Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Preliminaries 3 Complete Bipartite Graphs 4 Graphs with Constrained Short or Long Subgraphs 5 Pandichotomic Dimension and Degeneracy 6 Conclusion References

Geometric Realizations of Dichotomous Ordinal Graphs

Patrizio Angelini ORCID John Cabot University, Rome, Italy Sabine Cornelsen ORCID University of Konstanz, Germany Carolina Haase ORCID Trier University, Germany Michael Hoffmann ORCID Department of Computer Science, ETH Zürich, Switzerland Eleni Katsanou ORCID National Technical University of Athens, Greece Fabrizio Montecchiani ORCID University of Perugia, Italy Raphael Steiner ORCID ETH Zürich, Switzerland Antonios Symvonis ORCID National Technical University of Athens, Greece
Abstract

A dichotomous ordinal graph consists of an undirected graph with a partition of the edges into short and long edges. A geometric realization of a dichotomous ordinal graph G in a metric space X is a drawing of G in X in which every long edge is strictly longer than every short edge. We call a graph G pandichotomous in X if G admits a geometric realization in X for every partition of its edge set into short and long edges.

We exhibit a very close relationship between the degeneracy of a graph G and its pandichotomic Euclidean or spherical dimension, that is, the smallest dimension k such that G is pandichotomous in k or the sphere 𝒮k, respectively. First, every d-degenerate graph is pandichotomous in d and 𝒮d1 and these bounds are tight for the sphere and for 2 and almost tight for d, for d3. Second, every n-vertex graph that is pandichotomous in k has at most μkn edges, for some absolute constant μ<7.23. This shows that the pandichotomic Euclidean dimension of any graph is linearly tied to its degeneracy and in the special case k{1,2} resolves open problems posed by Alam, Kobourov, Pupyrev, and Toeniskoetter.

Further, we characterize which complete bipartite graphs are pandichotomous in 2: These are exactly the Km,n with m3 or m=4 and n6. For general bipartite graphs, we can guarantee realizations in 2 if the short or the long subgraph is constrained: namely if the short subgraph is outerplanar or a subgraph of a rectangular grid, or if the long subgraph forms a caterpillar.

Keywords and phrases:
Ordinal embeddings, geometric graphs, graph representations
Copyright and License:
[Uncaptioned image] © Patrizio Angelini, Sabine Cornelsen, Carolina Haase, Michael Hoffmann, Eleni Katsanou,
Fabrizio Montecchiani, Raphael Steiner, and Antonios Symvonis; licensed under Creative Commons License CC-BY 4.0
2012 ACM Subject Classification:
Mathematics of computing Combinatorics
; Mathematics of computing Graph theory ; Human-centered computing Graph drawings
Related Version:
Full Version: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.07361
Acknowledgements:
This work was initiated at the Annual Workshop on Graph and Network Visualization (GNV 2023), Chania, Greece, June 2023.
Editors:
Oswin Aichholzer and Haitao Wang

1 Introduction

For an ordinal embedding, we are given a set of objects x1,,xn in an abstract space, together with a set of ordinal constraints of the form dist(xi,xj)<dist(xk,x). The objective is to compute a set of points p1,,pn in a metric space while preserving as many ordinal constraints as possible. Ordinal embeddings were first studied in the 1960’s by Shepard [20, 21] and Kruskal [13, 14] in the context of psychometric data analysis. Recently, there have been applications in the field of Machine Learning [23]. The computation of ordinal embeddings is also known in the literature as non-metric multi-dimensional scaling. For an extensive literature review on ordinal embeddings refer to [24].

Of particular interest in relation to our work is the application of ordinal embeddings to the problem of recognizing multidimensional preferences [5, 7, 19] in the field of Computational Social Science. The objects are either voters or options, which, together with the ordinal constraints (i.e., the voters’ preferences), naturally define a bipartite graph. However, the goal is to find an embedding in d where all constraints are satisfied rather than to seek for an approximation. Efficient algorithms exist when d=1 [6, 7], while for any d2 the problem is as hard as the existential theory of the reals [19]. In the simplest case, the preferences form a dichotomy, that is, a voter may either support or reject an option [9, 19].

This setting is naturally modeled as a dichotomous ordinal graph, which consists of an undirected graph G=(V,EsE) together with a partition of the edges into a set Es of short edges and a set E of long edges. A geometric realization of a dichotomous ordinal graph G is a drawing Γ of G in some metric space along with a threshold δ>0 such that the short edges of G are exactly those that have length at most δ in Γ. In this work we consider two natural classes of drawings in which edges are drawn as geometrically shortest paths: (1) straight-line drawings in the Euclidean space d and (2) geodesic drawings on the sphere 𝒮d. Figure 1 shows two straight-line drawings of the same dichotomous ordinal graph in 2. The drawing in (a) is a valid geometric realization, whereas the drawing in (b) is not.

A dichotomous ordinal graph may or may not be realizable in any particular space. For instance, it is easy to see that K4 where the short edges induce a star cannot be realized in 1. In general, it is NP-hard to decide whether a dichotomous ordinal graph admits a geometric realization in 2, even if the underlying graph is a complete graph and the short edges induce a planar graph [3, Lemma 1]. According to Peters [19, Theorem 4] the problem is -complete for bipartite graphs.111But even the full version of the paper [18] does not contain an explicit proof but only refers to the work of Kang and Müller [12, Theorem 1]. The graph constructed in this proof is not bipartite. While it is plausible that the construction could be adapted, it does not seem immediately obvious to us.

(a) valid drawing of uvw.
(b) invalid drawing of uvw.
Figure 1: A dichotomous ordinal triangle. Short edges are shown blue/solid, long edges red/dashed.

