Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1107.0176

How Not to Characterize Planar-emulable Graphs

Markus Chimani·Martin Derka·Petr Hliněný·Matěj Klusáček
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We investigate the question of which graphs have planar emulators (a locally-surjective homomorphism from some finite planar graph) -- a problem raised already in Fellows' thesis (1985) and conceptually related to the better known planar cover conjecture by Negami (1986). For over two decades, the planar emulator problem lived poorly in a shadow of Negami's conjecture--which is still open--as the two were considered equivalent. But, in the end of 2008, a surprising construction by Rieck and Yamashita falsified the natural "planar emulator conjecture", and thus opened a whole new research field. We present further results and constructions which show how far the planar-emulability concept is from planar-coverability, and that the traditional idea of likening it to projective embeddability is actually very out-of-place. We also present several positive partial characterizations of planar-emulable graphs.

Explore related subjects

cs.DM

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Markus Chimani, Martin Derka, Petr Hliněný, Matěj Klusáček. 2011-07-01. How Not to Characterize Planar-emulable Graphs. https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.0176

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

An FPTAS for Two-Machine Open-Shop Scheduling with a Single Unavailability Interval

We consider the two-machine open-shop scheduling problem in which one machine is unavailable during a fixed interval. We study the resumable setting: an operation interrupted by the unavailability interval may resume, without penalty, when the machine becomes available. The objective is to minimize the makespan. Although the problem is NP-hard and several approximation algorithms are known, whether it admits a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme (FPTAS) has remained open for two decades. We resolve this question affirmatively by giving the first FPTAS, thereby strengthening the previously known polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS). As an intermediate result, we develop a new pseudo-polynomial dynamic program with seven state dimensions, improving on the ten-dimensional formulation in the literature.

cs.DM↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Graph Search Trees

Graph search algorithms and their corresponding graph search trees are commonly used in algorithmic graph theory. In recent years, the recognition problem of these graph search trees has received significant attention. So far, the research has focused on two types of search trees: first-in trees that behave like BFS-trees and last-in trees that behave like DFS-trees. The search tree paradigms differ from each other by the parent a vertex is connected to. In first-in trees, it is the first visited neighbor, while in last-in trees it is the last neighbor visited before that vertex. Here, we will generalize these concepts of graph search trees by allowing every preceding neighbor of a vertex to be the parent. We study the complexity of the recognition problem of these generalized graph search trees. We present NP-completeness proofs for most searches. We also show that the problem is trivial for Generic Search and polynomial-time solvable for several searches on bipartite graphs and chordal graphs. We also study the question how fixing the start vertex influences the complexity of the problem.

cs.DM↗
arXiv2026

The exact asymptotic constant in the metric dimension of Jaccard space

Let $X$ be a finite set with $|X|=n$ and let $\mathrm{Jac}(a,b)=|a\,\triangle\, b|/|a\cup b|$ be the Jaccard distance on the power set $2^X$. Lladser and Paradise recently proved that the metric dimension of $(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})$ is $\Theta(n/\ln n)$, with the constant left open; their bounds are $(\ln 2)\,n/\ln n\lesssim \beta(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})\lesssim 2\ln(2e)\,n/\ln n$. We determine the constant: \[ \beta(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})=\frac{2n}{\log_2 n}\,(1+o(1))=(2\ln 2)\,\frac{n}{\ln n}\,(1+o(1)). \] The proof identifies the problem, on each ``slice'' of subsets of fixed cardinality, with the Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi coin-weighing problem for a spring scale (the problem of \emph{detecting matrices}). The lower bound is the Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi entropy argument applied to the middle slice; the upper bound follows from the explicit detecting families of Lindstr\"om and of Cantor and Mills, augmented by a single extra landmark that reveals cardinality.

cs.DM↗