Experimental Evaluation of Book Drawing Algorithms? Jonathan Klawitter1, Tamara Mchedlidze2, and Martin N¨ollenburg3 1 University of Auckland, New Zealand, [email protected] 2 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany, [email protected] 3 TU Wien, Vienna, Austria, [email protected] Abstract. A k-page book drawing of a graph G = (V; E) consists of a linear ordering of its vertices along a spine and an assignment of each edge to one of the k pages, which are half-planes bounded by the spine. In a book drawing, two edges cross if and only if they are assigned to the same page and their vertices alternate along the spine. Crossing minimization in a k-page book drawing is NP-hard, yet book drawings have multiple applications in visualization and beyond. Therefore sev- eral heuristic book drawing algorithms exist, but there is no broader comparative study on their relative performance. In this paper, we pro- pose a comprehensive benchmark set of challenging graph classes for book drawing algorithms and provide an extensive experimental study of the performance of existing book drawing algorithms. 1 Introduction Book embeddings and book drawings are a fundamental and well-studied topic in graph theory and graph drawing. Combinatorially, a k-page book drawing of a graph G = (V; E) consists of a cyclic linear ordering of its vertices along a spine and an assignment of each edge to one of the k pages, which are half-planes bounded by the spine. The spine and the k pages form a book. Clearly, two edges fu; vg and fw; zg in a book drawing cross if and only if they are assigned to the same page and the four vertices alternate on the spine. Fig. 1: 3-page book arXiv:1708.09221v1 [cs.DS] 30 Aug 2017 A book drawing is called a book embedding if it is drawing of K5 with crossing-free. The book thickness (or pagenumber) of a two crossings. graph G is the smallest k such that G admits a k-page book embedding [5]. Deciding whether a graph can be embedded on k pages is an NP-complete problem even for k = 2 [6,29] and there are many results about lower and upper bounds on the book thickness of specific graph classes. A long- standing open question [13] is to determine whether the book thickness of planar graphs is three or four. Yannakakis [40] showed that any planar graph can be ? Preliminary results of this paper were presented in a poster at Graph Drawing 2016. 2 J. Klawitter et al. embedded on four pages and there are planar graphs that cannot be embedded on two pages. Likewise, the book thickness of k-planar graphs is open. Alam et al. [1] showed that there are 1-planar graphs that need four pages and that 16 is an upper bound. If the number k of pages is given, a k-page book embedding may not ex- ist. In this case, crossing minimization becomes the primary optimization goal. It reduces to two basic and interdependent combinatorial problems: the vertex ordering (VO) along the spine and the page assignment (PA) for the edges. Again, computing the k-page book crossing number, i.e., the minimum num- ber of crossings over all k-page book drawings of a graph, is an NP-hard prob- lem [29,34] and fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for 1- and 2-page crossing minimization are known [2]. Book drawings are motivated by several applica- tions, e.g., network visualization [4,16{18,38], VLSI design [39], RNA folding [11], and knot theory [14]. Various heuristic algorithms have been proposed in the lit- erature. In addition, crossing minimization in book drawings has been the chal- lenge problem of the Graph Drawing Contests in 2015 and 2016. Yet there are no broader comparative studies of these algorithms and no established set of chal- lenging benchmark graph classes. In this paper, we introduce a comprehensive benchmark set for book drawing algorithms and provide the first extensive ex- perimental study of the performance of state-of-the-art book drawing algorithms for multiple numbers of pages. There are several heuristics for 2-page crossing minimization [8{10] with a fixed linear vertex ordering, as well as algorithms for the general 2-page crossing minimization problem [21, 22]. Genetic and evolutionary crossing minimization algorithms have been proposed for one page [18], two pages [3, 19, 31], and any number of pages [33]. Further, neural networks have been used for 2-page crossing minimization [20, 37] and for k-page crossing minimization [28]. Experimental evaluations have been performed by Satsangi et al. [33], who, however, excluded previously best performing algorithms by Baur and Bran- des [4] and tested algorithms for VO and PA problems only independently from each other, not in combination. He et al. [23] performed an experimental study of several heuristics, but only for the 2-page crossing