In light of the motivation, it is desirable that a geometric realization always exists, no matter the preferences of the voters. We call a graph G=(V,E) pandichotomous in a metric space X if G admits a geometric realization in X for every partition of E into short and long edges. Graphs that are pandichotomous in 1 are also called total-threshold-colorable [1, 2] or total weak unit interval graphs [3]. Angelini, Bekos, Gronemann, and Symvonis [4] exhibited some graph classes that are pandichotomous in 2, such as double-wheels (a cycle and two additional vertices connected to all vertices of the cycle), 2-degenerate graphs (can be reduced to the empty graph by repeatedly removing a vertex of degree at most two), and subcubic graphs (vertex degree at most three). On the negative side, there exists a dichotomous ordinal graph G whose underlying graph can be obtained from a double-wheel by adding a single edge such that G does not admit a geometric realization in 2 [4]. Clearly, being pandichotomous is a monotone graph property, that is, if a graph G is pandichotomous in X, then so is every subgraph of G. For X=d, being pandichotomous is also closed under taking disjoint unions, but for X=𝒮d this is not immediate.

A related question is the existence of a realization of a graph as a unit disk graph, where vertices are represented by unit disks, and they are connected by an edge if and only if the corresponding disks intersect. More generally, the sphericity [10, 15] of a graph G is the smallest d such that G can be realized as an intersection graph of unit balls in d. The main difference between geometric realizations of dichotomous ordinal graphs and unit ball realizations lies in the different types of edges. In a unit disk realization there are only two types: edge and non-edge, and all of them have to be faithfully represented. In a geometric realization of dichotomous ordinal graphs there are three types of edges: long, short, and non-edges, and we have no constraints concerning the last type. Therefore, only upper bounds on the sphericity carry over to the dichotomous setting. Since every graph on n vertices has sphericity at most n [15], every graph on n vertices is also pandichotomous in n. So for every finite graph G we can define its pandichotomic Euclidean dimension ped(G) to be the smallest dimension d such that G is pandichotomous in d. Analogously, we define the pandichotomic spherical dimension psd(G). Trivially, ped(G)psd(G)+1.

Results.

In this paper, we initiate the study of the pandichotomic dimension of graphs, with a focus on the bipartite case. In Section 3, we characterize the complete bipartite graphs that are pandichotomous in 2. Specifically, we show that Km,n is pandichotomous in 2 if and only if either (1) m3 or (2) m=4 and n6.

A dichotomous ordinal graph has two natural induced subgraphs: The short subgraph, induced by the short edges, and the long subgraph, induced by the long edges. In Section 4, we show that if either of these subgraphs is sufficiently constrained, then a realization in 2 always exists. Specifically, this is the case if (1) the graph is bipartite and the short subgraph is outerplanar (Theorem 8); (2) the short subgraph forms a subgraph of a rectangular grid (Theorem 9); or (3) the long subgraph forms a caterpillar (Theorem 10). In (1) and (2), we can also ensure that the short subgraph is realized without edge crossings. However, there are bipartite dichotomous ordinal graphs that do not admit a geometric realization in 2, even though the short subgraph is planar (see, e.g., Lemma 6).

In Section 5, we study the pandichotomic Euclidean dimension and show that it is very closely related to the degeneracy. A graph is k-degenerate if it can be constructed starting from the empty graph by iteratively applying the following operation: Add a new vertex and make it adjacent to at most k existing vertices. The degeneracy d(G) of a graph G is the smallest k such that G is k-degenerate.

We show that all d-degenerate graphs are pandichotomous on 𝒮d1 and in d, for d2 (Theorem 11). In particular, it follows that all bipartite planar graphs are pandichotomous on 𝒮2 and in 3 (Corollary 12). Our bounds imply ped(G)d(G) and psd(G)d(G)1, for every graph G with d(G)2. We also show that these bounds are tight for the sphere (Corollary 14) and for 2 (Theorem 15) and almost tight for d, for d3 (Theorem 13).

We also show that every n-vertex graph that is pandichotomous in d has at most μdn edges, for some constant μ<7.23 (Theorem 16), and this bound is optimal up to the value of μ. In the special cases d{1,2}, this affirmatively answers two open problems posed explicitly by Alam, Kobourov, Pupyrev, and Toeniskoetter [3]. Consequently, d(G)/(2μ)ped(G)d(G) and d(G)/(2μ)1psd(G)d(G)1, for every graph G (Corollary 19). In other words, the pandichotomic Euclidean and spherical dimensions are linearly tied to the degeneracy. As a direct consequence of these bounds (Corollary 20), we determine up to a constant factor the smallest dimension d for which every n-vertex (bipartite) dichotomous ordinal graph is realizable in d (or 𝒮d1).

2 Preliminaries

For two points p,qd we denote by pq the Euclidean distance between p and q. For a point cd and a positive real number r, the ball B(c,r) of radius r around c is the set {pd:pcr} of all points that have Euclidean distance at most r to c. For a set Ad we denote by A the boundary of A. The boundary of B(c,r) is formed by the sphere S(c,r)={pd:pc=r}. A unit ball or sphere has a radius of r=1. The geodesic distance dγ(p,q)[0,2π] between two points p,q𝒮d is determined by the central angle of a shortest great circle arc between p and q.

Given a finite set X of geometric objects, such as hyperplanes or spheres, in d, the arrangement 𝒜(X) of X is the partition of d induced by X into so-called cells of various dimension. The maximal connected open subsets of dRXR are the d-cells of 𝒜(X). And every relatively open k-dimensional intersection of two or more d-cells forms a k-cell of 𝒜(X). The d-cells are also called full-dimensional cells or even just cells of 𝒜(X). The 0-cells and 1-cells are also called vertices and edges of 𝒜(X), respectively.

