐾8K_{8}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 8 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

However, again similar to the proof for separable drawings, we can impose another minimality condition to add several edges at once.

See 3.5

Proof A.3.

We extend 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D to a drawing 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of Knsubscript𝐾𝑛K_{n}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that (1) each added edge e𝑒eitalic_e creates a minimum number of additional crossings in 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D and such that under this condition (2) 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has the least total number of crossings. Then, by Lemma A.1, 𝒟+e𝒟𝑒\mathcal{D}+ecaligraphic_D + italic_e is simple for each of those added edges.

Assume that 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is not simple. Then there are two added edges e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and e2subscript𝑒2e_{2}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that have more than one point in common. Let 𝒟′′superscript𝒟′′\mathcal{D}^{\prime\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the drawing obtained from 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by exchanging e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and e2subscript𝑒2e_{2}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (between two consecutive common points on one of the edges). In the process, e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and e2subscript𝑒2e_{2}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT exchange some crossings that they have with 𝒟𝒟\mathcal{D}caligraphic_D and, by the first minimality condition on 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the numbers of those exchanged crossings must coincide. Hence, also 𝒟′′superscript𝒟′′\mathcal{D}^{\prime\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT fulfills the first minimality condition but has in total at least one crossing less than 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT; a contradiction to the second minimality condition on 𝒟superscript𝒟\mathcal{D}^{\prime}caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.