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

\tkzSetUpPoint

[fill=black, size = 3pt] \tkzSetUpLine[line width = 0.6pt]

Treewidth, Circle Graphs and Circular Drawings

Robert Hickingbotham111School of Mathematics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia ({robert.hickingbotham,david.wood}@monash.edu). Research of R.H. is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Research of D.W is supported by the Australian Research Council.   Freddie Illingworth222Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, United Kingdom ([email protected]). Research supported by EPSRC grant EP/V007327/1.
Bojan Mohar333Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada ([email protected]). Research supported in part by the NSERC Discovery Grant R611450 (Canada).   David R. Wood111School of Mathematics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia ({robert.hickingbotham,david.wood}@monash.edu). Research of R.H. is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Research of D.W is supported by the Australian Research Council.
Abstract

A circle graph is an intersection graph of a set of chords of a circle. We describe the unavoidable induced subgraphs of circle graphs with large treewidth. This includes examples that are far from the ‘usual suspects’. Our results imply that treewidth and Hadwiger number are linearly tied on the class of circle graphs, and that the unavoidable induced subgraphs of a vertex-minor-closed class with large treewidth are the usual suspects if and only if the class has bounded rank-width. Using the same tools, we also study the treewidth of graphs GG that have a circular drawing whose crossing graph is well-behaved in some way. In this setting, we show that if the crossing graph is K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free, then GG has treewidth at most 12t2312t-23 and has no K_2,4tK_{\_}{2,4t}-topological minor. On the other hand, we show that there are graphs with arbitrarily large Hadwiger number that have circular drawings whose crossing graphs are 22-degenerate.

00footnotetext: . MSC classification: 05C83 graph minors, 05C10 geometric and topological aspects of graph theory, 05C62 geometric and intersection graph representations

1 Introduction

This paper studies the treewidth of graphs that are defined by circular drawings. Treewidth is the standard measure of how similar a graph is to a tree, and is of fundamental importance in structural and algorithmic graph theory; see [65, 39, 12] for surveys. The motivation for this study is two-fold. See Section 2 for definitions omitted from this introduction.

1.1 Theme #1: Circle Graphs

A circle graph is the intersection graph of a set of chords of a circle. Circle graphs form a widely studied graph class [35, 50, 22, 20, 18, 31, 47] and there have been several recent breakthroughs concerning them. In the study of graph colourings, Davies and McCarty [20] showed that circle graphs are quadratically χ\chi-bounded improving upon a previous longstanding exponential upper bound. Davies [18] further improved this bound to χ(G)𝒪(ω(G)logω(G))\chi(G)\in\mathcal{O}(\omega(G)\log\omega(G)), which is best possible. Circle graphs are also fundamental to the study of vertex-minors and are conjectured to lie at the heart of a global structure theorem for vertex-minor-closed graph classes (see [54]). To this end, Geelen, Kwon, McCarty, and Wollan [35] recently proved an analogous result to the excluded grid minor theorem for vertex-minors using circle graphs. In particular, they showed that a vertex-minor-closed graph class has bounded rankwidth if and only if it excludes a circle graph as a vertex-minor. For further motivation and background on circle graphs, see [19, 54].

Our first contribution essentially determines when a circle graph has large treewidth.

Theorem 1.

Let tt\in\mathbb{N} and let GG be a circle graph with treewidth at least 12t+212t+2. Then GG contains an induced subgraph HH that consists of tt vertex-disjoint cycles (C_1,,C_t)(C_{\_}1,\dotsc,C_{\_}t) such that for all i<ji<j every vertex of C_iC_{\_}i has at least two neighbours in C_jC_{\_}j. Moreover, every vertex of GG has at most four neighbours in any C_iC_{\_}i (1it)(1\leqslant i\leqslant t).

Observe that in Theorem 1 the subgraph HH has a K_tK_{\_}t-minor obtained by contracting each of the cycles C_iC_{\_}i to a single vertex, implying that HH has treewidth at least t1t-1. Moreover, since circle graphs are closed under taking induced subgraphs, HH is also a circle graph. We now highlight several consequences of Theorem 1.

First, Theorem 1 describes the unavoidable induced subgraphs of circle graphs with large treewidth. Recently, there has been significant interest in understanding the induced subgraphs of graphs with large treewidth [51, 8, 6, 7, 3, 4, 5, 62, 72, 13, 2]. To date, most of the results in this area have focused on graph classes where the unavoidable induced subgraphs are the following graphs, the usual suspects: a complete graph K_tK_{\_}t, a complete bipartite graph K_t,tK_{\_}{t,t}, a subdivision of the (t×tt\times t)-wall, or the line graph of a subdivision of the (t×tt\times t)-wall (see [72] for definitions). Circle graphs do not contain subdivisions of large walls nor the line graphs of subdivisions of large walls and there are circle graphs of large treewidth that do not contain large complete graphs nor large complete bipartite graphs (see Theorem 21). To the best of our knowledge this is the first result to describe the unavoidable induced subgraphs of the large treewidth graphs in a natural hereditary class when they are not the usual suspects. Later we show that the unavoidable induced subgraphs of graphs with large treewidth in a vertex-minor-closed class 𝒢\mathcal{G} are the usual suspects if and only if 𝒢\mathcal{G} has bounded rankwidth (see Theorem 23).

Second, the subgraph HH in Theorem 1 is an explicit witness to the large treewidth of GG (with only a multiplicative loss). Circle graphs being χ\chi-bounded says that circle graphs with large chromatic number must contain a large clique witnessing this. Theorem 1 can therefore be considered to be a treewidth analogue to the χ\chi-boundedness of circle graphs. We also prove an analogous result for circle graphs with large pathwidth (see Theorem 22).

Third, since the subgraph HH has a K_tK_{\_}t-minor, it follows that every circle graph contains a complete minor whose order is at least one twelfth of its treewidth. This is in stark contrast to the general setting where there are K_5K_{\_}5-minor-free graphs with arbitrarily large treewidth (for example, grids). Theorem 1 also implies the following relationship between the treewidth, Hadwiger number and Hajós number of circle graphs (see Section 5)111For a graph class 𝒢\mathcal{G}, two graph parameters α\alpha and β\beta are tied on 𝒢\mathcal{G} if there exists a function ff such that α(G)f(β(G)) and β(G)f(α(G))\alpha(G)\leqslant f(\beta(G))\text{ and }\beta(G)\leqslant f(\alpha(G)) for every graph G𝒢G\in\mathcal{G}. Moreover, α\alpha and β\beta are quadratically/linearly tied on 𝒢\mathcal{G} if ff may be taken to be quadratic/linear..

Theorem 2.

For the class of circle graphs, the treewidth and Hadwiger number are linearly tied. Moreover, the Hajós number is quadratically tied to both of them. Both ‘linear’ and ‘quadratic’ are best possible.

1.2 Theme #2: Graph Drawing

The second thread of this paper aims to understand the relationship between circular drawings of graphs and their crossing graphs. A circular drawing (also called convex drawing) of a graph places the vertices on a circle with edges drawn as straight line segments. Circular drawings are a well-studied topic; see [48, 73, 34] for example. The crossing graph of a drawing DD of a graph GG has vertex-set E(G)E(G) where two vertices are adjacent if the corresponding edges cross. Circle graphs are precisely the crossing graphs of circular drawings. If a graph has a circular drawing with a well-behaved crossing graph, must the graph itself also be well-behaved? Graphs that have a circular drawing with no crossings are exactly the outerplanar graphs, which have treewidth at most 2. Put another way, outerplanar graphs are those that have a circular drawing whose crossing graph is K_2K_{\_}2-minor-free. Our next result extends this fact, relaxing ‘K_2K_{\_}2-minor-free’ to ‘K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free’.

Theorem 3.

For every integer t3t\geqslant 3, if a graph GG has a circular drawing where the crossing graph has no K_tK_{\_}t-minor, then GG has treewidth at most 12t2312t-23.

Theorem 3 says that GG having large treewidth is sufficient to force a complicated crossing graph in every circular drawing of GG. A topological K_2,4tK_{\_}{2,4t}-minor also suffices.

Theorem 4.

If a graph GG has a circular drawing where the crossing graph has no K_tK_{\_}t-minor, then GG contains no K_2,4tK_{\_}{2,4t} as a topological minor.

Outerplanar graphs are exactly those graphs that have treewidth at most 2 and exclude a topological K_2,3K_{\_}{2,3}-minor. As such, Theorems 3 and 4 extends these structural properties of outerplanar graphs to graphs with circular drawings whose crossing graphs are K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free. We also prove a product structure theorem for such graphs, showing that every graph that has a circular drawing whose crossing graph has no K_tK_{\_}t-minor is isomorphic to a subgraph of HK_𝒪(t3)H\boxtimes K_{\_}{\mathcal{O}(t^{3})} where tw(H)2\operatorname{tw}(H)\leqslant 2 (see Corollary 11).

In the other direction, we consider sufficient conditions for a graph GG to have a circular drawing whose crossing graph has no K_tK_{\_}t-minor. By Theorems 3 and 4, GG must have bounded treewidth and no K_2,4tK_{\_}{2,4t}-topological minor. While these conditions are necessary, we show that they are not sufficient, but that bounded treewidth with bounded maximum degree is; see Lemma 17 and Proposition 18 in Section 4.2 for details.

In addition, we show that the assumption in Theorem 3 that the crossing graph has bounded Hadwiger number cannot be weakened to bounded degeneracy. In particular, we construct graphs with arbitrarily large complete graph minors that have a circular drawing whose crossing graph is 22-degenerate (Theorem 19). This result has applications to the study of general (non-circular) graph drawings, and in particular, leads to the solution of an open problem asked by Hickingbotham and Wood [41].

Our proofs of Theorems 1, 3 and 2 are all based on the same core lemmas proved in Section 3. The results about circle graphs are in Section 5, while the results about graph drawings are in Section 4.

2 Preliminaries

2.1 Graph Basics

We use standard graph-theoretic definitions and notation; see [23].

For a tree TT, a TT-decomposition of a graph GG is a collection 𝒲=(W_x:xV(T))\mathcal{W}=(W_{\_}x\colon x\in V(T)) of subsets of V(G)V(G) indexed by the nodes of TT such that (i) for every edge vwE(G)vw\in E(G), there exists a node xV(T)x\in V(T) with v,wW_xv,w\in W_{\_}x; and (ii) for every vertex vV(G)v\in V(G), the set {xV(T):vW_x}\{x\in V(T)\colon v\in W_{\_}x\} induces a (connected) subtree of TT. Each set W_xW_{\_}x in 𝒲\mathcal{W} is called a bag. The width of 𝒲\mathcal{W} is max{|W_x|:xV(T)}1\max\{\lvert W_{\_}x\rvert\colon x\in V(T)\}-1. A tree-decomposition is a TT-decomposition for any tree TT. The treewidth tw(G)\operatorname{tw}(G) of a graph GG is the minimum width of a tree-decomposition of GG.

A path-decomposition of a graph GG is a TT-decomposition where TT is a path. The pathwidth pw(G)\operatorname{pw}(G) of a graph GG is the minimum width of a path-decomposition of GG.

A graph HH is a minor of a graph GG if HH is isomorphic to a graph obtained from a subgraph of GG by contracting edges. The Hadwiger number h(G)h(G) of a graph GG is the maximum integer tt such that K_tK_{\_}t is a minor of GG.

A graph G~\tilde{G} is a subdivision of a graph GG if G~\tilde{G} can be obtained from GG by replacing each edge vw{vw} by a path P_vwP_{\_}{vw} with endpoints vv and ww (internally disjoint from the rest of G~\tilde{G}). A graph HH is a topological minor of GG if a subgraph of GG is isomorphic to a subdivision of HH. The Hajós number h(G)h^{\prime}(G) of GG is the maximum integer tt such that K_tK_{\_}t is a topological minor of GG. A graph GG is HH-topological minor-free if HH is not a topological minor of GG.