For geometric realizations of dichotomous ordinal graphs in d we may fix a global scale and assume without loss of generality a threshold of δ=1. Furthermore, as we consider finite graphs only, we may assume that no two vertices have distance exactly one.

Observation 1.

If a dichotomous ordinal graph admits a geometric realization in d, then it admits a realization in d where no two vertices have distance exactly one.

In contrast, such a global rescaling does not work in general for geometric realizations on 𝒮d. If the short subgraph of a dichotomous ordinal graph has several connected components, then we can draw these components mutually far apart. This yields the following.

Observation 2.

A dichotomous ordinal graph admits a geometric realization in d if and only if each subgraph induced by a connected component of its short subgraph does.

3 Complete Bipartite Graphs

In this section, we prove the following theorem. The proof is split into Lemmas 4, 6, and 7, in combination with the fact that being pandichotomous is a monotone graph property.

Theorem 3.

The complete bipartite graph Km,n is pandichotomous in 2 if and only if either (1) m3 or (2) m=4 and n6.

A convenient way to reason about geometric realizations for bipartite graphs is in terms of arrangements of spheres. Consider a bipartite dichotomous ordinal graph G=(UW,E) and suppose that the vertices of U are already drawn as points in d. Then, to obtain a geometric realization for G the task is to place each wW such that for each uU with uwE we have wB(u,1) if and only if the edge uw is short; see Figure 2.

(a) K3,m
(b) K4,m all pairs
(c) K4,m all triples
(d) arbitrary radii
Figure 2: Arrangements of circles to represent one color class of a bipartite graph in 2.

Let U={u1,,un}, let Di=B(ui,1), let Ci=Di, and let 𝒞 denote the arrangement of C1,,Cn. To every vertex wW we associate a set V(w)U such that uV(w) if and only if uw is a short edge in G. We refer to V(w) as a singleton, a pair, or a triple if |V(w)|=1, 2, or 3, respectively. A subset XU is realized by a drawing of U if there is a cell r in 𝒞 such that rDi if and only if uiX. Then G admits a geometric realization if and only if there exists a drawing of U where V(w) is realized, for all wW.

Lemma 4.

The complete bipartite graph K3,m is pandichotomous in 2, for all m. The complete bipartite graph K4,m is pandichotomous in 2, for all 1m6.

Proof.

For K3,m we can draw U={u1,u2,u3} so that all eight subsets of U are realized; see Figure 2. Therefore, any dichotomous ordinal K3,m admits a geometric realization. For |U|4 such a universal placement is not possible because an arrangement of n circles has at most n(n1)+2 cells [22]. So an arrangement of four circles has at most 14 cells, whereas a four-element set has 16 subsets. However, for |U|=4 and |W|6 we can always obtain a geometric realization as follows. Let V(W)={V(w):wW}2U.

If there are at least three pairs in V(W), then, given that |V(W)||W|6, the number of triples plus the number of singletons in V(W) together is at most three. Thus, as |U|=4, there exists a vertex uU such that {u}V(W) and U{u}V(W). So we can use the drawing depicted in Figure 2, where we assign u to the central disk. As all subsets of U other than {u} and U{u} are realized, this is a valid geometric realization of G.

Otherwise, there are at most two pairs in V(W). We use the drawing depicted in Figure 2, where we assign the vertices of U to the disks so that both pairs in V(W) appear consecutively in the circular order of disks. (This works regardless of whether or not these pairs share a vertex.) As all subsets of U other than the two pairs that correspond to opposite circles in the drawing are realized, this is a valid geometric realization of G.

The following elementary lemma about unit disks turns out helpful.

Lemma 5.

Let D,E be unit disks in 2, let c be a chord of D, and let A be a closed part of D bounded by c and D whose interior A does not contain the center of D. Then cEAE.

Lemma 6.

There exists a dichotomous ordinal K4,7 that is not realizable in 2.

Proof Sketch.

Let U={u1,u2,u3,u4} and W={w1,,w7} denote the vertex partition. For each wi, we can specify an associated set UiU (such that exactly the edges between wi and Ui are short; see Figure 3). We choose all four subsets of size three and the three subsets of size two that contain u4, and distribute them among the vertices of W arbitrarily. In any geometric representation, each set Ui corresponds to a cell in the induced arrangement 𝒞 of unit circles. Two more cells are required implicitly: The outer cell, which corresponds to U, and a cell that corresponds to the whole set U and is required by Helly’s Theorem [11] because disks are convex and we specified all triples to be among the sets Ui. Using these properties of 𝒞 we can show that it cannot be realized using unit circles. It is crucial that the circles must have the same radius: If arbitrary radii are allowed, then a geometric realization exists (Figure 2).

Lemma 7.

There exists a dichotomous ordinal K5,5 that is not realizable in 2.

Proof.

First we specify a dichotomous ordinal K5,5, see Figure 3 for an illustration.

(a) short edges of K4,7
(b) short edges of K5,5
Figure 3: A dichotomous ordinal K4,7 and K5,5, respectively, that does not admit a geometric realization. The drawn edges are the short edges. Edges between vertices labeled u on one hand and w on the other hand, that are not drawn, are long.

