This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Flips on homologous orientations of surface graphs with prescribed forbidden facial circuits

Weijuan Zhang1, Jianguo Qian2111Corresponding author, email address: [email protected]
1School of Mathematical Sciences, Xinjiang Normal University
Urumqi, Xinjiang 830054, P.R.China
2School of Mathematical Sciences, Xiamen University
Xiamen, Fujian 361005, P.R.China
Abstract

Let GG be a graph embedded on an orientable surface. Given a class ๐’ž{\cal C} of facial circuits of GG as a forbidden class, we give a sufficient-necessary condition for that an ฮฑ\alpha-orientation (orientation with prescribed out-degrees) of GG can be transformed into another by a sequence of flips on non-forbidden circuits and further give an explicit formula for the minimum number of such flips. We also consider the connection among all ฮฑ\alpha-orientations by defining a directed graph ๐ƒโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}({\cal C}), namely the ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flip graph. We show that if ๐’žโ‰ โˆ…{\cal C}\not=\emptyset, then ๐ƒโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}({\cal C}) has exactly |Oโ€‹(G,๐’ž)||O(G,{\cal C})| components, each of which is the cover graph of a distributive lattice, where |Oโ€‹(G,๐’ž)||O(G,{\cal C})| is the number of the ฮฑ\alpha-orientations that has no counterclockwise facial circuit other than that in ๐’ž{\cal C}. If ๐’ž=โˆ…{\cal C}=\emptyset, then every component of ๐ƒโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}({\cal C}) is strongly connected. This generalizes the corresponding results of Felsner and Propp for the case that ๐’ž{\cal C} consists of a single facial circuit.

Keywords: surface graph, orientation, flip, homology, forbidden facial circuit

1 Introduction

Graph orientation with certain degree-constraints on vertices is a natural focus in graph theory and has close connection with many combinatorial structures in graphs, such as the spanning trees [2], primal-dual orientations [1], bipolar orientations [4], transversal structures [5], Schnyder woods [6], bipartite perfect matchings (or more generally, bipartite ff-factors) [8, 10, 12] and cc-orientations of the dual of a plane graph [9, 12]. In general, all these constraints could be encoded in terms of ฮฑ\alpha-orientations [2], that is, the orientations with prescribed out-degrees.

To deal with the relation among orientations, circuit (or cycle) reversal has been shown as a useful method since it preserves the out-degree of each vertex and the connectivity of the orientations. Various types of cycle reversals were introduced subject to certain requirements. Circuit reversal for the orientations of plane graphs or, more generally, surface graphs (graphs embedded on an orientable surface) received particular attention [2, 6, 9, 10, 11]. For example, Nakamoto [11] considered the 3-cycle reversal to deal with those orientations in plane triangulations where each vertex on the outer facial cycle has out-degree 1 while each of the other vertices has out-degree 3. In [13], Zhang et al. introduced the Z-transformation to study the connection among perfect matchings in hexagonal systems, which was later extended to general plane bipartite graphs [14].

A natural considering of circuit reversal for orientations of a surface graph is to reverse a directed facial circuit (the circuit that bounds a face). However, an orientation of a surface graph does not always have such a directed facial circuit, even if it has many directed circuits. In [2], Felsner introduced a type of circuit reversals, namely the flip, defined on the essential cycles in plane graphs which reverses a counterclockwise essential cycle to be clockwise. In a strongly connected ฮฑ\alpha-orientation of a plane graph, every essential cycle is exactly an inner facial circuit. In this sense, the notion of essential cycle is a very nice generalization of that of facial circuit. Further, Felsner proved that any ฮฑ\alpha-orientation of a plane graph can be transformed into a particular ฮฑ\alpha-orientation by a flip sequence, and the set of all ฮฑ\alpha-orientations of the graph carries a distributive lattice by flips.

The notion of flip has been also extended to general surface graphs [6, 12] and oriented matroids [9]. Moreover, Propp proved the following result (where the notion of homology will be given in the next section).

Theorem 1.1.

[12] The set of all ฮฑ\alpha-orientations of a surface graph GG in the same homology class carries a distributive lattice by a sequence of flips taking on the facial circuits of GG with a prescribed forbidden facial circuit.

We note that the above theorem is an extension of the one given by Felsner for plane graphs since a plane graph can be regarded as a sphere graph where the outer facial circuit is treated as the forbidden circuit.

In this paper, in stead of a prescribed forbidden facial circuit, we consider the flips on surface graph with a class of prescribed forbidden facial circuits ๐’ž{\cal C}, and call such flips the ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flips. In the third section, we give a sufficient and necessary condition for that an ฮฑ\alpha-orientation can be transformed into another by a sequence of ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flips and, further, give an explicit formula for the minimum number of the flips needed in such a sequence. In particular, if ๐’ž{\cal C} is empty then an ฮฑ\alpha-orientation can be transformed into another by flips if and only if they are homologous. In our study, the idea of potential function [2], or depth function [11], plays an important role.

In the last section, we focus on the relationship among all ฮฑ\alpha-orientations in a surface graph GG. To this end, given a class ๐’ž{\cal C} of forbidden facial circuits, we define a directed graph, namely the ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flip graph, whose vertex set is the class of all ฮฑ\alpha-orientations of GG and two orientations DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} are joined by an edge with direction from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} to DD provided DD can be transformed from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} by a ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flip. We apply the technique of U-coloring and L-coloring introduced by Felsner and Knauer in [3], and show that the ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flip graph admits both a U- and L-coloring for any class ๐’ž{\cal C}. This yields a generalization of Theorem 1.1. More specifically, if ๐’ž{\cal C} is not empty, then the flip graph has exactly |Oโ€‹(G,๐’ž)||O(G,{\cal C})| components, each of which is the cover graph of a distributive lattice, where |Oโ€‹(G,๐’ž)||O(G,{\cal C})| is the number of the ฮฑ\alpha-orientations that has no counterclockwise facial circuit other than that in ๐’ž{\cal C}. And if ๐’ž{\cal C} is empty, then every non-trivial component of the flip graph is strongly connected, and hence cyclic.