It is well-known that for every graph GG,

h(G)h(G)tw(G)+1.h^{\prime}(G)\leqslant h(G)\leqslant\operatorname{tw}(G)+1.

A graph class is a collection of graphs closed under isomorphism. A graph parameter is a real-valued function α\alpha defined on all graphs such that α(G_1)=α(G_2)\alpha(G_{\_}1)=\alpha(G_{\_}2) whenever G_1G_{\_}1 and G_2G_{\_}2 are isomorphic.

2.2 Drawings of Graphs

A drawing of a graph GG is a function ϕ\phi that maps each vertex vV(G)v\in V(G) to a point ϕ(v)2\phi(v)\in\mathbb{R}^{2} and maps each edge e=vwE(G)e=vw\in E(G) to a non-self-intersecting curve ϕ(e)\phi(e) in 2\mathbb{R}^{2} with endpoints ϕ(v)\phi(v) and ϕ(w)\phi(w), such that:

  • ϕ(v)ϕ(w)\phi(v)\neq\phi(w) for all distinct vertices vv and ww;

  • ϕ(x)ϕ(e)\phi(x)\not\in\phi(e) for each edge e=vwe=vw and each vertex xV(G){v,w}x\in V(G)\setminus\{v,w\};

  • each pair of edges intersect at a finite number of points: ϕ(e)ϕ(f)\phi(e)\cap\phi(f) is finite for all distinct edge e,fe,f; and

  • no three edges internally intersect at a common point: for distinct edges e,f,ge,f,g the only possible element of ϕ(e)ϕ(f)ϕ(g)\phi(e)\cap\phi(f)\cap\phi(g) is ϕ(v)\phi(v) where vv is a vertex incident to all of e,f,ge,f,g.

A crossing of distinct edges e=uve=uv and f=xyf=xy is a point in (ϕ(e)ϕ(f)){ϕ(u),ϕ(v),ϕ(x),ϕ(y)}(\phi(e)\cap\phi(f))\setminus\{\phi(u),\phi(v),\phi(x),\phi(y)\}; that is, an internal intersection point. A plane graph is a graph GG equipped with a drawing of GG with no crossings.

The crossing graph of a drawing DD of a graph GG is the graph X_DX_{\_}D with vertex set E(G)E(G), where for each crossing between edges ee and ff in DD, there is an edge of X_DX_{\_}D between the vertices corresponding to ee and ff. Note that X_DX_{\_}D is actually a multigraph, where the multiplicity of efef equals the number of times ee and ff cross in DD. In most drawings that we consider, each pair of edges cross at most once, in which case X_DX_{\_}D has no parallel edges.

Numerous papers have studied graphs that have a drawing whose crossing graph is well-behaved in some way. Here we give some examples. The crossing number cr(G)\operatorname{cr}(G) of a graph GG is the minimum number of crossings in a drawing of GG; see the surveys [68, 60, 74] or the monograph [67]. Obviously, cr(G)k\operatorname{cr}(G)\leqslant k if and only if GG has a drawing DD with |E(X_D)|k\lvert E(X_{\_}D)\rvert\leqslant k. Tutte [75] defined the thickness of a graph GG to be the minimum number of planar graphs whose union is GG; see [43, 55] for surveys. Every planar graph can be drawn with its vertices at prespecified locations [38, 61]. It follows that a graph GG has thickness at most kk if and only if GG has a drawing DD such that χ(X_D)k\chi(X_{\_}D)\leqslant k. A graph is kk-planar if GG has a drawing DD in which every edge is in at most kk crossings; that is, X_DX_{\_}D has maximum degree at most kk; see [59, 36, 28, 27] for example. More generally, Eppstein and Gupta [33] defined a graph GG to be kk-degenerate crossing if GG has a drawing DD in which X_DX_{\_}D is kk-degenerate. Bae et al. [9] defined a graph GG to be kk-gap-planar if GG has a drawing DD in which each crossing can be assigned to one of the two involved edges and each edge is assigned at most kk of its crossings. This is equivalent to saying that every subgraph of X_DX_{\_}D has average degree at most 2k2k. It follows that every kk-degenerate crossing graph is kk-gap-planar, and every kk-gap-planar graph is a 2k2k-degenerate crossing graph [44].

A drawing is circular if the vertices are positioned on a circle and the edges are straight line segments. A theme of this paper is to study circular drawings DD in which X_DX_{\_}D is well-behaved in some way. Many papers have considered properties of X_DX_{\_}D in this setting. The convex crossing number of a graph GG is the minimum number of crossings in a circular drawing of GG; see [68] for a detailed history of this topic. Obviously, GG has convex crossing number at most kk if and only if GG has a circular drawing DD with |E(X_D)|k\lvert E(X_{\_}D)\rvert\leqslant k. The book thickness (also called page-number or stack-number) of a graph GG can be defined as the minimum, taken over all circular drawings DD of GG, of χ(X_D)\chi(X_{\_}D). This parameter is widely studied; see [30, 26, 10, 45, 78, 79] for example.

3 Tools

In this section, we introduce two auxiliary graphs that are useful tools for proving our main theorems.

For a drawing DD of a graph GG, the planarisation, P_DP_{\_}D, of DD is the plane graph obtained by replacing each crossing with a dummy vertex of degree 4. Note that P_DP_{\_}D depends upon the drawing DD (and not just upon GG). Figure 1 shows a drawing and its planarisation.

Refer to caption
(a) Drawing DD of a graph GG.
Refer to caption
(b) Planarisation P_DP_{\_}D.
Figure 1: A drawing and its planarisation.

For a drawing DD of a graph GG, the map graph, M_DM_{\_}D, of DD is obtained as follows. First let P_DP_{\_}D be the planarisation of DD. The vertices of M_DM_{\_}D are the faces of P_DP_{\_}D, where two vertices are adjacent in M_DM_{\_}D if the corresponding faces share a vertex. If GG is itself a plane graph, then it is already drawn in the plane and so we may talk about the map graph, M_GM_{\_}G, of GG. Note that all map graphs are connected graphs. Figure 2 shows the map graph M_DM_{\_}D for the drawing DD in Figure 1.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Map graph M_DM_{\_}D. v_v_{\_}{\infty} is the vertex corresponding to the outer face: it is adjacent to all vertices except the central vertex of degree 10.

The radius of a connected graph GG, denoted rad(G)\operatorname{rad}(G), is the minimum non-negative integer rr such that for some vertex vV(G)v\in V(G) and for every vertex wV(G)w\in V(G) we have dist_G(v,w)r\operatorname{dist}_{\_}G(v,w)\leqslant r.

In Section 3.1, we show that the radius of the map graph M_DM_{\_}D acts as an upper bound for the treewidths of GG and X_DX_{\_}D. In Section 3.2, we show that if DD is a circular drawing and the map graph M_DM_{\_}D has large radius, then X_DX_{\_}D contains a useful substructure. Thus the radius of M_DM_{\_}D provides a useful bridge between the treewidth of GG, the treewidth of X_DX_{\_}D, and the subgraphs of X_DX_{\_}D.

3.1 Map Graphs with Small Radii

Here we prove that for any drawing DD of a graph GG, the radius of M_DM_{\_}D acts as an upper bound for both the treewidth of GG and the treewidth of X_DX_{\_}D.

Theorem 5.

For every drawing DD of a graph GG,

tw(G)6rad(M_D)+7 and tw(X_D)6rad(M_D)+7.\displaystyle\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant 6\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}{D})+7\quad\textnormal{ and }\quad\operatorname{tw}(X_{\_}D)\leqslant 6\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)+7.

Wood and Telle [77, Prop. 8.5] proved that if a graph GG has a circular drawing DD such that whenever edges ee and ff cross, ee or ff crosses at most dd edges, then GG has treewidth at most 3d+113d+11. This assumption implies rad(M_D)d/2+1\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)\leqslant\lfloor d/2\rfloor+1 and so the first inequality of Theorem 5 generalises this result.

It is not surprising that treewidth and radius are related for drawings. A classical result of Robertson and Seymour [66, (2.7)] says that tw(G)3rad(G)+1\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant 3\operatorname{rad}(G)+1 for every connected planar graph GG. Several authors improved this bound as follows.

Lemma 6 ([11, 28]).

For every connected planar graph GG,

tw(G)3rad(G).\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant 3\,\operatorname{rad}(G).

We now prove that if a planar graph GG has large treewidth, then the map graph of any plane drawing of GG has large radius. For a plane graph GG, we say a graph HH is a triangulation of GG if HH is a plane supergraph of GG on the same vertex set and where each face is a triangle.

Lemma 7.

Let GG be a plane graph with map graph M_GM_{\_}G. Then there is a plane triangulation HH of GG with rad(H)rad(M_G)+1\operatorname{rad}(H)\leqslant\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}G)+1. In particular,

tw(G)3rad(M_G)+3.\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant 3\,\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}G)+3.
Proof.

Let F_0F_{\_}0 be a face of GG such that every vertex in M_GM_{\_}G has distance at most rad(M_G)\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}G) from F_0F_{\_}0. For each face FF of GG, let dist_0(F)\operatorname{dist}_{\_}0(F) be the distance of FF from F_0F_{\_}0 in M_GM_{\_}G.

Fix a vertex v_0v_{\_}0 of GG in the boundary of F_0F_{\_}0, and set ρ(v_0)1\rho(v_{\_}0)\coloneqq-1. For every other vertex vv of GG, let

ρ(v)=min{dist_0(F):v is on the boundary of face F}.\rho(v)=\min\{\operatorname{dist}_{\_}0(F)\colon v\text{ is on the boundary of face }F\}.

Note that ρ\rho takes values in {1,0,,rad(M_G)}\{-1,0,\dotsc,\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}G)\}.

We now construct a triangulation HH of GG such that every vertex vv_0v\neq v_{\_}0 is adjacent (in HH) to a vertex uu with ρ(u)<ρ(v)\rho(u)<\rho(v). In particular, the distance from vv to v_0v_{\_}0 in HH is at most ρ(v)+1rad(M_G)+1\rho(v)+1\leqslant\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}G)+1, and so HH has the required radius. For each face FF, let v_Fv_{\_}F be a vertex of FF with smallest ρ\rho-value. Note that v_F_0=v_0v_{\_}{F_{\_}0}=v_{\_}0. Triangulate GG as follows. First, consider one-by-one each face FF. For every vertex vv of FF that is not already adjacent to v_Fv_{\_}F, add the edge vv_Fvv_{\_}F. Finally, let HH be obtained by triangulating the resulting graph.

Consider any vertex vv_0v\neq v_{\_}0. Let FF be a face on whose boundary vv lies and with ρ(v)=dist_0(F)\rho(v)=\operatorname{dist}_{\_}0(F). If F=F_0F=F_{\_}0, then ρ(v)=0\rho(v)=0 and vv_0E(H)vv_{\_}0\in E(H), as required. Otherwise assume FF_0F\neq F_{\_}0. By considering a shortest path from FF to F_0F_{\_}0 in M_GM_{\_}G, there is some face FV(M_G)F^{\prime}\in V(M_{\_}G) that shares a vertex with FF and has dist_0(F)<dist_0(F)\operatorname{dist}_{\_}0(F^{\prime})<\operatorname{dist}_{\_}0(F). Let vv^{\prime} be a vertex on the boundary of both FF and FF^{\prime}. Then ρ(v_F)ρ(v)dist_0(F)<dist_0(F)=ρ(v)\rho(v_{\_}F)\leqslant\rho(v^{\prime})\leqslant\operatorname{dist}_{\_}0(F^{\prime})<\operatorname{dist}_{\_}0(F)=\rho(v). Furthermore, by construction, vv and v_Fv_{\_}F are adjacent in HH, as required.