Let U={u1,u2,u3,u4,u5} and W={w1,w2,w3,w4,w5} denote the partition of the vertex set. To each wiW, for 1i5, we associate a set α(wi)U as follows:

α(wi)={ui,ui1,u5},for 1i4, and α(w5)=U{u5},

where i1=(imod 4)+1. Now consider an arbitrary but fixed geometric realization of this dichotomous ordinal K5,5. In a slight abuse of notation we identify the vertices with the corresponding points in the geometric realization. Denote by Di the unit disk centered at ui, which represents the region of points that are in short distance to ui. Let W={w1,w2,w3,w4}. As WD5, whereas w5D5, by convexity of D5 all points of W lie in an open halfplane through w5. Let ϕ1,ϕ2,ϕ3,ϕ4 denote the counterclockwise order of the points from W around w5 within this halfplane. By symmetry of W we may assume that ϕ1=w1 without loss of generality. We consider two cases.

Case 1: The set 𝜶(ϕ𝟒) contains one of 𝒖𝟏 or 𝒖𝟐.

Then by symmetry between u1 and u2 we may assume without loss of generality that ϕ4=w4. See Figure 4 (left) for illustration. By convexity of D1, the triangle =w1w4w5=ϕ1ϕ4w5 is contained in D1. As w2,w3D1, we have ϕ2,ϕ3. As w2,w3,w5D3 but w1,w4D3, the circle D3 crosses the line segment w1w4 twice in D5, and it also crosses both of the line segments ϕ1ϕ2 and ϕ3ϕ4. Similarly, as D1 but w2,w3D1, the circle D1 crosses both line segments w5w2 and w5w3, and it also crosses both of the line segments ϕ1ϕ2 and ϕ3ϕ4. Let c denote the chord of D3 induced by ϕ1ϕ4. As D1c, by Lemma 5 we know that D1 contains the part A of D3 on the side of c that does not contain the center of D3. This is the part that contains w5 because the other part contains ϕ2,ϕ3D1. Similarly, as D5c, by Lemma 5 it follows that also D5A, which is a contradiction to w5D5. Thus, this case is impossible.

Figure 4: The two cases in the proof of Lemma 7.

Case 2: The set 𝜶(ϕ𝟒) does not contain any of 𝒖𝟏 or 𝒖𝟐.

Then we have ϕ4=w3 and both |α(ϕ1)α(ϕ3)|=1 and |α(ϕ2)α(ϕ4)|=1. By symmetry we may assume without loss of generality that ϕ2=w2 and ϕ3=w4. See Figure 4 (right) for illustration. Consider the two disks D1 and D3. They both contain w5, and so the corresponding circles D1 and D3 intersect all of the rays w5ϕi, for 1i4. As ϕ1,ϕ3D1D3 and ϕ2,ϕ4D3D1, the rays w5ϕ1 and w5ϕ3 intersect D1 before D3, whereas the rays w5ϕ2 and w5ϕ4 intersect D3 before D1. But then D1 and D3 cross in each of the cones ϕiw5ϕi+1, for 1i3, which is impossible, since any two distinct circles intersect in at most two points.

As we arrived at a contradiction in both cases, we conclude that no geometric realization of this dichotomous ordinal K5,5 exists. If, however, we allow disks with arbitrary radii, then a geometric realization exists, as depicted in Figure 5.

Figure 5: A realization of the dichotomous ordinal K5,5 from Lemma 7 by disks of arbitrary radii.

4 Graphs with Constrained Short or Long Subgraphs

We show that every bipartite dichotomous ordinal graph admits a geometric realization if the short subgraph Gs is outerplanar or a subgraph of the rectangular grid or if the long subgraph G is a caterpillar. In the first case, we construct a plane drawing of Gs in which the BFS-layers are drawn on horizontal lines (Figure 7). In the second case, we suitably perturb the grid (Figure 6). And in the third case, we suitably place points on 𝒮2.

Theorem 8.

A bipartite dichotomous ordinal graph admits a geometric realization if the subgraph induced by the short edges is outerplanar.

Proof Sketch.

Let G=(V,EsE) be a bipartite dichotomous ordinal graph such that Gs=(V,Es) is outerplanar. By Observation 2, we may assume that Gs is connected. We root Gs at an arbitrary vertex r. Let Vk, k=0,, be the BFS layers of Gs rooted at r, i.e., V0={r}, V1 is the set of neighbors of r, and Vk+1, k1 is the set of neighbors of the vertices in Vk that are not already in Vk1. We say that w is a child of v and v is a parent of w if vw is an edge of Gs, vVk and wVk+1 for some k. By outerplanarity, each vertex has at most two parents. We construct a planar drawing of Gs with the following properties.

  • The root r is drawn with y-coordinate y0=0. All vertices in layer Vk, k>0 are on a horizontal line k with y-coordinate yk strictly between k1 and k.

  • The distance between a vertex and its children is at most 1 while the distance between two vertices on consecutive layers is greater than 1 if they are not adjacent in Gs.

  • For each vertex v there is a vertical strip Sv such that

    • v is in Sv,

    • Sw is contained in the union of the strips of w’s parents,

    • Su and Sv are internally disjoint if u and v are on the same layer.

Special care has to be taken if a vertex wVk+1 has two parents u and v, i.e., if w closes an internal face. In that case, we want to draw w on line k+1, on the common boundary of Su and Sv, and with distance exactly one to both u and v.

Theorem 9.

A dichotomous ordinal graph G=(V,EsE) admits a geometric realization if the set of short edges induces a subgraph of the grid.

Proof Sketch.

Extend Gs=(V,Es) by the remaining grid edges and require the new edges to be long. Use the construction in Figure 6 to place the vertices. Then the short edges are shorter than n2+1/2, while the long edges have length at least n2+1. Scale the drawing.