2 Preliminaries

In this section we introduce some elementary concepts involving graphs and graph embeddings on surfaces. For a graph GG (directed or undirected), we denote by Vโ€‹(G)V(G) and Eโ€‹(G)E(G) the vertex set and edge set of GG, respectively. A closed walk in a graph is a sequence v1โ€‹v2โ€‹โ€ฆโ€‹vkv_{1}v_{2}\dotsc v_{k} such that v1v_{1} and vkv_{k} are adjacent and, for every iโˆˆ{1,2,โ€ฆ,kโˆ’1}i\in\{1,2,\dotsc,k-1\}, viv_{i} and vi+1v_{i+1} are adjacent. A closed walk is called a cycle if it is edge disjoint and a circuit if it is vertex disjoint. The directed circuit and directed cycle are defined analogously. An orientation of a graph GG is an assignment of a direction to each edge of GG. Given a graph GG with nn vertices v1,v2,โ€ฆ,vnv_{1},v_{2},\dotsc,v_{n} and an out-degree sequence ฮฑ=(ฮฑโ€‹(v1),ฮฑโ€‹(v2),โ€ฆ,ฮฑโ€‹(vn))\alpha=(\alpha(v_{1}),\alpha(v_{2}),\dotsc,\alpha(v_{n})), an orientation DD of GG is called an ฮฑ\alpha-orientation [2] if dD+โ€‹(vi)=ฮฑโ€‹(vi)d^{+}_{D}(v_{i})=\alpha(v_{i}) for all viโˆˆVโ€‹(G)v_{i}\in V(G), where dD+โ€‹(vi)d^{+}_{D}(v_{i}) is the out-degree of viv_{i} in DD. It is well known that if an ฮฑ\alpha-orientation of GG is strongly connected, then every ฮฑ\alpha-orientation of GG is strongly connected. In this case, we call ฮฑ\alpha strongly connected. It is also known that each component obtained from an ฮฑ\alpha-orientation by deleting all those edges that have the same direction in every ฮฑ\alpha-orientation of GG (i.e., the rigid edges [2, 6]) is strongly connected [9]. So in this paper, we always assume that ฮฑ\alpha is strongly connected and, hence, GG is 2-edge connected.

A surface graph is a graph GG embedded on an orientable surface ฮฃ\Sigma without boundary. The connected components of ฮฃโˆ–G\Sigma\setminus G, when viewed as subsets of ฮฃ\Sigma, are called the faces of GG. A closed walk that bounds a face is called a facial walk. A surface graph is called a 2-cell embedding [7] or map [6] if all its faces are homeomorphic to open disks. A cycle CC on a surface ฮฃ\Sigma is separating if ฮฃโˆ–C\Sigma\setminus C is disconnected and is contractible [7] if CC can be continuously transformed into a single point. We note that if a cycle is contractible, then it is separating and, moreover, one component of ฮฃโˆ–C\Sigma\setminus C is homeomorphic to an open disc. In this paper, except where otherwise stated, we always assume that all the surface graphs are 2-cell embedded and every edge is on the boundary of two distinct faces. We note that, in such an embedding, a facial walk is exactly a facial circuit and, therefore, every edge is shared by two distinct facial circuits. Thus, our embedding is stronger than 2-cell embedding, but weaker than the one in which each facial circuit is contractible.

A directed facial circuit FF is called counterclockwise (resp., clockwise), or ccw (resp., cw) for short, if when we trace along with the orientation of FF, the face bounded by FF lies to the left (resp., right) side of FF. A flip taking on a ccw facial circuit FF is the reorientation of FF that reverses FF from ccw to cw [2]. The notion of flip was introduced initially for the essential circuits. As mentioned earlier, in a strongly connected ฮฑ\alpha-orientation of GG, every essential circuit is a facial circuit [9].

Let GG be a surface graph with edge set EE of mm edges and let D0D_{0} be a fixed orientation of GG. Consider the mm-dimensional edge space โ„ค|E|\mathbb{Z}^{|E|} of GG. It is clear that any oriented subgraph DD of GG can be represented as an mm-dimensional vector ฯ•โ€‹(D)โˆˆโ„ค|E|\phi(D)\in\mathbb{Z}^{|E|} whose coordinate indexed by an edge ee is defined by

ฯ•โ€‹(D)e={ 1,ifย eย hasย theย sameย orientationย inย D0ย andย D,โˆ’1,ifย eย hasย theย oppositeย orientationย inย D0ย andย D, 0,ifย eย isย notย inย D.\phi(D)_{e}=\begin{cases}\ \ \ 1,&\text{if\ $e$\ has\ the\ same\ orientation\ in\ $D_{0}$\ and\ $D$},\\ \ -1,&\text{if\ $e$\ has\ the\ opposite\ orientation\ in\ $D_{0}$\ and\ $D$},\\ \ \ \ 0,&\text{if\ $e$\ is\ not\ in\ $D$}.\end{cases}

Moreover, all oriented even subgraphs (the in-degree of each vertex equals its out-degree) of GG form an (mโˆ’n+1)(m-n+1)-dimensional subspace of โ„ค|E|\mathbb{Z}^{|E|}, called the (directed) cycle space of GG, where nn is the number of vertices in GG.

For a simple graph GG, a basis of the cycle space can be created by the elementary cycles associated with a given spanning tree of GG. For a graph (not necessarily simple) embedded on a surface, it would be more convenient to create a basis of the cycle space by the facial circuits in โ„ฑโˆ–{F0}{\cal F}\setminus\{F_{0}\} and a so-called basis for the homology, where and herein after, โ„ฑ{\cal F} denotes the set of all facial circuits of GG and F0F_{0} is an arbitrary facial circuit in โ„ฑ{\cal F}. A common approach to create a basis for the homology is to choose a spanning tree TT in GG and a spanning tree Tโˆ—T^{*} in the dual graph Gโˆ—G^{*} of GG that contains no edge dual to TT. By Eulerโ€™s formula, there are exactly 2โ€‹g2g edges in GG that are neither in TT nor dual to the edges in Tโˆ—T^{*}, where gg is the genus of the surface. Each of these 2โ€‹g2g edges forms a unique circuit with TT and all these 2โ€‹g2g circuits form a basis for the homology [6], denoted by โ„‹{\cal H}. In a word, any oriented even subgraph DD of GG can be uniquely represented as a linear combination of the facial circuits in โ„ฑโˆ–{F0}{\cal F}\setminus\{F_{0}\} and circuits in โ„‹{\cal H}, i.e.,

ฯ•โ€‹(D)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑโˆ–{F0}ฮปFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)+โˆ‘Hโˆˆโ„‹ฮผHโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(H).\phi(D)=\sum_{F\in{\cal F}\setminus\{F_{0}\}}\lambda_{F}\phi(F)+\sum_{H\in{\cal H}}\mu_{H}\phi(H). (1)

In the following we always choose the orientation of each facial circuit in โ„ฑ{\cal F} to be ccw. Let ๐”ฝ\mathbb{F} be the subspace of โ„ค|E|\mathbb{Z}^{|E|} generated by โ„ฑ{\cal F}. An oriented even subgraph DD is called null-homologous or 0-homologous [6] if ฯ•โ€‹(D)โˆˆ๐”ฝ\phi(D)\in\mathbb{F}, i.e.,

ฯ•โ€‹(D)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑฮปFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F).\phi(D)=\sum_{F\in{\cal F}}\lambda_{F}\phi(F). (2)

For two ฮฑ\alpha-orientations DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime}, we denote by Dโ€ฒโˆ’DD^{\prime}-D the directed subgraph obtained from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} by removing those edges that has the same direction as that in DD. It is clear that Dโ€ฒโˆ’DD^{\prime}-D is oriented even graph. Further, if ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)โˆˆ๐”ฝ\phi(D^{\prime}-D)\in\mathbb{F} then DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} are called homologous [6]. Equivalently, DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} are homologous if and only if their corresponding coefficients ฮผH\mu_{H} in (1) are the same for every Hโˆˆโ„‹H\in{\cal H}. It is clear that homology is an equivalence relation on ฮฑ\alpha-orientations.

