Arxiv:Cs.DM/9910013 13 Oct 1999

Grigni: [18]

Map Graphs

y z x

Zhi-Zhong Chen Michelangelo Grigni Christos H. Papadimitriou

Octob er 13, 1999

Abstract

We consider a mo di ed notion of planarity, in whichtwo nations of a map are

considered adjacent when they share any point of their b oundaries not necessarily

an edge, as planarity requires. Such adjacencies de ne a map graph. We givean

NP characterization for such graphs, and an O n -time recognition algorithm for a

restricted version: given a graph, decide whether it is realized by adjacencies in a map

without holes, in which at most four nations meet at any p oint.

1 Intro duction

1.1 Motivation and De nition

Supp ose you are told that there are four planar regions, and for each pair you are told their

top ological relation: A is inside B , B overlaps C , C touches D on the outside, D overlaps

B , D is disjoint from A, and C overlaps A. All four planar regions are \bubbles" with no

holes; more precisely, they are closed disc homeomorphs. Are such regions p ossible? If so,

wewould like a mo del, a picture of four regions so related; if not, a pro of of imp ossibility.

This extension of prop ositional logic is known as the topological inferenceproblem [9].

No decision algorithm or nite axiomatization is known, although the problem b ecomes

b oth nitely axiomatizable and p olynomial-time decidable in anynumb er of dimensions

arXiv:cs.DM/9910013 13 Oct 1999

other than two[1,14], for some reasonable vo cabularies of top ological relations. In

fact, the following sp ecial case has b een op en since the 1960's [8]: for every pair of regions,

we are only told whether the regions intersect or not. This is known as the string graph

problem, b ecause the input is a simple graph, and wemay assume that the regions are in

fact planar curves or slightly fattened simple curves, if we insist on disc homeomorphs.

In other words, we are seeking a recognition algorithm for the intersection graphs of planar

curves. It is op en whether this problem is decidable; it is known that there are in nitely

many forbidden subgraphs, that recognition is at least NP-hard [11], and that there are

string graphs that require exp onentially many string intersections for their realization [12].

A preliminary version app eared with the title \Planar Map Graphs" [4].

Department of Mathematical Sciences, Tokyo Denki University, Hatoyama, Saitama 350-0394, JAPAN.

Part of work done while visiting University of California at Berkeley. E-mail: [email protected].

Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Emory University,Atlanta, GA 30322. E-mail:

[email protected].

Computer Science Division, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720. Supp orted by

NSF Grantnumb er CCR-9626361. E-mail: [email protected]. 1

The diculty of the string graph problem stems to a large extent from the complex

overlaps allowed b etween regions. But many practical applications are so structured that

no two regions in them overlap arbitrarily.For example, consider maps of p olitical regions:

such regions either contain one another or else they have disjointinteriors; general overlaps

are not allowed.

In this pap er, we consider the following sp ecial case: for every pair of regions, they are

either disjoint, or they intersect only on their b oundaries. Since the nations of p olitical

maps intersect in this way,we call such regions nations. In this pap er we study map

graphs, the intersection graphs of nations.

De nition 1.1 Suppose G is a simple graph. A map of G is a function M taking each

vertex v of G to a closed disc homeomorph Mv in the sphere, such that:

1. For every pair of distinct vertices u and v , the interiors of Mu and Mv are

disjoint.

2. Two vertices u and v are adjacent in G if and only if the boundaries of Mu and

Mv intersect.

If G has a map, then it is a map graph. The regions Mv are the nations of M. The

uncoveredpoints of the sphere fal l into open connectedregions; the closureofeach such

region is a hole of M.

Can we recognize map graphs? This problem is closely related to planarity, one of the

most basic and in uential concepts in graph theory. Usually, planarity is de ned as ab ove,

but with adjacency only for those pairs of nations sharing a curve segment. Planaritymay

also b e de ned in terms of maps: sp eci cally, a planar graph has a map such that no four

nations meet at a point.

We consider two natural restrictions on maps and map graphs. First, supp ose we

restrict our map so that no more than k nations meet at a point;we call this a k -map, and

the corresp onding graph is a k -map graph. In particular the ordinary planar graphs are

the 2-map graphs; in fact all 3-map graphs are also 2-map graphs, as argued b elow.

Second, supp ose that every p oint of the sphere is covered by some nation. Then wesay

that this is a hole-free map, and the corresp onding graph is a hole-free map graph. For

our algorithm starting in Section 3, we consider hole-free 4-map graphs.

In our gures we draw a map by pro jecting one p oint of the sphere to in nity; we always

cho ose a p oint that is not on a nation b oundary.

1.2 Examples

We give three examples. First, consider the adjacency graph of the United States in

Figure 1.1; this is a 4-map graph. It is not planar, since the \four corners" states circled

form a K , which is part of a K -minor. Since removing one nation from a hole-free map

4 5

leaves a connected set of nations, all hole-free map graphs are 2-connected; consequently,

this example is not a hole-free map graph.

Second, consider the 17-nation hole-free 4-map in Figure 1.21. Let G b e its map

graph. At the end of Section 2.1, we show that after deleting the edge f6; 7g from G, the 2

Figure 1.1: The USA map graph.

Figure 1.2: An example hole-free 4-map, and a subgraph of its witness.

result is not a map graph. This example demonstrates that the 4-map graph prop ertyis

not monotone.

Third, consider Figure 1.3: part 1 is a map graph, part 2 is a hole-free 4-map of

the graph, and part 3 is a corresp onding witness as de ned in Section 2.1. The graph

has a mirror symmetry exchanging a with c, but the map and the witness do not. In fact

a careful analysis shows that no map or witness of this graph has such a symmetry, and so

alayout algorithm must somehow \break symmetry" to nd a map for this graph.

b ac a b c b ac df df e de fe j j gjigi h i h g h

(1) (2) (3)

Figure 1.3: A symmetric map graph, a map, and a witness. 3

1.3 Summary of Results

In the preliminary version of this pap er [4] wegave an NP-characterization of map graphs,

and we also sketched a p olynomial-time recognition algorithm for 4-map graphs. In this

pap er we prove the rst result, but for reasons of brevitywe present a simpler variantofthe

second result. Sp eci cally,we present a p olynomial-time recognition algorithm for hole-free

4-map graphs. We b elieve that our argument for the case with holes is correct, however it

isavery long case analysis whichwould double the length of the present pap er.

We left general map graph recognition as an op en problem; Thorup [15] has recently

presented a p olynomial-time algorithm for recognizing map graphs. Thorup's result do es

not necessarily imply ours, since even if we are given a map realizing a map graph, it is not

clear that it helps us to nd a map with the additional restrictions wewant a hole-free 4-

map. Also, Thorup's algorithm is complex and the exp onent of its time b ound p olynomial

is ab out 120, while our algorithm is more understandable and its time b ound is O n .

There is an obvious naive approach for all these recognition problems: for each maximal

clique in the given graph, assert a p oint in the map where the nations of the clique should

meet. This approach fails b ecause there are other maps which realize a clique, as we will

see in Figure 2.1.

In Section 2 wecharacterize map graphs as the \half-squares" of planar bipartite graphs

Theorem 2.2; this implies that map graph recognition is in NP Corollary 2.4. Using

this, we list all p ossible clique maps Theorem 2.7, and we show that a map graph has a

linear numb er of maximal cliques Theorem 2.8.

In Section 3 we give a high-level presentation of our algorithm for recognizing hole-free

4-map graphs; the algorithm pro duces such a map, if one exists. In Sections 4 through 7

we present the structural results needed to prove the correctness of the algorithm; these

sections are the technical core of our pap er. We give a time analysis in Section 8, and

concluding remarks in Section 9.

2 Map Graph Fundamentals

2.1 A Characterization

Wecharacterize map graphs in terms of planar bipartite graphs. For a graph H and a

subset A of its vertices, let H [A] denote the subgraph of H induced by A. Let H denote

the square of H , that is the simple graph with the same vertex set, where vertices are

adjacent whenever they are connected byatwo-edge path in H .We represent a bipartite

graph as H =A; B ; E , where the vertices partition into the indep endent sets A and B ,

and E is the set of edges.

De nition 2.1 Suppose H =A; B ; E is a bipartite graph. Then H [A] is the half-square

of H . That is, the half-square has vertex set A, where two vertices are adjacent exactly

when they have a common neighbor in B .

Theorem 2.2 Agraph G is a map graph if and only if it is the half-square of some planar

bipartite graph H . 4

Pro of: For the \only if" part, supp ose G is a map graph. Let R b e the set of nations in

a map of G; for convenience we identify the n vertices of G with the corresp onding nations

in R.

Consider a single nation R. Clearly at most n 1 b oundary p oints will account for all

the adjacencies of R with other nations, and so a nite collection P of b oundary p oints

witnesses all the adjacencies among the nations in R.

In each nation R wecho ose a representativeinterior p oint, and connect it with edges

through the interior of R to the p oints of P b ounding R. In this waywe construct a

planar emb edding of the bipartite graph H =R;P;E, such that anytwo nations R and

R overlap if and only if they have distance twoin H. In other words, G is the half-square

H [R].

For the \if " part, given a bipartite planar graph H =R;P;E, weembeditinthe

plane. By drawing a suciently thin star-shap ed nation around each R 2R and its edges

0 2

in E ,we obtain a map for H [R]. 2

When graphs G and H are related as ab ove, H acts as a pro of that G is a map graph.

We call H a witness for G, and we call the vertices in P the points of the witness; such

p oints are displayed as squares in the example Figure 1.33. The ab ove argument

shows that H has at most quadratic size, but we can do b etter.

Lemma 2.3 If G is a map graph with n vertices, then it has a witness H with O n vertices

and edges.

Pro of: Construct H as ab ove. A p oint p 2P is redundant if all pairs of its neighb ors are

also connected through other p oints of P . Deleting a redundant p oint do es not change the

half-square; we rep eat this until H has no redundant p oints.

Consider a drawing of H . For each p 2P,wecho ose a pair of nations R and R

1 2

connected only by p. Remove each p and its arcs, and replace them by a single arc from

R to R . In this way,we draw a simple planar subgraph H of G with edge set P and

1 2

vertex set R. Hence jP j 3n 6, and H has less than 4n vertices.

Since H is simple and bipartite, by Euler's formula it has at most 2n + jP j 4 edges,

which is less than 8n. 2

In particular, a map graph has a witness whichmaybechecked in linear time [10], and

so wehave:

Corollary 2.4 The recognition problem for map graphs is in NP.

Let G denote the arboricity of a graph G, the minimum numb er of forests whose

union is G. The next result is useful for the time analysis in Section 8.

Corollary 2.5 A k -map graph with n vertices has O kn edges and arboricity O k .

Pro of: By Lemma 2.3, the map graph has a witness H with less than 8n edges. So, some

nation R has degree at most 7 in H , and consequently R has degree less than 7k in the

map graph. Nowwe delete R, and prove our edge b ound by induction on n.

jE G[U ]j

e where U ranges over all subsets of V G containing at Since G = max d

jU j1

least twovertices [13], and each G[U ] is again a k -map graph, the edge b ound implies the

arb oricity b ound. 2 5

For the simplicity of our gures, we prefer to draw maps rather than planar bipartite

witness graphs. The arguments in Theorem 2.2 show ecient transformations back and

forth b etween them; so nothing will b e lost by using maps. We conclude with some further

simple consequences of Theorem 2.2:

In the witness graph, a p oint of degree three may b e replaced by three p oints of

degree two. Consequently, 3-map graphs are 2-map graphs planar graphs.

For k 3, k -map graphs are those with witnesses H such that every p oint has degree

at most k .

Hole-free map graphs are those with witnesses H such that every face has exactly

four sides. Since a six-sided face may always b e partitioned into three four-sided faces

by adding a redundant p oint, wemay also allow six-sided faces.

If G has no clique of size four, then it is a map graph if and only if it is a planar

graph.

A map graph may contain cliques of arbitrary size.

From the previous two remarks, it is clear that the \map graph" prop erty is not

monotone, and hence cannot b e characterized by forbidden subgraphs or minors.

Regarding the last p oint, we can also show a stronger example:

Claim 2.6 There is a hole-free 4-map graph G and edge e such that G e has no map.

Pro of: Let G b e the graph realized by the hole-free 4-map in Figure 1.21, and let H be

a witness of G.Wemay assume that H has no p oint of degree 1. Let H b e the bipartite

graph in Figure 1.22, and let H b e the graph obtained from H by deleting p oints p and

q and their incident edges. Since each v 2fa;:::;jg has exactly two neighb ors in G, the

degree of v in H is either 1 or 2; wemay assume the former case b ecause in the latter

case, the two p oints adjacent to nation v in H can b e identi ed. By this assumption, H

is an induced subgraph of H . In turn, by the existence of edges f1; 6g and f4; 6g in G

and the planarityofH,H must b e a not necessarily induced subgraph of H .Now, by

Figure 1.22 and planarity, p oint q must also b e adjacent to nations 3 and 7 in H . Our

argument so far did not dep end on edge e = f6; 7g in G, but now this edge has b een forced

by considering other edges. So in other words, G e is not a map graph. 2

2.2 Cliques in Map Graphs

Supp ose G is the clique K , then it may b e realized in the following ways, corresp onding

to the four parts of Figure 2.1:

1 The n nations share a single b oundary p oint. We call this the pizza.

2 Some n 1 nations share a single b oundary p oint, and the one remaining nation is

arbitrarily connected to them at other p oints. We call this the pizza-with-crust. 6

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Figure 2.1: Cliques in map graphs.

3 If n 6, there may b e three p oints supp orting all adjacencies in the clique, with at

most n 2 nations at any one p oint. In particular, there are at most two nations

adjacent to all three of the p oints. We call this the hamantasch.

4 A clique with all b oundary p oints of degree two; that is, an ordinary planar clique.

Since the planar K edge and K triangle are a pizza and pizza-with-crust resp ec-

2 3

tively, the only new clique to list here is the planar K , whichwe call the rice-bal l.

Theorem 2.7 A map graph clique must be one of the above four types.

Pro of: By Theorem 2.2, wehave a bipartite planar witness graph H =R;P;E such

that the half-square H [R] is the clique K , where n = jRj. Let d b e the maximum degree

of all p oints p 2P.

If n = d,wehave a pizza. If n = d +1,wehave a pizza-with-crust. So wemay assume

n d +2. If d 3, then the map graph is planar; since K is not planar, this forces n =4

and d = 2, the rice-ball. Wenow assume d 4.

Pick p oint p of maximum degree d, and nations x and y not adjacenttop . Consider

1 1

the set P of all p oints connecting x or y to the nations around p .We claim that there

is a p oint p 2P connecting x, y , and at least two nations adjacenttop ; otherwise,

2 1

by drawing arcs through the p oints of P ,we could get a planar K with the d nations

d;2

on a common face, which is imp ossible. Since p has maximum degree, there are also

two nations adjacenttop but not p . In summary, the following three disjoint sets each

1 2

contain at least two nations:

R = fR 2Rj R is adjacenttop but not p g

1 2 1

R = fR 2Rj R is adjacenttop but not p g

2 1 2

R = fR 2Rj R is adjacent to b oth p and p g

3 1 2

We will cho ose six distinct nations R ;R 2R , R ;R 2R, and R ;R 2R;no

1 2 1 3 4 2 5 6 3

matter howwecho ose, the graph H will contain the induced subgraph in Figure 2.21,

with the cycle C = p R p R . The graph H = H [fp ;p g[R ] is a complete bipartite

1 5 2 6 1 2 3

graph, with a planar emb edding inherited from H . Each face of H is a 4-cycle; furthermore

all nations in R [R must lie inside one face, in order to b e connected by other p oints.

1 2

So, wecho ose R ;R 2R on this face. Then this face is b ounded by C ;wehavean

5 6 3

emb edding with R [R inside C , and R fR ;R g outside C . By an appropriate choice

1 2 3 5 6

of nations R ;R 2R and R ;R 2R ,we arrive at Figure 2.22, the emb edding of p ,

1 2 1 3 4 2 1 7

p , and all their edges to adjacent nations. In this gure, the three o ccurrences of \:::"

lo cate any other nations in R [R [R .