By Lemma 6, tw(G)tw(H)3rad(H)3rad(M_G)+3\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant\operatorname{tw}(H)\leqslant 3\operatorname{rad}(H)\leqslant 3\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}G)+3. ∎

Note that a version of Lemma 7 with rad(M_G)\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}G) replaced by the eccentricity of the outerface in M_GM_{\_}G can be proved via outerplanarity222Say a plane graph GG is kk-outerplane if removing all the vertices on the boundary of the outerface leaves a (k1)(k-1)-outerplane subgraph, where a plane graph is 0-outerplane if it has no vertices. Consider a plane graph GG, where v_v_{\_}{\infty} is the vertex of M_GM_{\_}G corresponding to the outerface. Then one can show that if v_v_{\_}{\infty} has eccentricity kk in M_GM_{\_}G, then GG is (k+1)(k+1)-outerplane, and conversely, if GG is kk-outerplane, then v_v_{\_}{\infty} has eccentricity at most kk in M_GM_{\_}G. Bodlaender [12] showed that every kk-outerplanar graph has treewidth at most 3k13k-1. The same proof shows that every kk-outerplane graph has treewidth at most 3k13k-1 (which also follows from [28])..

We use the following lemma about planarisations to extend Lemma 7 from plane drawings to arbitrary drawings.

Lemma 8.

For every drawing DD of a graph GG, the planarisation P_DP_{\_}D of DD satisfies

tw(G)2tw(P_D)+1andtw(X_D)2tw(P_D)+1.\displaystyle\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant 2\operatorname{tw}(P_{\_}D)+1\quad\textnormal{and}\quad\operatorname{tw}(X_{\_}D)\leqslant 2\operatorname{tw}(P_{\_}D)+1.
Proof.

Consider a tree-decomposition (T,𝒲)(T,\mathcal{W}) of P_DP_{\_}D in which each bag has size at most tw(P_D)+1\operatorname{tw}(P_{\_}D)+1 . Now we prove the first inequality. Arbitrarily orient the edges of GG. Each dummy vertex xx of P_DP_{\_}D corresponds to a crossing between two oriented edges abab and cdcd of GG. For each dummy vertex xx, replace each instance of xx in the tree-decomposition (T,𝒲)(T,\mathcal{W}) by bb and dd. It is straightforward to verify this gives a tree-decomposition (T,𝒲)(T,\mathcal{W}^{\prime}) of GG with bags of size at most 2tw(P_D)+22\operatorname{tw}(P_{\_}D)+2. Hence tw(G)2tw(P_D)+1\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant 2\operatorname{tw}(P_{\_}D)+1.

Now for the second inequality. Each dummy vertex xx of P_DP_{\_}D corresponds to a crossing between two edges ee and ff of GG. For each dummy vertex xx, replace each instance of xx in (T,𝒲)(T,\mathcal{W}) by ee and ff. Also, for each vertex vv of GG, delete all instances of vv from (T,𝒲)(T,\mathcal{W}). This gives a tree-decomposition (T,𝒲′′)(T,\mathcal{W}^{\prime\prime}) of X_DX_{\_}D with bags of size at most 2tw(P_D)+22\operatorname{tw}(P_{\_}D)+2. Hence tw(X_D)2tw(P_D)+1\operatorname{tw}(X_{\_}D)\leqslant 2\operatorname{tw}(P_{\_}D)+1. ∎

We are now ready to prove Theorem 5.

Proof of Theorem 5.

Let P_DP_{\_}D be the planarisation of DD. By definition, M_DM_P_DM_{\_}D\cong M_{\_}{P_{\_}D}. Lemma 7 implies

2tw(P_D)+12(3rad(M_P_D)+3)+1=6rad(M_D)+7.2\operatorname{tw}(P_{\_}D)+1\leqslant 2(3\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}{P_{\_}D})+3)+1=6\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)+7.

Lemma 8 now gives the required result. ∎

3.2 Map Graphs with Large Radii

The next lemma is a cornerstone of this paper. It shows that if the map graph of a circular drawing has large radius, then the crossing graph contains a useful substructure. For a,ba,b\in\mathbb{R} where a<ba<b, let (a,b)(a,b) denote the open interval {r:a<r<b}\{r\in\mathbb{R}\colon a<r<b\}.

Lemma 9.

Let DD be a circular drawing of a graph GG. If the map graph M_DM_{\_}D has radius at least 2t2t, then the crossing graph X_DX_{\_}D contains tt vertex-disjoint induced cycles C_1,,C_tC_{\_}1,\dotsc,C_{\_}t such that for all i<ji<j every vertex of C_iC_{\_}i has at least two neighbours in C_jC_{\_}j. Moreover, every vertex of X_DX_{\_}D has at most four neighbours in any C_iC_{\_}i (1it)(1\leqslant i\leqslant t).

Proof.

Let FV(M_D)F\in V(M_{\_}D) be a face with distance at least 2t2t from the outer face of GG. Let pp be a point in the interior of FF. Let R_0R_{\_}0 be the infinite ray starting at pp and pointing vertically upwards. More generally, for θ\theta\in\mathbb{R}, let R_θR_{\_}{\theta} be the infinite ray with endpoint pp that makes a clockwise angle of θ\theta (radians) with R_0R_{\_}0. In particular, R_πR_{\_}{\pi} is the ray pointing vertically downwards from pp and R_θ+2π=R_θR_{\_}{\theta+2\pi}=R_{\_}{\theta} for all θ\theta.

In the statement of the following claim, and throughout the paper, “cross” means internally intersect.

Claim.

Every R_θR_{\_}{\theta} crosses at least 2t12t-1 edges of GG.

Proof.

Consider moving along R_θR_{\_}{\theta} from pp to the outer face. The distance in M_DM_{\_}D only changes when crossing an edge or a vertex of GG and changes by at most 11 when doing so. Since each R_θR_{\_}{\theta} contains at most one vertex of GG, it must cross at least 2t12t-1 edges. ∎

For each edge ee of GG, define I_e{θ:e crosses R_θ}I_{\_}{e}\coloneqq\{\theta\colon e\text{ crosses }R_{\_}{\theta}\}. Since each edge is a line segment not passing through pp, each I_eI_{\_}{e} is of the form (a,a)+2π(a,a^{\prime})+2\pi\mathbb{Z} where a<a<a+πa<a^{\prime}<a+\pi. Also note that edges ee and ff cross exactly if I_eI_fI_{\_}e\cap I_{\_}f\neq\varnothing, I_eI_fI_{\_}e\not\subseteq I_{\_}f, and I_fI_eI_{\_}f\not\subseteq I_{\_}e.

For a set of edges EE(G)E^{\prime}\subseteq E(G) define I_E={I_e:eE}I_{\_}{E^{\prime}}=\bigcup\{I_{\_}e\colon e\in E^{\prime}\}. We say that EE^{\prime} is dominant if I_E=I_{\_}{E^{\prime}}=\mathbb{R} and is minimally dominant if no proper subset of EE^{\prime} is dominant. Note that if e,fEe,f\in E^{\prime} and EE^{\prime} is minimally dominant, then ee and ff cross exactly if I_eI_fI_{\_}e\cap I_{\_}f\neq\varnothing.

Claim.

If EE^{\prime} is minimally dominant, then

  1. (i)

    every R_θR_{\_}{\theta} crosses at most two edges of EE^{\prime},

  2. (ii)

    EE^{\prime} induces a cycle in X_DX_{\_}D,

  3. (iii)

    every edge of GG crosses at most four edges of EE^{\prime}.

Proof.

We first prove (i). Suppose that there is some R_θR_{\_}{\theta} crossing distinct edges e_1,e_2,e_3Ee_{\_}1,e_{\_}2,e_{\_}3\in E^{\prime}. Then θI_e_1I_e_2I_e_3\theta\in I_{\_}{e_{\_}1}\cap I_{\_}{e_{\_}2}\cap I_{\_}{e_{\_}3} and θ+πI_e_1I_e_2I_e_3\theta+\pi\not\in I_{\_}{e_{\_}1}\cup I_{\_}{e_{\_}2}\cup I_{\_}{e_{\_}3}. Hence we may write

I_e_i=(a_i,a_i)+2π,i=1,2,3I_{\_}{e_{\_}i}=(a_{\_}i,a^{\prime}_{\_}i)+2\pi\mathbb{Z},\qquad i=1,2,3

where θπ<a_i<θ<a_i<θ+π\theta-\pi<a_{\_}i<\theta<a^{\prime}_{\_}i<\theta+\pi. By relabelling, we may assume that a_1<a_2<a_3<θa_{\_}1<a_{\_}2<a_{\_}3<\theta. Now, if a_3a^{\prime}_{\_}3 is not the largest of a_1,a_2,a_3a^{\prime}_{\_}1,a^{\prime}_{\_}2,a^{\prime}_{\_}3, then (a_3,a_3)(a_1,a_1)(a_2,a_2)(a_{\_}3,a^{\prime}_{\_}3)\subseteq(a_{\_}1,a^{\prime}_{\_}1)\cup(a_{\_}2,a^{\prime}_{\_}2) and so I_e_3I_e_1I_e_2I_{\_}{e_{\_}3}\subseteq I_{\_}{e_{\_}1}\cup I_{\_}{e_{\_}2} which contradicts minimality of EE^{\prime}. Hence a_3a_1,a_2a^{\prime}_{\_}3\geqslant a^{\prime}_{\_}1,a^{\prime}_{\_}2. But then (a_2,a_2)(a_1,a_1)(a_3,a_3)(a_{\_}2,a^{\prime}_{\_}2)\subseteq(a_{\_}1,a^{\prime}_{\_}1)\cup(a_{\_}3,a^{\prime}_{\_}3) and so I_e_2I_e_1I_e_3I_{\_}{e_{\_}2}\subseteq I_{\_}{e_{\_}1}\cup I_{\_}{e_{\_}3} which again contradicts minimality. This proves (i).

We next show that EE^{\prime} induces a connected subgraph of X_DX_{\_}D. If EE^{\prime} does not, then there is a partition E_1E_2E_{\_}1\cup E_{\_}2 of EE^{\prime} into non-empty sets such that no edge in E_1E_{\_}1 crosses any edge in E_2E_{\_}2. Since EE^{\prime} is minimally dominant, this means I_E_1I_E_2=I_{\_}{E_{\_}1}\cap I_{\_}{E_{\_}2}=\varnothing. Consider \mathbb{R} with the topology induced by the Euclidean metric, which is a connected space. But I_E_1I_{\_}{E_{\_}1} and I_E_2I_{\_}{E_{\_}2} are non-empty open sets that partition \mathbb{R}. Hence, EE^{\prime} induces a connected subgraph.

We now show that EE^{\prime} induces a 2-regular graph in X_DX_{\_}D, which together with connectedness establishes (ii). Let eEe\in E^{\prime} and write I_e=(a,a)+2πI_{\_}e=(a,a^{\prime})+2\pi\mathbb{Z} where a<a<a+πa<a^{\prime}<a+\pi. Since EE^{\prime} is dominant, there are f,fEf,f^{\prime}\in E^{\prime} with aI_fa\in I_{\_}f and aI_fa^{\prime}\in I_{\_}{f^{\prime}}. If f=ff=f^{\prime}, then I_eI_fI_{\_}e\subseteq I_{\_}f which contradicts minimality. Hence f,ff,f^{\prime} are distinct and so ee has degree at least two in X_DX_{\_}D. Suppose that ee has some neighbour f′′f^{\prime\prime} in X_DX_{\_}D distinct from f,ff,f^{\prime}. Since I_f′′I_{\_}{f^{\prime\prime}} is not a subset of I_eI_{\_}e, it must contain at least one of a,aa,a^{\prime}. By symmetry, we may assume that I_f′′I_{\_}{f^{\prime\prime}} contains aa. But then, for some sufficiently small ε>0\varepsilon>0, all of I_e,I_f,I_f′′I_{\_}e,I_{\_}f,I_{\_}{f^{\prime\prime}} contain a+εa+\varepsilon and so R_a+εR_{\_}{a+\varepsilon} crosses three edges of EE^{\prime}, which contradicts (i). Hence ee has exactly two neighbours in EE^{\prime} which establishes (ii).