Example 1. Let GG be the Cartesian product graph of two circuits of length 2 embedded on torus and ฮฑ=(2,2,2,2)\alpha=(2,2,2,2). For convenience, we draw GG in the form as indicated in Figure 1 (left), where the left side and right side (resp., lower side and upper side) are identified. By the method we introduced earlier, we can see that โ„‹={HM,HP}{\cal H}=\{H_{\rm M},H_{\rm P}\} is a basis for the homology, where HMH_{\rm M} and HPH_{\rm P} are the two directed circuits as illustrated in Figure 1 (right).

[Uncaptioned image]

Figureย 1. The edges of GG are represented in thick lines; the four faces are labeled by F1,F2,F3,F4F_{1},F_{2},F_{3},F_{4}.

We note that, since every vertex has out-degree 2, the directions of the four edges on F1F_{1} are determined uniquely by that on F4F_{4}, unless F4F_{4} is a directed circuit (in this case F1F_{1} must be directed and, therefore, has exactly two choices). This means that GG has totally 18 different (2,2,2,2)(2,2,2,2)-orientations D1,D2,D_{1},D_{2}, โ€ฆ,D18\dotsc,D_{18}, as illustrated in Figure 2. Since D1โˆ’D2=HMD_{1}-D_{2}=H_{\rm M}, we have ฯ•โ€‹(D1โˆ’D2)=ฯ•โ€‹(HM)\phi(D_{1}-D_{2})=\phi(H_{\rm M}), meaning that D1D_{1} and D2D_{2} are not homologous. Further, since D13โˆ’D14=D13D_{13}-D_{14}=D_{13} and ฯ•โ€‹(D13)=ฯ•โ€‹(F1)+ฯ•โ€‹(F4)\phi(D_{13})=\phi(F_{1})+\phi(F_{4}), D13D_{13} and D14D_{14} are homologous. In general, it can be seen that any two orientations DiD_{i} and DjD_{j} are homologous if and only if i=ji=j or i,jโˆˆ{13,14,โ€ฆ,18}i,j\in\{13,14,\dotsc,18\}. In other words, the (2,2,2,2)(2,2,2,2)-orientations of GG form 13 homologous classes: {D1},{D2},โ€ฆ,{D12}\{D_{1}\},\{D_{2}\},\dotsc,\{D_{12}\} and {D13,D14,โ€ฆ,D18}\{D_{13},D_{14},\dotsc,D_{18}\}.

[Uncaptioned image]

Figureย 2.

3 Transform an ฮฑ\alpha-orientation into another by flips on non-forbidden facial circuits

Proposition 3.1.

Let GG be a surface graph and, for each Fโˆˆโ„ฑF\in{\cal F}, let ฮปF\lambda_{F} be an integer associated with FF. Then for any integer kk,

โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑฮปFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑ(ฮปF+k)โ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F).\sum_{F\in\mathcal{F}}\lambda_{F}\phi(F)=\sum_{F\in\mathcal{F}}(\lambda_{F}+k)\phi(F). (3)

Conversely, for each Fโˆˆโ„ฑF\in{\cal F}, if ฮทF\eta_{F} is an integer associated with FF such that

โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑฮทFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑฮปFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F),\sum_{F\in\mathcal{F}}\eta_{F}\phi(F)=\sum_{F\in\mathcal{F}}\lambda_{F}\phi(F), (4)

then there exists an integer kk such that ฮทF=ฮปF+k\eta_{F}=\lambda_{F}+k for every Fโˆˆโ„ฑF\in\mathcal{F}.

Proof.

Consider an edge ee of GG. By our assumption, ee is shared by two distinct facial circuits, say, FF and Fโ€ฒF^{\prime}. Recall that every facial circuit in โ„ฑ{\cal F}, when viewed as a basis circuit, is ccw. Therefore, ee has opposite orientations in FF and Fโ€ฒF^{\prime}. Thus, kโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)e+kโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e=0k\phi(F)_{e}+k\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}=0 and ฯ•โ€‹(K)e=0\phi(K)_{e}=0 for any Kโˆˆโ„ฑK\in{\cal F} other than FF and Fโ€ฒF^{\prime}. Thus, (3) follows directly.

Conversely, let ee be an arbitrary edge and let FF and Fโ€ฒF^{\prime} be the two facial circuits that share ee. Then by (4),

ฮผFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)e+ฮทFโ€ฒโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e=ฮปFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)e+ฮปFโ€ฒโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e.\mu_{F}\phi(F)_{e}+\eta_{F^{\prime}}\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}=\lambda_{F}\phi(F)_{e}+\lambda_{F^{\prime}}\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}. (5)

Further, we assume that ฮทF=ฮปF+k\eta_{F}=\lambda_{F}+k and ฮทFโ€ฒ=ฮปFโ€ฒ+kโ€ฒ\eta_{F^{\prime}}=\lambda_{F^{\prime}}+k^{\prime}. Then,

ฮทFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)e+ฮทFโ€ฒโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e=(ฮปF+k)โ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)e+(ฮปFโ€ฒ+kโ€ฒ)โ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e\eta_{F}\phi(F)_{e}+\eta_{F^{\prime}}\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}=(\lambda_{F}+k)\phi(F)_{e}+(\lambda_{F^{\prime}}+k^{\prime})\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}
=(ฮปFฯ•(F)e+ฮปFโ€ฒฯ•(Fโ€ฒ)e)+(kฯ•(F)e+kโ€ฒฯ•(Fโ€ฒ)e.=(\lambda_{F}\phi(F)_{e}+\lambda_{F^{\prime}}\phi(F^{\prime})_{e})+(k\phi(F)_{e}+k^{\prime}\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}.

So by (5), we have kโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)e+kโ€ฒโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e=0k\phi(F)_{e}+k^{\prime}\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}=0. Recall that both FF and Fโ€ฒF^{\prime} are ccw. Therefore, ฯ•โ€‹(F)e=โˆ’ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e\phi(F)_{e}=-\phi(F^{\prime})_{e} and, hence, k=kโ€ฒk=k^{\prime}. Further, notice that the dual graph of GG is connected, meaning that ฮทF=ฮปF+k\eta_{F}=\lambda_{F}+k for all Fโˆˆโ„ฑF\in\mathcal{F}. โˆŽ

Let DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} be two homologous ฮฑ\alpha-orientations of a surface graph GG. Following the idea of potential function [2] (or depth function [11]), we introduce an intuitive representation of ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)\phi(D^{\prime}-D) as follows: define

zDโ€ฒโˆ’D:โ„ฑโ†’๐™z_{D^{\prime}-D}:{\cal F}\rightarrow\mathbf{Z}

to be the function which assigns an integer to each facial circuit FF of GG according to the following rule, see Figure 1:
1.ย zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F0)=0z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F_{0})=0;
2.ย if FF and Fโ€ฒF^{\prime} share a common edge ee then

zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)={zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)+1,ifย eโˆˆDโ€ฒโˆ’Dย andย Fย liesย toย theย leftย ofย e,zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)โˆ’1,ifย eโˆˆDโ€ฒโˆ’Dย andย Fโ€ฒย liesย toย theย leftย ofย e,zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ),ifย eโˆ‰Dโ€ฒโˆ’D,z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=\begin{cases}\ z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F^{\prime})+1,&\text{if\ $e\in D^{\prime}-D$\ and\ $F$\ lies\ to\ the\ left\ of\ $e$},\\ \ z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F^{\prime})-1,&\text{if\ $e\in D^{\prime}-D$\ and\ $F^{\prime}$\ lies\ to\ the\ left\ of\ $e$},\\ \ z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F^{\prime}),&\text{if\ $e\notin D^{\prime}-D$},\\ \end{cases} (6)

where, by โ€˜FF lies to the left of eeโ€™ we mean that FF lies to the left side of ee when we trace along with the direction of ee.