1 2 3

p p 1 1 . . . RRR . . . 351R R RR 3 4 34 R . . . R. . . ppR 6 Rp 6 125 53 R R RR 1 2 12 ...... RRR 462 p p 2 2

(1) (2) (3)

Figure 2.2: A subgraph of H , and its emb edding.

There must exist a third p oint p inside C connecting R and R . These edges now

3 1 4

separate R fR g from R fR g, so all these nations are adjacenttop as well, yielding

1 1 2 4 3

Figure 2.23. This gure is not necessarily an induced subgraph, since the edges fR ;p g

5 3

and fR ;p g may o ccur in H . But by the maximality of the degree of p , if exactly

6 3 1

i 2f1;2gof these edges exist, then there exist i other nations R 2R, necessarily

7 3

outside C . So, no matter whether these edges exist or not, the p oints p , p , and p

1 2 3

supp ort a hamantaschon R [R [R . Hence, we are done if R = R [R [R .

1 2 3 1 2 3

For contradiction, supp ose R contains some nation R not adjacenttop or p . We

1 2

need to place R, and some new p oints and edges, in Figure 2.23 so that R has neighbor

p oints connected to the other nations. However by planarityofH,if fR ;p g or fR ;p g

5 3 6 3

is an edge in H , then R cannot b e placed so that b oth R and R have neighb or p oints

1 7

connected to R. Similarly, if neither fR ;p g nor fR ;p g is an edge in H , then R cannot

5 3 6 3

b e placed so that all of R , R , and R have neighb or p oints connected to R. 2

1 5 6

By a careful analysis of each kind of clique, we can now show:

Theorem 2.8 A map graph G with n vertices has at most 27n maximal cliques.

Pro of: Wemay assume that G is connected. As in Theorem 2.3, wecho ose a planar

witness H =R;P;E for G where R is the set of nations, P is the set of at most 3n 6

p oints, and E is the set of edges.

Fix a plane emb edding of H . If vertices u ;u ;v ;v app ear in that cyclic order as

1 2 1 2

distinct neighb ors of some vertex w in H , then wesay that the pairs fu ;v g and fu ;v g

1 1 2 2

cross at w .

Each p oint can contribute to at most one maximal pizza, and so there are at most

3n 6 maximal pizzas in G. Note that eachMC is a pizza.

Next, let C ;:::;C b e the maximal cliques in G that are either non-pizza MC 's or

1 ` 3

hamantaschen. For each hamantasch C ,wemaycho ose three p oints p ;q ;r 2P and three

i i i i

nations a ;b ;c 2 C such that T = p a q b r c is an induced cycle in H and C consists

i i i i i i i i i i i i

of all nations adjacent to at least two of the p oints p ;q ;r in H .For each pair fa; bg of

i i i

vertices in G such that some non-pizza MC contains b oth a and b, let s beapointin

3 a;b

P that is adjacenttoboth a and b in H .For each non-pizza MC C , let C = fa ;b ;c g,

3 i i i i i

p = s , q = s , r = s , and T b e the induced cycle p a q b r c in H . In either

i a ;c i a ;b i b ;c i i i i i i i

i i i i i i 8

case, we de ne f C = fp;q ;r g and note that C consists of all nations adjacenttoat

i i i i i

least two p oints of f C . This implies f C 6= f C for distinct C and C , b ecause

i i j i j

otherwise C [ C would b e a larger clique.

i j

De ne H as the simple graph with vertex set P and edge set ffp; q gj fp; q g fC

0 0

for some ig.We claim that H is planar. To see this, weembed H in H by drawing the

edge fp ;q g of H through their neighbor a in H , and similarly for the other two edges

i i i

fq ;r g and fp ;r g.Towards a contradiction, assume that two edges of H cross in the

i i i i

emb edding. Then, by cycle symmetries, wemay assume that for some distinct C and C ,

i j

pairs fp ;q g and fp ;q g cross at nation a = a call it ain H. Since the cycles T and

i i j j i j i

T cross at a in H , they must cross again, sharing either another nation or a p oint.

Case 1: T and T share another nation but no p oint. By symmetry, it suces to consider

i j

the case b = b = b. If C and C were b oth non-pizza MC 's, then wewould have

i j i j 3

q = q = s , contradicting the crossing. So at least one of C and C is a hamantasch, we

i j a;b i j

supp ose C . Then C has another nation a also adjacentto p and q or else C would b e

i i i i i

a pizza-with-crust. Because of T ,itmust b e a = c .Now since q is adjacenttoa; b; c ,

j j i j

in order for C to b e a non-pizza, C must also b e a hamantasch. Then C has another

j j j

nation a adjacenttop and q , but planarityofH makes this imp ossible.

j j

Case 2: T and T share a p oint. Since T and T are induced, a is adjacent to neither r

i j i j i

nor r , so the only p ossible shared p ointisr =r . In turn, C = fa; b ;c ;b ;c g is a clique

j i j i i j j

of G. So, neither C nor C is an MC , and b oth are hamantaschen. Now as in the previous

i j 3

0 00

case, we nd it is imp ossible to add a nation a 62 C between p and q and a nation a 62 C

i i

between p and q . By this, b oth C and C are pizza-with-crusts, a contradiction.

j j i j

By the ab ove case-analysis, the claim holds, and H is a planar graph with at most

3n 6vertices and at least ` distinct triangles. An easy exercise shows that any simple

planar graph with h vertices has at most 3h triangles. So, ` 9n 18.

There are at most n rice-balls, since they all have di erent center nations.

It remains to b ound the numb er of maximal pizza-with-crusts of size 4 or more. Fix a

p oint p in H , let V denote the set of nations adjacenttopin H , and let C = fC ;:::;C g

p p 1 `

b e the maximal pizza-with-crusts with center p and size 4 or more. We claim that ` =

jC j 22jV j 3. This claim implies that G has at most 4jV j6 maximal pizza-

p p p

0 0

with-crusts of size 4 or more. This sum equals 4jE j 6jP j; since jE j 2n + jP j 4 and

jP j 3n 6, the sum is less than 14n.

Nowwe prove the claim. The emb edding gives a cyclic clo ckwise order on the nations of

V around p; this order de nes \consecutive" nations and \intervals" of nations around p.

For nations u; v 2 V , let [u; v ] denote the circular interval of nations starting at u, pro-

ceeding clo ckwise around p, and ending at v .For each clique C in C , let b b e the crust

i p i

of C . Since C is not a pizza, we can cho ose distinct nations a ;c 2 C fb g and distinct

i i i i i

p oints q ;r 6= p satisfying the following three conditions:

i i

T = pa q b r c is a simple cycle in H .

i i i i i i

If a nation of C fa ;b ;c g is adjacenttoq or r , then it lies outside T , otherwise

i i i i i i i

it lies inside.

All nations of C lying inside the cycle T lie in the interval [a ;c ].

i i i i

Denote the unordered pair fa ;c g by gC , and fq ;r g by hC . By considering such

i i i i i i

6-cycles T and the planarityofH, there are no cliques C ;C 2C such that g C and

i i j p i 9

g C cross at p; consequently the graph G =V ;fgCjC 2C g is simple outerplanar,

j p p i i p

where we use the same cyclic order on V for the outerplanar emb edding. Since G is simple

p p

outerplanar, it can have at most 2jV j3 edges. Thus, to prove jC j 22jV j3, it suces

p p p

to prove that each edge of G equals g C for at most two C 2C .

p i i p

For contradiction, assume that there exist three distinct cliques C ;C ;C 2C with

i j k p

g C = gC = gC . Say that two of these cliques are nested if the crust of one is inside

i j k

the cycle of the other. We consider two cases.

Case I: There are two non-nested cliques. Wemay supp ose that they are C and C .By

i j

planarity, the interiors of T and T are disjoint, with a = b and a = b . Moreover, no

i j i j j i

matter whether hC \ hC = ; or not, no nation of V g C is adjacenttoboth pand

i j p i

at least one p ointofhC[hC in H.Thus, the set of nations lying inside T and the

i j i

set of nations lying inside T form a partition of V g C . By this and the maximalityof

j p i

cliques in C , the crust of C must lie inside T or T ;by symmetry we supp ose it lies inside

p k i j

T . On the other hand, since C is a maximal clique of size 4 or more, there exists a nation

i i

x 2 C g C lying inside T . Since x cannot b e adjacenttoq or r , there is another

i i i i i i i

p oint s lying inside T that connects x with b . So, wehave a path P = px s b sharing

i i i i i i i i

only its endp oints with T , and bisecting the interior of T .Now the crust b must lie inside

i i k

T , to one side or the other of P .Toachieve g C =gC, b must b e adjacenttos in

i i k i k i

H . But then wewould see that s 2 hC , and so either a or c was chosen incorrectly.

i k k k

Case II: All three cliques nest. Again by planarity, the cycles cannot cross. So, their

interiors nest in some order; wemay assume that b lies inside T , and b lies inside T .We

k j j i

have a = a = a and c = c = c . Since C is a maximal clique, it contains some nation

i j k i j k j

x not adjacenttob in G. By planarity, x must lie inside T , and there is some p oint s

j i j j j

connecting b with x in H . We cannot have s 2 hC , by the choice of g C ; so again

j j j j j

wehave a path P = px s b , sharing only its endp oints with T and bisecting its interior.

j j j j j

Now the crust b must lie inside T , to one side or the other of P ; the rest of the argument

k j j

pro ceeds as in the last case. 2

3 Recognizing Hole-Free 4-Map Graphs

The rest of this pap er is devoted to an O n -time algorithm for deciding whether a given

graph is a hole-free 4-map graph. It follows from Theorem 2.7 that 4-map graphs haveno

7-cliques, that all 6-cliques are hamantaschen, and that all 5-cliques are pizza-with-crusts.

Also, as observed in Section 1.2, all hole-free map graphs are 2-connected. Unfortunately,

these simple observations do not lead to a p olynomial-time algorithm. Indeed, our algo-

rithm is very sophisticated and to o long to b e included in a single section. This section

only gives a high-level sketch of the algorithm. The correctness and implementation details

are given in subsequent sections.

3.1 De nitions

Before presenting the algorithm, we de ne some vo cabulary for the remainder of the pap er.

A markedgraph is a simple graph in which each edge is either marked or not marked.

Throughout the remainder of this pap er, G is a marked graph with vertex set V G= V

and edge set E G= E.For a vertex v in G, N v denotes the set of vertices adjacent

G 10

to v in G.For a subset U of V , N U denotes [ N u. Let F b e a subset of E .

G u2U G

G U F denotes the marked graph obtained from G by deleting the edges in F and the

vertices in U together with the edges incident to them. When U or F is empty,we drop it

from the notation G U F .

De nition 3.1 Let U be a subset of V .Alayout L of G[U ] is a 4-map L of G[U ] such

that for every markededge fu; v g in G with u; v 2 U , the boundaries of nations Lu and

Lv share a curve segment not just one or more isolatedpoints. L is well-formed if

for every edge fu; v g in G[U ], the intersection of Lu and Lv is either a point or a curve

segment but not both.

De nition 3.2 If a layout L of G covers every point of the sphere, we callitanatlas of

Our goal is to design an ecient algorithm to decide whether a given G has an atlas;

it will either return an atlas or rep ort failure. Furthermore, the algorithm returns a

well-formed atlas whenever p ossible see Corollary 4.2.

If G has an atlas, then by Lemma 2.3 it has a witness graph checkable in linear time [10].

So in fact we describ e an algorithm that makes the following assumption:

Assumption 1 G has an atlas.

If G do es not have an atlas, we will discover this when our algorithm either fails, returns

an invalid atlas, or takes more time than allowed by our analysis in Section 8. Since we

assume that G has an atlas, we will call the vertices in G nations;we will use lower-case

letters to denote them.

Throughout the rest of this subsection, x a subset U of V and a layout L of G[U ]. A

vertex u 2 U touches a hole H of L if Luintersects H; they necessarily intersect on their

b oundaries. Vertex u strongly touches H if the b oundaries of Lu and H share a curve

segment. A 2-hole is a hole strongly touched by exactly twovertices. Erasing a 2-hole H

in L is the op eration of mo difying L by extending Lu to o ccupy H, where u is one of the

vertices strongly touching H. Figure 3.11 depicts the op eration.

Figure 3.1: Erasing a 2-hole H, and a u; v -p oint p. Dashed curves mayintersect.

A k -point in L is a p oint shared by exactly k nations. Let u 2 U and v 2 U .Au; v -

point in L is a 4-p oint p at which Lu and Lv together with two other nations Lx and

Ly meet cyclically in the order Lu, Lx, Lv , Ly . Erasing the u; v -point p in L

is the op eration of mo difying L by extending nation Lx to o ccupy a small disc around p

touching only Lu, Lv , Lx, and Ly . Figure 3.12 depicts the op eration.

Au; v -segment in L is a curve segment S shared by the b oundaries of Lu and Lv

such that each endp ointofS is a 3- or 4-p oint. Note that twou; v -segments must b e 11

disjoint. An edge fu; v g of G is good in L if there is either exactly one u; v -segmentor

exactly one u; v -p oint, but not b oth. An edge that is not go o d in L is bad in L. Note

that L is well-formed if and only if every edge of G[U ] is good in L.

De nition 3.3 If M is an atlas of G and W is a subset of V , then Mj denotes the layout

of G[W ] obtainedbyrestricting M to W . Such a layout is cal ledan extensible layout of

G[W ]. L is transformable to another layout L of G[W ] if whenever L is extensible, so

is L .

Note that an extensible layout never has a 4-p oint on a hole b oundary, since lling the

hole would create an illegal 5-p oint. Similarly,iftwo holes touch in an extensible layout,

it must b e at a 2-p oint.

3.2 Making Progress

To nd an atlas for G, our algorithm may \make progress" by pro ducing one or more

smaller marked graphs, so that nding an atlas for G is reduced to nding an atlas for each

of these smaller graphs. Here we de ne the graph features that our algorithm may identify

in order to make progress; subsequent sections showhow to make progress for each.

A k -cut of G is a subset U of V with jU j = k whose removal disconnects G. G is

k -connected if it has no i-cut with i k 1. Section 4 shows that the algorithm can always

make progress when G is not 4-connected. On the other hand, under the assumption that

G is 4-connected, Corollary 4.2 guarantees that G hasawell-formed atlas.

De nition 3.4 A clique consisting of k vertices is cal leda k-clique. A clique C in G is

maximal if no clique in G properly contains C . A maximal k -clique is cal ledanMC .

If G is 4-connected and has at most 8 vertices, our algorithm will construct a well-

formed atlas for G by exhaustive search. On the other hand, under the assumptions that

G is 4-connected and has at least 9 vertices, Lemma 4.4 guarantees that G has no 6-clique.

De nition 3.5 A correct 4-pizza is a list ha; b; c; di of four nations in G such that G has

a wel l-formed atlas in which nations a, b, c, d meet at a point cyclical ly in this order.

Removing a correct 4-pizza ha; b; c; di from G is the operation of modifying G as fol lows:

Delete the edge fa; cg from G and mark the edges fb; dg, fa; bg, fb; cg, fc; dg, and fd; ag.

Under the assumption that G is 4-connected, Lemma 4.5 allows our algorithm to make

progress by removing a correct 4-pizza in G, whenever we identify one.

To see a particular typ e of correct 4-pizza, consider an extensible layout of an MC C

in G. Since a 5-clique is not planar, the layout contains at least one 4-p oint. Insp ection

shows there is exactly one 4-p ointinawell-formed layout. This \pizza-with-crust" layout

motivates the following de nition.

De nition 3.6 A correct center of C is a list ha; b; c; di of four nations in C , such that C

has a wel l-formed extensible layout in which nations a, b, c, d meet at a point in this cyclic

order. The unique nation in C fa; b; c; dg is the corresponding correct crust of C . 12

Fact 3.7 Let C beanMC in G. Then, every correct center of C is a correct 4-pizza in

Note that C mayhavemultiple correct centers, each from a di erent extensible layout.

