Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

An Advanced Search Tree Algorithm for

Two-Layer Planarization with Respect to
the Feedback Edge Set

Mathias Weller1

1
Institut für Softwaretechnik und Theoretische Informatik
Technische Universität Berlin, Germany

Forschungskolloquium Algorithmik und Komplexittstheorie

TU Berlin

1 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

2-Layer Planarization
Input: graph G, integer k
Question: ∃S ⊆ E s.t. |S | ≤ k & G − S is biplanar?

Example

2 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

2-Layer Planarization
Input: graph G, integer k
Question: ∃S ⊆ E s.t. |S | ≤ k & G − S is biplanar?

Example

2 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

2-Layer Planarization
Input: graph G, integer k
Question: ∃S ⊆ E s.t. |S | ≤ k & G − S is biplanar?

Example

Observation
G is biplanar ⇐⇒ G is a forest of caterpillars.

2 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

2-Layer Planarization
Input: graph G, integer k
Question: ∃S ⊆ E s.t. |S | ≤ k & G − S is a caterpillar forest?

Example

Observation
G is biplanar ⇐⇒ G is a forest of caterpillars.

2 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

2-Layer Planarization
Input: graph G, integer k
Question: ∃S ⊆ E s.t. |S | ≤ k & G − S is a caterpillar forest?

Example
2-claw

Observation
G is biplanar ⇐⇒ G is a forest of caterpillars
⇐⇒ G does not contain a 2-claw or cycle as subgraph.

2 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

2-Layer Planarization
Input: graph G, integer k
Question: ∃S ⊆ E s.t. |S | ≤ k & G − S is 2-claw- & cycle-free?

Example
2-claw

Observation
G is biplanar ⇐⇒ G is a forest of caterpillars
⇐⇒ G does not contain a 2-claw or cycle as subgraph.

2 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Motivation, Previous Work and New Results

Motivation
layered graph drawing (Sugyjama approach)
routing in VLSI layout

3 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Motivation, Previous Work and New Results

Previous Work
NP-hard for bipartite [Eades & Whitesides (TCS 131 (’94))]
polynomial on trees [Shahrokhi et al. (Siam J. Comput. 30 (’01))]
O (k )-vertex kernel, O (6k k + |G |)-time algorithm
[Dujmović et al. (Algorithmica 45 (’06))]
O (5.19276k k 2 + |G |)-time & O (3.562k k + |G |)-time algorithms
[Fernau (J. Graph Algorithms Appl. (’05))], [Suderman (PhD thesis (’05))]
O (f )-vertex kernel, O (6f (f + 1)|G |)-time algorithm
(f =feedback edge set number, f stronger than k )
[Uhlmann & W. (TAMC’10, to appear in TCS)]

3 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Motivation, Previous Work and New Results

Previous Work
NP-hard for bipartite [Eades & Whitesides (TCS 131 (’94))]
polynomial on trees [Shahrokhi et al. (Siam J. Comput. 30 (’01))]
O (k )-vertex kernel, O (6k k + |G |)-time algorithm
[Dujmović et al. (Algorithmica 45 (’06))]
O (5.19276k k 2 + |G |)-time & O (3.562k k + |G |)-time algorithms
[Fernau (J. Graph Algorithms Appl. (’05))], [Suderman (PhD thesis (’05))]
O (f )-vertex kernel, O (6f (f + 1)|G |)-time algorithm
(f =feedback edge set number, f stronger than k )
[Uhlmann & W. (TAMC’10, to appear in TCS)]

New Results
3.8f poly |G |-time algorithm based on Suderman

3 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

The Feedback Edge Set Kernel

Notation
G = G − all bridges
G ∗ = maximal 2-connected subgraph of G (“2-core”)
pendant tree = a component (tree) in G − E (G ∗ )

4 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

The Feedback Edge Set Kernel

Notation
G = G − all bridges
G ∗ = maximal 2-connected subgraph of G (“2-core”)
pendant tree = a component (tree) in G − E (G ∗ )

Reduced Instance
pendant trees constant size
degree-2-paths in G ∗ constant length
feedback set F { #leaves=2|F | { #(degG ∗ ≥ 3)-vertices=2|F |