Finally consider an arbitrary edge e=uve=uv of GG. Let R_uR_{\_}u be the infinite ray from pp that contains uu and R_vR_{\_}v be the infinite ray from pp that contains vv. Observe that every edge of GG that crosses ee also crosses R_uR_{\_}u or R_vR_{\_}v. By (i), at most four edges in EE^{\prime} cross ee. ∎

For a set of edges EE(G)E^{\prime}\subseteq E(G), say an edge eEe\in E^{\prime} is maximal in EE^{\prime} if there is no fE{e}f\in E^{\prime}\setminus\{e\} with I_eI_fI_{\_}e\subseteq I_{\_}f. Suppose EE^{\prime} is dominant. Let E_maxE^{\prime}_{\_}{\textnormal{max}} be the set of maximal edges in EE^{\prime}. Clearly E_maxE^{\prime}_{\_}{\textnormal{max}} is still dominant and so has a minimally dominant subset. In particular, every dominant set of edges EE^{\prime} has a subset E_1E_{\_}1 that is minimally dominant and all of whose edges are maximal in EE^{\prime}.

Claim.

Let EE(G)E^{\prime}\subseteq E(G) and E_1,E_2EE_{\_}1,E_{\_}2\subseteq E^{\prime}. Suppose that all the edges of E_1E_{\_}1 are maximal in EE^{\prime} and that E_2E_{\_}2 is dominant. Then every edge in E_1E_{\_}1 crosses at least two edges in E_2E_{\_}2.

Proof.

Let e_1E_1e_{\_}1\in E_{\_}1 and write I_e_1=(a,a)+2πI_{\_}{e_{\_}1}=(a,a^{\prime})+2\pi\mathbb{Z} where a<a<a+πa<a^{\prime}<a+\pi. Since E_2E_{\_}2 is dominant, there are e_2,e_3E_2e_{\_}2,e_{\_}3\in E_{\_}2 with aI_e_2a\in I_{\_}{e_{\_}2} and aI_e_3a^{\prime}\in I_{\_}{e_{\_}3}. If e_2=e_3e_{\_}2=e_{\_}3, then I_e_1I_e_2I_{\_}{e_{\_}1}\subseteq I_{\_}{e_{\_}2}, which contradicts the maximality of e_1e_{\_}1 in EE^{\prime}.

By symmetry, it suffices to check that e_1e_{\_}1 and e_2e_{\_}2 cross. Note that for some sufficiently small ε>0\varepsilon>0, a+εa+\varepsilon is in both I_e_1I_{\_}{e_{\_}1} and I_e_2I_{\_}{e_{\_}2} and so I_e_1I_e_2I_{\_}{e_{\_}1}\cap I_{\_}{e_{\_}2}\neq\varnothing. As aI_e_2I_e_1a\in I_{\_}{e_{\_}2}\setminus I_{\_}{e_{\_}1} we have I_e_2I_e_1I_{\_}{e_{\_}2}\not\subseteq I_{\_}{e_{\_}1}. Finally, the maximality of e_1e_{\_}1 in EE^{\prime} means I_e_1I_e_2I_{\_}{e_{\_}1}\not\subseteq I_{\_}{e_{\_}2}. Hence e_1e_{\_}1 and e_2e_{\_}2 do indeed cross. ∎

We are now ready to complete the proof. Note that a set of edges is dominant exactly if it crosses every R_θR_{\_}{\theta}. By the first claim, E=E(G)E=E(G) is dominant. Let E_1EE_{\_}1\subseteq E be minimally dominant such that every edge of E_1E_{\_}1 is maximal in EE. By part (i) of the second claim, every R_θR_{\_}{\theta} crosses at most two edges of E_1E_{\_}1 and so, by the first claim, crosses at least 2t32t-3 edges of EE_1E\setminus E_{\_}1. Hence, EE_1E\setminus E_{\_}1 is dominant. Let E_2EE_1E_{\_}2\subseteq E\setminus E_{\_}1 be minimally dominant such that every edge of E_2E_{\_}2 is maximal in EE_1E\setminus E_{\_}1. Continuing in this way we obtain pairwise disjoint E_1,E_2,,E_tEE_{\_}1,E_{\_}2,\dotsc,E_{\_}t\subset E such that, for all ii,

  • E_iE_{\_}i is minimally dominant,

  • every edge of E_iE_{\_}i is maximal in E(_i<iE_i)E\setminus(\bigcup_{\_}{i^{\prime}<i}E_{\_}{i^{\prime}}),

  • every R_θR_{\_}{\theta} crosses at most two edges of E_iE_{\_}i,

  • every R_θR_{\_}{\theta} crosses at least 2(ti)12(t-i)-1 edges of E(_iiE_i)E\setminus(\bigcup_{\_}{i^{\prime}\leqslant i}E_{\_}{i^{\prime}}).

By part (ii) of the second claim, every E_iE_{\_}i induces a cycle C_iC_{\_}i in X_DX_{\_}D. Let i<ji<j and EE(_i<iE_i)E^{\prime}\coloneqq E\setminus(\bigcup_{\_}{i^{\prime}<i}E_{\_}{i^{\prime}}). Then E_i,E_jEE_{\_}i,E_{\_}j\subseteq E^{\prime} and every edge of E_iE_{\_}i is maximal in EE^{\prime}. Hence, by the third claim, every edge in E_iE_{\_}i crosses at least two edges in E_jE_{\_}j. In particular, every vertex of C_iC_{\_}i has at least two neighbours in C_jC_{\_}j.

Finally, by part (iii) of the second claim, every vertex of X_DX_{\_}D has at most four neighbours in any C_iC_{\_}i. ∎

4 Structural Properties of Circular Drawings

Theorem 5 says that for any drawing DD of a graph GG, the radius of M_DM_{\_}D provides an upper bound for tw(G)\operatorname{tw}(G) and tw(X_D)\operatorname{tw}(X_{\_}D). For a general drawing it is impossible to relate tw(X_D)\operatorname{tw}(X_{\_}D) to tw(G)\operatorname{tw}(G). Firstly, planar graphs can have arbitrarily large treewidth (for example, the (n×nn\times n)-grid has treewidth nn) and admit drawings with no crossings. In the other direction, K_3,nK_{\_}{3,n} has treewidth 3 and crossing number Ω(n2)\Omega(n^{2}), as shown by Kleitman [46]. In particular, the crossing graph of any drawing of K_3,nK_{\_}{3,n} has average degree linear in nn and thus has arbitrarily large complete minors [52, 53] and so arbitrarily large treewidth.

Happily, this is not so for circular drawings. Using the tools in Section 3 we show that if a graph GG has large treewidth, then the crossing graph of any circular drawing of GG has large treewidth. In fact, the crossing graph must contain a large (topological) complete graph minor (see Theorems 3 and 10). In particular, if X_DX_{\_}D is K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free, then GG has small treewidth. We further show that if X_DX_{\_}D is K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free, then GG does not contain a subdivision of K_2,4tK_{\_}{2,4t} (Theorem 4). Using these results, we deduce a product structure theorem for GG (Corollary 11).

In the other direction, we ask what properties of a graph GG guarantee that it has a circular drawing DD where X_DX_{\_}D has no K_tK_{\_}t-minor. Certainly GG must have small treewidth. Adding the constraint that GG does not contain a subdivision of K_2,f(t)K_{\_}{2,f(t)} is not sufficient (see Lemma 17) but a bounded maximum degree constraint is: we show that if GG has bounded maximum degree and bounded treewidth, then GG has a circular drawing where the crossing graph has bounded treewidth (Proposition 18).

We also show that there are graphs with arbitrarily large complete graph minors that admit circular drawings whose crossing graphs are 22-degenerate (see Theorem 19).

4.1 Necessary Conditions for K_tK_{\_}t-Minor-Free Crossing Graphs

This subsection studies the structure of graphs that have circular drawings whose crossing graph is (topological) K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free. Much of our understanding of the structure of these graphs is summarised by the next four results (Theorems 3, 4, 10 and 11).

See 3

See 4

Theorem 10.

If a graph GG has a circular drawing where the crossing graph has no topological K_tK_{\_}t-minor, then GG has treewidth at most 6t2+6t+16t^{2}+6t+1.

From these we may deduce a product structure theorem for graphs that have a circular drawing whose crossing graph is K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free. For two graphs GG and HH, the strong product GHG\boxtimes H is the graph with vertex-set V(G)×V(H)V(G)\times V(H), and with an edge between two vertices (v,w)(v,w) and (v,w)(v^{\prime},w^{\prime}) if and only if v=vv=v^{\prime} and wwE(H)ww^{\prime}\in E(H), or w=ww=w^{\prime} and vvE(G)vv^{\prime}\in E(G), or vvE(G)vv^{\prime}\in E(G) and wwE(H)ww^{\prime}\in E(H). Campbell et al. [16, Prop. 55] showed that if a graph GG is K_2,tK_{\_}{2,t}-topological minor-free and has treewidth at most kk, then GG is isomorphic to a subgraph of HK_𝒪(t2k)H\boxtimes K_{\_}{\mathcal{O}(t^{2}k)} where tw(H)2\operatorname{tw}(H)\leqslant 2. Thus Theorems 3 and 4 imply the following product structure result.

Corollary 11.

If a graph GG has a circular drawing where the crossing graph has no K_tK_{\_}t-minor, then GG is isomorphic to a subgraph of HK_𝒪(t3)H\boxtimes K_{\_}{\mathcal{O}(t^{3})} where tw(H)2\operatorname{tw}(H)\leqslant 2.

En route to proving these results, we use the cycle structure built by Lemma 9 to find (topological) complete minors in the crossing graph of circular drawings. We first show that the treewidth and Hadwiger number of X_DX_{\_}D as well as the radius of M_DM_{\_}D are all linearly tied.

Lemma 12.

For every circular drawing DD,

tw(X_D)6rad(M_D)+712h(X_D)1112tw(X_D)+1.\operatorname{tw}(X_{\_}D)\leqslant 6\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)+7\leqslant 12\,h(X_{\_}D)-11\leqslant 12\operatorname{tw}(X_{\_}D)+1.
Proof.

The first inequality is exactly Theorem 5, while the final one is the well-known fact that h(G)tw(G)+1h(G)\leqslant\operatorname{tw}(G)+1 for every graph GG. To prove the middle inequality we need to show that for any circular drawing DD,

rad(M_D)2h(X_D)3.\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)\leqslant 2\,h(X_{\_}D)-3. (1)

Let th(X_D)t\coloneqq h(X_{\_}D) and suppose, for a contradiction, that rad(M_D)2t2\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)\geqslant 2t-2. By Lemma 9, X_DX_{\_}D contains t1t-1 vertex disjoint cycles C_1,,C_t1C_{\_}1,\dotsc,C_{\_}{t-1} such that for all i<ji<j every vertex of C_iC_{\_}i has a neighbour in C_jC_{\_}j. Contracting C_1C_{\_}1 to a triangle and each C_iC_{\_}i (i2i\geqslant 2) to a vertex gives a K_t+1K_{\_}{t+1}-minor in X_DX_{\_}D. This is the required contradiction. ∎

Clearly the Hajós number of a graph is upper bounded by the Hadwiger number. Our next lemma implies that the Hajós number of X_DX_{\_}D is quadratically tied to the radius of M_DM_{\_}D and to the treewidth and Hadwiger number of X_DX_{\_}D.