[Uncaptioned image]

Figureย 3. The edges in Dโ€ฒโˆ’DD^{\prime}-D are represented in thick lines and edges not in Dโ€ฒโˆ’DD^{\prime}-D are represented in dotted lines.

Proposition 3.2.

For any two homologous ฮฑ\alpha-orientations DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime}, zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F) is well defined and

ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑzDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)โ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F).\phi(D^{\prime}-D)=\sum_{F\in\mathcal{F}}z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)\phi(F).
Proof.

Since DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} are homologous, we have ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑฮปFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)\phi(D^{\prime}-D)=\sum_{F\in{\cal F}}\lambda_{F}\phi(F). Let ee be an arbitrary edge of GG, and let FF and Fโ€ฒF^{\prime} be the two facial circuits that share ee. Then ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)e=ฮปFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)e+ฮปFโ€ฒโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e\phi(D^{\prime}-D)_{e}=\lambda_{F}\phi(F)_{e}+\lambda_{F^{\prime}}\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}.

We first assume that the direction of ee in Dโ€ฒโˆ’DD^{\prime}-D coincides with that in our initially fixed orientation D0D_{0}, i.e., ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)e=ฯ•โ€‹(D0)e=1\phi(D^{\prime}-D)_{e}=\phi(D_{0})_{e}=1. In this case, we have ฯ•โ€‹(F)e=1\phi(F)_{e}=1 and ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e=โˆ’1\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}=-1 if FF lies to the left of ee, and ฯ•โ€‹(F)e=โˆ’1\phi(F)_{e}=-1 and ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e=1\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}=1 if FF lies to the right of ee. Therefore,

ฮปF={ฮปFโ€ฒ+1,ifย eโˆˆDโ€ฒโˆ’Dย andย Fย liesย toย theย leftย ofย e,ฮปFโ€ฒโˆ’1,ifย eโˆˆDโ€ฒโˆ’Dย andย Fโ€ฒย liesย toย theย leftย ofย e,ฮปFโ€ฒ,ifย eโˆ‰Dโ€ฒโˆ’D.\lambda_{F}=\begin{cases}\ \lambda_{F^{\prime}}+1,&\text{if\ $e\in D^{\prime}-D$\ and\ $F$\ lies\ to\ the\ left\ of\ $e$},\\ \ \lambda_{F^{\prime}}-1,&\text{if\ $e\in D^{\prime}-D$\ and\ $F^{\prime}$\ lies\ to\ the\ left\ of\ $e$},\\ \ \lambda_{F^{\prime}},&\text{if\ $e\notin D^{\prime}-D$}.\\ \end{cases} (7)

We now assume that ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)e=โˆ’ฯ•โ€‹(D0)e=โˆ’1\phi(D^{\prime}-D)_{e}=-\phi(D_{0})_{e}=-1. In this case we have ฯ•โ€‹(F)e=โˆ’1\phi(F)_{e}=-1 and ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e=1\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}=1 if FF lies to the left of ee, and ฯ•โ€‹(F)e=1\phi(F)_{e}=1 and ฯ•โ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)e=โˆ’1\phi(F^{\prime})_{e}=-1 if FF lies to the right of ee. This means that (7) still holds.

Combining (7) with (6), we have

ฮปFโˆ’ฮปFโ€ฒ=zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)โˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)\lambda_{F}-\lambda_{F^{\prime}}=z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F^{\prime}) (8)

and, hence, ฮปFโˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)=ฮปFโ€ฒโˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)\lambda_{F}-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=\lambda_{F^{\prime}}-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F^{\prime}). Since the dual graph of GG is connected, we have

ฮปFโˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)=ฮปKโˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(K)\lambda_{F}-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=\lambda_{K}-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(K) (9)

for any Kโˆˆโ„ฑK\in{\cal F}. In particular, ฮปFโˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)=ฮปF0โˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F0)=ฮปF0\lambda_{F}-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=\lambda_{F_{0}}-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F_{0})=\lambda_{F_{0}}, i.e., zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)=ฮปFโˆ’ฮปF0z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=\lambda_{F}-\lambda_{F_{0}}. Therefore, zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F) is well-defined. Further, the proposition follows directly from (9) and Proposition 3.1. โˆŽ

Lemma 3.3.

[6] Let DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} be two ฮฑ\alpha-orientations of a surface graph and let F0F_{0} be an arbitrary facial circuit. If

ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑโˆ–{F0}ฮปFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)\phi(D^{\prime}-D)=\sum_{F\in\mathcal{F}\setminus\{F_{0}\}}\lambda_{F}\phi(F)

and ฮปFโ‰ฅ0\lambda_{F}\geq 0 for all Fโˆˆโ„ฑโˆ–{F0}F\in\mathcal{F}\setminus\{F_{0}\}, then DD can be transformed from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} by a sequence of {F0}\{F_{0}\}-forbidden flips.

Let

zmin=minโก{zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F):Fโˆˆโ„ฑโ€‹(G)}z_{\min}=\min\{z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F):F\in{\cal F}(G)\}

and let FminF_{\min} be a facial circuit for which zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fmin)=zminz_{D^{\prime}-D}(F_{\min})=z_{\min}.

Theorem 3.4.

Given a forbidden facial circuit class ๐’ž{\cal C}, an ฮฑ\alpha-orientation DD of a surface graph can be transformed from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} by a sequence of ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flips if and only if DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} are homologous and zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)=zminz_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=z_{\min} for every Fโˆˆ๐’žF\in{\cal C}. Moreover, the minimum number of flips needed to transform Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} into DD equals

dโ€‹(Dโ€ฒ,D)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑ(zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)โˆ’zmin).d(D^{\prime},D)=\sum\limits_{F\in{\cal F}}(z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)-z_{\min}). (10)
Proof.

Assume firstly that DD can be transformed from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} by a sequence ๐’ฎ{\cal S} of ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flips.

