Bounding the Treewidth of Outer $k$-Planar Graphs via Triangulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treewidth is a structural parameter that measures the tree-likeness of a graph. Many algorithmic and combinatorial results are expressed in terms of the treewidth. In this paper, we study the treewidth of outer $k$-planar graphs, that is, graphs that admit a straight-line drawing where all the vertices lie on a circle, and every edge is crossed by at most $k$ other edges. Wood and Telle [New York J. Math., 2007] showed that every outer $k$-planar graph has treewidth at most $3k + 11$ using so-called planar decompositions, and later, Auer et al. [Algorithmica, 2016] proved that the treewidth of outer $1$-planar graphs is at most $3$, which is tight. In this paper, we improve the general upper bound to $1.5k + 2$ and give a tight bound of $4$ for $k = 2$. We also establish a lower bound: we show that, for every even $k$, there is an outer $k$-planar graph with treewidth $k+2$. Our new bound immediately implies a better bound on the cop number, which answers an open question of Durocher et al. [GD 2023] in the affirmative. Our treewidth bound relies on a new and simple triangulation method for outer $k$-planar graphs that yields few crossings with graph edges per edge of the triangulation. Our method also enables us to obtain a tight upper bound of $k + 2$ for the separation number of outer $k$-planar graphs, improving an upper bound of $2k + 3$ by Chaplick et al. [GD 2017]. We also consider outer min-$k$-planar graphs, a generalization of outer $k$-planar graphs, where we achieve smaller improvements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".