Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Edge-Removal and Non-Crossing Perfect Matchings

Aviv Sheyn, Ran J. Tessler

TL;DR

This work analyzes how many edges can be removed from a complete geometric graph on $2n$ points while still guaranteeing a non-crossing perfect matching. It proves a tight upper bound of $h(G)=2n-2$ in general, and shows that when the hull boundary contains at most $n+1$ points one can remove $n$ edges and preserve a matching, using structural lemmas and induction. In the random setting, the authors demonstrate that with high probability one can remove $n+\Theta(n/\log n)$ edges and still retain a non-crossing perfect matching, by decomposing the plane into convex regions and applying convex-set probabilistic bounds. The methods combine obstruction-structure analysis (trees with hull-boundary vertices), Ham Sandwich partitions, and random convex-set theory to derive sharp thresholds for edge-removal robustness of non-crossing matchings, with implications for geometric computation and probabilistic geometry.

Abstract

We study the following problem - How many arbitrary edges can be removed from a complete geometric graph with 2n vertices such that the resulting graph always contains a perfect non-crossing matching? We first address the case where the boundary of the convex hull of the original graph contains at most $n + 1$ points. In this case we show that n edges can be removed, one more than the general case. In the second part we establish a lower bound for the case where the $2n$ points are randomly chosen. We prove that with probability which tends to 1, one can remove any $n + Θ(n/log (n))$ edges but the residual graph will still contain a non-crossing perfect matching. We also discuss the upper bound for the number of arbitrary edges one must remove in order to eliminate all the non-crossing perfect matchings.

Edge-Removal and Non-Crossing Perfect Matchings

TL;DR

This work analyzes how many edges can be removed from a complete geometric graph on points while still guaranteeing a non-crossing perfect matching. It proves a tight upper bound of in general, and shows that when the hull boundary contains at most points one can remove edges and preserve a matching, using structural lemmas and induction. In the random setting, the authors demonstrate that with high probability one can remove edges and still retain a non-crossing perfect matching, by decomposing the plane into convex regions and applying convex-set probabilistic bounds. The methods combine obstruction-structure analysis (trees with hull-boundary vertices), Ham Sandwich partitions, and random convex-set theory to derive sharp thresholds for edge-removal robustness of non-crossing matchings, with implications for geometric computation and probabilistic geometry.

Abstract

We study the following problem - How many arbitrary edges can be removed from a complete geometric graph with 2n vertices such that the resulting graph always contains a perfect non-crossing matching? We first address the case where the boundary of the convex hull of the original graph contains at most points. In this case we show that n edges can be removed, one more than the general case. In the second part we establish a lower bound for the case where the points are randomly chosen. We prove that with probability which tends to 1, one can remove any edges but the residual graph will still contain a non-crossing perfect matching. We also discuss the upper bound for the number of arbitrary edges one must remove in order to eliminate all the non-crossing perfect matchings.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 8 sections, 14 theorems, 13 equations, 2 figures.

Key Result

Theorem 1.6

$[Ham ~ Sandwich]$ Let $X$ and $Y$ be two sets of red and blue points, respectively, in general position in the plane. There exists a line $l$ such that $|X \cap{\emph{r}(l)}|=|X \cap{\emph{l}(l)}|$ and $|Y \cap{\emph{r}(l)}|=|Y \cap{\emph{l}(l)}|$. Moreover, if either $|X|$ or $|Y|$ is even, we may

Figures (2)

  • Figure :
  • Figure :

Theorems & Definitions (48)

  • Definition 1.1
  • Definition 1.2
  • Definition 1.4
  • Theorem 1.6
  • Theorem 1.7
  • Theorem 2.1
  • proof
  • Remark 2.2
  • Theorem 2.3
  • Remark 2.4
  • ...and 38 more