For a facial circuit Fโˆˆโ„ฑF\in{\cal F}, consider the number tโ€‹(F)t(F) of the flips in ๐’ฎ{\cal S} taking on FF. Let ee be an edge on FF and let Fโ€ฒF^{\prime} be the facial circuit which shares ee with FF. If eโˆˆDโ€ฒโˆ’De\in D^{\prime}-D, then the orientation of ee changes after ๐’ฎ{\cal S} being taken. Moreover, a flip to change the orientation of ee must take on the facial circuit which lies to the left side of ee. This implies that tโ€‹(F)=tโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)+1t(F)=t(F^{\prime})+1 if FF lies to the left side of ee or tโ€‹(F)=tโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)โˆ’1t(F)=t(F^{\prime})-1 if Fโ€ฒF^{\prime} lies to the left side of ee. If eโˆ‰Dโ€ฒโˆ’De\notin D^{\prime}-D, then the orientation of ee does not change after ๐’ฎ{\cal S} being taken. This means that, if a flip in ๐’ฎ{\cal S} takes on FF then there must be another flip that takes on Fโ€ฒF^{\prime} to keep the orientation of ee invariant and, hence, tโ€‹(F)=tโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)t(F)=t(F^{\prime}). As a result, we have the following relation:

tโ€‹(F)={tโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)+1,ifย eโˆˆDโ€ฒโˆ’Dย andย Fย liesย toย theย leftย  sideย ofย e,tโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)โˆ’1,ifย eโˆˆDโ€ฒโˆ’Dย andย Fโ€ฒย liesย toย theย leftย  sideย ofย e,tโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ),ifย eโˆ‰Dโ€ฒโˆ’D.t(F)=\begin{cases}\ t(F^{\prime})+1,&\text{if\ $e\in D^{\prime}-D$\ and\ $F$\ lies\ to\ the\ left\ side\ of\ $e$},\\ \ t(F^{\prime})-1,&\text{if\ $e\in D^{\prime}-D$\ and\ $F^{\prime}$\ lies\ to\ the\ left\ side\ of\ $e$},\\ \ t(F^{\prime}),&\text{if\ $e\notin D^{\prime}-D$}.\end{cases} (11)

Combining (11) with (6), we have tโ€‹(F)โˆ’tโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)=zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)โˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)t(F)-t(F^{\prime})=z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F^{\prime}), i.e., tโ€‹(F)โˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)=tโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)โˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fโ€ฒ)t(F)-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=t(F^{\prime})-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F^{\prime}). Since the dual graph of GG is connected, we have

tโ€‹(F)โˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)=tโ€‹(K)โˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(K)t(F)-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=t(K)-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(K) (12)

for any Kโˆˆโ„ฑK\in{\cal F}. So by Proposition 3.1 and Proposition 3.2,

ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑtโ€‹(F)โ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F).\phi(D^{\prime}-D)=\sum_{F\in\mathcal{F}}t(F)\phi(F).

Hence, DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} are homologous.

Further, from (12) we can also see that tโ€‹(K)t(K) attains the minimum value if and only if zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(K)z_{D^{\prime}-D}(K) does, i.e., zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(K)=zminz_{D^{\prime}-D}(K)=z_{\min} and K=FminK=F_{\min}. On the other hand, notice that tโ€‹(F)โ‰ฅ0t(F)\geq 0 for every Fโˆˆโ„ฑF\in{\cal F} and the minimum value 0 of tโ€‹(F)t(F) is attained by every Fโˆˆ๐’žF\in{\cal C} since the facial circuits in ๐’ž{\cal C} do not involve any flip in ๐’ฎ{\cal S}. Hence, tโ€‹(Fmin)=tโ€‹(F)=0t(F_{\min})=t(F)=0 for every Fโˆˆ๐’žF\in{\cal C}. Therefore,

zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)=zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fmin)=zminz_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F_{\min})=z_{\min} (13)

for every Fโˆˆ๐’žF\in{\cal C}.

Conversely, assume that DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} are homologous and zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)=zminz_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=z_{\min} for any Fโˆˆ๐’žF\in{\cal C}. Then by Proposition 3.2 and Proposition 3.1, we have

ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)\displaystyle\phi(D^{\prime}-D) =\displaystyle= โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑzDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)โ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)\displaystyle\sum_{F\in\mathcal{F}}z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)\phi(F)
=\displaystyle= โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑ(zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)โˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fmin))โ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F)\displaystyle\sum_{F\in{\mathcal{F}}}(z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F_{\min}))\phi(F)
=\displaystyle= โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑโˆ–{Fmin}(zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)โˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fmin))โ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F).\displaystyle\sum_{F\in{\mathcal{F}}\setminus\{F_{\min}\}}(z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F_{\min}))\phi(F).

Since zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)โˆ’zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fmin)=zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)โˆ’zminโ‰ฅ0z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)-z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F_{\min})=z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)-z_{\min}\geq 0 for any Fโˆˆโ„ฑโˆ–{Fmin}F\in{\mathcal{F}}\setminus\{F_{\min}\}, so by Lemma 3.3, DD can be transformed from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} by a sequence of {Fmin}\{F_{\min}\}-forbidden flips.

Let ๐’ฎ{\cal S} be an arbitrary sequence of {Fmin}\{F_{\min}\}-forbidden flips that transform Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} into DD. For any facial circuit Fโˆˆโ„ฑF\in{\cal F}, consider the number tโ€‹(F)t(F) of flips in ๐’ฎ{\cal S} taking on FF. By the definition of ๐’ฎ{\cal S}, we have tโ€‹(Fmin)=0t(F_{\min})=0.

Similar to the proof of the necessity, (12) is also satisfied. Set K=FminK=F_{\min} in (12). Since tโ€‹(Fmin)=0t(F_{\min})=0 and zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)=zminz_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=z_{\min} for every Fโˆˆ๐’žF\in{\cal C}, we have tโ€‹(F)=tโ€‹(Fmin)=0t(F)=t(F_{\min})=0 for every Fโˆˆ๐’žF\in{\cal C}. This implies that ๐’ฎ{\cal S} contains no flip taking on a facial circuit in ๐’ž{\cal C}. That is, ๐’ฎ{\cal S} is a ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden sequence.

Finally, by the arbitrariness of the sequence ๐’ฎ{\cal S}, we may assume that ๐’ฎ{\cal S} is shortest. Thus, by (12) and the fact that tโ€‹(Fmin)=0t(F_{\min})=0, we have

dโ€‹(Dโ€ฒ,D)\displaystyle d(D^{\prime},D) =\displaystyle= โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑtโ€‹(F)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑ(tโ€‹(F)โˆ’tโ€‹(Fmin))\displaystyle\sum_{F\in{\cal F}}t(F)=\sum_{F\in{\cal F}}(t(F)-t(F_{\min}))
=\displaystyle= โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑ(zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)โˆ’zmin).\displaystyle\sum_{F\in{\cal F}}(z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)-z_{\min}).

This completes our proof. โˆŽ

Corollary 3.5.

Let DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} be two ฮฑ\alpha-orientations of a surface graph. Then DD can be transformed from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} by a sequence of flips if and only if DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} are homologous.

Proof.

Recall that zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(Fmin)=zminz_{D^{\prime}-D}(F_{\min})=z_{\min}. So by Theorem 3.4, if DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} are homologous then DD can be transformed from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} by a sequence of {Fmin}\{F_{\min}\}-forbidden flips. The converse is also true by Theorem 3.4. โˆŽ

We now give an extension of Lemma 3.3 as follows.

Corollary 3.6.