Figure 6: For each grid point (i,j), 1in, 1jn there are four possible points. If i>1, the x-coordinate is in2 if the edge between (i1,j) and (i,j) is short and in2+i otherwise. If j>1, the y-coordinate is jn2 if the edge between (i,j1) and (i,j) is short and jn2+j otherwise.
(a) construction for a tree
(b) geometric realization when Gs is the graph in (c)
(c) bipartite outerplanar graph
Figure 7: How to construct a geometric realization of a bipartite dichotomous ordinal graph if the short edges induce an outerplanar graph.
Theorem 10.

A dichotomous ordinal graph admits a geometric realization in 2 and on 𝒮2 if each component of the long subgraph forms a caterpillar.

Proof Sketch..

We draw the vertices on a circle C of radius 12+ϵ, for some small ϵ>0. For each point pC there is a region R(p)C around its antipodal point p¯ such that for a point qC we have pq>1qR(p). We draw the vertices v1,,vk on the spine such that for i=1,,k1 the vertex vi+1 lies at the counterclockwise boundary of R(vi). Then we place the leaves (if any) attached to vi within a very short arc around the point vi close to vi¯. More precisely, we obtain vi by shifting vi¯ counterclockwise along C by a small angle that monotonically increases with i. In this way, we ensure that the leaves of vi are far from vi but close to the leaves of the neighbors of vi along the spine.

5 Pandichotomic Dimension and Degeneracy

In this section, we exhibit a strong connection between the degeneracy of a graph and its pandichotomic dimension. Among others, we show that the pandichotomic dimension is bounded both from above and from below by a linear function of the degeneracy, and we give bounds on the coefficients in these linear functions.

Theorem 11.

Every d-degenerate graph, for d2, is pandichotomous on 𝒮d1 and in d.

Proof.

Let G be a d-degenerate dichotomous ordinal graph, for d2, and let u1,,un be a vertex ordering such that ui has at most d neighbors in {u1,,ui1}, for 1in. To obtain a geometric realization of G we place the vertices on the sphere S={pd:p=2/2} such that for every d-tuple of vertices the corresponding vectors are linearly independent. For a vertex pS denote by vp the corresponding vector; the points in distance less than one to p on S form a hemisphere, which consists of all points qS such that vpvq>0, where vpvq denotes the scalar product between vp and vq.

We place the vertices u1,,un in this order. The first vertex u1 is placed arbitrarily on S. Then for each ui, for 2in, we have a set Q={q1,,qt}S of points, which correspond to the td neighbors of ui in u1,,ui1. Further, for each point in Q we know whether it should be close to or far from ui. Now we need to find a suitable point on S that satisfies these constraints. We obtain the set Q={q1,,qt} from Q by setting qj=qj, if qj should be close to ui and setting qj to the point antipodal to qj on S if qj should be far from ui. As Q is linearly independent, so is Q. Furthermore, the linear system vqjx=1, for 1jt, has a (unique) solution x0. Normalizing x0 we obtain a point rS, such that vrvqj>0, for all 1jt. Thus, we can place ui at r such that all constraints with respect to Q are satisfied. The points on S that lie in a k-dimensional subspace spanned by k vertices, for k<d, can easily be avoided when selecting r. In this way we ensure that for all d-tuples of vertices on S the corresponding vectors are linearly independent. This realization also works for geodesic distances on 𝒮d1 if we take an arc with angle π/2 as a unit.

Corollary 12.

Every bipartite planar graph is pandichotomous on 𝒮2 and in 3.

Proof.

Let G=(V,E) be a planar bipartite graph on n vertices. As a consequence of Euler’s formula, we have |E|2n4. By the handshaking lemma vVdeg(v)=2|E|4n8 and, thus, the average degree in G is strictly less than 4. Consequently, every planar bipartite graph is 3-degenerate, and the statement follows by Theorem 11.

We contrast the upper bound on the pandichotomic dimension in terms of the degeneracy provided by Theorem 11 by an almost matching lower bound in the Euclidean (Theorem 13) and a matching lower bound in the spherical case (Corollary 14), even for bipartite graphs. Note that every lower bound example is not just sporadic but spans an infinite family of examples, given that being pandichotomous is a monotone graph property.

Theorem 13.

For every d2, there exists a (d+2)-degenerate bipartite graph that is not pandichotomous in d.

Proof.

We build a graph G=(V,E) starting with a set V0 of d+2 isolated vertices. Then for each of the 2d+2 many choices of assigning short or long to the vertices of V0 we add a new vertex and connect it by edges to V0 accordingly. Observe that G is bipartite and (d+2)-degenerate by construction. Consider a geometric realization of G and the corresponding arrangement 𝒜 of the d+2 unit spheres centered at the vertices of V0. In order to bound the number of full-dimensional cells in 𝒜, we consider the standard parabolic lifting map λ, which orthogonally projects a point in d to the unit paraboloid in d+1. This map has a number of useful properties, see, for instance, Edelsbrunner’s book [8, Section 1.4]. Specifically, the image λ(S) of a sphere Sd lies on a hyperplane hSd+1 such that a point pd lies inside S if and only if its image λ(p) lies below hS. It follows that we may regard 𝒜 as an arrangement of d+2 hyperplanes in d+1. As such an arrangement has at most i=0d+1(d+2i)=2d+21<2d+2 many full-dimensional cells [16, Proposition 6.1.1], for at least one of the vertices in VV0 its distance requirements with respect to V0 are violated. Thus, there is no geometric realization of G in d.

Corollary 14.

For every d2, there exists a (d+1)-degenerate bipartite dichotomous ordinal graph that is not realizable on 𝒮d1.

Proof.

We use the same graph G as in the proof of Theorem 13, except that we start with a set V0 of d+1 rather than d+2 isolated vertices. We consider 𝒮d1 as a unit sphere Sd. For a point pS, the set of points on S in distance at most some fixed unit from p can be expressed as an intersection Sup where up is a halfspace.

