Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Flipping Non-Crossing Spanning Trees

Håvard Bakke Bjerkevik, Linda Kleist, Torsten Ueckerdt, Birgit Vogtenhuber

Abstract

For a set $P$ of $n$ points in general position in the plane, the flip graph $F(P)$ has a vertex for each non-crossing spanning tree on $P$ and an edge between any two spanning trees that can be transformed into each other by one edge flip. The diameter ${\rm diam}(F(P))$ of this graph is subject of intensive study. For points in general position, it is between $3n/2-5$ and $2n-4$, with no improvement for 25 years. For points in convex position, it lies between $3n/2 - 5$ and $\approx1.95n$, where the lower bound was conjectured to be tight up to an additive constant and the upper bound is a recent breakthrough improvement over several bounds of the form $2n-o(n)$. In this work, we provide new upper and lower bounds on ${\rm diam}(F(P))$, mainly focusing on points in convex position. We show $14n/9 - O(1) \le {\rm diam}(F(P)) \le 5n/3 - 3$, by this disproving the conjectured upper bound of $3n/2$ for convex position, and relevantly improving both the long-standing lower bound for general position and the recent new upper bound for convex position. We complement these by showing that if one of $T,T'$ has at most two boundary edges, then ${\rm dist}(T,T') \le 2d/2 < 3n/2$, where $d = |T-T'|$ is the number of edges in one tree that are not in the other. To prove both the upper and the lower bound, we introduce a new powerful tool. Specifically, we convert the flip distance problem for given $T,T'$ to the problem of a largest acyclic subset in an associated conflict graph $H(T,T')$. In fact, this method is powerful enough to give an equivalent formulation of the diameter of $F(P)$ for points $P$ in convex position up to lower-order terms. As such, conflict graphs are likely the key to a complete resolution of this and possibly also other reconfiguration problems.

Flipping Non-Crossing Spanning Trees

Abstract

For a set of points in general position in the plane, the flip graph has a vertex for each non-crossing spanning tree on and an edge between any two spanning trees that can be transformed into each other by one edge flip. The diameter of this graph is subject of intensive study. For points in general position, it is between and , with no improvement for 25 years. For points in convex position, it lies between and , where the lower bound was conjectured to be tight up to an additive constant and the upper bound is a recent breakthrough improvement over several bounds of the form . In this work, we provide new upper and lower bounds on , mainly focusing on points in convex position. We show , by this disproving the conjectured upper bound of for convex position, and relevantly improving both the long-standing lower bound for general position and the recent new upper bound for convex position. We complement these by showing that if one of has at most two boundary edges, then , where is the number of edges in one tree that are not in the other. To prove both the upper and the lower bound, we introduce a new powerful tool. Specifically, we convert the flip distance problem for given to the problem of a largest acyclic subset in an associated conflict graph . In fact, this method is powerful enough to give an equivalent formulation of the diameter of for points in convex position up to lower-order terms. As such, conflict graphs are likely the key to a complete resolution of this and possibly also other reconfiguration problems.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 7 sections, 5 theorems, 1 equation, 1 figure.

Key Result

Theorem 2

For any set $P$ of $n \geq 3$ points in convex position, the flip graph $\mathcal{F}(P)$ of non-crossing spanning trees on $P$ has diameter at most $5/3 \cdot n - 3$. That is, $\operatorname{diam}(\mathcal{F}_n) \leq 5/3 \cdot n - 3$.

Figures (1)

  • Figure 1: Some non-crossing trees on a point set in convex position.

Theorems & Definitions (6)

  • Conjecture 1: Bousquet et al. bousquet2023noteJOURNAL
  • Theorem 2
  • Theorem 3
  • Theorem 4
  • Theorem 5
  • Theorem 6