minimization problem. Contributions and outline. In this paper, we determine the strengths and weak- nesses as well as the relative performance of heuristic algorithms for the book drawing problem by means of a detailed quantitative experimental study. To this end, we present a list of state-of-the-art heuristic algorithms from the literature as well as some newly proposed heuristics in Section 2. Section 3 presents a col- lection of different graph classes together with suitable random graph generators to be used for creating benchmark graphs for our evaluation. Finally, Section 4 contains our comparative experimental evaluation. The main focus of our study is the relative performance of the heuristics in terms of crossing minimization depending on the properties of the benchmark instances, such as book thick- ness, graph size, edge density, and graph structure. Since out implementations are not optimized for a fast performance, we refrained from a detailed running time analysis. Some preliminary indications of the running times can be found Experimental Evaluation of Book Drawing Algorithms 3 in the appendix (Fig. 19). The code of our benchmark graph generators and of the book drawing algorithms can be found online4. 2 Algorithms We distinguished between constructive heuristics that have the common prop- erty that they consider each vertex and edge once, and local search heuristics that make several rounds re-considering the same vertices and edges iteratively. We evaluate these algorithms separately, as the latter can be seen as local search heuristics, which also use much more computation time. The constructive heuris- tics themselves can be characterized as VO heuristics, PA heuristics, and com- bined heuristics, that construct both VO and PA simultaneously. 2.1 Constructive Heuristics Four of the heuristics presented in this section have not appeared in the literature earlier, namely treeBFS, conGreedy, conGreedy+, and earDecomp (see [26] for more details). Several additional heuristics are referenced, but not included in our study because they were always outperformed by the other presented heuristics in previous experimentation. VO Heuristics. A VO heuristic considers vertices in some particular order and places them on the spine based on some criteria. An edge fu; vg where only one of u and v (resp. both) has been placed on the spine is called open (resp. closed). smallest degree DFS (smlDgrDFS) [18]. DFS-based heuristics set the VO to be the order in which the vertices are visited by a depth-first traversal of the graph. The smlDgrDFS heuristic starts with a smallest degree vertex and chooses a neighbor with smallest degree to proceed. random DFS (randDFS) [3]. In contrast to smlDgrDFS, randDFS starts with a random vertex and proceeds with a random neighbor. tree-based BFS (treeBFS). This heuristic generates a breath-first spanning tree of the graph and embeds it crossing-free in a 1-page book yielding the VO. All three search based heuristics have a running time of O(m + n). connectivity based (conCro) [4]. This heuristics builds the VO step by step. At each step it selects the vertex with the most neighbors already placed and breaks ties in favor of vertices with fewest unplaced neighbors (connectivity ! con). It places the vertex on that end of the already computed spine, where it introduces fewer crossings with open edges (crossings ! Cro). The intuition behind this heuristic is that the chosen vertex closes most open edges and opens fewest at ties. Its running time is O((m + n) log n). 4 Graph generators: github.com/joklawitter/GraphGenerators, book drawing algo- rithms: github.com/joklawitter/BookDrawingAlgorithms 4 J. Klawitter et al. greedy connectivity based (conGreedy). Like conCro it selects the next ver- tex to place based on connectivity, however, it places it on any position (not just one of the end points) of the current spine where it introduces fewer crossings with closed edges. With O(m2n) it has the highest running time. Heuristics excluded, due to relatively poor performance, are among others a maximum neighborhood heuristic, a vertex-cover heuristic, a simple BFS heuris- tic [33], and variations of conCro [4]. PA Heuristics. The following first three heuristics share a general framework. They first compute an edge order according to some strategy and then place the edges one by one on the page where the increase in crossings is minimal. ceil-floor (ceilFloor) [24]. In this strategy the edges are ordered non-increa- singly by their length in a circular drawing. length (eLen) [8, 33]. Here the edges are ordered non-increasingly by the dis- tance of their end vertices on a spine. Thus edge f1; ng is listed first and any edge fi; i + 1g last. Like ceilFloor, it has a O(m2) running time.