Suppose there is some geometric realization of G, and let PS denote the set of d+1 points that represent the vertices of V0 in this realization. Consider the set H of the d+1 bounding hyperplanes of the halfspaces up, for pP. The arrangement 𝒜 of H has at most i=0d(d+1i)=2d+11<2d+1 many full-dimensional cells [16, Proposition 6.1.1]. Thus, for at least one of the vertices in VV0 there is no cell that satisfies its distance requirements with respect to V0. It follows that there is no geometric realization of G in 𝒮d1.

In the Euclidean case, we give a tight lower bound in 2, albeit not for bipartite graphs.

Figure 8: A 3-degenerate graph that cannot be realized in the plane along with a sketch of the proof. Long edges are dashed. The three points v1,v2,v3 would have to lie in the intersection of the disk B(c,1) and a unit disk within B(w1,1)B(w2,1)B(w3,1). But there is not enough space for three points with pairwise distance at least one.
Theorem 15.

There exists a 3-degenerate graph that is not pandichotomous in 2.

Proof.

We build a dichotomous ordinal graph G on eight vertices as follows (Figure 8). Start with a set V={v1,v2,v3} and a complete graph on V, all edges long. Then insert a vertex c and connect it to all vertices in V by a short edge. Next, insert a set W={w1,w2,w3} of vertices as follows: the vertex wi, for i{1,2,3}, is connected to c by a long edge and to each vertex in Vi:=V{vi} by a short edge. Finally, we add a vertex x that is connected to all vertices in W by a short edge. Observe that G is 3-degenerate as constructed.

Consider any geometric realization Γ of G. In a slight abuse of notation we identify the vertices of G with the corresponding points that represent them in Γ. For a set P2 denote I(P)=pPB(p,1) and U(P)=pPB(p,1). As xI(W), we have I(W) and U(W) is simply connected. The constraints imposed by G enforce cU(W) and VB(c,1)U(W). In particular, for each i{1,2,3}, the set Vi is contained in the lens Li=I({c,wi}). As cU(W), each Li has diameter strictly smaller than 3. Any lens in 2 of diameter strictly smaller than 3 contains at most two points at a pairwise distance at least one. Thus, in particular, we have viLi, for all i{1,2,3}.

We analyze the interaction of the circles Si=S(wi,1), for i{1,2,3}, with C=S(c,1). As |LiV|2 and as any two points in V are at distance strictly larger than one, we have |SiC|=2, for all i{1,2,3}. As cU(W) and as U(W) is simply connected, some part of C is disjoint from U(W). We use such a part to break up the circular sequence of intersection points between C and the Si into a linear sequence  of six points (some but not all of which may coincide). On the one hand, as |LiV|2, for all i{1,2,3}, and as |V|=3, we have LiLj, for all i,j{1,2,3}. On the other hand, if LiLj, for some i,j{1,2,3} with ij, then, given that vjVi we also have vjLj, a contradiction. It follows that up to the indexing of W we have =1,2,3,1,2,3, where we write an integer i to indicate an intersection CSi.

Let q denote the intersection point of S1S3 in B(c,1). Note that qL2 because qL2 would imply L1L3L2 and thus v2L2, a contradiction. We continuously move a unit disk D starting from D=B(w2,1) towards c such that the center d of D is on the line segment w2c. We stop the movement as soon as dS(q,1). This process is well defined because qB(w2,1) and qL1L3B(c,1). Furthermore, during the whole movement we have L2DU(W) and the disk D at the end of the movement also contains L1L3. Thus, the lens L=DB(c,1) contains all of V and given that LU(W) it has diameter strictly smaller than 3, a contradiction.

The examples discussed above demonstrate that the bound from Theorem 11 is tight in the worst case, that is, for some graphs. In the following, we will show that the bound is also tight for all graphs, up to a multiplicative constant. We first estimate the edge density of pandichotomous graphs in d and show that it is linearly bounded in d. In fact, we prove a stronger result, namely that every sufficiently dense graph G not only is not pandichotomous in d, but in fact, asymptotically almost all partitions of the edge-set of G into short and long edges yield dichotomous ordinal graphs that are not realizable in d.

Theorem 16.

Let d, let ε>0, and let G=(V,E) be a graph with n vertices and m edges. Let c<7.182 denote the unique positive root of the function x3xH(1/x), where H:(0,1) is the binary entropy function H(x)=xlog2(x)(1x)log2(1x).

If m>(c+ε)dn, then for asymptotically almost all222That is, a fraction of the partitions that tends to 1 as dn. partitions E=EsE of the edge-set of G, the dichotomous ordinal graph (V,EsE) has no geometric realization in d. In particular, every graph that is pandichotomous in d has at most (c+o(1))dn edges. The o(1) term approaches zero quickly as dn. For illustration, we also show that m<μdn, for all n and d2 and some explicit constant μ<7.23.

In the proof of Theorem 16, we will use the following result by Warren [25] on the number of sign-patterns of a collection of multivariate polynomials.

Theorem 17 (Warren [25, Theorem 2]).

Let q1,,qm be real polynomials in N variables, each of degree at most d. Then the number of connected components of the set

{𝐱N|i{1,,m}:qi(𝐱)0}

is at most

2(2d)Nk=0N2k(mk).

The following is an immediate consequence of the above.

Corollary 18.

Let q1,,qm be real polynomials in N variables, each of degree at most d and let 𝒮:={(sgn(q1(𝐱)),,sgn(qm(𝐱)))|i{1,,m}:qi(𝐱)0}{+1,1}m. Then we have

|𝒮|2(2d)Nk=0N2k(mk).