Let DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} be two ฮฑ\alpha-orientations of a surface graph and ๐’ž{\cal C} be a class of facial circuits. If

ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑโˆ–๐’žฮปFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F),\phi(D^{\prime}-D)=\sum_{F\in\mathcal{F}\setminus{\cal C}}\lambda_{F}\phi(F), (14)

then DD can be transformed from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} by a sequence of ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flips if and only if ฮปFโ‰ฅ0\lambda_{F}\geq 0 for all Fโˆˆโ„ฑโˆ–๐’žF\in\mathcal{F}\setminus{\cal C}.

Proof.

We write (14) as

ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑฮปFโ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F),\phi(D^{\prime}-D)=\sum_{F\in\mathcal{F}}\lambda_{F}\phi(F), (15)

where ฮปF=0\lambda_{F}=0 if Fโˆˆ๐’žF\in{\cal C}. By Proposition 3.2, we have

ฯ•โ€‹(Dโ€ฒโˆ’D)=โˆ‘Fโˆˆโ„ฑzDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)โ€‹ฯ•โ€‹(F).\phi(D^{\prime}-D)=\sum_{F\in\mathcal{F}}z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)\phi(F).

So by Proposition 3.1, there exists an integer kk such that zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)=ฮปF+kz_{D^{\prime}-D}(F)=\lambda_{F}+k for all Fโˆˆโ„ฑF\in\mathcal{F}. Further, the condition ฮปFโ‰ฅ0\lambda_{F}\geq 0 for all Fโˆˆโ„ฑโˆ–๐’žF\in\mathcal{F}\setminus{\cal C} implies that the minimum value of ฮปF\lambda_{F} in (15) is 0 and attained by every Fโˆˆ๐’žF\in{\cal C}. Hence, the minimum value zminz_{\min} of zDโ€ฒโˆ’Dโ€‹(F)z_{D^{\prime}-D}(F) is attained by every Fโˆˆ๐’žF\in{\cal C}. The corollary follows directly from Theorem 3.4. โˆŽ

4 Flip graph of ฮฑ\alpha-orientations

For a class ๐’ž{\cal C} of forbidden facial circuits of a surface graph GG, we define the ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flip graph of GG as a directed graph, denoted by ๐ƒโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}({\cal C}), whose vertex set is the class of all ฮฑ\alpha-orientations of GG, and two orientations DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} are joined by a directed edge from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} to DD provided DD can be transformed from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} by a ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flip, or equivalently, Dโ€ฒโˆ’DD^{\prime}-D is a ccw facial circuit and Dโ€ฒโˆ’Dโˆ‰๐’žD^{\prime}-D\notin{\cal C}. Since the homology is an equivalence relation, the ฮฑ\alpha-orientations of GG can be partitioned into several equivalence classes, say ฮฉ1,ฮฉ2,โ€ฆ,ฮฉq\Omega_{1},\Omega_{2},\dotsc,\Omega_{q}. For kโˆˆ{1,2,โ€ฆ,q}k\in\{1,2,\dotsc,q\}, let ๐ƒkโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}_{k}({\cal C}) be the subgraph of ๐ƒโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}({\cal C}) induced by ฮฉk\Omega_{k}. If ๐’ž{\cal C} consists of exactly one facial circuit, then by Theorem 1.1, ๐ƒkโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}_{k}({\cal C}) is the cover graph of a distributive lattice.

In this section we consider the general case, in which the forbidden class ๐’ž{\cal C} consists of any number of facial circuits (in particular, ๐’ž{\cal C} may be empty). To this end, we apply the technique of U-coloring and L-coloring, which was introduced by Felsner and Knauer to characterize the cover graph of distributive lattices.

For a directed graph D=(V,E)D=(V,E) and two vertices u,vโˆˆVu,v\in V, we use (u,v)(u,v) to denote the directed edge joining uu and vv with direction from uu to vv. An edge coloring cc of DD is called a U-coloring if for every u,v,wโˆˆVu,v,w\in V with uโ‰ wu\not=w and (v,u),(v,w)โˆˆE(v,u),(v,w)\in E, the following two rules hold [3]:
(U1). cโ€‹(v,u)โ‰ cโ€‹(v,w)c(v,u)\not=c(v,w);
(U2). There is a vertex zโˆˆVz\in V and edges (u,z),(w,z)(u,z),(w,z) such that cโ€‹(v,u)=cโ€‹(w,z)c(v,u)=c(w,z) and cโ€‹(v,w)=cโ€‹(u,z)c(v,w)=c(u,z).

An L-coloring is defined as the dual, in the sense of edge direction reversal, to a U-coloring, that is, every directed edge (i,j)(i,j) in the definition of U-coloring is replaced by (j,i)(j,i).

Proposition 4.1.

[3] If a finite connected acyclic digraph DD admits a U- and an L-coloring then DD is the cover graph of a distributive lattice, and has a unique sink and a unique source.

We now turn to our flip graph. Let โ„ฑ={F1,F2,โ€ฆ,F|โ„ฑ|}{\cal F}=\{F_{1},F_{2},\dotsc,F_{|{\cal F}|}\} be the class of all facial circuits of GG. An edge of ๐ƒโ€‹(โˆ…){\bf D}(\emptyset) is called of type FiF_{i} if it corresponds to a flip taking on FiF_{i}. Let ๐„i{\bf E}_{i} be the set of the edges of type FiF_{i} and let ๐œ:Eโ€‹(๐ƒโ€‹(โˆ…))โ†’{1,2,โ€ฆ,|โ„ฑ|}{\bf c}:E({\bf D}(\emptyset))\rightarrow\{1,2,\dotsc,|{\cal F}|\} be the edge coloring of ๐ƒโ€‹(โˆ…){\bf D}(\emptyset) such that ๐œโ€‹(๐ž)=i{\bf c}({\bf e})=i for each ๐žโˆˆ๐„i,i=1,2,โ€ฆ,|โ„ฑ|{\bf e}\in{\bf E}_{i},i=1,2,\dotsc,|{\cal F}|.

Proposition 4.2.

๐œ{\bf c} is both a U-coloring and an L-coloring.

Proof.

Let D1,D2,D3โˆˆVโ€‹(๐ƒโ€‹(โˆ…))D_{1},D_{2},D_{3}\in V({\bf D}(\emptyset)) with D2โ‰ D3D_{2}\not=D_{3} and (D1,D2)โˆˆ๐„i,(D1,D3)โˆˆ๐„j(D_{1},D_{2})\in{\bf E}_{i},(D_{1},D_{3})\in{\bf E}_{j}. Therefore, D2D_{2} (resp., D3D_{3}) can be transformed from D1D_{1} by a flip taking on the ccw facial circuit FiF_{i} (resp., FjF_{j}). Since D2โ‰ D3D_{2}\not=D_{3}, we have iโ‰ ji\not=j and, hence, the rule U1 holds. Further, since both FiF_{i} and FjF_{j} are ccw, they cannot share the same edge of GG, that is, FiF_{i} and FjF_{j} are independent. Let D4D_{4} be the orientation of GG transformed from D2D_{2} by taking a flip on FjF_{j}. Then D4D_{4} can also be transformed from D3D_{3} by taking a flip on FiF_{i}. This means that (D3,D4)โˆˆ๐„i,(D2,D4)โˆˆ๐„j(D_{3},D_{4})\in{\bf E}_{i},(D_{2},D_{4})\in{\bf E}_{j} and, therefore, the rule U2 holds. The discussion for L-coloring is analogous. โˆŽ

For a set E of edges in ๐ƒโ€‹(โˆ…){\bf D}(\emptyset), we denote by ๐ƒโ€‹(โˆ…)โˆ’๐„{\bf D}(\emptyset)-{\bf E} the directed graph obtained from ๐ƒโ€‹(โˆ…){\bf D}(\emptyset) by deleting all the edges in E. By the definition of the edge coloring ๐œ{\bf c}, the following proposition is obvious.