4 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

The Feedback Edge Set Kernel

Notation
G = G − all bridges
G ∗ = maximal 2-connected subgraph of G (“2-core”)
pendant tree = a component (tree) in G − E (G ∗ )

Reduced Instance
pendant trees constant size
degree-2-paths in G ∗ constant length
feedback set F { #leaves=2|F | { #(degG ∗ ≥ 3)-vertices=2|F |

4 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Sudermans First 5 Branching Rules

3-Cycle

5 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Sudermans First 5 Branching Rules

CLAW0

5 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Sudermans First 5 Branching Rules

CLAW0 CLAW1

5 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Sudermans First 5 Branching Rules

CLAW0 CLAW1

CLAW2 CLAW3

5 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Sudermans First 5 Branching Rules

CLAW0 CLAW1

CLAW2 CLAW3

{ branching number 3.8

5 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set I

{ Idea: reuse Suderman’s branching rules

6 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set I

{ Idea: reuse Suderman’s branching rules
But: must maintain the branching vector with respect to f

6 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set I

{ Idea: reuse Suderman’s branching rules
But: must maintain the branching vector with respect to f

Pitfalls
cannot branch on bridges

6 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set I

{ Idea: reuse Suderman’s branching rules
But: must maintain the branching vector with respect to f

Pitfalls
cannot branch on bridges

Ideas (for edges incident to center)

restrict branching to (degG ≥ 3)-vertices

6 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set I

{ Idea: reuse Suderman’s branching rules
But: must maintain the branching vector with respect to f

Pitfalls
cannot branch on bridges
2 deletions { first deletion could make second edge a bridge

Ideas (for edges incident to center)

restrict branching to (degG ≥ 3)-vertices

6 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set I

{ Idea: reuse Suderman’s branching rules
But: must maintain the branching vector with respect to f

Pitfalls
cannot branch on bridges
2 deletions { first deletion could make second edge a bridge

Ideas (for edges incident to center)

restrict branching to (degG ≥ 3)-vertices
reorder branching edges (only CLAW1 branches on pair)

6 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set I

{ Idea: reuse Suderman’s branching rules
But: must maintain the branching vector with respect to f
Pitfalls
cannot branch on bridges
2 deletions { first deletion could make second edge a bridge

Ideas (for edges not incident to center)

more involved...

6 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set I

{ Idea: reuse Suderman’s branching rules
But: must maintain the branching vector with respect to f
Pitfalls
cannot branch on bridges
2 deletions { first deletion could make second edge a bridge

Ideas (for edges not incident to center)

more involved...
choose edges wisely

6 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set I

{ Idea: reuse Suderman’s branching rules
But: must maintain the branching vector with respect to f
Pitfalls
cannot branch on bridges
2 deletions { first deletion could make second edge a bridge

Ideas (for edges not incident to center)

more involved...
choose edges wisely

Observation
{u, v } non-bridge { u has a neighbor w , v
that is connected to v via a path avoiding u

6 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set I

{ Idea: reuse Suderman’s branching rules
But: must maintain the branching vector with respect to f
Pitfalls
cannot branch on bridges
2 deletions { first deletion could make second edge a bridge

Ideas (for edges not incident to center)

more involved...
choose edges wisely

Observation
{u, v } non-bridge { u has a neighbor w , v
that is connected to v via a path avoiding u

6 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set II

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

7 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set II

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, what bridges are there?

7 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set II

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, what bridges are there?

Recall: G ∗ , G , Y-graphs, pendant trees

7 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set II

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, what bridges are there?

Recall: G ∗ , G , Y-graphs, pendant trees

7 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set II

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, what bridges are there?

Recall: G ∗ , G , Y-graphs, pendant trees

1 pendant trees
2 paths in G ∗ − G

7 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set II

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, what bridges are there?

Recall: G ∗ , G , Y-graphs, pendant trees

1 pendant trees
2 paths in G ∗ − G
first 3 pendants: always better to delete outside the pendant

7 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set II

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, what bridges are there?