Proof.

Let X:={𝐱N|i{1,,m}:qi(𝐱)0}. Consider the map f:X{+1,1}m, defined by f(𝐱)=(sgn(q1(𝐱)),,sgn(qm(𝐱))). It is easy to see, using the continuity of the polynomials q1,,qm, that f is continuous. Let C be a topological component of X. The restriction of f to C is a continuous map on a connected topological space that takes on only finitely many (at most 2m) values. Since every such map is constant, we find that f is constant on every component of X. Hence, the size of 𝒮=im(f) is bounded by the number of components of X. The statement now follows from Theorem 17.

Proof of Theorem 16.

Assume w.l.o.g. that G=(V,E) has vertex set V={1,,n}. Let (𝐱1,,𝐱n) be an n-tuple of points in d, no two of which are at distance exactly one. The distance-pattern of (𝐱1,,𝐱n) w.r.t. G is the map sG(𝐱1,,𝐱n):E{+1,1}, where

sG(𝐱1,,𝐱n)(ij):={+1,if 𝐱i𝐱j>1,1, if 𝐱i𝐱j<1,

for every edge ijE. In other words, given a configuration of points (𝐱1,,𝐱n) in d, the distance-pattern captures the information of which edges of G in a geometric realization placing vertices 1,,n at points 𝐱1,,𝐱n, respectively, are long or short.

Next, we estimate the size of the set 𝒮 of all possible distance-patterns for G. Concretely, 𝒮 is the set of all mappings sG(𝐱1,,𝐱n) where (𝐱1,,𝐱n) ranges over all n-tuples of points in d, no two of which are at distance 1. Let us denote by M the number of partitions EsE=E of the edge-set of G such that the dichotomous ordinal graph (V,EsE) is realizable in d. Let p denote the fraction of such partitions compared to all possible partitions of E. Note that M=p2m and that p=1 if and only if G is pandichotomous.

Claim 1.

|𝒮|M.

Proof of Claim 1..

Consider any one of the M partitions EsE of the edge-set E for which (V,EsE) is realizable in d. By Observation 1 we may assume a threshold of δ=1 and that we use a set of points with no unit distances. The distance-pattern of the corresponding tuple of n points in d-space then has value +1 for every long and 1 for every short edge.

Since any two distinct partitions of E into short and long edges result in different distance-patterns in 𝒮 this way, it follows that |𝒮|M, as claimed.

Next, we obtain an upper bound on |𝒮| using Theorem 17.

Claim 2.

|𝒮|24dnk=0dn2k(mk).

Proof of Claim 2..

For any two points 𝐱,𝐲d, we have 𝐱𝐲>1 if and only if 𝐱𝐲21>0, and 𝐱𝐲<1 if and only if 𝐱𝐲21<0. Further, the expression

𝐱𝐲21=(x1y1)2+(x2y2)2++(xdyd)21

is a polynomial of degree two in the coordinates of 𝐱,𝐲. It is therefore natural to associate with every edge ijE of G a polynomial qi,j, defined as qi,j(𝐱1,,𝐱n):=𝐱i𝐱j21. The collection (qi,j|ijE) then forms a set of m polynomials, each of degree 2, in the N:=dn variables corresponding to the coordinates of 𝐱1,,𝐱n. For every tuple (𝐱1,,𝐱n) of points in d, no two at unit distance, we have sG(𝐱1,,𝐱n)(ij)=sgn(qi,j(𝐱1,,𝐱n)).

Hence, the set 𝒮 defined before coincides with the set 𝒮 defined in Corollary 18 for the collection (qi,j|ijE) of m multivariate polynomials. We therefore obtain, using the degree bound 2 for the polynomials,

|𝒮|2(22)Nk=0N2k(mk)=24dnk=0dn2k(mk).

Using Claims 1 and 2, we obtain the inequality

p2m=M|𝒮|24dnk=0dn2k(mk).

Since c>2, we have m(c+ε)dn>2dn. This implies that the term (mk) is monotonically increasing for k=0,1,,dn. Hence, we may bound the right hand side above by

24dn(mdn)k=0dn2k=24dn(mdn)(2dn+11)<48dn(mdn).

Let x:=mdnc+ε. Using the estimate (aλa)2aH(λ), which holds for any a and λ(0,1), see e.g., [17, Lemma 9.2], we find

p2xdn=p2m<48dn2xdnH(1/x).

Taking logarithms and dividing by dn this simplifies to

x<2log2(p)dn+3+xH(1/x). (1)

Consider the function f(x)=x3xH(1/x)=x3xlog2x+(x1)log2(x1). Observe that f is strictly monotonically increasing and continuous for x2 and that it has a unique positive root c7.1815.

It follows that f(c+ε)>f(c)=0, and, since xc+ε, Equation 1 above implies that

f(c+ε)f(x)2log2(p)dnlog2(p)2f(c+ε)dn.

Since the right hand side of the last inequality tends to as dn, it follows that p0 for dn. Hence, it is indeed true that asymptotically almost all partitions EsE=E of the edge-set of G into short and long edges yield dichotomous ordinal graphs with no geometric representation in d. This completes the proof of the first statement.

It remains to show that if G is pandichotomous (p=1), then the explicit bound mμdn with μ:=7.2240208 holds for all n and d2. Set ϕ(z)=2/z and observe that ϕ0 for z. We can then express Equation 1 as f(x)<ϕ(dn). The trivial bound m(n2) suffices to show that mμdn, unless μdn<(n2), i.e., unless 4μ+1n. As ϕ is monotonically decreasing, it follows that f(x)<ϕ(dn)ϕ(2n)ϕ(24μ+1). For the value μ=7.2240208 we obtain f(x)<ϕ(60)=1/30, whereas f(μ)>0.033333334>1/30. Therefore, as f is monotonically increasing, it follows that mdn=x<μ, as claimed.