Proposition 4.3.

For any IโІ{1,2,โ€ฆ,|โ„ฑ|}I\subseteq\{1,2,\dotsc,|{\cal F}|\}, ๐œ{\bf c} restricted on the subgraph ๐ƒโ€‹(โˆ…)โˆ’โ‹ƒiโˆˆI๐„i{\bf D}(\emptyset)-\bigcup_{i\in I}{\bf E}_{i} is still a U-coloring and an L-coloring.

Proposition 4.4.

For any facial circuit class ๐’ž={Fi1,Fi2,โ€ฆ,Fis}{\cal C}=\{F_{i_{1}},F_{i_{2}},\dotsc,F_{i_{s}}\}, we have

๐ƒโ€‹(๐’ž)=๐ƒโ€‹(โˆ…)โˆ’(๐„i1โˆช๐„i2โˆชโ‹ฏโˆช๐„is).{\bf D}({\cal C})={\bf D}(\emptyset)-({\bf E}_{i_{1}}\cup{\bf E}_{i_{2}}\cup\cdots\cup{\bf E}_{i_{s}}). (16)
Proof.

Notice that ๐ƒโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}({\cal C}) and ๐ƒโ€‹(โˆ…)โˆ’(๐„i1โˆช๐„i2โˆชโ‹ฏโˆช๐„is){\bf D}(\emptyset)-({\bf E}_{i_{1}}\cup{\bf E}_{i_{2}}\cup\cdots\cup{\bf E}_{i_{s}}) have the same vertex set. If an edge ๐ž{\bf e} is in some ๐„ij{\bf E}_{i_{j}} then ๐ž{\bf e} is of type FijF_{i_{j}} and therefore, ๐ž{\bf e} is not in ๐ƒโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}({\cal C}) since FijF_{i_{j}} is a forbidden facial circuit in ๐’ž{\cal C}. The converse is also true and thus (16) follows. โˆŽ

In contrast to the U- and L-colorings for the cover graph of a lattice, we will see that ๐ƒโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}({\cal C}) may be cyclic if ๐’ž=โˆ…{\cal C}=\emptyset, which gives a non-trivial example of cyclic directed graph that admits a U- and an L-coloring. As an example, let us consider the surface graph GG in Example 1. Recall that the equivalence classes, i.e., the homologous classes, of the (2,2,2,2)(2,2,2,2)-orientations of GG are

ฮฉi={Di}forโ€‹iโˆˆ{1,2,โ€ฆ,12}andฮฉ13={D13,D14,โ€ฆ,D18}.\Omega_{i}=\{D_{i}\}\ \ {\rm for}\ i\in\{1,2,\dotsc,12\}\ \ {\rm and}\ \ \Omega_{13}=\{D_{13},D_{14},\dotsc,D_{18}\}.

This means that the flip graph ๐ƒโ€‹(โˆ…){\bf D}(\emptyset) of GG consists of 12 isolated vertices D1,D2,โ€ฆ,D12D_{1},D_{2},\dotsc,D_{12} and the subgraph ๐ƒ13โ€‹(โˆ…){\bf D}_{13}(\emptyset) induced by ฮฉ13\Omega_{13}, where ๐ƒ13โ€‹(โˆ…){\bf D}_{13}(\emptyset) is illustrated as in Figure 4 and is cyclic. Further, by Proposition 4.4, we have ๐ƒ13โ€‹({F4})=๐ƒ13โ€‹(โˆ…)โˆ’๐„4{\bf D}_{13}(\{F_{4}\})={\bf D}_{13}(\emptyset)-{\bf E}_{4} and ๐ƒ13โ€‹({F1,F4})=๐ƒ13โ€‹(โˆ…)โˆ’(๐„1โˆช๐„4){\bf D}_{13}(\{F_{1},F_{4}\})={\bf D}_{13}(\emptyset)-({\bf E}_{1}\cup{\bf E}_{4}). Moreover, ๐ƒ13โ€‹({F4}){\bf D}_{13}(\{F_{4}\}) has one component and ๐ƒ13โ€‹({F1,F4}){\bf D}_{13}(\{F_{1},F_{4}\}) has three components, each of which is the cover graph of a distributive lattice, see Figure 4.

[Uncaptioned image]

Figureย 4. For iโˆˆ{1,2,3,4}i\in\{1,2,3,4\}, the edges of type FiF_{i} are represented by ii.

Recall that a directed graph DD is strongly connected if for any two vertices uu and vv, there is a directed path from uu to vv and a directed path from vv to uu. The maximum integer ss for which Dโˆ–HD\setminus H is strongly connected for any set HH of at most sโˆ’1s-1 edges is called the strong edge-connectivity of DD and is denoted by ฮบโ€ฒโ€‹(D)\kappa^{\prime}(D).

For kโˆˆ{1,2,โ€ฆ,q}k\in\{1,2,\ldots,q\}, let Okโ€‹(G,๐’ž)O_{k}(G,{\cal C}) be the class of all the ฮฑ\alpha-orientations in ฮฉk\Omega_{k} that has no ccw facial circuit other than that in ๐’ž{\cal C} and let Oโ€‹(G,๐’ž)=โ‹ƒk=1qOkโ€‹(G,๐’ž)O(G,{\cal C})=\bigcup_{k=1}^{q}O_{k}(G,{\cal C}). Similarly, let Okโˆ—โ€‹(G,๐’ž)O^{*}_{k}(G,{\cal C}) be the class of all the ฮฑ\alpha-orientations in ฮฉk\Omega_{k} that has no cw facial circuit other than that in ๐’ž{\cal C}. We can see that, for any DโˆˆOkโ€‹(G,๐’ž)D\in O_{k}(G,{\cal C}), the orientation obtained from DD by reversing the directions of all edges of DD is in Okโˆ—โ€‹(G,๐’ž)O^{*}_{k}(G,{\cal C}), and vise versa. This means that |Okโ€‹(G,๐’ž)|=|Okโˆ—โ€‹(G,๐’ž)||O_{k}(G,{\cal C})|=|O^{*}_{k}(G,{\cal C})|. For instance, in the example above we have O13โ€‹(G,{F1,F4})={D13,D15,D18}O_{13}(G,\{F_{1},F_{4}\})=\{D_{13},D_{15},D_{18}\} and O13โˆ—โ€‹(G,{F1,F4})={D14,D15,D18}O^{*}_{13}(G,\{F_{1},F_{4}\})=\{D_{14},D_{15},D_{18}\}, see Figure 2. Further, we can see that D13,D15,D18D_{13},D_{15},D_{18} and D14,D15,D18D_{14},D_{15},D_{18} are exactly the three sinks and three sources of ๐ƒ13โ€‹({F1,F4}){\bf D}_{13}(\{F_{1},F_{4}\}), respectively, see Figure 4.