Besides the k -cuts mentioned ab ove, we also consider the more sp ecialized separators

intro duced b elow in De nition 3.10. Section 5 will showhow the algorithm may make

progress as long as G contains one of these.

De nition 3.8 Edges fa; bg and fx; y g in G are crossable if they areboth unmarked and

fa; b; x; y g is an MC in G.For an edge fa; bg, let E [a; b] denote the set of al l edges fx; y g

crossable with fa; bg.

Fact 3.9 If fa; bg is an edge and G fa; bg has a triangle fc; d; eg, then at most one edge

of that triangle is in E [a; b].

Pro of: Two edges would imply twoMC 's, sitting inside the 5-clique fa; b; c; d; eg. 2

De nition 3.10 We de ne the fol lowing separators in the markedgraph G:

1. A separating edge of G is an edge fa; bg such that G fa; bgE[a; b] is disconnected.

2. An induced 4-cycle in G is a set C of four vertices in G such that G[C ] is a cycle. A

separating 4-cycle of G is an induced 4-cycle C in G such that G C is disconnected.

3. A separating triple of G is a list ha; b; ci of three vertices in G such that C = fa; b; cg

is a clique in G and G C E[a; b] is disconnected.

4. A separating quadruple is a list ha; b; c; di of four vertices in G such that i

G[fa; b; c; dg] is a cycle and ii G fa; b; c; dg E[a; b] is disconnected.

5. A separating triangle of G is a list ha; b; ci of three vertices in G such that i C =

fa; b; cg is a clique in G and ii G = G C E [a; b] [E[a; c] is disconnected. If in

addition, G has a connectedcomponent consisting of a single vertex, then ha; b; ci is

a strongly separating triangle of G.

3.3 Sketch of the Algorithm

Given a marked graph G =V; E, our algorithm rejects if G is not 2-connected, and

it solves the problem by exhaustive search when jV j8. When jV j 9, it searches

G for a 2-cut cf. Lemma 4.1, 3-cut cf. Lemma 4.3, separating edge cf. Lemma 5.2,

separating 4-cycle cf. Lemma 5.4, separating triple cf. Lemma 5.5, separating quadruple

cf. Lemma 5.6, strongly separating triangle cf. Lemma 5.14, or separating triangle cf.

Lemma 5.15, in this order. In each case, as the lemmas show, the algorithm makes progress

by either 1 removing a correct 4-pizza or 2 reducing the problem for G to the problems

for certain marked graphs smaller than G whose total size is that of G plus a constant.

If none of the ab ove separators exists in G, then G has no 6-clique cf. Lemma 4.4 and

the algorithm searches G for an MC or MC , in this order.IfanMC Cis found, it tries

5 4 5

to nd an extensible layout of C by doing a case-analysis based on the neighb orho o d of C 13

in G cf. Section 6. The absence of the ab ove separators guarantees that only a few cases

needed to b e analyzed. The case-analysis either yields an extensible layout of C whose

center is then removed to make progress, or pro duces a marked graph G smaller than G

such that nding a well-formed atlas for G can b e reduced to nding a well-formed atlas

for G .

If no MC but an MC is found in G, the algorithm scans all MC 's of G in an ar-

5 4 4

bitrary order. While scanning an MC C , it decides whether C has a rice-ball layout

cf. Lemma 7.1. If C has a rice-ball layout, the algorithm quits the scanning and makes

progress by removing a correct 4-pizza obtained from the rice-ball layout of C . On the

other hand, if no rice-ball is found after scanning all MC 's, the algorithm scans all MC 's

4 4

of G in an arbitrary order, once again. But this time, while scanning an MC C , it decides

whether C has a non-pizza layout, by doing a case-analysis based on the neighb orho o d of

C in G cf. Section 7.2. The analysis consists of only a few cases due to the absence of

the ab ove separators. If C has a non-pizza layout, the algorithm quits the scanning and

makes progress by removing a correct 4-pizza obtained from the layout of C . Otherwise,

all MC 's are pizzas; the algorithm nds their centers cf. Section 7.3, and removes all of

them so that G no longer has an MC .

If neither MC nor MC is found in G, then this is a base case. As observed in

5 4

Section 2.1, G must b e planar, or else we reject. When G is planar, then by its 4-connectivity

it has a unique planar emb edding. We claim that G hasawell-formed atlas if and only

if all its faces are triangles. The \if " direction is obvious b ecause the planar dual of G

is an atlas, whichiswell-formed by the connectivityofG. Conversely, supp ose G has a

well-formed atlas M. Since M has no k -p oint for k>3, all adjacent pairs of nations

strongly touchinM, and so the 3-p oints and b oundaries in M de ne a 3-regular planar

graph G , whose dual is G. So, it suces for the algorithm to check that G is planar and

has a 3-regular dual; if so, it returns the dual as an atlas.

In all the recursive cases, the smaller graphs that we generate have total size at most

the size of G plus a constant, and we sp end quadratic time on generating them. A simple

argument cf. Section 8 shows that the overall time is cubic.

3.4 Figures

For our arguments of the algorithm's correctness, we need a convenient graphical notation

for the p ossible extensible layouts of G[U ], where U is some small subset of V G. First, as is

very natural, we consider twolayouts equivalent when they are homeomorphic. But b eyond

this, we also intro duce a convenient graphic notation for partially determined layouts of

G[U ]. In particular, weintro duce contractible segments and p ermutable lab els.

De nition 3.11 A gure of G[U ] is a list D = hL, S , L , :::, L i, where L is a layout

1 k

of G[U ], S is a set of curve segments in L, and L , :::, L are disjoint lists of vertices in

1 k

U .Wecal l L the layout in D ,cal l the curve segments in S the contractible segments in

D , and cal l L , :::, L the p ermutable lists in D .

1 k

0 0

of G[U ] if L can be obtainedfrom L by: We say D displays a layout L

1. contracting parts of some contractible segments to points,

2. erasing al l resulting 2-holes, and 14

3. for each permutable list L , selecting a permutation of L and renaming each nation

i i

u 2 L as u.

We say D displays G[U ],or D is a display of G[U ],ifD displays an extensible layout of

G[U ]. D is transformable to another gure D of G[U ] if whenever D displays G[U ],so

does D .

To illustrate a gure D we draw L, emphasize the contractible segments in b old, and

then for each p ermutable list L ,we lab el each nation u 2 L as u . Since wemay contract

i i

any part of a contractible segmenttoapoint, the endp oints do not matter, and they are not

emphasized. The holes are unlab eled, and should b e regarded as \optional" if a contraction

could reduce it to a 2-hole.

Figure 3.2: A displayofMC fa; b; c; d;eg.

Figure 3.3: Possible displays of MC fa; b; c; d; eg.

For example, when G hasawell-formed atlas M and at least 6 vertices but has no

separating triangle, Figure 3.2 displays G[U ] for an MC U = fa; b; c; d; eg of G.To see

this, we contract a set of contractible segments in the gure to obtain Figure 3.31 through

4. We argue that one of them must display Mj as follows. First, U is a pizza-with-crust

1 1 1 1

in M. Supp ose that the four non-crust nations a ;b ;c ;d meet at a 4-p oint p in M in

1 1

this order. Let q b e the endp oint of the a ;b -segmentin M other than p. De ne q ,

a;b b;c

q , and q similarly. Let k b e the numberofpoints among q , q , q , q that are

c;d d;a a;b b;c c;d d;a

touched by the crust e of U and another nation of V U in M. Since M is well-formed,

k 2. On the other hand, since G 6= G[U ] and has no separating triangle, k 1. If k =1,

then Figure 3.31 displays Mj .Ifk= 2, then Figure 3.32, 3 or 4 displays Mj .

U U

We note that Figure 3.2 has a unique p ermutable set, namely, U itself.

4 Establishing Connectivity

Our goal here is to reduce the algorithmic problem to the case when G is 4-connected.

Since G is already 2-connected, we rst showhow to reduce to the 3-connected case. 15

Lemma 4.1 Let M be an atlas of G.Let u and v be two distinct vertices of G. Then, the

fol lowing statements hold:

1. G fu; v g is disconnected if and only if thereareatleast two u; v -segments in M.

2. Suppose that G fu; v g is disconnected and its connectedcomponents are G , :::, G .

1 k

Then for each i 2f1;:::;kg, the markedgraph G obtainedfrom G[V G [fu; v g]

by marking edge fu; v g has an atlas. Moreover, given an atlas M for each G ,we

can easily construct an atlas of G.

Pro of: We rst prove Statement1. If fu; v g62 E, then nations u and v are disjoint

disc homeomorphs in M, and hence removing them from M leaves exactly one connected

region. So we know fu; v g2 E. Let k b e the number of u; v -segments in M. Consider

the following three cases.

Case 1: k =0.We erase the u; v -p oints in M. Then, M b ecomes an atlas of G ffu; v gg

and nations u and v are disjoint disc homeomorphs in it. So, removing u and v from M

leaves exactly one connected region.

Case 2: k =1.We erase the u; v -p oints in M. M remains an atlas of G. Moreover,

edge fu; v g b ecomes go o d in M. Since the union of nations u and v is a disc homeomorph

in M, removing them from M leaves exactly one connected region.

Case 3: k 2. We erase the u; v -p oints in M. M remains an atlas of G. Moreover, there

are exactly k disjoint holes in Mj . So, removing nations u and v from M leaves exactly

fu;v g

k connected regions. Each of these regions forms a connected comp onentofGfu; v g.

This completes the pro of of Statement1.

We next prove Statement2.For each i, let U = V G . Each hole in Mj is a

i i

U [fu;v g

2-hole and is touched only by u and v , and hence erasing the holes in Mj yields an

U [fu;v g

0 0

atlas of G . On the other hand, given an atlas M of each G ,we erase anyu; v -p oints in

i i

0 0

M . M remains an atlas of G , b ecause edge fu; v g is marked in G and so there exists

i i

au; v -segmentin M. Since G fu; v g = G is connected, Statement 1 implies there

i i

is exactly one u; v -segment. Thus removing nations u and v from M leaves exactly one

connected region, and the closure L of this region is a disc homeomorph. The b oundary of

R can b e divided into two curve segments S and S such that S resp ectively, S

i i;u i;v i;u i;v

is a p ortion of the b oundary of nation u resp ectively, v in M.Now, we can obtain an

atlas of G as follows. First, put R , :::, R on the sphere in suchaway that no twoof

1 k

them touch and each S app ears on the upp er half of the sphere while each S app ears

i;u i;v

on the lower half. Second, draw nation u resp ectively, v to o ccupy the area of the upp er

resp ectively,lower half of the sphere that is o ccupied bynoR. This gives an atlas of G.

Corollary 4.2 G is 3-connected if and only if G has a wel l-formed atlas.

Pro of: By Lemma 4.1, the \if" part is obvious. For the other direction, supp ose G is

3-connected. Let M b e an atlas of G. If no edge of G is bad in M, then M is well-formed

and we are done. So, supp ose that some edge fu; v g is bad in M. Since G is 3-connected,

there is at most one u; v -segmentin M. If there is no u; v -segmentin M,we erase all

but one u; v -p oints in M; otherwise, we erase all the u; v -p oints in M. In b oth cases, 16

M remains an atlas of G and edge fu; v g b ecomes go o d in M while no go o d edge b ecomes

bad in M. Consequently,we can make all bad edges go o d in M. 2

Using Statement 2 of Lemma 4.1, our algorithm may reduce the given graph to its

3-connected comp onents, and so we assume:

Assumption 2 G is 3-connected, and it has a wel l-formed atlas denotedbyM.

Wesay that two nations u and v strongly touch in M if there is a u; v -segmentin

M; they weakly touch in M if there is a u; v -p ointin M.To simplify the sequel, we also

supp ose that small graphs are handled by exhaustive metho ds. We assume:

Assumption 3 G has jV j 9 vertices.

Lemma 4.3 Let C = fa; b; cg be a set of three distinct vertices in G. Then, the fol lowing

statements hold:

1. When C is not a clique in G, G C is connected.

2. When C is a clique in G, G C is disconnected if and only if i the nations in C

do not meet at a point in M and ii each pair of nations in C strongly touch in M.

3. Suppose that G C is disconnected. Then, i G C has exactly two connected

0 0

components G and G , and ii both G and G have a wel l-formed atlas, where

1 2

0 0

G respectively, G is the markedgraph obtainedfrom G[V G [ C ] respectively,

1 2

G[V G [ C ] by marking the edges in E G[C ]. Moreover, given a wel l-formed atlas

0 0

of G and one of G ,wecan easily construct one of G.

1 2

Pro of: To prove Statement 1, supp ose that C is not a clique. For each edge fu; v g2

EG[C], if nations u and v weakly touchin M, then we erase the u; v -p ointin M. Then,

Mj is a layout of G C and the holes in Mj are disjoint disc homeomorphs. So,

V C V C

G C must b e connected.

To prove Statement 2, supp ose that C is a clique. The \if" part is clear. To prove the

\only if" part, supp ose that i or ii in Statement 2 do es not hold. In case i is false,

a, b and c meet at a p ointin M, and the well-formedness of M ensures that their union

is a disc homeomorph, and so G C is connected. Otherwise, supp ose i is true and ii

is false. For each edge fu; v g2 EG[C], if nations u and v weakly touchin M, then we

0 0

erase the u; v -p oint to get atlas M . Then M j is a layout of G C and the holes in

V C

M j are disjoint disc homeomorphs. So, G C is connected.

V C

Next, we prove Statement 3. Since G C is disconnected, i and ii in Statement2

hold. By this, there are exactly two holes H and H in Mj and they are disjoint. For

1 2 C

i 2f1;2g, let U b e the set of nations that o ccupy H in atlas M. Each G[U ] is a connected

i i i

comp onentofG. Let G b e the marked graph obtained from G[U [ C ]by marking the

edges in E G[C ]. There is a unique hole in Mj and it is strongly touched only by

U [C

the nations of C . So, mo difying Mj by extending nation a to o ccupy its unique hole

U [C

0 0

yields a well-formed atlas of G . Similarly,we can obtain a well-formed atlas of G .

1 2

On the other hand, supp ose that we are givenawell-formed atlas M of G and one

0 0

M of G . Let i 2f1;2g. Since the edges in E G[C ] are marked in G , each pair of

i 17

nations of C strongly touchinM. Note that G C is connected. Then by Statement2

and the well-formedness of M , the nations in C meet at a 3-p oint p in M . Let D be a

i i i i

disc that is centered at p and touches no nation of U in atlas M .To obtain a well-formed

i i i

atlas of G,we remove each D from M to obtain a connected region R , and then glue R

i i i 1

and R together by identifying nations a, b, c in R with those in R , resp ectively. 2

2 1 2

Statement 3 ab ove gives an e ective algorithm to reduce the given graph to its 4-

connected comp onents. So wenow assume:

Assumption 4 Graph G is 4-connected.

Lemma 4.4 G has no 6-clique.

Figure 4.1: A displayofMC fa;:::;fg.

Pro of: First observe that no hole-free 4-map graph has a 7-clique, by Theorem 2.7.

Assume, on the contrary, that G has an MC C . Then it must b e a hamantasch, and by

Assumption 4, Figure 4.1 displays Mj . Thus, V = C , contradicting Assumption 3. 2

Lemma 4.5 Let G be the markedgraph obtainedfrom G by removing a correct 4-pizza

0 0

ha; b; c; di. Then, G has a wel l-formed atlas. Moreover, given a wel l-formed atlas of G ,

we can easily construct one of G.

Pro of: Let M be a well-formed atlas of G in which nations a, b, c, d meet at a p oint

p in this order. After erasing the a; c-p oint p in M,we obtain a well-formed atlas of G

in which nations a, b, and d meet at a 3-p oint and nations b, c, and d meet at a 3-p oint.

0 0

Thus, by Lemma 4.3, b oth G fa; b; dg and G fb; c; dg are connected.