Lemma 13.

For every circular drawing DD,

rad(M_D)h(X_D)2+3h(X_D)+1.\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)\leqslant h^{\prime}(X_{\_}D)^{2}+3\,h^{\prime}(X_{\_}D)+1.
Proof.

Let t=h(X_D)+1t=h^{\prime}(X_{\_}D)+1 and suppose, for a contradiction, that rad(M_D)t2+t\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)\geqslant t^{2}+t. By Lemma 9, X_DX_{\_}D contains (t2+t)/2(t^{2}+t)/2 vertex disjoint cycles C_1,,C_(t2+t)/2C_{\_}1,\dotsc,C_{\_}{(t^{2}+t)/2} such that for all i<ji<j every vertex of C_iC_{\_}i has a neighbour in C_jC_{\_}j. For each i{1,,t}i\in\{1,\dots,t\}, let v_iV(C_i)v_{\_}i\in V(C_{\_}i). We assume that V(K_t)={1,,t}V(K_{\_}t)=\{1,\dots,t\} and let ϕ:E(K_t){t+1,,(t2+t)/2}\phi\colon E(K_{\_}t)\to\{t+1,\dots,(t^{2}+t)/2\} be a bijection. Then for each ijE(K_t)ij\in E(K_{\_}t), there is a (v_i,v_j)(v_{\_}i,v_{\_}j)-path P_ijP_{\_}{ij} in X_DX_{\_}D whose internal vertices are contained in V(C_ϕ(ij))V(C_{\_}{\phi(ij)}). Since ϕ\phi is a bijection, it follows that (P_ij:ijE(K_t))(P_{\_}{ij}\colon ij\in E(K_{\_}t)) defines a topological K_tK_{\_}t-minor in X_DX_{\_}D, a contradiction. ∎

We are now ready to prove Theorems 3 and 10.

Proof of Theorem 3.

Let DD be a circular drawing of GG with h(X_D)t1h(X_{\_}D)\leqslant t-1. By (1), rad(M_D)2t5\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)\leqslant 2t-5. Finally, by Theorem 5, tw(G)12t23\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant 12t-23. ∎

Proof of Theorem 10.

Let DD be a circular drawing of GG with h(X_D)t1h^{\prime}(X_{\_}D)\leqslant t-1. By Lemma 13, rad(M_D)t2+t1\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)\leqslant t^{2}+t-1. Finally, by Theorem 5, tw(G)6t2+6t+1\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant 6t^{2}+6t+1. ∎

We now show that the bound on tw(G)\operatorname{tw}(G) in Theorem 3 is within a constant factor of being optimal. Let G_nG_{\_}n be the (n×nn\times n)-grid, which has treewidth nn (see [39]). Theorem 3 says that in every circular drawing DD of G_nG_{\_}n, the crossing graph X_DX_{\_}D has a K_tK_{\_}t-minor, where t=Ω(n)t=\Omega(n). On the other hand, let DD be the circular drawing of G_nG_{\_}n obtained by ordering the vertices R_1,R_2,,R_nR_{\_}1,R_{\_}2,\dots,R_{\_}n, where R_iR_{\_}i is the set of vertices in the ii-th row of G_nG_{\_}n (ordered arbitrarily). Let E_iE_{\_}i be the set of edges in G_nG_{\_}n incident to vertices in R_iR_{\_}i; note that |E_i|3n1\lvert E_{\_}i\rvert\leqslant 3n-1. If two edges cross, then they have end-vertices in some E_iE_{\_}i. Thus (E_1,,E_n)(E_{\_}1,\dots,E_{\_}n) is a path-decomposition of X_DX_{\_}D of width at most 3n3n. In particular, X_DX_{\_}D has no K_3n+2K_{\_}{3n+2}-minor. Hence, the bound on tw(G)\operatorname{tw}(G) in Theorem 3 is within a constant factor of optimal. See [70, 71] for more on circular drawings of grid graphs.

Now we turn to subdivisions and the proof of Theorem 4. As a warm-up, we give a simple proof in the case of no division vertices.

Proposition 14.

For every kk\in\mathbb{N}, for every circular drawing DD of K_2,4k1K_{\_}{2,4k-1}, X_DX_{\_}D contains K_k,kK_{\_}{k,k} as a subgraph.

Proof.

Let the vertex classes of K_2,4k1K_{\_}{2,4k-1} be XX and YY, where X={x,y}X=\{x,y\} and |Y|=4k1\lvert Y\rvert=4k-1. Vertices xx and yy split the circle into two arcs, one of which must contain at least 2k2k vertices from YY. Label these vertices x,v_1,,v_s,yx,v_{\_}1,\dotsc,v_{\_}s,y where s2ks\geqslant 2k in order around the circle. For i{1,,k}i\in\{1,\dots,k\} define the edges e_i=yv_ie_{\_}i=yv_{\_}i and f_i=xv_k+if_{\_}i=xv_{\_}{k+i}. The e_ie_{\_}i and f_if_{\_}i are vertices in X_DX_{\_}D, and for all ii and jj, edges e_ie_{\_}i and f_jf_{\_}j cross, as required. ∎

We now work towards the proof of Theorem 4.

A linear drawing of a graph GG places the vertices on the x-axis with edges drawn as semi-circles above the x-axis. In such a drawing, we consider the vertices of GG to be elements of \mathbb{R} given by their x-coordinate. Such a drawing can be wrapped to give a circular drawing of GG with an isomorphic crossing graph. For an edge uvE(G)uv\in E(G) where u<vu<v, define I_uvI_{\_}{uv} to be the open interval (u,v)(u,v). For a set of edges EE(G)E^{\prime}\subseteq E(G), define I_EI_{\_}{E^{\prime}}{I_e:eE}\coloneqq\bigcup\{I_{\_}e\colon e\in E^{\prime}\}. Two edges uv,xyE(G)uv,xy\in E(G) where u<vu<v and x<yx<y are nested if u<x<y<vu<x<y<v or x<u<v<yx<u<v<y.

Lemma 15.

Let a,ba,b\in\mathbb{R} where a<ba<b, and let DD be a linear drawing of a graph GG where GG consists of two internally vertex-disjoint paths P_1=(v_1,,v_n)P_{\_}1=(v_{\_}1,\dots,v_{\_}n) and P_2=(u_1,,u_m)P_{\_}2=(u_{\_}1,\dots,u_{\_}m) such that u_1,v_1a<bu_m,v_nu_{\_}1,v_{\_}1\leqslant a<b\leqslant u_{\_}m,v_{\_}n. Then there exists EE(G)E^{\prime}\subseteq E(G) such that (a,b)I_E(a,b)\subseteq I_{\_}{E^{\prime}} and EE^{\prime} induces a connected graph in X_DX_{\_}D. Moreover, for x{a,b}x\in\{a,b\}, if xV(P_1)V(P_2)x\not\in V(P_{\_}1)\cap V(P_{\_}2), then xI_Ex\in I_{\_}{E^{\prime}}.

Proof.

We first show the existence of EE^{\prime}. Observe that (a,b)I_E(P_1){v_1,,v_n}(a,b)\subseteq I_{\_}{E(P_{\_}1)}\cup\{v_{\_}1,\dots,v_{\_}n\}. If GG contains an edge uvuv where ua<bvu\leqslant a<b\leqslant v, then we are done by setting E={uv}E^{\prime}=\{uv\}. So assume that GG has no edge of that form. Then there is a vertex vV(P_1)v\in V(P_{\_}1) such that a<v<ba<v<b. Each such vertex vv is not in V(P_2)V(P_{\_}2), implying vI_E(P_2)v\in I_{\_}{E(P_{\_}2)}. Therefore (a,b)I_E(G)(a,b)\subseteq I_{\_}{E(G)}. Let EE^{\prime} be a minimal set of edges of E(G)E(G) such that (a,b)I_E(a,b)\subseteq I_{\_}{E^{\prime}}. By minimality, no two edges in EE^{\prime} are nested. We claim that X_D[E]X_{\_}D[E^{\prime}] is connected. If not, then there is a partition E_1E_2E_{\_}1\cup E_{\_}2 of EE^{\prime} into non-empty sets such that no edge in E_1E_{\_}1 crosses any edge in E_2E_{\_}2. Since EE^{\prime} is minimal, this means I_E_1I_E_2=I_{\_}{E_{\_}1}\cap I_{\_}{E_{\_}2}=\varnothing. Consider (a,b)(a,b) with the topology induced by the Euclidean metric, which is a connected space. But I_E_1(a,b)I_{\_}{E_{\_}1}\cap(a,b) and I_E_2(a,b)I_{\_}{E_{\_}2}\cap(a,b) are non-empty open sets that partition (a,b)(a,b), a contradiction. Hence, X_D[E]X_{\_}D[E^{\prime}] is connected.

Finally, let x{a,b}x\in\{a,b\} and suppose that xV(P_1)V(P_2)x\not\in V(P_{\_}1)\cap V(P_{\_}2). Then GG has an edge uvuv such that u<x<vu<x<v. If xI_Ex\in I_{\_}{E^{\prime}}, then we are done. Otherwise, EE^{\prime} contains an edge incident to xx. Since a<u<ba<u<b or a<v<ba<v<b, it follows that uvuv crosses an edge in EE^{\prime}. So adding uvuv to EE^{\prime} maintains the connectivity of X_D[E]X_{\_}D[E^{\prime}] and now xI_Ex\in I_{\_}{E^{\prime}}. ∎

Lemma 16.

Let GG be a subdivision of K_2,3K_{\_}{2,3} and let x,yV(G)x,y\in V(G) be the vertices with degree 33. For every circular drawing DD of GG, there exists a component YY in X_DX_{\_}D that contains an edge incident to xx and an edge incident to yy.

Proof.

Let P_1,P_2,P_3P_{\_}1,P_{\_}2,P_{\_}3 be the internally disjoint (x,y)(x,y)-paths in GG. Let 𝒰=(u_1,,u_m)\mathcal{U}=(u_{\_}1,\dots,u_{\_}{m}) be the sequence of vertices on the clockwise arc from xx to yy (excluding xx and yy). Let 𝒱=(v_1,,u_n)\mathcal{V}=(v_{\_}1,\dots,u_{\_}{n}) be the sequence of vertices on the anti-clockwise arc from xx to yy (excluding xx and yy). Say an edge uvE(G)uv\in E(G) is vertical if u𝒰u\in\mathcal{U} and v𝒱v\in\mathcal{V}.

Suppose that no edge of GG is vertical. By the pigeonhole principle, we may assume that V(P_1)V(P_2)𝒰{x,y}V(P_{\_}1)\cup V(P_{\_}2)\subseteq\mathcal{U}\cup\{x,y\}. The claim then follows by applying Lemma 15 along the clockwise arc from xx to yy.

Now assume that E(G)E(G) contains at least one vertical edge. Let e_1,,e_ke_{\_}1,\dots,e_{\_}k be an ordering of the vertical edges of GG such that if e_ie_{\_}i is incident to u_iu_{\_}{i^{\prime}} and e_i+1e_{\_}{i+1} is incident to u_ju_{\_}{j^{\prime}}, then iji^{\prime}\leqslant j^{\prime}. In the case when u_i=u_ju_{\_}{i^{\prime}}=u_{\_}{j^{\prime}}, then e_ie_{\_}i and e_i+1e_{\_}{i+1} are ordered by their endpoints in 𝒱\mathcal{V}.

Claim.