Recall: G ∗ , G , Y-graphs, pendant trees

1 pendant trees
2 paths in G ∗ − G
first 3 pendants: always better to delete outside the pendant
{ Idea: mark “permanent” (exclude from branching)
7 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set II

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, what bridges are there?

Recall: G ∗ , G , Y-graphs, pendant trees

1 Y-graphs
2 paths in G ∗ − G
first 3 pendants: always better to delete outside the pendant
{ Idea: mark “permanent” (exclude from branching)
7 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Analysis for Feedback Edge Set II

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, what bridges are there?

Recall: G ∗ , G , Y-graphs, pendant trees

1 Y-graphs (type A)
2 paths in G ∗ − G (type B)
first 3 pendants: always better to delete outside the pendant
{ Idea: mark “permanent” (exclude from branching)
(from here on: “bridge” means “non-permanent bridge”)
7 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges I: Type B Bridges

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

8 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges I: Type B Bridges

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Clearly: contracting non(-B)-bridges { tree (“component tree” T )

8 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges I: Type B Bridges

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Clearly: contracting non(-B)-bridges { tree (“component tree” T )

8 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges I: Type B Bridges

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Clearly: contracting non(-B)-bridges { tree (“component tree” T )

{ Idea: consider leaf L in T . 8 / 12

Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges I: Type B Bridges

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Clearly: contracting non(-B)-bridges { tree (“component tree” T )

{ Idea: consider leaf L in T . 8 / 12

Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, where in a branching structure?

9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, where in a branching structure?

1 incident to the “center” { impossible if degG (center) = 3
2 distance one to the “center”

9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, where in a branching structure?

1 incident to the “center” { impossible if degG (center) = 3
2 distance one to the “center”

e1
v1
e2 b

9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, where in a branching structure?

1 incident to the “center” { impossible if degG (center) = 3
2 distance one to the “center”
Facts
e1 instance reduced wrt. O (f )-kernelization
v1
e2 b

9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, where in a branching structure?

1 incident to the “center” { impossible if degG (center) = 3
2 distance one to the “center”
Facts
e1 instance reduced wrt. O (f )-kernelization
v1
e2 b

{ v1 incident to exactly one type B bridge

9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, where in a branching structure?

1 incident to the “center” { impossible if degG (center) = 3
2 distance one to the “center”
Facts
e1 instance reduced wrt. O (f )-kernelization
v1 L is leaf in T (assume no type B on v1 )
e2 b

{ v1 incident to exactly one type B bridge

9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, where in a branching structure?

1 incident to the “center” { impossible if degG (center) = 3
2 distance one to the “center”
Facts
e1 instance reduced wrt. O (f )-kernelization
v1 L is leaf in T (assume no type B on v1 )
e2 b

{ v1 incident to exactly one bridge

9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, where in a branching structure?

1 incident to the “center” { impossible if degG (center) = 3
2 distance one to the “center”
Facts
e1 instance reduced wrt. O (f )-kernelization
v1 L is leaf in T (assume no type B on v1 )
e2 b no non-bridge e3 to branch on instead of b

{ v1 incident to exactly one bridge

9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, where in a branching structure?

1 incident to the “center” { impossible if degG (center) = 3
2 distance one to the “center”
Facts
e1 instance reduced wrt. O (f )-kernelization
v1 L is leaf in T (assume no type B on v1 )
e2 b no non-bridge e3 to branch on instead of b

{ v1 incident to exactly one bridge

{ v1 incident to exactly 2 non-bridges e1 ,e2

9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, where in a branching structure?

1 incident to the “center” { impossible if degG (center) = 3
2 distance one to the “center”
Facts
e1 instance reduced wrt. O (f )-kernelization
v1 L is leaf in T (assume no type B on v1 )
e2 b no non-bridge e3 to branch on instead of b

{ v1 incident to exactly one bridge

{ v1 incident to exactly 2 non-bridges e1 ,e2
{ either delete both e1 and e2 or delete b

9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges II: Type A Bridges in Leaf L of T

More Problems
What if there are bridges in all branching-structures?

Well, where in a branching structure?