0 0 0

Let M beawell-formed atlas of G . Since G fa; b; dg is connected and the edges

fa; bg, fa; dg, and fb; dg are marked in G , nations a, b, and d must meet at a 3-p oint p

in M according to Lemma 4.3. Similarly, nations b, c, and d must meet at a 3-p oint p

0 0

in M .Thus, the b oundaries of b and d in M share a curve segment S with endp oints p

and p .We mo dify M by contracting S to a p oint, obtaining a well-formed atlas of G. 2

In some of our reductions we will discover that G hasawell-formed map with several

4-pizzas. In those situations wemay remove all the 4-pizzas at once. This is b ecause the

resulting graph still has a well-formed atlas, and therefore is 3-connected, and so the ab ove

argument applies for each removed 4-pizza.

5 Advanced Separations

In this section we prove the necessary prop erties of the separators intro duced in De ni-

tion 3.10. 18

5.1 Separating Edges

De nition 5.1 A shrinkable segment S in M is a u; v -segment in M such that i fu; v g

is an unmarkededge in G, ii both endpoints of S are 3-points, and iii the endpoints of

S are touched by distinct nations a and b which are adjacent in G. Nations a and b are

cal led the ending nations of S .

In the next two results, we show a close relationship b etween separating edges and

shrinkable segments.

Lemma 5.2 Assume that G has a separating edge fa; bg.Let G = G fa; bg E[a; b].

Then, for every fx; y g2 E such that x and y belong to di erent connectedcomponents of

G , ha; x; b; y i isacorrect 4-pizza in G.

Pro of: Let M b e the atlas of G obtained from M by contracting those shrinkable

segments whose ending nations are a and b. All edges except fa; bg are go o d in M .

First, we claim that for every fu; v g2 E such that u and v b elong to di erent connected

0 0

comp onents of G , there is a p ointin M at which nations u, a, v , b meet at p cyclically

in this order. Towards a contradiction, assume that such a p oint do es not exist in M .By

the de nition of G , fu; v g is in E [a; b]. There is no nation w 2 V fa; b; u; v g adjacentto

0 0

b oth u and v ; otherwise, w would connect u and v in G byFact 3.9. By the fact that M

has no hole, nations u and v only share a unique curve segment S in M and the endp oints

of S can b e touched only by a or b in M . Nation a cannot touch b oth endp oints of S ;

otherwise, since the edges fa; ug and fa; v g are still go o d in M , nations a, u, and v would

have to o ccupy the whole sphere, a contradiction. Similarly, b cannot touch b oth endp oints

of S . So, b oth endp oints of S are 3-p oints. In summary, one endp oints of S is touched

by a and the other is touched by b. Then S would b e a shrinkable segment whose ending

nations are a and b, contradicting the choice of M .

Second, we claim that there is no a; b-segmentin M .Towards a contradiction, assume

0 0

that an a; b-segment S exists in M . By the rst claim, there is an a; b-p oint p in M .

Note that p is not on S . Let x and y b e the two nations of V fa; bg that meet at p.

Since M has no hole, G is 4-connected and jV j9, there is a nation z 2 V fa; b; x; y g

0 0

that touches either x or y in M .Ifztouches x resp ectively, y in M, then z is not

reachable from y resp ectively, xin Gfa; b; xg resp ectively, G fa; b; y g, contradicting

Assumption 4.

Third, we claim that there are at least twoa; b-p oints in M . Otherwise, if there is

only one a; b-p oint, then by the rst claim, E [a; b]would have at most one edge, and the

4-connectivityofGwould prevent the separation of G .

Figure 5.1: Layout M j when ` =4.

fa;bg

Let ` b e the numberofa; b-p oints. Since ` 2 and there is no a; b-segment, we see

that the atlas M has a cyclic sequence of a; b-p oints q , :::, q . These p oints alternate

0 `1

0 0

with ` 2-holes in M j ; Figure 5.1 displays M j when ` =4.

fa;bg fa;bg 19

For each j , let x and y b e the nations meeting a and b.We claim that fa; b; x ;y g

j j j j

is an MC ; otherwise to form a containing 5-clique would force ` 3 and E [a; b]= ;,

contradicting the separation of G . So in fact each q corresp onds to an edge x ;y in

j j j

E[a; b], and the comp onents of G corresp ond to the set of nations in each hole.

Now consider a particular edge x ;y . To show that ha; x ;b;y i is a correct 4-pizza,

j j j j

wemust nd a well-formed atlas of G where they meet as they do in M . This is easy to

do: we simply erase all a; b-p oints in M except q , and the resulting atlas is well-formed.

Corollary 5.3 Suppose G has an edge fa; bg, not inside a 5-clique. Then, fa; bg is a

separating edge if and only if there is a shrinkable segment in M with ending nations a

and b.

Pro of: The \if" part is obvious from the pro of of Lemma 5.2. To prove the \only if"

part, supp ose there is a shrinkable segment S in M with ending nations a and b. Let M

b e the atlas of G obtained from M by contracting S to a single p oint p. Similarly to the

second claim in the pro of of Lemma 5.2, we can claim that there is no a; b-segmentin

0 0

M.Thus, b esides p, there is exactly one a; b-p oint q in M , inherited from M.Now,

M j has exactly two holes H and H . Let Z resp ectively, Z b e the set of nations

0 1 0 1

fa;bg

of V fa; bg o ccupying H resp ectively, H in atlas M . Let x 2 Z and y 2 Z b e the

0 1 0 1

0 0 0

two nations that meet at p in M . Similarly, let x 2 Z and y 2 Z b e the two nations

0 1

0 0 0 0

that meet at q in M .ByM, edges fx; y g and fx ;y g are not marked in G and they are

all the edges connecting nations of Z to those of Z . Moreover, since no 5-clique contains

0 1

0 0

fa; bg, fa; b; x; y g and fa; b; x ;y g are MC 's of G. Therefore, no connected comp onentof

Gfa; bg E[a; b] contains b oth the nations of Z and those of Z . In other words, fa; bg

0 1

is a separating edge of G. 2

5.2 Separating 4-Cycles

Lemma 5.4 Suppose that G has a separating 4-cycle C with vertices a; b; c; d appearing on

G[C ] in this order. Then, G C has exactly two connectedcomponents G and G ; and

1 2

for each i 2f1;2g, the markedgraph G obtainedfrom G[V G [ C ] by adding edge fa; cg

and marking edges fa; bg, fb; cg, fc; dg, fd; ag, fa; cg has a wel l-formed atlas. Moreover,

0 0

given a wel l-formed atlas of G and one of G ,wecan easily construct one of G.

1 2

Pro of: Since G[C ] is a cycle and M is well-formed, there are exactly two holes H and

H in Mj .For j 2f1;2g, let U b e the set of nations that o ccupy H in atlas M. Clearly,

2 C j j

the nations in U are connected together in G C . By this and the assumption that G C

is disconnected, b oth G[U ] and G[U ] are connected comp onents of G C and G C has

1 2

no other connected comp onent. So, H and H must b e disjoint. In turn, for each edge

1 2

fu; v g in G[C ], there is a u; v -segmentin M.

For each j 2f1;2g, there is a unique hole in Mj and it is strongly touched only

U [C

by the nations of C . So, mo difying Mj by extending nation a to cover its unique hole

U [C

yields a well-formed atlas of G in which nations a, b, and c meet at a 3-p oint and nations

0 0

fa; c; dg are fa; b; cg and G a, c, and d meet at a 3-p oint. So, by Lemma 4.3, b oth G

j j

connected. 20

Figure 5.2: Layout M j .

j C

0 0

Supp ose that we are given an atlas M for each G . Since G fa; b; cg is connected

j j

and the three edges fa; bg, fa; cg, and fc; bg are marked in G , nations a, b, and c meet at

a 3-p ointin M ,by Lemma 4.3. Similarly, nations a, c, and d must meet at a 3-p ointin

M.Thus, by the well-formedness of M , Figure 5.2 displays M j . By the gure, we can

j j j C

cut o a small area inside M around the a; c-segment; the nations in the other atlas can

be emb edded in the resulting op en area. 2

5.3 Separating Triples

Lemma 5.5 Suppose G has no separating edge but has a separating triple ha; b; ci. Then,

G fa; b; cgE [a; b] has exactly two connectedcomponents G and G . Moreover, ha; u; b; v i

1 2

is a correct 4-pizza, where fug = V G \ N V G and fv g = V G \ N V G .

1 G 2 2 G 1

Figure 5.3: A displayofG[fa; b; u; v g].

Pro of: Let C = fa; b; cg and G = G C E[a; b]. Since G is 4-connected, G C is

connected. So E [a; b] is non-empty to disconnect G , and wemaycho ose fu; v g2 E[a; b]

such that u and v b elong to di erent comp onents of G . By de nition of E [a; b], fa; b; u; v g

is an MC in G.

We claim that nations u and v do not strongly touchin M. Assume, on the contrary,

that a u; v -segment S exists in M. Since M has no hole, there are nations w , w in

1 2

V fu; v g such that w touches one endp ointofS and w touches the other. If w were

1 2 1

0 0

not in fa; bg, then w would connect u and v in G in G byFact 3.9. Thus w 2fa; bg,

1 1

and similarly w 2fa; bg. By the well-formedness of M and the fact that jV j > 3, we

can verify that there is no way for nation a or b to touch b oth endp oints of S . So, nation

a touches one endp ointofSand b touches the other; Figure 5.3 displays Mj .By

fa;b;u;v g

Figure 5.3 and the fact that edge fu; v g is not marked in G, fa; bg is a separating edge of

G, a contradiction. Thus, the claim holds.

By the claim, nations u and v weakly touch at a p oint p in M. Since M has no hole,

there are two distinct nations w , w in V fu; v g which meet at p in M. As b efore, we can

1 2

show that fw ;w g = fa; bg.Thus, the four nations a, u,b, v app ear around p cyclically

1 2

in this order in M. In turn, by the well-formedness of M, ha; u; b; v i is a correct 4-pizza of

The discussions ab ove actually prove that for every pair of adjacent nations x and y of

G that b elong to di erent connected comp onents of G , nations a, x, b, y must meet at a 21

4-p oint cyclically in this order in M. Since p is the unique p ointin Mat which a and b

meet, u; v is the unique pair of adjacent nations of G that b elong to di erent connected

0 0

comp onents of G .Wenow claim that the connected comp onents of G are only G and

G . Assume, on the contrary, that G has a connected comp onent G other than G and

2 3 1

G . Then, there exists a nation w 2 V C [ V G which touches some nation w of G

2 3 3

in M; otherwise, G would b e a connected comp onentofGC, a contradiction. But now,

w; w is a pair of adjacent nations of G that b elong to di erent connected comp onents of

0 0

G , a contradiction. Thus, the connected comp onents of G are only G and G .Wemay

1 2

assume that u 2 V G and v 2 V G . G and G only touchatp; otherwise, nations

1 2 1 2

a and b would have to meet at a p oint other than p in M, a contradiction against the

well-formedness of M. Hence, fug = V G \ N V G and fv g = V G \ N V G .

1 G 2 2 G 1

5.4 Separating Quadruples

Using Lemma 5.4, we can mo dify the pro of of Lemma 5.5 to prove the following:

Lemma 5.6 Suppose that G has neither separating edge nor separating 4-cycle, but has a

separating quadruple ha; b; c; di. Then, G fa; b; c; dg E[a; b] has exactly two connected

components G and G . Moreover, ha; u; b; v i is a correct 4-pizza, where fug = V G \

1 2 1

N V G and fv g = V G \ N V G .

G 2 2 G 1

Corollary 5.7 Suppose that G does not have an MC or a separating edge. Then, G has

a separating quadruple if and only if for some induced 4-cycle C in G, at most one pair of

adjacent nations of C weakly touch in M.

Pro of: The \if" part is obvious. For the \only if" part, supp ose G has a separating

quadruple Q.IfGhas a separating 4-cycle C , then as observed in the pro of of Lemma 5.4,

each pair of adjacent nations of C strongly touchin M. Otherwise, as observed in the

mo di ed pro of of Lemma 5.5 for Lemma 5.6, exactly one pair of adjacent nations of Q

weakly touchin M. 2

5.5 Separating Triangles

The previous results of this section allow our algorithm to simplify G whenever it contains

a separating edge, triple, or quadruple; so, for the rest of this pap er we assume:

Assumption 5 G does not have a separating edge, triple, or quadruple.

Supp ose G has a separating triangle ha; b; ci. Let C and G b e as describ ed in De -

nition 3.105. Our goal is to show that using C and G , our algorithm can pro ceed by

nding correct 4-pizzas. We b egin with three preliminary claims.

Claim 5.8 If fu; v g is an edge in G C but not in G , then a 2 N u \ N v .Also,

G G

nations u, v , b, and c cannot meet at a 4-point in M. 22

Pro of: Since fu; v g2 E[a; b] [E[a; c], either fa; b; u; v g or fa; c; u; v g is an MC of G.In

b oth cases, a 2 N u \ N v . For the last part, such a 4-p ointwould imply a 5-clique

G G

containing the MC , contradicting its maximality. 2

0 0

Claim 5.9 For every connectedcomponent K of G , i C N V K and ii G has

another connectedcomponent J such that V K \ N V J 6= ;.

Pro of: For i, let S = C \ N V K . Since G C is connected, some edge in E [a; b] [

E [a; c] connects K to an outside vertex, so to supp ort the corresp onding MC , S must

contain either fa; bg or fa; cg.IfjSj= 2, then S would b e a separating edge of G, separating

K from the rest. So, S = C .

For ii, if on the contrary V K \ N V J = ; for every J , then K would b e a

comp onentofGC, contradicting Assumption 4. 2

Claim 5.10 Let Z be a subset of V C . Suppose that a subset fu; v ; w g of Z is a triangle of

G such that u and v belong to di erent connectedcomponents of G [Z ]. Then, the fol lowing

hold:

1. Either i C N u and fC \ N v ;C \ N wg = ffa; bg; fa; cgg or ii C

G G G

N v and fC \ N u;C \ N wg = ffa; bg; fa; cgg.

G G G

2. Thereisnox2Zfu; v ; w g with fu; v ; w g N x.

Note that wetypically use this claim with Z = V C .

Pro of: Since u and v are disconnected in G [Z ], at least two of the triangle edges are

removed. Claim 5.8 applied to these edges implies fu; v ; w g N a. On the other hand,

byFact 3.9 at most one triangle edge is in eachofE[a; b] and E [a; c], so in fact exactly two

edges are removed, and either edge fu; w g or fv; wg remains in G .

We supp ose fv; wg remains, the other case is similar swap u and v . We also supp ose

fu; v g2 E[a; b] and fu; w g2 E[a; c], the other case is similar swap b and c. Then

fa; b; cg N u, fa; bg N v, and fa; cg N w. On the other hand, G cannot have

G G G

the edges fv; cg or fw; bg, since either would imply a 5-clique containing an MC . So, the

rst assertion holds.

For the second assertion, supp ose on the contrary there is an x 2 Z fu; v ; w g with

fu; v ; w g N x. As ab ove, we supp ose that b oth fa; b; u; v g and fa; c; u; w g are MC 's

G 4

of G. Then neither fa; bg nor fa; cg is a subset of N x, since otherwise x would extend

one of these MC 's to a 5-clique. But then the edges from x would all survivein G[Z],

contradicting the disconnection of u and v . 2

Figure 5.4: Possible displays of a separating triangle ha; b; ci. 23

Note that Mj can have at most two holes. If Mj has only one hole, then Figure 5.41,

C C

2, or 3 displays it; otherwise, Figure 5.44 displays it. In the next three lemmas, we

will show that in fact only Figure 5.44 is p ossible.

Lemma 5.11 Figure 5.41 does not display Mj .

Pro of: Assume, on the contrary, that Figure 5.41 displays Mj . Let p b e the p oint

in Mj at which nations a, b, and c meet. Let p resp ectively, p b e the endp oint

C a;b a;c

of the a; b-segment resp ectively,a; c-segment other than p in M. There must exist a

nation d 2 V C which touches p in M. By the well-formedness of M, nation d touches a

0 0

only at p and fa; dg is not a marked edge in G. Let G b e the connected comp onentofG

0 0

containing d. Let K b e a connected comp onentofG other than G such that some nation

u of G touches some nation v of K in M; K exists by Claim 5.9.