For each i{1,,k1}i\in\{1,\dots,k-1\}, there exists E_iE(G)E_{\_}i\subseteq E(G) such that E_i{e_i,e_i+1}E_{\_}i\cup\{e_{\_}i,e_{\_}{i+1}\} induces a connected subgraph of X_DX_{\_}D.

Proof.

Clearly the claim holds if e_ie_{\_}i and e_i+1e_{\_}{i+1} cross or if there is an edge in GG that crosses both e_ie_{\_}i and e_i+1e_{\_}{i+1}. So assume that e_ie_{\_}i and e_i+1e_{\_}{i+1} do not cross and no edge crosses both e_ie_{\_}i and e_i+1e_{\_}{i+1}. Assume e_i=uve_{\_}i=u^{\prime}v^{\prime} and e_i+1=u′′v′′e_{\_}{i+1}=u^{\prime\prime}v^{\prime\prime}, where u,u′′𝒰u^{\prime},u^{\prime\prime}\in\mathcal{U} and v,v′′𝒱v^{\prime},v^{\prime\prime}\in\mathcal{V}. Let j{1,2,3}j\in\{1,2,3\}. If P_jP_{\_}j does not contain e_ie_{\_}i, then P_jP_{\_}j contains neither endpoint of e_ie_{\_}i. Since e_ie_{\_}i separates xx from yy in the drawing, P_jP_{\_}j contains e_ie_{\_}i or an edge that crosses e_ie_{\_}i. Likewise, P_jP_{\_}j contains e_i+1e_{\_}{i+1} or an edge that crosses e_i+1e_{\_}{i+1}. Let P_j=(p_1,,p_m)P_{\_}j^{\prime}=(p_{\_}1,\dots,p_{\_}m) be a vertex-minimal subpath of P_jP_{\_}j such that p_1p_2p_{\_}1p_{\_}2 is e_ie_{\_}i or crosses e_ie_{\_}i, and p_m1p_mp_{\_}{m-1}p_{\_}m is e_i+1e_{\_}{i+1} or crosses e_i+1e_{\_}{i+1}. By minimality, no edge in E(P_j){p_1p_2,p_m1p_m}E(P_{\_}j^{\prime})\setminus\{p_{\_}1p_{\_}2,p_{\_}{m-1}p_{\_}m\} crosses e_ie_{\_}i or e_i+1e_{\_}{i+1}. Therefore, by the ordering of the vertical edges, no edge in E(P_j){p_1p_2,p_m1p_m}E(P_{\_}j^{\prime})\setminus\{p_{\_}1p_{\_}2,p_{\_}{m-1}p_{\_}m\} is vertical. As such, either {p_2,,p_m1}𝒰\{p_{\_}2,\dots,p_{\_}{m-1}\}\subseteq\mathcal{U} or {p_2,,p_m1}𝒱\{p_{\_}2,\dots,p_{\_}{m-1}\}\subseteq\mathcal{V}. By the pigeonhole principle, without loss of generality, V(P_1)V(P_2)𝒰V(P_{\_}1^{\prime})\cup V(P_{\_}2^{\prime})\subseteq\mathcal{U}. Since V(P_1)V(P_{\_}1^{\prime}) and V(P_2)V(P_{\_}2^{\prime}) have distinct endpoints, the claim then follows by applying Lemma 15 along the clockwise arc between uu^{\prime} and u′′u^{\prime\prime}. ∎

It follows from the claim that all the vertical edges are contained in a single component YY of X_DX_{\_}D. Now consider the three edges in GG incident to xx. By the pigeonhole principle, without loss of generality, two of these edges are of the form xu_i,xu_jxu_{\_}i,xu_{\_}j where i<ji<j. Let u_au_{\_}{a} be the vertex in 𝒰\mathcal{U} incident to the vertical edge e_1e_{\_}1. If a<ja<j, then e_1e_{\_}1 crosses xu_jxu_{\_}j. If a=ja=j, then by the ordering of the vertical edges, the path P_iP_{\_}i that contains the edge xu_ixu_{\_}i also contains an edge that crosses both e_1e_{\_}1 and xu_jxu_{\_}j. Otherwise, j<aj<a and applying Lemma 15 to the clockwise arc between u_ju_{\_}j and u_au_{\_}{a}, it follows that xu_jxu_{\_}j is also in YY. By symmetry, there is an edge incident to yy that is in YY, as required. ∎

We are now ready to prove Theorem 4.

Proof of Theorem 4.

Let GG be a subdivision of K_2,4tK_{\_}{2,4t} and let DD be a circular drawing of GG. We show that X_DX_{\_}D contains a K_tK_{\_}t-minor. Let x,yx,y be the degree 4t4t vertices in GG. Let 𝒰=(u_1,,u_m)\mathcal{U}=(u_{\_}1,\dots,u_{\_}{m}) be the sequence of vertices on the clockwise arc from xx to yy (excluding xx and yy). Let 𝒱=(v_1,,u_n)\mathcal{V}=(v_{\_}1,\dots,u_{\_}{n}) be the sequence of vertices on the anti-clockwise arc from xx to yy (excluding xx and yy). Say an edge uvE(G)uv\in E(G) is vertical if u𝒰u\in\mathcal{U} and v𝒱v\in\mathcal{V}.

Let \ell be the number of vertical edges in GG. Let kmin{,t}k\coloneqq\min\{\ell,t\} and let dtkd\coloneqq t-k. Then GG contains 4d4d paths P_1,,P_4dP_{\_}1,\dots,P_{\_}{4d} that contain no vertical edge. We say that P_iP_{\_}i is a 𝒰\mathcal{U}-path (respectively, 𝒱\mathcal{V}-path) if it contains an edge incident to a vertex in 𝒰\mathcal{U} (𝒱\mathcal{V}). By the pigeonhole principle, without loss of generality, P_1,,P_2dP_{\_}1,\dots,P_{\_}{2d} are 𝒰\mathcal{U}-paths. By pairing the paths and then applying Lemma 15 to the clockwise arc from xx to yy, it follows that X_DX_{\_}D contains dd vertex-disjoint connected subgraphs Y_1,,Y_dY_{\_}1,\dots,Y_{\_}{d} in X_DX_{\_}D where each Y_iY_{\_}i contains an edge (in GG) incident to xx and an edge incident to yy. Consider distinct i,j{1,,d}i,j\in\{1,\dots,d\}. Let xu_iV(Y_i)xu_{\_}{i^{\prime}}\in V(Y_{\_}i) and xu_jV(Y_j)xu_{\_}{j^{\prime}}\in V(Y_{\_}j) and assume that i<ji^{\prime}<j^{\prime}. Since xu_jxu_{\_}{j^{\prime}} separates u_iu_{\_}{i^{\prime}} from yy in the drawing, and P_1,,P_2dP_{\_}1,\dots,P_{\_}{2d} are internally disjoint, it follows that there is an edge in V(Y_i)V(Y_{\_}i) that crosses xu_jxu_{\_}{j^{\prime}}. So Y_1,,Y_dY_{\_}1,\dots,Y_{\_}d are pairwise adjacent, which form a K_dK_{\_}d-minor in X_DX_{\_}D.

Let E~{e_1,,e_k}\tilde{E}\coloneqq\{e_{\_}1,\dots,e_{\_}k\} be any set of kk vertical edges in GG. Since t=d+kt=d+k, there are 4k4k internally disjoint (x,y)(x,y)-paths distinct from P_1,,P_4dP_{\_}1,\dots,P_{\_}{4d}, at least 3k3k of which avoid E~\tilde{E}. Grouping these paths into kk sets each with three paths, it follows from Lemma 16 that there exists kk vertex-disjoint connected subgraphs Z_1,,Z_kZ_{\_}1,\dots,Z_{\_}{k} in X_DX_{\_}D where each Z_iZ_{\_}i contains an edge (in GG) incident to xx and an edge incident to yy. Since each eE~e\in\tilde{E} separates xx and yy in the drawing, it follows that each V(Y_i)V(Y_{\_}i) and V(Z_j)V(Z_{\_}j) contains an edge (in GG) that crosses ee. Thus, by contracting each Y_iY_{\_}i into a vertex and each Z_j{e_j}Z_{\_}j\cup\{e_{\_}j\} into a vertex and then deleting all other vertices in X_DX_{\_}D, we obtain the desired K_tK_{\_}{t}-minor in X_DX_{\_}D. ∎

4.2 Sufficient Conditions for K_tK_{\_}t-Minor-Free Crossing Graphs

It is natural to consider whether the converse of Theorems 3 and 4 holds. That is, does there exist a function ff such that if a K_2,tK_{\_}{2,t}-topological minor-free graph GG has treewidth at most kk, then there is a circular drawing of GG whose crossing graph is K_f(t,k)K_{\_}{f(t,k)}-minor-free. Our next result shows that this is false in general. A tt-rainbow in a circular drawing of a graph is a non-crossing matching consisting of tt edges between two disjoint arcs in the circle.

Lemma 17.

For every tt\in\mathbb{N}, there exists a K_2,4K_{\_}{2,4}-topological minor-free graph GG with tw(G)=2\operatorname{tw}(G)=2 such that, for every circular drawing DD of GG, the crossing graph X_DX_{\_}D contains a K_tK_{\_}t-minor.

Proof.

Let TT be any tree with maximum degree 33 and sufficiently large pathwidth (as a function of tt). Such a tree exists as the complete binary tree of height 2h2h has pathwidth hh. Let GG be obtained from TT by adding a dominant vertex vv, so GG has treewidth 2. Since GvG-v has maximum degree 33, it follows that GG is K_2,4K_{\_}{2,4}-topological minor-free.

Let DD be a circular drawing of GG and let D_TD_{\_}T be the induced circular drawing of TT. Since TT has sufficiently large pathwidth, a result of Pupyrev [64, Thm. 2] implies that X_DX_{\_}D has large chromatic number or a 4t4t-rainbow333The result of Pupyrev [64] is in terms of stacks and queues but is equivalent to our statement.. Since the class of circle graphs is χ\chi-bounded [37], it follows that if X_DX_{\_}D has large chromatic number, then it contains a large clique and we are done. So we may assume that D_TD_{\_}T contains a 4t4t-rainbow. By the pigeonhole principle, there is a subset {a_1b_1,,a_2tb_2t}\{a_{\_}1b_{\_}1,\dots,a_{\_}{2t}b_{\_}{2t}\} of the rainbow edges such that a_ib_ia_{\_}ib_{\_}i topologically separates vv from a_ja_{\_}j and b_jb_{\_}j whenever i<ji<j. As such, a_ib_ia_{\_}ib_{\_}i crosses the edges va_jva_{\_}j and vb_jvb_{\_}j in DD whenever i<ji<j. Therefore X_DX_{\_}D contains a K_t,2tK_{\_}{t,2t} subgraph with bipartition ({a_1b_1,,a_tb_t},{va_t+1,vb_t+1,,va_2t,vb_2t})(\{a_{\_}1b_{\_}1,\dots,a_{\_}tb_{\_}t\},\{va_{\_}{t+1},vb_{\_}{t+1},\dots,va_{\_}{2t},vb_{\_}{2t}\}) and this contains a K_tK_{\_}{t}-minor. ∎

Lemma 17 is best possible in the sense that K_2,4K_{\_}{2,4} cannot be replaced by K_2,3K_{\_}{2,3}. An easy exercise shows that every biconnected K_2,3K_{\_}{2,3}-topological minor-free graph is either outerplanar or K_4K_{\_}4. It follows (by considering the block-cut tree) that every K_2,3K_{\_}{2,3}-minor-free graph has a circular 1-planar drawing, so the crossing graph consists of isolated edges and vertices.

While K_2,kK_{\_}{2,k}-topological minor-free and bounded treewidth is not sufficient to imply that a graph has a circular drawing whose crossing graph is K_tK_{\_}t-minor-free, we now show that bounded degree and bounded treewidth is sufficient.

