Paper detail

Graph Treewidth and Geometric Thickness Parameters

Consider a drawing of a graph $G$ in the plane such that crossing edges are coloured differently. The minimum number of colours, taken over all drawings of $G$, is the classical graph parameter "thickness". By restricting the edges to be straight, we obtain the "geometric thickness". By further restricting the vertices to be in convex position, we obtain the "book thickness". This paper studies the relationship between these parameters and treewidth. Our first main result states that for graphs of treewidth $k$, the maximum thickness and the maximum geometric thickness both equal $\lceil{k/2}\rceil$. This says that the lower bound for thickness can be matched by an upper bound, even in the more restrictive geometric setting. Our second main result states that for graphs of treewidth $k$, the maximum book thickness equals $k$ if $k \leq 2$ and equals $k+1$ if $k \geq 3$. This refutes a conjecture of Ganley and Heath [Discrete Appl. Math. 109(3):215-221, 2001]. Analogous results are proved for outerthickness, arboricity, and star-arboricity.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.