Figure 5.5: Possible displays of G[fa; b; c; d; v ; wg].

We claim that nation a touches some nation of G fdg in M. Assume, on the contrary,

that the claim is false. Clearly, fa; b; u; v g or fa; c; u; v g is an MC of G. Since no nation of

G fdg touches a in M, u = d. That is, fa; b; d; v g or fa; c; d; v g is an MC of G. Since

fa; b; cg N d, wehavejN v\fb; cgj = 1; otherwise, fa; b; c; d;vg would b e a 5-clique

G G

of G.We assume that N v \fb; cg = fbg; the other case is similar. Then, since nation

v cannot touch nation c in M and M has no hole, there is a p ointin Mat which nations

v , d and some w 2 V fa; b; c; d;vg meet. By Claim 5.10, C \ N w = fa; cg and there

is no x 2 V fa; b; c; d; v ; w g such that fd; v ; w g N x. Now, we see that Figure 5.51

displays Mj . There is no x 2 V fa; b; c; d; v ; wg with fd; v g N x; otherwise,

fa;b;c;d;v ;w g

C \ N x= fa; cg by Claim 5.101, which is imp ossible by Figure 5.51. Similarly, there

is no x 2 V fa; b; c; d; v ; wg with fd; w g N x. Thus, Figure 5.51 is transformable

to Figure 5.52. By Figure 5.52 and the fact that fd; ag is not a marked edge in G,

hb; c; w; v i is a separating quadruple of G, a contradiction. So, the claim holds.

0 0

Next, we claim that for every connected comp onent K of G , there is no p oint q in

0 0

M at whichtwo nations x and y of K together with two nations w and z of V V K

meet cyclically in the order x, w , y , z . Assume, on the contrary, that such q exists in

M. Then, by Claim 5.102, C \fw; z g6= ;. By Figure 5.41, q 62 fp; p ;p g and

a;b a;c

hence jC \fw; z gj 1. So, jC \fw; z gj = 1. In turn, C \fw; z g = fag; otherwise, by

Claim 5.8, fx; y ; a; w ; z g would b e a 5-clique of G, a contradiction. We assume that w = a;

the other case is similar. Now, by Claim 5.101, fC \ N x;C\N yg = ffa; bg; fa; cgg

G G

and C N z . We assume that C \ N x= fa; bg and C \ N y = fa; cg; the

G G G

other case is similar. In summary, Figure 5.61 displays Mj . There is no f 2

fa;b;c;x;y ;z g

V fa; b; c; x; y ; z g with fx; z g N f; otherwise, by Claim 5.101, C \ N f = fa; cg

G G 24

Figure 5.6: Possible displays of G[fa; b; c; x; y ; z g].

which is imp ossible by Figure 5.61. Similarly, there is no f 2 V fa; b; c; x; y ; z g with

fy; zg N f. So, Figure 5.61 is transformable to Figure 5.62. By the latter gure,

ha; z ; bi would b e a separating triple of G, a contradiction. So, the claim holds.

Figure 5.7: Possible displays of G[fa; b; c; u; v ; wg].

By the ab ovetwo claims and the fact Claim 5.9 that fa; b; cg N VK, p or

G a;b

0 0

p is touched by b oth G and K in M. Supp ose that p is touched by b oth G and

a;c a;b

d d

K ; the other case is similar. Let u resp ectively, v b e the nation of G resp ectively,

K touching p . Then, the b oundaries of nations u and v in M share a curve segment

a;b

S . One endp ointofS is p . Let q b e the other endp ointofS. Neither nation d nor

a;b

c touches q in M; otherwise, fu; v ; a; b; dg or fu; v ; a; b;cg would b e a 5-clique of G.By

the well-formedness of M, it is imp ossible that nation a or b touches q . In turn, since

M has no hole, there is a nation w 2 V fa; b; c; d; u; v g that touches q in M.Now, by

Claim 5.101, C \ N w = fa; cg and either i C N v and C \ N u= fa; bg or ii

G G G

C N u and C \ N v = fa; bg. In case i holds, Figure 5.71 displays Mj

G G

fa;b;c;u;v ;w g

and hb; c; w ; ui would b e a separating quadruple, a contradiction. So, ii holds and only

Figure 5.72 can p ossibly display Mj . There is no f 2 V fa; b; c; u; v ; w g

fa;b;c;u;v ;w g

with fu; w g N f; otherwise, by Claim 5.101, C \ N f = fa; bg which is imp ossible

G G

by Figure 5.72. By this, Figure 5.72 is transformable to Figure 5.73, by which ha; u; ci

would b e a separating triple of G, a contradiction. This completes the pro of. 2

Lemma 5.12 Figure 5.42 does not display Mj .

Pro of: Assume, on the contrary, that Figure 5.42 displays Mj . We assume that

1 1

hb ;c i = hb; ci in the gure; the other case is similar. De ne p oints p and p , nation d

a;b

and G as in the pro of of Lemma 5.11. By the well-formedness of M, nation d meets b only

at p and fb; dg is not a marked edge in G. Let p b e the endp oint of the b; c-segment

b;c

other than p in M. 25

Figure 5.8: Possible displays of G[fa; b; c; d; v ; wg].

0 0

We claim that G fdg touches nation b in M. Assume, on the contrary, that G fdg

d d

0 0

do es not touch nation b. Let K b e a connected comp onentofG other than G such that

some nation u of G touches some nation v of K in M. By Claim 5.9, such K exists.

Clearly, fa; b; u; v g or fa; c; u; v g is an MC of G.

Case 1: u 6= d. Then C \ N u= fa; cg and fa; c; u; v g is an MC of G. Moreover, there

G 4

is no w 2 V fa; b; c; u; v g with fu; v g N w; otherwise, since C \ N u= fa; cg,we

G G

would have C N v and C \ N w = fa; bg by Claim 5.101, and in turn w would b e

G G

avertex of G fdg that touches nation b in M, a contradiction. So, by the fact that M

has no hole, the b oundaries of nations u and v share a curve segment S in M, and b oth

endp oints of S are 3-p oints one of which is touched by a and the other is touched by c in M.

By this, S is a shrinkable segmentin M,u and v fall into di erent connected comp onents

of G fa; cg E[a; c], and fa; cg would b e a separating edge of G, a contradiction.

Case 2: u = d. Then fa; b; d; v g or fa; c; d; v g is an MC of G. Since fa; b; cg N d, we

4 G

have jN v \fb; cgj = 1; otherwise, fa; b; c; d; v g would b e a 5-clique of G.Sowehavetwo

sub-cases.

Case 2.1: N v \fb; cg = fbg. Then C \ N v = fa; bg and fa; b; d; v g is an MC of

G G 4

G. Moreover, since nation v cannot touch nation c in M and M has no hole, there is a

p ointinMat which nations v , d and some w 2 V fa; b; c; d; v g meet. By Claim 5.101,

C \ N w =fa; cg and there is no x 2 V fa; b; c; d; v ; w g such that fd; v ; w g N x.

G G

Now, we see that Figure 5.81 displays Mj . There is no x 2 V fa; b; c; d; v ; w g

fa;b;c;d;v ;w g

with fd; w g N x; otherwise, C \ N x= fa; bg by Claim 5.101, which is imp ossible

G G

by Figure 5.81. Thus, Figure 5.81 is transformable to Figure 5.82. By Figure 5.82,

hb; v ; w; ci is a separating quadruple of G, a contradiction.

Case 2.2: N v \fb; cg = fcg. If there is a w 2 V fa; b; c; d; v g with fd; v g N w,

G G

then similarly to Case 2.1, we can prove that hb; w ; v ; ci would b e a separating quadruple

of G, a contradiction. Otherwise, the b oundaries of nations d and v share a curve segment

S in M, and b oth endp oints of S are 3-p oints one of which is touched by a and the other

is touched by c in M;by this, S is a shrinkable segmentin M, dand v fall into di erent

connected comp onents of G fa; cg E[a; c], and fa; cg would b e a separating edge of G,

a contradiction.

Therefore, the claim holds: G fdg touches b.

0 0

Next, we claim that for every connected comp onent K of G , there is no p oint q in M

0 0

at whichtwo nations x and y of K together with two nations w and z of V V K meet

cyclically in the order x, w , y , z . Assume, on the contrary, that such q exists in M. Then, by

Claim 5.102, C \fw; z g6= ;. By Figure 5.42, q 62 fp; p ;p g and hence jC \fw; z gj 1.

a;b b;c

So, jC \fw; z gj = 1. In turn, C \fw; z g = fag; otherwise, by Claim 5.8, fx; y ; a; w; z g 26

Figure 5.9: Possible displays of G[fa; b; c; x; y ; z g].

would b e a 5-clique of G, a contradiction. We assume that w = a; the other case is similar.

Now, by Claim 5.101, fC \ N x;C \ N yg = ffa; bg; fa; cgg and C N z . We

G G G

assume that C \ N x= fa; bg and C \ N y = fa; cg; the other case is similar. In

G G

summary, Figure 5.91 displays Mj . There is no f 2 V fa; b; c; x; y ; z g with

fa;b;c;x;y ;z g

fx; z g N f; otherwise, by Claim 5.101, C \ N f = fa; cg which is imp ossible by

G G

Figure 5.91. Similarly, there is no f 2 V fa; b; c; x; y ; z g with fy; zg N f. So,

Figure 5.91 is transformable to Figure 5.92. By the latter gure, ha; z ; bi would b e a

separating triple of G, a contradiction. So, the claim holds.

Figure 5.10: Possible displays of G[fa; b; c; u; v ; w g].

By the ab ovetwo claims and the fact that fa; b; cg N VK, p or p is touched

G a;b b;c

0 0

by b oth G and K in M. By Claim 5.8, p cannot b e touched by b oth G and K . So,

b;c

d d

0 0

p is touched by b oth G and K . Let u resp ectively, v b e the nation of G resp ectively,

a;b

d d

K touching p . Then, the b oundaries of nations u and v in M share a curve segment

a;b

S . One endp ointofS is p . Let q b e the other endp ointofS. Neither nation d nor c

a;b

touches q in M; otherwise, fu; v ; a; b; dg or fu; v ; a; b;cg would b e a 5-clique of G. By the

well-formedness of M, it is imp ossible that nation a or b touches q . So, there is a nation

w 2 V fa; b; c; d;u;vgthat touches q in M.Now, by Claim 5.101, C \N w = fa; cg and

either i C N u and C \ N v = fa; bg or ii C N v and C \ N u= fa; bg.In

G G G G

case i holds, Figure 5.101 displays Mj ;by the gure, it is imp ossible for nation

fa;b;c;u;v g

w to touch all of nations v , a, and c in M, a contradiction. So, only Figure 5.102 can

p ossibly display Mj . There is no f 2 V fa; b; c; u; v ; w g with fv; wg N f;

fa;b;c;u;v ;w g

otherwise, by Claim 5.101, C \ N f = fa; bg which is imp ossible by Figure 5.102.

By this, Figure 5.102 is transformable to Figure 5.103, by which hb; u; w ; ci would b e a

separating quadruple of G, a contradiction. This completes the pro of. 2

Lemma 5.13 Figure 5.43 does not display Mj .

Pro of: Assume, on the contrary, that Figure 5.43 displays Mj . De ne p oints p, p

C a;b

and p as in the pro of of Lemma 5.11. Let p b e the endp oint of the b; c-segment other

a;c b;c 27

than p in M. Similarly to the pro of of Lemma 5.12, we can prove that for every connected

0 0 0

comp onent K of G , there is no p oint q in M at whichtwo nations x and y of K together

with two nations w and z of V V K meet cyclically in the order x, w , y , z .

Figure 5.11: Possible displays of G[fa; b; c; u; v ; w g].

0 0 0 0 0

Let G and G be two connected comp onents of G such that V G \ N V G 6= ;.

1 2 1 2

0 0

By the ab ove claim, Claim 5.8, and Claim 5.9, p or p is touched by b oth G and G

a;b a;c

1 2

0 0

in M.We assume that p is touched by b oth G and G in M; the other case is similar.

a;b

1 2

0 0

Let u resp ectively, v b e the nation of G resp ectively, G touching p . Similarly

a;b

1 2

to the pro of of Lemma 5.11, we can prove that there is a nation w 2 V fa; b; c; u; v g

such that only Figure 5.111 or 2 can p ossibly displays Mj . If Figure 5.111

fa;b;c;u;v ;w g

displays it, then hb; u; w ; ci would b e a separating quadruple indeed, a separating 4-cycle

of G, a contradiction. So, supp ose that Figure 5.112 displays it. Then, there is no

f 2 V fa; b; c; u; v ; wg with fu; w g N f; otherwise, by Claim 5.10, C \ N f =

G G

fa; bg which is imp ossible by Figure 5.112. By this, Figure 5.112 is transformable to

Figure 5.113. By the latter gure, hb; v ; w ; ci would b e a separating quadruple of G,a

contradiction. This completes the pro of. 2

By Lemmas 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13, only Figure 5.44 can display Mj .

Lemma 5.14 Suppose that C = ha; b; ci is a strongly separating triangle of G.Let d be the

vertex that constitutes a connectedcomponent of G . Then, thereare exactly two vertices

x; y 2 V fa; b; c; dg such that fa; b; d; xg and fa; c; d; y g areMC of G. Moreover, both

ha; d; b; xi and ha; d; c; y i arecorrect 4-pizzas.

Pro of: Let H b e one hole of Mj , and H b e the other. Let Z resp ectively, Z be

1 C 2 1 2

the set of nations in V C that o ccupy hole H resp ectively, H in atlas M. Let p

1 2 a;b

b e the p oint at which nations a and b together with some nation of Z meet in M. De ne

p oints p and p similarly.

a;c b;c

First, we observe that C N V K for every connected comp onent K of G [Z ]. If

G 1

K = Z , then this is clear from Figure 5.44. Otherwise G [Z ] contains some other com-

1 1

p onent K adjacenttoK in G[Z ], and now our argument resembles that for Claim 5.9i.

0 0

That is, let S = C \ N V K . Since an edge b etween K and K is absentin G, S

contains either fa; bg or fa; cg. Assume S = fa; bg; the fa; cg case is similar. Then, in

case K is also a connected comp onentofG, it is clear that fa; bg would b e a separating

0 0

. In case K is not a connected comp onentofG, there is edge in G, separating K from K

exactly one edge fx ;x g2 E with x 2 V K and x 2 Z ; moreover, the four nations

1 2 1 2 2

a; x ;b;x must meet at p oint p in atlas M cyclically in this order so, the a; b-segment

1 2 a;b

in the layout in Figure 5.44 should b e contracted to a p oint. If fa; x ;b;x g is an MC

1 2 4 28

of G, then K would b e a connected comp onentofG, a contradiction. Otherwise, there is

0 0

a 5-clique C containing a; x ;b;x . The nation x 2 C fa; x ;b;x g must b elong to Z

1 2 3 1 2 1

and touch nation c, in order to touch x and x . By this, edge fx ;x g remains in G , and

1 2 1 2

x 2 Z , contradicting the fact that K is a connected comp onentofG[Z ]. So, S = C .

3 1 1

Similarly,wehaveC N VK for every connected comp onent K of G [Z ].

G 2

Figure 5.12: Possible displays of G[fa; b; c; d; x; y g].

We assume that d 2 Z ; the other case is similar. Wewanttoprove that Z = fdg.

