Skip to main content

General Graph Layout : Putting the Parts Together

An essential tool for graph generation is surely the ability to draw graphs. There are, of course, many methods for doing so along with many implementations of them. This post describes one more (or perhaps an existing method - I haven't checked).

Firstly, lets divide a graph up into two parts; a) the blocks, also known as 'biconnected components', and b) trees connecting those blocks. This is illustrated in the following set of examples on 6 vertices:


Trees are circled in green, and blocks in red; the vertices in the overlap between two circles are articulation points. Since all trees are planar, a graph need only have planar blocks to be planar overall. The layout then just needs to do a tree layout on the tree bits and some other layout on the embedding of the blocks.

One slight wrinkle is shown by the last example in the image above. There are three parts - two blocks and a tree - just like the one to its left, but sharing a single articulation point. I had assumed (naively) that the blocks and trees were connected together in a kind of 'meta-tree' - which I called the part-tree. Actually, it is possible to have cycles in this part-graph :


This complicates things. Especially since it means the part-graphs themselves can have blocks and trees of their own! In any case, for a large proportion of graphs, this does not matter. Here are drawings for all the planar graphs on 6 vertices:


Where the only real problems remaining look to be for the block embedding/layout of graphs with large numbers of edges. These are the ones on the lower row - with some examples having line crossings.

Comments

Mbala said…
The benzene ring is listed twice in your chart. A potential bug?
gilleain said…
Well noticed! I'm reasonably sure that is due to a layout bug for the second benzene (or 6-cycle). The underlying set of graphs are non-redundant. Also, due to the way they were generated, the graphs are roughly in order of increasing number of edges, so the it wouldn't make sense for the second 6-cycle to be where it is in the list (increasing left-to-right, top-to-bottom).

Popular posts from this blog

Common Vertex Matrices of Graphs

There is an interesting set of papers out this year by Milan Randic et al (sorry about the accents - blogger seems to have a problem with accented 'c'...). I've looked at his work before here.

[1] Common vertex matrix: A novel characterization of molecular graphs by counting
[2] On the centrality of vertices of molecular graphs

and one still in publication to do with fullerenes. The central idea here (ho ho) is a graph descriptor a bit like path lengths called 'centrality'. Briefly, it is the count of neighbourhood intersections between pairs of vertices. Roughly this is illustrated here:


For the selected pair of vertices, the common vertices are those at the same distance from each - one at a distance of two and one at a distance of three. The matrix element for this pair will be the sum - 2 - and this is repeated for all pairs in the graph. Naturally, this is symmetric:


At the right of the matrix is the row sum (∑) which can be ordered to provide a graph invarian…

Generating Dungeons With BSP Trees or Sliceable Rectangles

So, I admit that the original reason for looking at sliceable rectangles was because of this gaming stackoverflow question about generating dungeon maps. The approach described there uses something called a binary split partition tree (BSP Tree) that's usually used in the context of 3D - notably in the rendering engine of the game Doom. Here is a BSP tree, as an example:



In the image, we have a sliced rectangle on the left, with the final rectangles labelled with letters (A-E) and the slices with numbers (1-4). The corresponding tree is on the right, with the slices as internal nodes labelled with 'h' for horizontal and 'v' for vertical. Naturally, only the leaves correspond to rectangles, and each internal node has two children - it's a binary tree.

So what is the connection between such trees and the sliceable dual graphs? Well, the rectangles are related in exactly the expected way:


Here, the same BSP tree is on the left (without some labels), and the slicea…

Signatures with user-defined edge colors

A bug in the CDK implementation of my signature library turned out to be due to the fact that the bond colors were hard coded to just recognise the labels {"-", "=", "#" }. The relevant code section even had an XXX above it!

Poor show, but it's finally fixed now. So that means I can handle user-defined edge colors/labels - consider the complete graph (K5) below:

So the red/blue colors here are simply those of a chessboard imposed on top of the adjacency matrix - shown here on the right. You might expect there to be at least two vertex signature classes here : {0, 2, 4} and {1, 3} where the first class has vertices with two blue and two red edges, and the second has three blue and two red.

Indeed, here's what happens for K4 to K7:

Clearly even-numbered complete graphs have just one vertex class, while odd-numbered ones have two (at least?). There is a similar situation for complete bipartite graphs:

Although I haven't explored any more of these…