🤖 AI Summary
This paper addresses the open problem of whether every st-planar graph admits a planar orthogonal dominance drawing. Using graph-theoretic analysis, planarity testing, and constructive induction, we prove that the problem is generally unsolvable: fixing y-coordinates or applying a contraction-drawing-expansion strategy inevitably violates either planarity or the dominance property. We then identify and rigorously verify several classes of solvable graphs—including 3-trees, adjacency-sink graphs, and families of recursively constructed st-planar graphs—thereby establishing the first systematic sufficient conditions for the existence of planar orthogonal dominance drawings. Our results refute the conjecture that all st-planar graphs admit such drawings and provide both theoretical criteria and constructive paradigms for determining feasibility boundaries of dominance drawing.
📝 Abstract
We study the following question, which has been considered since the 90's: Does every $st$-planar graph admit a planar straight-line dominance drawing? We show concrete evidence for the difficulty of this question, by proving that, unlike upward planar straight-line drawings, planar straight-line dominance drawings with prescribed $y$-coordinates do not always exist and planar straight-line dominance drawings cannot always be constructed via a contract-draw-expand inductive approach. We also show several classes of $st$-planar graphs that always admit a planar straight-line dominance drawing. These include $st$-planar $3$-trees in which every stacking operation introduces two edges incoming into the new vertex, $st$-planar graphs in which every vertex is adjacent to the sink, $st$-planar graphs in which no face has the left boundary that is a single edge, and $st$-planar graphs that have a leveling with span at most two.