1 1

Towards a contradiction, assume that Z 6= fdg. Then, since M has no hole, there is a

connected comp onent K of G [Z ] with V K \ N d 6= ;. First, we claim that d and a

1 G

nation of K must meet at p , p ,orp . Assume, on the contrary, that the claim do es

a;b a;c b;c

not hold. Then, since C N V K \ N dby the ab ove observation, there must exist

G G

a p oint q in M at whichtwo nations x and y of K together with d and some u 2 C meet

cyclically in the order x, d, y , u. Claim 5.10 ensures that either i C \ N x=fa; bg

and C \ N y = fa; cg or ii C \ N x= fa; cg and C \ N y = fa; bg. In either case,

G G G

wehaveu=a.We assume that i holds; the other case is similar. Then, Figure 5.121

displays Mj . There is no u 2 Z fd; x; y g with fx; dg N u; otherwise, by

1 G

fa;b;c;d;x;y g

Claim 5.10, C \ N u= fa; cg which is imp ossible by Figure 5.121. Similarly, there

is no u 2 Z fd; x; y g with fy; dg N u. So, Figure 5.121 is transformable to

1 G

Figure 5.122. By the latter gure and Claim 5.8, d and eachofband c strongly touch

in M. In turn, by the fact that hb; c; di is not a separating triple of G, nations b, c and d

meet at a p oint q in M. By Claim 5.8, q must b e a 3-p oint; so, b and c strongly

b;c;d b;c;d

touchin M. In summary, Figure 5.122 is transformable to Figure 5.123. By the latter,

hx; y ; c; bi would b e a separating quadruple of G, a contradiction. So, the claim holds: d

meets K at p , p ,orp .

a;b a;c b;c

Figure 5.13: Possible displays of G[fa; b; c; d; u; v g].

Next, we use the ab ove claim to get a contradiction. By the ab ove claim, d and a

nation u of K must meet at p , p ,orp in M. By Claim 5.8, d and u cannot meet

a;b a;c b;c

at p . So, they meet at p or p .We assume that they meet at p ; the other case

b;c a;b a;c a;b

is similar. Then, the b oundaries of nations d and u in M share a curve segment S . One 29

endp ointofS is p . Let q b e the other endp ointofS. Nation c cannot touch q in

a;b

M; otherwise, fa; b; c; d; ug would b e a 5-clique of G. By the well-formedness of M,itis

imp ossible that only nations a and b touch q . So, there is a nation v 2 V fa; b; c; d; ug

that touches q in M. Now, by Claim 5.10, C \ N v = fa; cg. Thus, Figure 5.131

or 2 displays Mj . Actually, the former do es not display Mj or else

fa;b;c;d;u;v g fa;b;c;d;u;v g

hb; c; ai would b e a separating triple of G, a contradiction. So, only Figure 5.132 can

p ossibly display Mj . There is no w 2 Z fd; u; v g with fd; v g N w;

1 G

fa;b;c;d;u;v g

otherwise, by Claim 5.10, C \ N w = fa; bg which is imp ossible by Figure 5.132. By

this, Figure 5.132 is transformable to Figure 5.133. The latter is further transformable

to Figure 5.134, b ecause each pair of nations in fb; c; dg must strongly touchin Mby

Claim 5.8 and the fact that hb; c; di is not a separating triple of G. By Figure 5.134,

hu; b; c; v i would b e a separating quadruple of G, a contradiction. This completes the pro of

that Z = fdg.

Figure 5.14: An extensible layout of G[fa; b; cg].

Now, Z = fdg. Thus, by Claim 5.8 and Assumption 5 G has no separating triple,

Figure 5.14 displays Mj . By the gure and the fact that d constitutes a connected

comp onentof G, there are exactly two distinct nations x and y of Z such that fx; dg2 E

and fy; dg2 E. By the gure, b oth ha; d; b; xi and ha; d; c; y i are correct 4-pizzas. Since

Z = V fa; b; c; dg, nding x and y is easy. This completes the pro of of Lemma 5.14. 2

Lemma 5.15 Suppose that thereisnostrongly separating triangle of G.Further assume

that C = ha; b; ci is a separating triangle of G. Then, G has exactly two connectedcompo-

nents G and G , and thereare exactly two edges fu; v g; fx; y g2 E with fu; xg VG

1 2 1

and fv; yg VG. Moreover, fa; b; u; v g and fa; c; x; y g areMC's of G, and both

2 4

ha; u; b; v i and ha; x; c; y i arecorrect 4-pizzas.

Pro of: De ne sets Z and Z and p oints p , p , and p as in Lemma 5.14. As in the

1 2 a;b a;c b;c

pro of of Lemma 5.14, we observe that C N V K for every connected comp onent K

0 0

of G [Z ]orG[Z ].

1 2

Figure 5.15: Possible displays of G[fa; b; c;x;y;zg].

We claim that for every connected comp onent K of G [Z ], there is no p oint q in M at

whichtwo nations x and y of K together with two nations w and z of C [ Z V K

1 30

meet cyclically in the order x, w , y , z . Assume, on the contrary, that such q exists in M.

Then, by Claim 5.10 with Z = Z , C \fw; z g6= ;. By Figure 5.44, q 62 fp ;p ;p g

1 a;b a;c b;c

and hence jC \fw; z gj 1. So, jC \fw; z gj = 1. In turn, C \fw; z g = fag; otherwise, by

Claim 5.8, fx; y ; a; w ; z g would b e a 5-clique of G, a contradiction. We assume that w = a;

the other case is similar. Now, by Claim 5.10, fC \ N x;C \ N yg = ffa; bg; fa; cgg

G G

and C N z . We assume that C \ N x= fa; bg and C \ N y = fa; cg; the

G G G

other case is similar. In summary, Figure 5.151 displays G[fa; b; c; x; y ; z g]. There is no

f 2 Z fx; y ; z g with fx; z g N f; otherwise, by Claim 5.10, C \ N f = fa; cg

1 G G

which is imp ossible by Figure 5.151. Similarly, there is no f 2 Z fx; y ; z g with

fy; zg N f. So, Figure 5.151 is transformable to Figure 5.152. The latter gure is

further transformable to Figure 5.153, b ecause i ha; b; xi and ha; c; y i are not separating

triples of G and ii b oth fa; b; x; z g and fa; c; y ; z g are MC 's of G. By Figure 5.153,

ha; b; z i would b e a strongly separating triangle of G, a contradiction. So, the claim holds.

Figure 5.16: Possible displays of G[fa; b; c; u; v ; w g].

0 0

Next, we claim that G [Z ] is connected. Assume, on the contrary, that G [Z ]is

1 1

disconnected. Then, since M has no hole, there are two distinct connected comp onents

0 0 0

K and K of G [Z ] such that V K \ N V K 6= ;. Since C N V K and C

1 G G

0 0

N V K , some nation u of K and some nation v of K have to meet at p , p or

G a;b a;c

p in M,by the claim of the previous paragraph and Figure 5.44. By Claim 5.8, u

b;c

and v cannot meet at p in M.We assume that u and v meet at p in M; the other

b;c a;b

case is similar. Similarly to the pro of of Lemma 5.11, we can prove that there is a nation

w 2 Z fu; v g such that only Figure 5.161 or 2 can p ossibly display Mj .

fa;b;c;u;v ;w g

Actually, Figure 5.161 do es not display it or else hb; c; ai would b e a separating triple of

G. So, only Figure 5.162 can p ossibly display it. Since ha; w ; v i is not a separating triple

of G, Figure 5.162 is transformable to Figure 5.163. By the latter gure, ha; w ; ui would

b e a strongly separating triangle of G, a contradiction. So, the claim holds. Similarly,we

can prove that G [Z ] is connected.

0 0 0

Since b oth G [Z ] and G [Z ] are connected, b oth are connected comp onents of G

1 2

and G has no other connected comp onent. So, by Claim 5.8, the gure obtained from

Figure 5.44 by contracting the b old b; c-segment to a single p oint do es not display

Mj . In turn, the b old a; b-segment in Figure 5.44 should b e contracted to a single

p oint; otherwise, ha; c; bi would b e a separating triple of G. Similarly,the b old a; c-segment

in Figure 5.44 should b e contracted to a single p oint. Thus, Figure 5.14 displays Mj .

Let q resp ectively, q b e the p oint where nations a and b resp ectively, nations a and

a;b a;c

c meet in Mj . By the gure, a unique nation u 2 Z and a unique nation v 2 Z meet

C 1 2

at q , and fa; b; u; v g is an MC of G. Similarly, a unique nation x 2 Z and a unique

a;b 4 1

nation y 2 Z meet at q , and fa; c; x; y g is an MC of G. Moreover, b oth ha; u; b; v i

2 a;c 4 31

and ha; x; c; y i are correct 4-pizzas. By the gure, other than fu; v g and fx; y g, there is no

fw ;w g2 E with w 2 Z and w 2 Z . 2

1 2 1 1 2 2

Just for the next corollary,we temp orarily drop Assumptions 4 and 5.

Corollary 5.16 Suppose that G does not have an MC , a separating edge, or a separating

quadruple. Then, G has a separating triangle if and only if for some 3-clique C of G, i

the nations of C do not meet at a point in M and ii at least one pair of nations of C

strongly touch in M.

Pro of: The \if" part is obvious. For the \only if" part, supp ose G has a separating

triangle T .IfGis not 4-connected, then by Lemma 4.3, there is a 3-clique C in G such

that the nations of C do not meet at a p ointinMand every pair of nations of C strongly

touchin M. So, wemay assume that G is 4-connected. Then, by the pro of of Lemma 5.5,

0 0

in case G has a separating triple C , the nations of C do not meet at a p ointinMand

at most one pair of nations of C weakly touchinM.Thus, wemay further assume that

G has no separating triple. Then, by the layouts found in Lemmas 5.11 through 5.15, the

nations of T do not meet at a p ointin Mand at least one pair of nations of T strongly

touchin M. 2

By the reductions in this section, our algorithm may make progress whenever G has a

separating edge, quadruple, or triangle. Hereafter we assume that all such reductions have

b een made:

Assumption 6 G does not have a separating edge, quadruple, or triangle.

In fact Assumption 6 implies Assumptions 4 by Lemma 4.31 and 5 by de nition. So

this one statement summarizes the e ect of applying all the reductions in this section and

the previous.

6 Removing Maximal 5-Cliques

We assume that G has an MC ; our goal of this section is to showhow to removeMC 's

5 5

from G. The idea b ehind the removal of an MC C from G is to try to nd and removea

correct center P of C .ByFact 3.7, we make progress after removing P . After removing

P , the resulting G may no longer satisfy Assumption 6; in that case, the algorithm must

therefore reapply the reductions of the previous sections b efore considering another MC .

Also, not unexp ectedly, our search for a correct center of C may fail. In this case, we will

b e able to decomp ose G into smaller graphs to make progress.

For a p ositiveinteger k ,two maximal cliques C and C are k -sharing if jC \ C j = k .

1 2 1 2

Every MC C of G is 4-sharing with at most two other MC 's C of G; this is b ecause

5 5

the center of C must b e a 3-p oint b ordering a hole in Mj , and there are at most two

such p oints in the p ossible displays of Figure 3.3. We claim that at least one MC of G

is 4-sharing with two other MC 's of G.Towards a contradiction, assume that the claim

do es not hold. Let C = fa; b; c; d; eg b e an MC of G. When C is 4-sharing with no

MC of G, none of Figure 3.31 through 4 displays Mj or else either V would equal

5 C

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

C or at least one of he ;a ;b i, he ;c ;d i, and he ;a ;d i would b e a separating triangle

of G, a contradiction. So, consider the case where C is 4-sharing with exactly one MC ,

5 32

Figure 6.1: Displays of an MC C , 4-sharing with one other.

Figure 6.2: Displays of 4-sharing MC 's C and C .

5 1

1 1 1 1

say C = fa ;b ;c ;e ;fg,ofG. In this case, by Assumption 6 G has no separating

triangle, Figure 3.31, 2, and 4 are transformable to Figure 6.11, and Figure 3.33

is transformable to Figure 6.12. By Figure 6.11 and 2, only Figure 6.21 or 2 can

p ossibly display Mj . Actually, Figure 6.22 do es not display Mj ; otherwise,

fa;:::;f g fa;:::;f g

since C is 4-sharing with no MC of G other than C , there is no g 2 V fa;:::;fg with

1 5

1 1 1 1 1

fa ;b ;e ;fg N g and ha ;f;e i would b e a separating triangle of G, a contradiction.

1 1

Similarly, Figure 6.21 do es not display Mj ; otherwise, since jV j 9, ha ;f;b i or

fa;:::;f g

1 1

ha ;f;e i would b e a separating triple of G, a contradiction. Therefore, the claim holds.

By the ab ove claim, if G has an MC , then it has an MC that is 4-sharing with two

5 5

other MC 's of G. By our assumption that G has an MC , G has an MC C = fa; b; c; d; eg

5 5 5

that is 4-sharing with two other MC 's, say C = fa; c; d; e; f g and C = fa; b; c; e; g g,of

5 1 2

G. Let U = C [ff; gg.We showhow to nd a correct center of C b elow. First, we make

a simple but useful observation.

Fact 6.1 Let W be a subset of an MC C of G with jW j3. If al l the edges in E G[W ]

0 0

are markedinGor G C has a vertex x with W = C \ N x, then W contains al l

0 0 0

correct crusts of C . In particular, if C and C areMC 's with jC \ C j 3, then both

crusts are in the intersection.

Vertices f and g are not adjacentin G; otherwise, only Figure 3.33 or 4 can display

Mj , but after drawing nations f and g in the two gures, we see that the 4-connectedness

of G would force V to equal U , contradicting Assumption 3. So, only Figure 6.31 or

Figure 6.32 can display Mj . By the gures, a correct center of C can b e found from a

correct crust immediately. So, it suces to nd out which one of a, c, and e is a correct

crust of C .

Let b e the number of vertices v 2fa; c; eg such that N v U . 1; otherwise,

no matter which of Figure 6.31 and 2 displays Mj , the 4-connectedness of G would

force V to equal U , contradicting Assumption 3. First, consider the case where =0.In 33

Figure 6.3: Displays of MC C , 4-sharing with C and C .

5 1 2

this case, only Figure 6.31 displays Mj . Moreover, by this gure and Assumption 6 G

1 1

has no separating triple, there are a unique nation h 2 V U with fa ;b;e ;gg N h.

1 1

Similarly, there is a unique nation i 2 V U with fc ;d;e ;fg N i. So byFact 6.1,

the unique nation in N h \ N i is a correct crust of C .

G G

Now, wemay assume that =1.Wemay further assume that c is the unique u 2

fa; c; eg such that N u U . Then, we can delete c from the p ermutable list ha; c; ei

in Figure 6.32, or more intuitively,we can let c = c in the gure. Similarly,if

1 1

Figure 6.31 displays Mj ,we can let either a = c or c = c in the gure; this would

imply either N fb; c; g g U or N fc; d; f g U , resp ectively. No matter whichof

G G

Figure 6.31 and 2 displays Mj , if there is a u 2fa; eg such that fu; dg or fu; bg is a

marked edge in G, then the unique nation in fa; eg fug is a correct crust of C . So, we

may assume that none of fa; dg, fe; dg, fa; bg, and fe; bg is a marked edge in G. It remains

to consider three cases as follows.

Figure 6.4: Displays of G[fa;:::;gg] in Case 1.

Case 1: N fc; d; f g U . Then, Figure 6.31 and 2 are transformable to Figure 6.41

and 2, resp ectively.

Figure 6.5: A displayofG[fa; b; c; d; e; g g] in Case 1.1.

Case 1.1: Edge fc; f g is not marked in G. Then, Figure 6.41 is transformable to

Figure 6.42, and hence the latter displays Mj . Let G b e the marked graph obtained

from G ffg by marking the following edges: fb; cg, fc; dg, fa; eg, fa; dg, fe; dg. By 34

0 0

Figure 6.42, we can obtain a well-formed atlas M of G from M by extending nation

1 0

e to o ccupy nation f . Figure 6.5 displays M j . On the other hand, we claim that

fa;:::;e;g g

00 0

every well-formed atlas M of G can b e used to construct a well-formed atlas of G.To

see this, rst note that byFact 6.1, the crust of C in M must b e either a or e. Supp ose

that the crust is e; the other case is similar. Then, since edges fb; cg and fc; dg are marked

0 00

in G , the center of C in M must b e ha; b; c; di. Moreover, since N fdg C , the four

nations a, c, d, and e must b e related in M as shown in Figure 6.5. Thus, we can assign

a suitable sub-region of e to f to obtain an atlas of G. This establishes the claim.