Theorem 4.5.

Let kโˆˆ{1,2,โ€ฆ,q}k\in\{1,2,\dotsc,q\}.
1). ๐ƒkโ€‹(โˆ…){\bf D}_{k}(\emptyset) is strongly connected and ฮบโ€ฒโ€‹(๐ƒkโ€‹(โˆ…))=1\kappa^{\prime}({\bf D}_{k}(\emptyset))=1;
2). For any ๐’žโІโ„ฑ{\cal C}\subseteq{\cal F} with ๐’žโ‰ โˆ…{\cal C}\not=\emptyset, ๐ƒkโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}_{k}({\cal C}) has exactly |Okโ€‹(G,๐’ž)|=|Okโˆ—โ€‹(G,๐’ž)||O_{k}(G,{\cal C})|=|O^{*}_{k}(G,{\cal C})| components, each of which is the cover graph of a distributive lattice with the unique sink in Okโ€‹(G,๐’ž)O_{k}(G,{\cal C}) and a unique source in Okโˆ—โ€‹(G,๐’ž)O^{*}_{k}(G,{\cal C}).

Proof.

1). By Corollary 3.5, ๐ƒkโ€‹(โˆ…){\bf D}_{k}(\emptyset) is strongly connected and therefore, ฮบโ€ฒโ€‹(๐ƒkโ€‹(โˆ…))โ‰ฅ1\kappa^{\prime}({\bf D}_{k}(\emptyset))\geq 1. Let FF be an arbitrary facial circuit FF and let โ„’โ€‹(F){\cal L}(F) be the lattice on the homology class ฮฉk\Omega_{k} with forbidden circuit FF, where two orientations DD and Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} have the relation Dโ€ฒโ‰คDD^{\prime}\leq D in โ„’โ€‹(F){\cal L}(F) if DD can be transformed from Dโ€ฒD^{\prime} by a sequence of ๐’ž{\cal C}-forbidden flips. Then by Theorem 1.1, ๐ƒkโ€‹(F){\bf D}_{k}(F) is the cover graph of โ„’โ€‹(F){\cal L}(F). Recall that โ„’โ€‹(F){\cal L}(F) has a unique maximal element. Moreover, this maximal element clearly corresponds to an orientation DmaxD_{\max} of GG that contains no ccw facial circuit other than FF [6]. On the other hand, since ฮบโ€ฒโ€‹(๐ƒkโ€‹(โˆ…))โ‰ฅ1\kappa^{\prime}({\bf D}_{k}(\emptyset))\geq 1, DmaxD_{\max} has at least one ccw facial circuit. Thus, FF itself must be ccw in DmaxD_{\max}. This means that FF is the unique ccw facial circuit in DmaxD_{\max} and therefore, ฮบโ€ฒโ€‹(๐ƒkโ€‹(โˆ…))=1\kappa^{\prime}({\bf D}_{k}(\emptyset))=1.

2). We first prove that ๐ƒkโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}_{k}({\cal C}) is acyclic. Suppose to the contrary that ๐ƒkโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}_{k}({\cal C}) has a directed cycle ๐‚=D1โ€‹D2โ€‹โ‹ฏโ€‹Dtโ€‹D1{\bf C}=D_{1}D_{2}\cdots D_{t}D_{1}. Without loss of generality, assume that the facial circuits sequence of the flips corresponding to ๐‚{\bf C} is ๐’ฎ:F1,F2,โ€ฆ,Ft{\cal S}:F_{1},F_{2},\dotsc,F_{t}. Since ๐‚{\bf C} is a directed cycle, the direction of every edge in D1D_{1} is not changed after taking the above flips. This means that, for every edge ee in D1D_{1}, the two facial circuits that share ee appear the same times in the sequence ๐’ฎ{\cal S}. Therefore, every facial circuit in D1D_{1} must appear the same times in ๐’ฎ{\cal S} since the dual graph of GG is connected. This is a contradiction because the facial circuits in ๐’ž{\cal C} are forbidden to any flip.

Finally, by Proposition 4.2, Proposition 4.3 and Proposition 4.4, ๐ƒkโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}_{k}({\cal C}) admits a U- and an L-coloring. So by Proposition 4.1, each component of ๐ƒkโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}_{k}({\cal C}) is the cover graph of a distributive lattice (in particular, a single element) with a unique sink and a unique source. Moreover, if an orientation DD of GG is a sink of ๐ƒkโ€‹(๐’ž){\bf D}_{k}({\cal C}), then DD has no ccw facial circuit other than that in ๐’ž{\cal C}, meaning that DโˆˆOkโ€‹(G,๐’ž)D\in O_{k}(G,{\cal C}). The discussion for DD being the source is analogous. This completes our proof. โˆŽ

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.โ€‰11971406.

References

  • [1] Y. Disser, J. Matuschke, Degree-constrained orientations of embedded graphs, J. Comb. Optim., 31:758-773, 2016.
  • [2] S. Felsner, Lattice structures from planar graphs, Electron. J. Combin., 11:#R15, 2004.
  • [3] S. Felsner, K. B. Knauer, ULD-Lattices and ฮ”\Delta-Bonds, Combinatorics, Probability &\& Computing, 18 (5):707-724, 2012.
  • [4] H. de Fraysseix, P. Ossona de Mendez, P. Rosenstiehl, Bipolar orientations revisited, Discrete Appl. Math., 56:157-179, 1995.
  • [5] E. Fusy, Transversal structures on triangulations: A combinatorial study and straight-line drawings, Discrete Math., 309:1870-1894, 2009.
  • [6] D. Gonรงalves, K. B. Knauer, B. Lรฉvรชque, On the structure of Schnyder woods on orientable surfaces, arXiv: 1501.05475v2, 2016.
  • [7] Joan P. Hutchinson, On short noncontractible cycles in embedded graphs, SIAM J. Discrete Math., 1(2):185-192, 1988.
  • [8] R. Kenyon, J. Propp, D. B. Wilson, Trees and matchings, Electron. J. Combin., 7(1):#R25, 2000.
  • [9] K. B. Knauer, Partial orders on orientations via cycle flips, Ph.D thesis, Technische Universitรคt Berlin, Berlin, 2007.
  • [10] P. C. B. Lam, H.P. Zhang, A distributive lattice on the set of perfect matchings of a plane bipartite graph, Order, 20:13-29, 2003.
  • [11] A. Nakamoto, K. Ota, T. Tanuma, Three-cycle reversions in oriented planar triangulations, Yokohama Math. J., 44:123-139, 1997.
  • [12] J. Propp, Lattice structure for orientations of graphs, arXiv:math/ 0209005v2, 2020.
  • [13] F. J. Zhang, X.F. Guo, R.S. Chen, ZZ-transformation graphs of perfect matchings of hexagonal systems, Discrete Math., 72:405-415, 1988.
  • [14] H. P. Zhang, F.J. Zhang, Plane elementary bipartite graphs, Discrete Appl. Math., 105:291-311, 2000.