Proposition 18.

For k,Δk,\Delta\in\mathbb{N}, every graph GG with treewidth less than kk and maximum degree at most Δ\Delta has a circular drawing in which the crossing graph X_DX_{\_}D has treewidth at most (6Δ+1)(18kΔ)21(6\Delta+1)(18k\Delta)^{2}-1.

Proof.

Refining a method from [24, 76], Distel and Wood [25] proved that any such GG is isomorphic to a subgraph of TK_mT\boxtimes K_{\_}{m} where TT is a tree with maximum degree Δ_T6Δ\Delta_{\_}T\coloneqq 6\Delta and m18kΔm\coloneqq 18k\Delta. Since the treewidth of the crossing graph does not increase when deleting edges and vertices from the drawing, it suffices to show that TK_mT\boxtimes K_{\_}{m} admits a circular drawing in which the crossing graph X_DX_{\_}D has treewidth at most (Δ_T+1)m21(\Delta_{\_}T+1)m^{2}-1. Without loss of generality, assume that V(K_m)={1,,m}V(K_{\_}m)=\{1,\dots,m\}. Take a circular drawing of TT such that no two edges cross (this can be done since TT is outerplanar). For each vertex vV(T)v\in V(T), replace vv by ((v,1),,(v,m))((v,1),\dotsc,(v,m)) to obtain a circular drawing DD of TK_mT\boxtimes K_{\_}m. Observe that if two edges (u,i)(v,j)(u,i)(v,j) and (x,a)(y,b)(x,a)(y,b) cross in DD, then {u,v}{x,y}\{u,v\}\cap\{x,y\}\neq\varnothing. For each vertex vV(T)v\in V(T), let W_vW_{\_}v be the set of edges of TK_mT\boxtimes K_{\_}{m} that are incident to some (v,i)(v,i). We claim that (W_v:vV(T))(W_{\_}v\colon v\in V(T)) is a tree-decomposition of X_DX_{\_}D with the desired width. Clearly each vertex of X_DX_{\_}D is in a bag and for each vertex eV(X_D)e\in V(X_{\_}D), the set {xV(T):eW_x}\{x\in V(T)\colon e\in W_{\_}x\} induces a graph isomorphic to either K_2K_{\_}2 or K_1K_{\_}1 in TT. Moreover, by the above observation, if e_1e_2E(X_D)e_{\_}1e_{\_}2\in E(X_{\_}D), then there exists some node xV(T)x\in V(T) such that e_1,e_2W_xe_{\_}1,e_{\_}2\in W_{\_}x. Finally, since there are (m2)\binom{m}{2} intra-K_mK_{\_}m edges and Δ_Tm2\Delta_{\_}T\cdot m^{2} cross-K_mK_{\_}m edges, it follows that |W_v|(Δ_T+1)m2\lvert W_{\_}v\rvert\leqslant(\Delta_{\_}T+1)m^{2} for all vV(T)v\in V(T), as required. ∎

We conclude this subsection with the following open problem:

Does there exist a function ff such that every K_2,kK_{\_}{2,k}-minor-free graph GG has a circular drawing DD in which the crossing graph X_DX_{\_}D is K_f(k)K_{\_}{f(k)}-minor-free?

4.3 Circular Drawings and Degeneracy

Theorems 3 and 10 say that if a graph GG has a circular drawing DD where the crossing graph X_DX_{\_}D excludes a fixed (topological) minor, then GG has bounded treewidth. Graphs excluding a fixed (topological) minor have bounded average degree and degeneracy [52, 53]. Despite this, we now show that X_DX_{\_}D having bounded degeneracy is not sufficient to bound the treewidth of GG. In fact, it is not even sufficient to bound the Hadwidger number of GG.

Theorem 19.

For every tt\in\mathbb{N}, there is a graph G_tG_{\_}t and a circular drawing DD of G_tG_{\_}t such that:

  • G_tG_{\_}t contains a K_tK_{\_}t-minor,

  • G_tG_{\_}t has maximum degree 3, and

  • X_DX_{\_}D is 2-degenerate.

Proof.

We draw G_tG_{\_}t with vertices placed on the x-axis (x-coordinate between 1 and tt) and edges drawn on or above the x-axis. This can then be wrapped to give a circular drawing of G_tG_{\_}t.

For real numbers a_1<a_2<<a_na_{\_}1<a_{\_}2<\dotsb<a_{\_}n, we say a path PP is drawn as a monotone path with vertices a_1,,a_na_{\_}1,\dotsc,a_{\_}n if it is drawn as follows where each vertex has x-coordinate equal to its label:

[Uncaptioned image]

In all our monotone paths, a_1,a_2,,a_na_{\_}1,a_{\_}2,\dotsc,a_{\_}n will be an arithmetic progression. We construct our drawing of G_tG_{\_}t as follows (see Figure 3 for the construction with t=4t=4).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 3: G_4G_{\_}4 built up path-by-path, where P_0P_{\_}0 is purple, P_1P_{\_}1 is blue, P_2P_{\_}2 is red, P_3P_{\_}3 is green, and the e_r,se_{\_}{r,s} are black.

First let P_0P_{\_}0 be the monotone path with vertices 1,2,,t1,2,\dotsc,t. For s{1,2,,t1}s\in\{1,2,\dots,t-1\}, let P_sP_{\_}s be the monotone path with vertices

s+2s,s+32s,s+52s,,t2s.s+2^{-s},s+3\cdot 2^{-s},s+5\cdot 2^{-s},\dotsc,t-2^{-s}.

Observe that these paths are vertex-disjoint. For 0r<st10\leqslant r<s\leqslant t-1, let I_r,sI_{\_}{r,s} be the interval

[s+2r2s,s+2r].[s+2^{-r}-2^{-s},s+2^{-r}].

Note that the lower end-point of I_r,sI_{\_}{r,s} is a vertex in P_sP_{\_}s and the upper end-point is a vertex in P_rP_{\_}r. Also note that no vertex of any P_iP_{\_}i lies in the interior of I_r,sI_{\_}{r,s}. Indeed, for i>si>s, the vertices of P_iP_{\_}i have value at least s+2rs+2^{-r} and for isi\leqslant s, the denominator of the vertices of P_iP_{\_}i precludes them from being in the interior. Hence for all r<sr<s we may draw a horizontal edge e_r,se_{\_}{r,s} between the end-points of I_r,sI_{\_}{r,s}.

Graph G_tG_{\_}t and the drawing DD are obtained as a union of the P_sP_{\_}s together with all the e_r,se_{\_}{r,s}. The paths P_sP_{\_}s are vertex-disjoint and edge e_r,se_{\_}{r,s} joins P_rP_{\_}r to P_sP_{\_}s, so G_tG_{\_}t contains a K_tK_{\_}t-minor. We now show that the I_r,sI_{\_}{r,s} are pairwise disjoint. Note that I_r,s(s,s+1]I_{\_}{r,s}\subset(s,s+1] so two II with different ss values are disjoint. Next note that I_r,s(s+2(r+1),s+2r]I_{\_}{r,s}\subset(s+2^{-(r+1)},s+2^{-r}] for rs2r\leqslant s-2 while I_s1,s=[s+2s,s+2(s1)]I_{\_}{s-1,s}=[s+2^{-s},s+2^{-(s-1)}] and so two II with the same ss but different rr values are disjoint. In particular, any vertex vv is the end-point of at most one e_r,se_{\_}{r,s} and so has degree at most three. Hence, G_tG_{\_}t has maximum degree three.

Each edge e_r,se_{\_}{r,s} is horizontal and crosses no other edges so has no neighbours in X_DX_{\_}D. Next consider an edge aaaa^{\prime} of P_sP_{\_}s. We have a=a+22sa^{\prime}=a+2\cdot 2^{-s}. Exactly one vertex in V(P_0)V(P_1)V(P_s)V(P_{\_}0)\cup V(P_{\_}1)\cup\dotsb\cup V(P_{\_}{s}) lies between aa and aa^{\prime}: their midpoint, m=a+2sm=a+2^{-s}. Vertex mm has at most two non-horizontal edges incident to it and so, in X_DX_{\_}D, every aaE(P_s)aa^{\prime}\in E(P_{\_}s) has at most two neighbours in E(P_0)E(P_1)E(P_s)E(P_{\_}0)\cup E(P_{\_}1)\cup\dotsb\cup E(P_{\_}{s}). Thus X_DX_{\_}D is 2-degenerate, as required. ∎

4.4 Applications to General Drawings

This section studies the global structure of graphs admitting a general (not necessarily circular) drawing. In particular, consider the following question: if a graph GG has a drawing DD, then what graph-theoretic assumptions about X_DX_{\_}D guarantee that GG is well-structured? Even 1-planar graphs contain arbitrarily large complete graph minors [27], so one cannot expect GG to exclude a fixed minor.

The following definition works well in this setting. Eppstein [32] defined a graph class 𝒢\mathcal{G} to have the treewidth-diameter property, more recently called bounded local treewidth, if there is a function ff such that for every graph G𝒢G\in\mathcal{G}, for every vertex vV(G)v\in V(G) and for every integer r0r\geqslant 0, the subgraph of GG induced by the vertices at distance at most rr from vv has treewidth at most f(r)f(r). If ff is linear (polynomial), then 𝒢\mathcal{G} has linear (polynomial) local treewidth.

Lemma 6 shows that planar graphs have linear local treewidth. More generally, Dujmović et al. [28] showed that kk-planar graphs have linear local treewidth (in fact, kk-planar graphs satisfy a stronger product structure theorem [29]). On the other hand, Hickingbotham and Wood [41] showed that 11-gap planar graphs do not have polynomial local treewidth. They also asked whether kk-gap planar graphs have bounded local treewidth. We show that this is false in a stronger sense.

Dawar et al. [21] defined a graph class 𝒢\mathcal{G} to locally exclude a minor if for each rr\in\mathbb{N} there is a graph H_rH_{\_}r such that for every graph G𝒢G\in\mathcal{G} every subgraph of GG with radius at most rr contains no H_rH_{\_}r-minor. Observe that if 𝒢\mathcal{G} has bounded local treewidth, then 𝒢\mathcal{G} locally excludes a minor.

By Theorem 19, for each tt\in\mathbb{N}, there is a graph G_tG_{\_}t that contains a K_tK_{\_}t-minor and has a circular drawing DD such that X_DX_{\_}D is 2-degenerate. Let G_tG^{\prime}_{\_}t be the graph obtained from G_tG_{\_}t by adding a dominant vertex into the outer-face of DD. So the graph G_tG^{\prime}_{\_}t is a 22-degenerate crossing, has radius 11, and contains a K_tK_{\_}t-minor. Thus, graphs that are 22-degenerate crossing do not locally exclude a minor, implying they do not have bounded local treewidth, thus answering the above question of Hickingbotham and Wood [41]. Since every graph that is 2-degenerate crossing is 2-gap-planar, we conclude that 2-gap-planar graphs also do not locally exclude a minor (and do not have bounded local treewidth). This result highlights a substantial difference between kk-planar graphs and kk-gap-planar graphs (even for k=2k=2). We now prove the following stronger result.

Proposition 20.

For every tt\in\mathbb{N} there is a graph GG and a drawing DD of GG such that:

  • GG has radius 1,

  • GG contains a K_t+1K_{\_}{t+1}-minor, and

  • X_DX_{\_}D is a star-forest.

Thus the graph GG is a 1-degenerate crossing and 1-gap-planar.

Proof.

Let ϕ:E(K_t){1,,(t2)}\phi\colon E(K_{\_}t)\to\{1,\dots,\binom{t}{2}\} be a bijection. As illustrated in Figure 4, for each ijE(K_t)ij\in E(K_{\_}t), draw vertices at (ϕ(ij),i),(ϕ(ij),j)2(\phi(ij),i),(\phi(ij),j)\in\mathbb{R}^{2} together with a straight vertical edge between them (red edges in Figure 4).