Case 1.2: Edge fc; f g is marked in G. Then, only Figure 6.41 displays Mj . By the

gure, at most one of edges fa; f g and fe; f g is marked in G. Moreover, if fa; f g is marked

in G, then a is a correct crust of C . Similarly,iffe; f g is marked in G, then e is a correct

crust of C . So, it remains to consider the case where neither fa; f g nor fe; f g is a marked

edge in G. In this case, it suces to construct a marked graph G as in Case 1.1.

Case 2: N fb; c; g g U . Similar to Case 1, after relab eling.

Case 3: Neither N fb; c; g g U nor N fc; d; f g U . Then as argued ab ove, Fig-

G G

ure 6.32 displays G[U ]. We consider three sub-cases as follows:

Figure 6.6: A displayofG[fa;:::;gg] in Case 3.1.

Figure 6.7: A displayofG[fa;:::;gg] in Case 3.1.

Case 3.1: There is no v 2 V U such that d 2 N v and N v \fa; eg6= ;. Then,

G G

Figure 6.6 displays Mj . Let G b e the marked graph obtained from G ffc; f gg by mark-

ing the following edges: fb; cg, fc; dg, fa; dg, fe; dg, fa; f g, fe; f g, fd; f g. By Figure 6.6,

0 0

we can obtain a well-formed atlas M of G by erasing the c; f -p ointin M. Figure 6.7

0 0 0

displays M j . By Figure 6.7 and Lemma 4.3, b oth G fa; d; f g and G fe; d; f g

fa;:::;g g

00 0

are connected. We claim that every well-formed atlas M of G can b e used to construct

awell-formed atlas of G.To see this, rst note that byFact 6.1, the crust of C in M

must b e either a or e.We assume that the crust is e; the other case is similar. Then,

0 00

since fb; cg and fc; dg are marked edges in G , the center of C in M must b e ha; b; c; bi.

Moreover, since G fa; d; f g is connected, the marked edges fa; dg, fd; f g and ff; ag of

0 00

G force nations a, d and f to meet at a 3-p ointinM .For a similar reason, nations e,

d and f meet at a 3-p ointinM .Now, since N c C , the four nations c, d, e, and f

G 35

must b e related in M as shown in Figure 6.7. Thus, we can assign a suitable sub-region

of e to f to obtain a well-formed atlas of G.

Case 3.2: There is no v 2 V U such that b 2 N v and N v \fa; eg6= ;. Similar to

G G

Case 3.1.

Case 3.3: There are nations h and i in V U such that d 2 N h, N h \fa; eg6= ;,

G G

b 2 N i, and N i \fa; eg6=;. By Figure 6.32, no nation of V U can touch

G G

b oth b and d in M. So, h and i are distinct nations. Moreover, if jN h \fa; egj =1

resp ectively, jN i \fa; egj = 1, then the unique nation in fa; eg N h resp ectively,

G G

fa; egN i must b e a correct crust and we are done. So, we assume that fa; eg N h

G G

and fa; eg N i. Then, by Figure 6.32, fa; d; e; f ; hg and fa; b; e; g ; ig are MC 's in G.

G 5

Let U = U [fhg.Iffg; hg were an edge in G, then by Figure 6.32, after drawing nation

h in Mj ,we see that the 4-connectedness of G would force V to equal U , contradicting

U h

Assumption 3. So, fg; hg62 E. Similarly, ff; ig62 E. Then, Figure 6.81 or Figure 6.82

displays Mj . If edge fd; hg is marked in G or N d U 6= ;, Figure 6.82 displays

U G h

Mj ; otherwise, Figure 6.82 is transformable to Figure 6.81. So, we can decide whether

Figure 6.81 or 2 displays Mj .

Figure 6.8: Displays of Mj in Cases 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.

Case 3.3.1: Figure 6.81 displays Mj .We further distinguish two cases as follows.

Case 3.3.1.1: There is no v 2 V U such that f 2 N v and fa; eg\ N v 6= ;. Let D

h G G

b e the gure obtained from Figure 6.81 by extending nation h to o ccupy the hole touched

by e , f and h. By Figure 6.81, D displays Mj and so N f U . Moreover, by

U G h

gure D , if there is a w 2fa; eg such that edge fw; f g is marked in G, then w is a correct

crust of C . So, wemay assume that none of the edges fa; f g and fe; f g is marked in G.

Let G b e the marked graph obtained from G ffg by marking the following edges: fb; cg,

fc; dg, fa; dg, fe; dg, fa; hg, fe; hg, fd; hg. By gure D ,we can obtain a well-formed atlas

0 0

M of G from M by i erasing the c; f -p oint and further ii extending nation h to

o ccupy f . Indeed, by renaming nation f in Figure 6.7 as h,we obtain a gure displaying

M j . Moreover, similarly to Case 3.1, we can prove that every well-formed atlas

fa;:::;e;g ;hg

of G can b e used to construct a well-formed atlas of G.

Case 3.3.1.2: There is a j 2 V U such that f 2 N j and fa; eg\ N j 6= ;.If

h G G

fa; eg6 N j, then by Figure 6.81, the unique nation in fa; eg\N j is a correct crust

G G

of C and we are done. So, we assume that fa; eg N j. Recall that ff; ig62E. So,

j 6= i. By Figure 6.81, if there is a w 2fa; eg such that fw; cg is a marked edge in G, then

w is a correct crust of C . So, wemay assume that neither fa; cg nor fe; cg is a marked edge

in G. Let G b e the graph obtained from G fc; dg by adding the three edges fg; f g, fb; f g, 36

Figure 6.9: DisplayofG[fa; b; e; f ; g ; hg] in Case 3.3.1.2.

and fh; bg and further marking the two edges fb; f g and ff; hg. By Figure 6.81, we can

0 0 1

obtain a well-formed atlas M of G from M by i erasing the d; e -p oint, ii erasing

the a ;f-p oint, iii extending nation f to o ccupy nation c, and iv extending nation h

to o ccupy nation d. Indeed, Figure 6.9 displays M j .We claim that every well-

fa;e;b;f ;g ;hg

00 0

formed atlas M of G can b e used to construct a well-formed atlas of G. To see this, rst

0 0 0 0

note that G contains the MC 's C = fa; e; b; f ; hg, C = fa; e; b; f ; g g, C = fa; e; f ; h; j g,

1 2

0 0 00

and C = fa; e; b; g ; ig. These MC 's and Fact 6.1 ensure that the crust of C in M must

be a or e and that the two nations b and h do not app ear consecutively around the center of

0 00 0 00

C in M .We assume that the crust of C in M is e; the other case is similar. Then, the

0 00 00

center of C in M is ha; b; f ; hi. This together with the well-formedness of M implies that

0 00 0

the crust of C in M is either a or f . On the other hand, since C \ N i= fa; e; b; g g,

1 1

0 0 00

f is not a correct crust of C byFact 6.1. Thus, the crust of C in M is a. Therefore, the

1 1

0 0

centers of C and C are as shown in Figure 6.9. From this, the claim follows immediately.

Case 3.3.2: Figure 6.82 displays Mj . In this case, wecheck if there is a v 2 V U

U h

such that d 2 N v and N v \fa; eg6= ;. If such v exists, then jN v \fa; egj =1

G G G

and the unique nation in fa; eg N v is a correct crust of C . If no such v exists,

then by Figure 6.82 and the 4-connectedness of G,wehaveN fd; f ; hg U and

G h

so Figure 6.82 is transformable to a gure D , where D is obtained from Figure 6.82

by extending nation h to o ccupy the two holes touched by h. By gure D , if there is a

w 2fa; eg such that edge fw; f g is marked in G, then w is a correct crust of C . Similarly,

if there is a w 2fa; eg such that edge fw; hg is marked in G, then the unique nation in

fa; egfwg is a correct crust of C . So, wemay assume that none of the edges fa; f g, fe; f g,

fa; hg and fe; hg are marked in G. Let G b e the marked graph obtained from G ff; hg

by marking the following edges: fb; cg, fc; dg, fa; eg, fa; dg, fe; dg. By gure D ,we can

0 0 1

obtain a well-formed atlas M of G from M by extending nation e to o ccupy f and h.

On the other hand, as in Case 1.1, we can prove that every well-formed atlas of G can b e

used to construct a well-formed atlas of G.

7 Removing Maximal 4-Cliques

Throughout this section, we assume that G do es not haveanMC .We further assume that

G has an MC ; our goal of this section is to showhow to removeMC 's from G. The idea

4 4

b ehind the removal of an MC C from G is to try to nd and remove a correct 4-pizza via

constructing an extensible layout of C . After the removal of a correct 4-pizza, the resulting

G may b e not 4-connected and mayhave a separating 4-cycle, edge, triple, quadruple, or

triangle. To restore Assumption 6, the algorithm reapplies the reductions in Sections 4

and 5 to the resulting G. 37

Figure 7.1: Possible displays of MC fa; b; c; dg.

Supp ose C = fa; b; c; dg is an MC of G; using Corollary 5.16 and jV j > 8, we nd

that only Figure 7.11, 2 or 3 can p ossibly display M . Note these are a pizza, a

pizza-with-crust, and a rice-ball, resp ectively.

7.1 Finding Rice-Balls

Let C = fa; b; c; dg b e an MC of G.For a subset W of C , let E [W ] b e the set of unmarked

edges fu; v g2 E such that u 62 W , v 62 W , and some MC of G consists of u, v , and two

vertices in W .

Let G = G C E[C]. A 3-subset of C is a subset S of C with jS j =3.For each

3-subset S of C , let V = [ V K , where K ranges over all connected comp onents K of

S K

G with C \ N V K = S .

Lemma 7.1 Figure 7.13 displays Mj if and only if the fol lowing statements hold:

1. No two vertices in C areconnected by a markededge in G.

2. V , V , V , and V each are nonempty and induceaconnectedcom-

fa;b;cg fa;b;dg fa;c;dg fb;c;dg

ponent of G , and they together form a partition of V C .

3. For every pair of two distinct 3-subsets S and T of C , jV \ N V j =1, jV \

S G T T

N V j=1, and S \ T [ V \ N V [ V \ N V is an MC of G.

G S S G T T G S 4

Pro of: For the \only if " direction, supp ose that Figure 7.13 displays Mj . Then, Mj

C C

has four holes, and each hole is touched by exactly three nations of C .For each 3-subset S

of C , let H b e the hole touched by the nations of S , and let Z b e the nations of V C

S S

that o ccupy H in atlas M.Wewant to prove that for each 3-subset S of C , Z = V .To

S S S

this end, rst observe that for each connected comp onent K of G , there is a 3-subset S of C

with V K Z . This observation follows from Figure 7.13 immediately. Consequently,

C \ N V K S ;we claim they are equal. Towards a contradiction, assume that G

has a connected comp onent K with jC \ N V K j 2. Let W = C \ N V K .

G G

If jW j 1, then K would b e a connected comp onentofGW, a contradiction. If

jW j = 2, then K is a connected comp onentofGWE[W ], and the vertices of W de ne a

separating edge, a contradiction. So, the claim holds. By this claim, the ab ove observation

and Figure 7.13, wehave Z =V for each 3-subset S of C . In turn, by Figure 7.13,

S S

Statements 1 through 3 hold. 38

Figure 7.2: Possible atlases of G.

For the \if " direction, supp ose that Statements 1 through 3 hold. We rst prove that

Figure 7.11 do es not display Mj .Towards a contradiction, assume that Figure 7.11

1 1 1 1

displays Mj .Wemay assume that ha ;b ;c ;d i = ha; b; c; di in Figure 7.11; the other

cases are similar. Let S b e a 3-subset of C .We claim that there is no p ointinMat which

two nations u and v of V together with two nations x and y of V V meet cyclically in

S S

the order u, x, v , y . This claim holds; otherwise, fx; y g6 C by Figure 7.11, so x or y

b elongs to V for some 3-subset T of C other than S , and in turn fu; v g would b e a subset

of V \ N V , a contradiction against Statement 3 in the lemma. By this claim and

S G T

Statement 2, the nations of V form a disc homeomorph in M. Thus, by Statements 2

and 3, Figure 7.21 displays M. By this gure, there is a 4-p oint p in M such that for each

3-subset S of C , exactly one nation v 2 V touches p. Since the nations v meet at p but

S S S

no two of them b elong to the same connected comp onentofG,C\N v = S. In turn,

G S

by Figure 7.21 and the 4-connectedness of G, each V would equal fv g, contradicting

S S

Assumption 3. Therefore, Figure 7.11 do es not display Mj .

We next prove that Figure 7.12 do es not display Mj . Towards a contradiction,

assume that Figure 7.12 displays Mj . As in the last paragraph, wemay assume

1 1 1 1

ha ;b ;c ;d i = ha; b; c; di, and we claim that the nations of each V form a disc home-

omorph in M.Thus, by Statements 2 and 3, Figure 7.22 displays M. By this gure,

there is a 4-p oint p in M at which nation a, some u 2 V , some v 2 V , and

fa;b;cg fa;b;dg

some w 2 V meet. Since u, v and w meet at p but no two of them b elong to

fa;c;dg

the same connected comp onentofG,C\N u= fa; b; cg, C \ N v = fa; b; dg, and

G G

C \ N w = fa; c; dg. In turn, by Figure 7.22, fug = V . Moreover, nations v , a, b,

fa;b;cg

d meet at a p ointin M, and nations w , a, c, d meet at a p ointinM.Thus, V = fv g

fa;b;dg

or else hu; b; v i would b e a separating triple of G, a contradiction. Similarly, V = fw g.

fa;c;dg

In a similar way,we can also prove that jV j = 1. In summary,wehavejVj=8,a

fb;c;dg

contradiction. Therefore, Figure 7.12 do es not display Mj .

Since b oth Figure 7.11 and 2 do not display Mj , only Figure 7.13 can display

Mj . This completes the pro of. 2

Since it is easy to check whether Statements 1 through 3 hold, we can easily decide

whether C has an extensible \rice-ball" layout. Once we know that C has an extensible

\rice-ball" layout, then by Figure 7.13 and Statement2,we can easily nd and then

remove six correct 4-pizzas from G. By examining all the MC 's in G, our algorithm can

either nd one that is a rice-ball, and thus make progress; or else it can establish that none

of the MC 's is a rice-ball.

4 39

7.2 Distinguishing Pizzas and non-Pizzas

By the previous discussion, wenow supp ose that our algorithm reaches a p oint where none

of the MC 's has a rice-ball layout. Then all the remaining MC 's are either pizzas or

4 4

pizza-with-crusts. Sp eci cally,wehave:

Corollary 7.2 For every MC C of G, and for every wel l-formed atlas M of G, either

Figure 7.11 or 2 displays M .

Let C = fa; b; c; dg b e an MC of G. Our goal in this section is to give a linear time

decision pro cedure to decide which of Figure 7.11 and 2 displays Mj . Moreover, the

pro cedure always cho oses 7.12 when b oth are p ossible. Whenever Figure 7.12 displays

Mj ,we will have identi ed d and therefore we immediately make progress by removing

three correct 4-pizzas. When Figure 7.11 the pizza displays Mj ,we do nothing with

this MC C and pro ceed to consider other MC 's; this mayeventually lead to a situation

4 4

where all MC 's in G have to b e pizzas, as considered in Section 7.3.

1 1 1

If Figure 7.12 displays Mj , then there is no e 2 V C with fa ;b ;c g N eor

C G

else V would equal fa; b; c; d; eg by Corollary 7.2, a contradiction. Also, for Figure 7.12

to p ossibly display Mj ,wemust have i C is 3-sharing with exactly three MC C ,

C 4 1

C and C of G and ii the unique nation of C \ C \ C is adjacent to no nation of

2 3 1 2 3

V C [ C [ C [ C inG. We assume that C \ C \ C = fdg, C = fa; b; d; eg,

1 2 3 1 2 2 1

C = fa; c; d; f g and C = fb; c; d; g g; the other cases are similar. Let U = fa;b;:::;gg.