1 incident to the “center” { impossible if degG (center) = 3
2 distance one to the “center”
Facts
e1 instance reduced wrt. O (f )-kernelization
v1 L is leaf in T (assume no type B on v1 )
e2 b no non-bridge e3 to branch on instead of b

{ v1 incident to exactly one bridge

{ v1 incident to exactly 2 non-bridges e1 ,e2
{ either delete both e1 and e2 or delete b
{ add b to all branches not deleting e1 or e2
{ modified branching rules CLAW0’. . . CLAW3’
9 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges: Leaf of the Component Tree

What can a leaf L in T look like?

10 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges: Leaf of the Component Tree

What can a leaf L in T look like?

∃ non-bridge in L

10 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges: Leaf of the Component Tree

What can a leaf L in T look like?

∃ non-bridge in L
can’t branch without deleting bridges

10 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges: Leaf of the Component Tree

What can a leaf L in T look like?

∃ non-bridge in L
can’t branch without deleting bridges
{ 2 non-bridges incident to v

x y

10 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges: Leaf of the Component Tree

What can a leaf L in T look like?

∃ non-bridge in L
can’t branch without deleting bridges
{ 2 non-bridges incident to v

u
Observation
CLAWi 0 not applicable
{ only x and y can have degG = 3
v

x y

10 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges: Leaf of the Component Tree

What can a leaf L in T look like?

∃ non-bridge in L
can’t branch without deleting bridges
{ 2 non-bridges incident to v
only one type B bridge incident to L

u
Observation
CLAWi 0 not applicable
{ only x and y can have degG = 3
v

x y

10 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges: Leaf of the Component Tree

What can a leaf L in T look like?

∃ non-bridge in L
can’t branch without deleting bridges
{ 2 non-bridges incident to v
only one type B bridge incident to L

u
Observation
CLAWi 0 not applicable
{ only x and y and v can have degG ∗ = 3
v

x y

10 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges: Leaf of the Component Tree

What can a leaf L in T look like?

∃ non-bridge in L
can’t branch without deleting bridges
{ 2 non-bridges incident to v
only one type B bridge incident to L

u
Observation
CLAWi 0 not applicable
{ only x and y and v can have degG ∗ = 3
v
Lemma
degG ∗ -2 paths: no Y-graphs { branch (1, 1, 1)
x y

10 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Dealing with Bridges: Leaf of the Component Tree

What can a leaf L in T look like?

∃ non-bridge in L
can’t branch without deleting bridges
{ 2 non-bridges incident to v
only one type B bridge incident to L

u
Observation
CLAWi 0 not applicable
{ only x and y and v can have degG ∗ = 3
v
Lemma
degG ∗ -2 paths: no Y-graphs { branch (1, 1, 1)
x y
otherwise: optimal deletion in polynomial time

10 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Conclustion

What did we see?

search tree with 3.8f nodes
{ O (3.8f · f |G |) time algorithm

11 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Conclustion

What did we see?

search tree with 3.8f nodes
{ O (3.8f · f |G |) time algorithm

Open Question
adapt other branching rules by Suderman (replace CLAW3)
{ O (3.562f poly |G |) time?

11 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Conclustion

What did we see?

search tree with 3.8f nodes
{ O (3.8f · f |G |) time algorithm

Open Question
adapt other branching rules by Suderman (replace CLAW3)
{ O (3.562f poly |G |) time?
even better parameters:

11 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Conclustion

What did we see?

search tree with 3.8f nodes
{ O (3.8f · f |G |) time algorithm

Open Question
adapt other branching rules by Suderman (replace CLAW3)
{ O (3.562f poly |G |) time?
even better parameters:
feedback vertex set?

11 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Conclustion

What did we see?

search tree with 3.8f nodes
{ O (3.8f · f |G |) time algorithm

Open Question
adapt other branching rules by Suderman (replace CLAW3)
{ O (3.562f poly |G |) time?
even better parameters:
feedback vertex set?
multilayer planarization

11 / 12
Intro: 2-Layer Planarization Intro: Suderman Branching Dealing with Bridges Conclusion

Thank you

12 / 12