For each i{1,2,,t}i\in\{1,2,\dots,t\}, draw a straight horizontal edge between each pair of consecutive vertices along the y=iy=i line. Let G_0G_{\_}0 be the graph obtained. Let P_iP_{\_}i be the subgraph of G_0G_{\_}0 induced by the vertices on the y=iy=i line. Then P_iP_{\_}i is a path on t1t-1 vertices (green edges in Figure 4).

For each vertex vv in P_1P_tP_{\_}1\cup\dots\cup P_{\_}t add a ‘vertical’ edge from vv to a new vertex vv^{\prime} drawn with y-coordinate t+1t+1 (brown edges in Figure 4).

Refer to caption
Figure 4: The graph G_1G_{\_}1 in the proof of Proposition 20.

For i=1,2,,ti=1,2,\dots,t complete the following step. If two vertical edges ee and ff cross an edge gg in P_iP_{\_}i at points xx and yy respectively, and no other vertical edge crosses gg between xx and yy, then subdivide gg between xx and yy, introducing a new vertex vv, and add a new vertical edge from vv to a new vertex vv^{\prime} with y-coordinate t+1t+1 (red edges in Figure 4).

Finally, add a path P_t+1P_{\_}{t+1} through all the vertices with y-coordinate t+1t+1. We obtain a graph G_1G_{\_}1 and a drawing D_1D_{\_}1 of G_1G_{\_}1. Each crossing in D_1D_{\_}1 is between a vertical and a horizontal edge, and each horizontal edge is crossed by at most one edge. Thus X_D_1X_{\_}{D_{\_}1} is a star-forest.

By construction, no edge in P_t+1P_{\_}{t+1} is crossed in D_1D_{\_}1, and every vertex has a neighbour in P_t+1P_{\_}{t+1}. Thus contracting P_t+1P_{\_}{t+1} to a single vertex gives a graph GG with radius 1 and a drawing DD of GG in which X_DX_D_1X_{\_}{D}\cong X_{\_}{D_{\_}1}. Thus the graph GG is 1-degenerate crossing and 1-gap-planar. Finally, GG contains a K_t+1K_{\_}{t+1}-minor, obtained by contracting each horizontal path P_iP_{\_}i into a single vertex. ∎

5 Structural Properties of Circle Graphs

Recall that a circle graph is the intersection graph of a set of chords of a circle. More formally, let CC be a circle in 2\mathbb{R}^{2}. A chord of CC is a closed line segment with distinct endpoints on CC. Two chords of CC either cross, are disjoint, or have a common endpoint. Let SS be a set of chords of a circle CC such that no three chords in SS cross at a single point. Let GG be the crossing graph of SS. Then GG is called a circle graph. Note that a graph GG is a circle graph if and only if GX_DG\cong X_{\_}D for some circular drawing DD of a graph HH, and in fact one can take HH to be a matching.

We are now ready to prove Theorems 1 and 2. While the treewidth of circle graphs has previously been studied from an algorthmic perspective [47], to the best of our knowledge, these theorems are the first structural result on the treewidth of circle graphs.

See 1

Proof.

Let DD be a circular drawing of a graph such that GX_DG\cong X_{\_}D. Let M_DM_{\_}D be the map graph of DD. Since tw(X_D)=tw(G)12t+2\operatorname{tw}(X_{\_}D)=\operatorname{tw}(G)\geqslant 12t+2, it follows by Theorem 5 that M_DM_{\_}D has radius at least 2t2t. The claim then follows from Lemma 9. ∎

See 2

Proof.

Let GG be a circle graph and let DD be a circular drawing with GX_DG\cong X_{\_}D. By Lemma 12,

tw(G)6rad(M_D)+712h(G)1112tw(G)+1.\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant 6\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)+7\leqslant 12\,h(G)-11\leqslant 12\operatorname{tw}(G)+1.

So the Hadwiger number and treewidth are linearly tied for circle graphs. This inequality and Lemma 13 imply

h(G)1h(G)1tw(G)6rad(M_D)+76h(G)2+18h(G)+13.h^{\prime}(G)-1\leqslant h(G)-1\leqslant\operatorname{tw}(G)\leqslant 6\operatorname{rad}(M_{\_}D)+7\leqslant 6h^{\prime}(G)^{2}+18\,h^{\prime}(G)+13.

Hence the Hajós number is quadratically tied to both the treewidth and Hadwiger number for circle graphs. Finally, K_t,tK_{\_}{t,t} is a circle graph which has treewidth tt, Hadwiger number t+1t+1, and Hajós number Θ(t)\Theta(\sqrt{t}). Hence, ‘quadratic’ is best possible. ∎

We now discuss several noteworthy consequences of Theorems 2 and 1. Recently, there has been significant interest in understanding the unavoidable induced subgraphs of graphs with large treewidth [51, 8, 6, 7, 3, 4, 5, 62, 72, 2]. Obvious candidates of unavoidable induced subgraphs include complete graphs, complete bipartite graphs, subdivision of large walls, and line graphs of subdivision of large walls. We say that a hereditary class of graphs 𝒢\mathcal{G} is induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded if there is a function ff such that for every graph G𝒢G\in\mathcal{G} with tw(G)f(t)\operatorname{tw}(G)\geqslant f(t), GG contains K_tK_{\_}t, K_t,tK_{\_}{t,t}, a subdivision of the (t×t)(t\times t)-wall, or a line graph of a subdivision of the (t×t)(t\times t)-wall as an induced subgraph444This definition is motivated by analogy to χ\chi-boundedness; see [69]. Note that while the language of ‘induced tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded’ is original to this paper, Abrishami et al. [7] has previously used this definition under the guise of ‘special’ and Abrishami et al. [2] has used it under the guise of ‘clean’.. While the class of all graphs is not induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded [3, 72, 13, 63, 17], many natural graph classes are. For example, Aboulker et al. [1] showed that every proper minor-closed class is induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded and Korhonen [49] recently showed that the class of graphs with bounded maximum degree is induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded. We now show that the class of circle graphs is not induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded.

Theorem 21.

The class of circle graphs is not induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded.

Proof.

We first show that for all t50t\geqslant 50, no circle graph contains a subdivision of the (t×t)(t\times t)-wall or a line graph of a subdivision of the (t×t)(t\times t)-wall as an induced subgraph. As the class of circle graphs is hereditary, it suffices to show that for all t50t\geqslant 50, these two graphs are not circle graphs. These two graphs are planar (so K_5K_{\_}5-minor-free) and have treewidth t50t\geqslant 50. However, Lemma 12 implies that every K_5K_{\_}5-minor-free circle graph has treewidth at most 49, which is the required contradiction.

Now consider the family of couples of graphs ((G_t,X_t):t)((G_{\_}t,X_{\_}t)\colon t\in\mathbb{N}) given by Theorem 19 where X_tX_{\_}t is the crossing graph of the drawing of G_tG_{\_}t. Then (X_t:t)(X_{\_}t\colon t\in\mathbb{N}) is a family of circle graphs. Since (G_t:t)(G_{\_}t\colon t\in\mathbb{N}) has unbounded treewidth, Theorem 3 implies that (X_t:t)(X_{\_}t\colon t\in\mathbb{N}) also has unbounded treewidth. Moreover, since X_tX_{\_}t is 22-degenerate for all tt\in\mathbb{N}, it excludes K_4K_{\_}4 and K_3,3K_{\_}{3,3} as (induced) subgraphs, as required. ∎

While the class of circle graphs is not induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded, Theorem 1 describes the unavoidable induced subgraphs of circle graphs with large treewidth. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first theorem to describe the unavoidable induced subgraphs of a natural hereditary graph class that is not induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded. In fact, it does so with a linear lower bound on the treewidth of the unavoidable induced subgraphs.

Theorem 1 can also be used to describe the unavoidable induced subgraphs of circle graphs with large pathwidth.

Theorem 22.

There exists a function ff such that every circle graph GG with pw(G)f(t)\operatorname{pw}(G)\geqslant f(t) contains:

  • a subdivision of a complete binary tree with height tt as an induced subgraph, or

  • the line graph of a subdivision of a complete binary tree with height tt as an induced subgraph, or

  • an induced subgraph HH that consists of tt vertex-disjoint cycles (C_1,,C_t)(C_{\_}1,\dotsc,C_{\_}t) such that for all i<ji<j every vertex of C_iC_{\_}i has at least two neighbours in C_jC_{\_}j. Moreover, every vertex of GG has at most four neighbours in any C_iC_{\_}i (1it)(1\leqslant i\leqslant t).

Proof.

If tw(G)12t+2\operatorname{tw}(G)\geqslant 12t+2, then the claim follows from Theorem 1. Now assume tw(G)<12t+2\operatorname{tw}(G)<12t+2. Hickingbotham [40] showed that there is a function g(k,t)g(k,t) such that every graph with treewidth less than kk and pathwidth at least g(k,t)g(k,t) contains a subdivision of a complete binary tree with height tt as an induced subgraph or the line graph of a subdivision of a complete binary tree with height tt as an induced subgraph. The result follows with f(t)max{g(12t+2,t),12t+2}f(t)\coloneqq\max\{g(12t+2,t),12t+2\}. ∎

We now discuss applications of Theorem 1 to vertex-minor-closed classes. For a vertex vv of a graph GG, to locally complement at vv means to replace the induced subgraph on the neighbourhood of vv by its complement. A graph HH is a vertex-minor of a graph GG if HH can be obtained from GG by a sequence of vertex deletions and local complementations. Vertex-minors were first studied by Bouchet [14, 15] under the guise of isotropic systems. The name ‘vertex-minor’ is due to Oum [56]. Circle graphs are a key example of a vertex-minor-closed class.

We now show that a vertex-minor-closed graph class is induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded if and only if it has bounded rank-width. Rank-width is a graph parameter introduced by Oum and Seymour [58] that describes whether a graph can be decomposed into a tree-like structure by simple cuts. For a formal definition and surveys on this parameter, see [57, 42]. Oum [56] showed that rank-width is closed under vertex-minors.

Theorem 23.

A vertex-minor-closed class 𝒢\mathcal{G} is induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded if and only if it has bounded rankwidth.

Proof.

Suppose 𝒢\mathcal{G} has bounded rankwidth. By a result of Abrishami, Chudnovsky, Hajebi, and Spirkl [7], there is a function ff such that every graph in 𝒢\mathcal{G} with treewidth at least f(t)f(t) contains K_tK_{\_}t or K_t,tK_{\_}{t,t} as an induced subgraph. Thus 𝒢\mathcal{G} is induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded. Now suppose 𝒢\mathcal{G} has unbounded rank-width. By a result of Geelen, Kwon, McCarty, and Wollan [35], 𝒢\mathcal{G} contains all circle graphs. It therefore follows by Theorem 21 that 𝒢\mathcal{G} is not induced-tw\operatorname{tw}-bounded. ∎

We conclude with the following question:

Let 𝒢\mathcal{G} be a vertex-minor-closed class with unbounded rank-width. What are the unavoidable induced subgraphs of graphs in 𝒢\mathcal{G} with large treewidth?

The cycle structure (or variants thereof) in Theorem 1 must be included in the list of unavoidable induced subgraphs. The case when 𝒢\mathcal{G} excludes a large wall and a line graph of a large wall as vertex-minors is of particular interest.

Acknowledgements

This research was initiated at the Structural Graph Theory Downunder II program of the Mathematical Research Institute MATRIX (March 2022). Thanks to all the participants, especially Marc Distel, for helpful conversations.

References