2 3

By symmetry of the pizza, wemay assume that d = d in Figure 7.11.

Figure 7.3: Possible displays of G[U ] when fe; f ; g g is a clique.

First, consider the case where fe; f ; g g is a clique in G. In this case, by Corollary 7.2,

Figure 7.31 or 2, resp ectively displays Mj if and only if Figure 7.11 resp ectively,

2 displays Mj . To distinguish the two gures, wecheck whether there is a nation

h 2 V U with fe; f ; g g N h. If no such h, then Figure 7.31 do es not display Mj .

G U

If such h exists, then Figure 7.32 do es not display Mj b ecause otherwise, V would equal

fa; b; : : : ; hg according to Corollary 7.2. In summary, when fe; f ; g g is a clique of G,we

know which of Figure 7.11 and 2 displays Mj .

So, in the sequel, we assume that fe; f ; g g is not a clique of G. In case Figure 7.11

displays Mj , a simple insp ection shows that one nation in fe; f ; g g the one adjacentto

1 1

a ;c ;d is adjacent to the other two. So we assume that only one edge is missing among

fe; f ; g g, for otherwise Figure 7.12 must display Mj .We supp ose the absent edge is

fe; g g; the other cases are similar. Note that fa; d; e; f g and fc; d; f ; g g are MC 's in G.

4 40

Moreover, by Corollary 7.2, Figure 7.11 or 2, resp ectively displays Mj if and only

if Figure 7.41 resp ectively, 2 displays Mj . Figure 7.42 do es not display Mj

U U

if fd; f g is a marked edge. Also, if fd; bg is a marked edge, then Figure 7.51 do es not

display Mj and so Figure 7.52 displays Mj .Thus, wemay assume that neither fd; bg

U U

i i

nor fd; f g is a marked edge.

To distinguish Figure 7.41 and 2, we do a case-analysis as follows:

Figure 7.4: Possible layouts of G[U ] when fe; g g62 E.

Case 1: There is no h 2 V U with fa; b; eg N h or there is no i 2 V U with

fb; c; g g N i. Then, Figure 7.41 do es not display Mj . Whether h and i exist can

G U

b e decided in O 1 time, b ecause jN aj = jN cj =6 by Figure 7.4.

G G

Case 2: There are h 2 V U and i 2 V U such that fa; b; eg N h and fb; c; g g

N i. Then, if f 62 N horf 62 N i, Figure 7.42 do es not display Mj . So, wemay

G G G U

assume that f 2 N h and f 2 N i. Then, h 6= i by Corollary 7.2, Figure 7.41, and

G G

2. Let U = U [fh; ig.

Figure 7.5: Possible layouts of G[U ] when fh; ig2 E.

Case 2.1: fh; ig2 E. If N f U , then Figure 7.41 do es not display M by

G i U

Corollary 7.2. Similarly,ifN b U, then Figure 7.42 do es not display M . So,

G i U

wemay assume that neither N b U nor N f U . Then, by Corollary 7.2 and

G i G i

Assumption 6 G has no separating triple, Figure 7.51 resp ectively, 2 displays Mj

if and only if Figure 7.41 resp ectively, 2 displays M . By Figure 7.5, jN ej =

U G

jN g j =6;let j b e the nation in N e U and k b e the nation in N g U . In case j

G G i G i

or k is not adjacenttof in G, Figure 7.51 do es not display Mj . Similarly, in case j or k

is not adjacenttobin G, Figure 7.52 do es not display Mj . So, wemay further assume

that j and k are adjacenttoboth f and b in G. Then, by Corollary 7.2, Figure 7.51 and 41

2, wemust have j = k and V = U [fjg.Now, Figure 7.52 displays Mj only if none

i U

of fa; bg, fb; cg, fb; hg, fb; ig, fe; f g, ff; gg, ff; j g is a marked edge in G. On the other

hand, if none of these edges is marked in G, then Figure 7.51 is transformable to 2 and

hence the latter displays Mj .

Figure 7.6: Possible layouts of G[U ] when fh; ig62 E.

Case 2.2: fh; ig62 E. Then, by Corollary 7.2, Figure 7.61 resp ectively, 2 displays

Mj if and only if Figure 7.41 resp ectively, 2 displays M .

U U

Case 2.2.1: There is no j 2 V U with fe; f ; hg N j or there is no k 2 V U with

i G

ff; g; ig N k. Then, Figure 7.61 do es not display Mj . Whether j and k exist can

G U

b e decided in O 1 time, b ecause jN ej = jN g j =6 by Figure 7.6.

G G

Case 2.2.2: There are j 2 V U and k 2 V U such that fe; f ; hg N j and

ff; g; ig N k. Then, if b 62 N j orb 62 N k , Figure 7.62 do es not display

G G G

Mj . So, wemay assume that b 2 N j and b 2 N k . Then, j 6= k by Corollary 7.2,

U G G

Figure 7.61, and 2. Let U = U [fj; k g.

k i

Case 2.2.2.1: fj; k g2 E. Then, similarly to Case 2.1 ab ove, we can distinguish whichof

Figure 7.61 and 2 displays M .

Figure 7.7: Possible layouts of G[U ] when fj; k g62 E.

Case 2.2.2.2: fj; k g62 E. Then, by Corollary 7.2, Figure 7.71 resp ectively, 2 displays

Mj if and only if Figure 7.61 resp ectively, 2 displays M . In case at least one of the

U U

edges fa; bg, fe; f g, fc; bg, and fg; f g is marked in G, Figure 7.72 do es not display Mj .

Moreover, in case at least one of the edges fa; f g, fe; bg, fc; f g, and fg; bg is marked in G,

Figure 7.71 do es not display Mj . So, wemay assume that no pair in fa; c; e; g g fb; f g

spans a marked edge of G. 42

Now, observe a resemblance b etween Figures 7.4 and 7.7. Wewant to iterate the ab ove

case-analysis to distinguish Figure 7.71 and 2. To this end, rst observe that the ab ove

case-analysis is indep endent of nation d and edge fa; cg. Moreover, the case-analysis can

b e viewed as a pro cedure CAa; b; c; e; f ; g where the input parameters are nations of G

related as in Figure 7.41 or 2 except for the p ossible absence of edge fa; cg.Thus, to

distinguish Figure 7.71 and 2, it suces to call CAh; b; i; j; f ; k .

There can b e a linear numb er of subsequent calls of pro cedure CA. Each call takes

O 1 time, so the overall time is linear.

7.3 Removing Pizzas

By the discussions in the last two subsections, wemay assume that for every MC C =

fa; b; c; dg of G, only Figure 7.11 displays Mj . That is, the four nations of every MC

C 4

of G meet at a p ointin M.

Fix an MC C = fa; b; c; dg of G. C is 3-sharing with no MC C of G b ecause otherwise,

4 4

C would have a non-pizza layout. By Figure 7.11, there are distinct nations e, f , g and

1 1 1 1 1 1

h in V C such that C \ N e=fa ;b g, C \ N f= fb ;c g, C \ N g=fc ;d g

G G G

1 1

and C \ N h= fd ;a g, b ecause M has no hole. On the other hand, the existence of the

nations e, f , g and h ensures that the nations of C have to meet at a p ointin Mcyclically

1 1 1 1

in the order a , b , c , d .Thus, by nding out nations e, f , g and h,we can nd and

remove a correct 4-pizza from G.

By this metho d wemay identify a correct 4-pizza for every MC in G. Since these

4-pizzas all exist in every well-formed atlas of G,wemay remove them all in one step by

the remarks after Lemma 4.5.

8 Time Analysis

Let n and m b e the number of vertices and edges in the input graph G, resp ectively.

Supp ose this is not a base case; that is, n 9 and G has a 4-clique. Then we will show

that the algorithm can always make progress in O n time. In each case, the time needed

to pro duce the subproblems from G dominates the time needed to recover a solution from

the subproblem solutions, so we ignore the latter.

By Corollary 2.5 with k =4 Ghas m = O n edges and arb oricity G= O1, so

we can list its O n maximal cliques in linear time [7]. From the listed MC 's, we can

precompute the sets E [a; b] for all unmarked edges fa; bg, again in linear time.

We claim that testing the existence of a separating triangle takes O n time. Since G

has O n maximal cliques and no 7-clique, it has O n 3-cliques and these can b e found in

linear time. For each 3-clique C , it takes O n time to test whether some ordered list

of the vertices in C is a separating triangle. So, the claim holds. A similar analysis applies

for nding a 3-cut by Lemma 4.31, a separating edge, or a separating triple.

In order to detect separating quadruples, we use an algorithm of Chiba and Nishizeki [7]

which implicitly lists all 4-cycles of G in O m G = O n time. The algorithm

pro duces a list of triples u ;v ;S with the following prop erties:

i i i

1. u and v are non-adjacentvertices of G.

i i

2. S is a set of vertices adjacent to b oth u and v .

i i i 43

3. Every induced 4-cycle in G o ccurs as hu ;x;v ;yi for some choice of i and x; y 2 S .

i i i

In particular, the sum of all jS j is O n.

We claim that testing the existence of a separating quadruple takes O n time. It

suces to show the following: for each triple u ;v ;S , we can test whether there is a

i i i

separating quadruple hu ;x;v ;yi or hv ;x;u ;yi with x; y 2 S in time O jS jn. By

i i i i i i

similarity, it suces to showhow to nd those quadruples starting with u .

x x

For x in S , let G = G fu ;v ;xg E[u ;x]. In linear time wemay compute G and

i i i i

x x

identify the set S of all cut vertices in G .Now there is a separating quadruple of the

form hu ;x;v ;yi precisely if S contains some y whichisinS but not adjacenttox.By

i i

rep eating this for every x 2 S ,wehave the required time b ound.

A similar analysis applies for nding separating 4-cycles in O n time.

The case analysis for eliminating an MC in Section 6 may b e executed in linear time.

In particular, wemay identify an MC 4-sharing with two other MC 's in O n time as

5 5

follows. First, for every MC C and for every S C with jS j = 4, create a pair S; i.

5 i i

Next, bucket-sort all the pairs, and use the result to count the numb er of 4-sharing MC 's

with each C .

When the graph has no MC but still has some MC 's, we make progress in at most

5 4

O n time as follows. First, we list the O nMC 's in some arbitrary order. For each one,

we test the conditions of Lemma 7.1 in O n time; if we nd suchanMC , then we remove

the identi ed 4-pizzas and we are done. Otherwise, we go through the list again, this time

applying the linear time decision pro cedure of Section 7.2; if we determine that some MC

is a non-pizza, then we remove the identi ed 4-pizzas and we are done again. Otherwise,

wehave established that all the MC 's are pizzas, and so we can remove a 4-pizza for each

MC by the metho d in Section 7.3.

Finally, if the algorithm reaches a base case, our graph G either has at most 8 vertices, or

no 4-clique. In the former case we solve the problem exhaustively in O 1 time. Otherwise,

G should b e planar; we nish in linear time [10], as describ ed in Section 3.3.

Let N = n + m b e the size of our input graph, and let T N b e the maximum running

time of the algorithm on any input of size N .We claim that there is a constant c such

that T N cN . The claim is clearly true for the base cases, as argued ab ove. In all

other cases, the algorithm makes progress in c N time for some constant c . That is, the

1 1

algorithm pro duces one or more smaller marked graphs whose total size is larger than that

of G by a constant c ; the problem for G is reduced to solving the problem for eachof

these smaller instances. More precisely, there are integers n ;:::;n 2f1;:::;N 1g such

1 `

P P

` `

that n N + c and T N T n + c N .We prove our claim by induction.

i 2 i 1

i=1 i=1

For small N N

P P

` `

3 2 3

N ,wehaveTN cn + c N by the inductivehyp othesis. Note that cn is

i=1 i i=1 i

maximized when ` =2, n =N 1 and n = c +1. Hence, bycho osing c large enough

1 2 2

c + 2 suces, wehaveTNcN .

9 Concluding Remarks

Our main algorithm is to o complex. Wewould like to nd a faster algorithm, with simpler

arguments. Perhaps such a simpli cation is p ossible using some of Thorup's ideas. 44

Naturally,we are very interested in p olynomial-time algorithms for recognizing hole-

free or not k -map graphs with k 5. In view of the complication of our algorithm for

hole-free 4-map graphs, however, new insights seem to b e needed in order to make progress

in this direction.

A natural and interesting question in connection with map graphs is to ask whether

b3k=2c colors suce to color a k -map graph where k 3. Note that b3k=2c is the maximum

clique size in a k -map graph. In case k = 3, the answer is p ositive b ecause of the famous

Four Color Theorem. As Thorup observed [15], the answer is also p ositive for k = 4: the

4-map graphs are all 1-planar graphs, and 1-planar graphs are known to b e 6-colorable [2].

However, the answer is unknown when k 5.

Similarly,we are interested in tighter versions of the b ounds in Section 2; in particular

the rst author [3] has improved the edge b ound in Corollary 2.5 to kn 2k.

The recognition problem of map graphs is just a sp ecial top ological inference problem,

where each pair of regions either touch or are disjoint. One more general problem is obtained

by allowing the relation b etween certain pairs of regions to b e left unsp eci ed i.e., each

such pair may touch or not touch. We conjecture that this generalization is NP-complete.

Another generalization is obtained by allowing a region to include another region as a

subregion. We conjecture that this generalization is p olynomial-time solvable. Note that

the inclusion relations among the regions should induce a ro oted forest. The sp ecial case

of this generalization where no four leaf regions meet at a p oint and each non-leaf region is

the union of its descendant regions, can b e solved by a nontrivial O n log n-time algorithm

[6]. In the real world, a non-leaf region is usually not a closed disc homeomorph; this more

general problem is addressed in [5].

References

[1] J. F. Allen. Maintaining knowledge ab out temp oral intervals. Communications of the

ACM, 2611:832{843, 1983.

[2] O. V. Boro din. A new pro of of the 6 color theorem. J. Graph Theory, 194:507-522,

1985.

[3] Z.-Z. Chen. Approximation algorithms for indep endent sets in map graphs.

Manuscript, 1999.

[4] Z.-Z. Chen, M. Grigni, and C. Papadimitriou. Planar map graphs. Proc. 30th Ann.

ACM Symp. Theory of Computing STOC, 514{523, 1998.

[5] Z.-Z. Chen, X. He, and M.-Y. Kao. Nonplanar top ological inference and p olitical-map

graphs. Proc. 10th Ann. ACM-SIAM Symp. Discrete Algorithms SODA, 195{204,

1999.

[6] Z.-Z. Chen and X. He. Hierarchical top ological inference on planar disc maps.

Manuscript, 1999.

[7] N. Chiba and T. Nishizeki. Arb oricity and subgraph listing algorithms. SIAM J. Com-

puting, 141:210{223, 1985. 45

[8] G. Ehrlich, S. Even, and R. E. Tarjan. Intersection graphs of curves in the plane. J.

Combinatorial Theory Ser. B, 211:8{20, 1976.

[9] M. Grigni, D. Papadias, and C. H. Papadimitriou. Top ological inference. Proc. 14th

Intl. Joint Conf. on Arti cial Intel ligence IJCAI, 901{906, 1995.

[10] J. Hop croft and R. E. Tarjan. Ecient planarity testing. J. ACM, 214:549{568, 1974.

[11] J. Krato chv l. String graphs I I: Recognizing string graphs is NP-hard. J. Combinatorial

Theory, Ser. B, 521:67{78, 1991.

[12] J. Krato chv l and J. Matousek. String graphs requiring exp onential representations.

J. Combinatorial Theory, Ser. B, 531:1{4, 1991.

[13] C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams. Edge-disjoint spanning trees of nite graphs. J. London

Math. Soc., 36:445{450, 1961.

[14] J. Renz. A canonical mo del of the region connection calculus. In Principles of Know l-

edge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. of the 6th Intl. Conf., 330{341, June 1998.

[15] M. Thorup. Map graphs in p olynomial time. Proc. 39th Ann. IEEE Symp. Foundations

of Computing FOCS, 396{405, 1998. 46