Corollary 19.

For some absolute constant μ<7.23 we have d(G)2μped(G)d(G) for every graph G and d(G)2μ1psd(G)d(G)1 for every graph G with d(G)2.

Proof.

By Theorem 16 every graph G that is pandichotomous in d has at most μdn edges, for some absolute constant μ<7.23. Thus, the minimum degree of G is at most 2μd and so G is k-degenerate, for k=2μd. This implies d(G)2μped(G) and so d(G)2μped(G)d(G). Since psd(G)ped(G)1 we obtain the lower bound for the spherical dimension. The upper bounds follow from Theorem 11.

Corollary 20.

Every n-vertex graph is pandichotomous in 𝒮n2 and n1. But there exists an absolute constant μ<7.23 such that for every d<n14μ there exist n-vertex bipartite graphs that are not pandichotomous in d or 𝒮d1.

Proof.

Since n-vertex graphs are (n1)-degenerate, the first statement is a direct consequence of Theorem 11. The complete bipartite n-vertex graph Kn/2,n/2 has minimum degree n/2. Hence, Corollary 19 implies that Kn/2,n/2 is not pandichotomous in d for any dimension d such that 2μd<n/2, so in particular for d<(n1)/(4μ).

6 Conclusion

We study pandichotomous graphs with an emphasis on bipartite graphs on one hand and the relationship between the degeneracy and the pandichotomous dimension on the other hand. Some interesting open questions remain, such as:

  • Is every planar graph, planar 3-tree, or planar bipartite graph pandichotomous in 2?

  • Are bipartite dichotomous ordinal graphs realizable in 2 if the short graph is a 2-tree?

  • Characterize the (complete) bipartite graphs that are pandichotomous in k, for k3.

  • Given d3, is there a bipartite d-degenerate graph that is not pandichotomous in d1? We believe that the answer to this question should be positive.

References

  • [1] Md. Jawaherul Alam, Steven Chaplick, Gasper Fijavz, Michael Kaufmann, Stephen G. Kobourov, Sergey Pupyrev, and Jackson Toeniskoetter. Threshold-coloring and unit-cube contact representation of planar graphs. Discret. Appl. Math., 216:2–14, 2017. doi:10.1016/J.DAM.2015.09.003.
  • [2] Md. Jawaherul Alam, Stephen G. Kobourov, Sergey Pupyrev, and Jackson Toeniskoetter. Happy edges: Threshold-coloring of regular lattices. In Proc. 7th Internat. Conf. Fun with Algorithms (FUN 2014), volume 8496 of LNCS, pages 28–39. Springer, 2014. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07890-8_3.
  • [3] Md. Jawaherul Alam, Stephen G. Kobourov, Sergey Pupyrev, and Jackson Toeniskoetter. Weak unit disk and interval representation of graphs. In Proc. 41st Internat. Workshop Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science (WG 2015), volume 9224 of LNCS, pages 237–251. Springer, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-53174-7_17.
  • [4] Patrizio Angelini, Michael A. Bekos, Martin Gronemann, and Antonios Symvonis. Geometric representations of dichotomous ordinal data. In Proc. 45th Internat. Workshop Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science (WG 2019), volume 11789 of LNCS, pages 205–217. Springer, 2019. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30786-8_16.
  • [5] Joseph F. Bennett and William L. Hays. Multidimensional unfolding: Determining the dimensionality of ranked preference data. Psychometrika, 25(1):27–43, 1960.
  • [6] Jiehua Chen, Kirk Pruhs, and Gerhard J. Woeginger. The one-dimensional Euclidean domain: finitely many obstructions are not enough. Social Choice and Welfare, 48(2):409–432, 2017. doi:10.1007/s00355-016-1011-y.
  • [7] Jean-Paul Doignon and Jean-Claude Falmagne. A polynomial time algorithm for unidimensional unfolding representations. J. Algorithms, 16(2):218–233, 1994. doi:10.1006/jagm.1994.1010.
  • [8] Herbert Edelsbrunner. Algorithms in combinatorial geometry, volume 10 of EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, 1987. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61568-9.
  • [9] Edith Elkind and Martin Lackner. Structure in dichotomous preferences. In Proc. 24th IJCAI, pages 2019–2025. AAAI Press, 2015. URL: https://ijcai.org/Abstract/15/286.
  • [10] Timothy F. Havel. The combinatorial distance geometry approach to the calculation of molecular conformation. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1982.
  • [11] Eduard Helly. Über Mengen konvexer Körper mit gemeinschaftlichen Punkten. Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 32:175–176, 1932. URL: http://eudml.org/doc/145659.
  • [12] Ross J. Kang and Tobias Müller. Sphere and dot product representations of graphs. Discrete Comput. Geom., 47(3):548–568, 2012. doi:10.1007/s00454-012-9394-8.
  • [13] Joseph Kruskal. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1):1–27, 1964.
  • [14] Joseph Kruskal. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 29(2):115–129, 1964.
  • [15] Hiroshi Maehara. Space graphs and sphericity. Discrete Appl. Math., 7(1):55–64, 1984. doi:10.1016/0166-218X(84)90113-6.
  • [16] Jiří Matoušek. Lectures on Discrete Geometry. Springer, New York, NY, 2002. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0039-7.
  • [17] Michael Mitzenmacher and Eli Upfal. Probability and Computing: Randomized Algorithms and Probabilistic Analysis. Cambridge, New York, NY, 2005. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813603.
  • [18] Dominik Peters. Recognising multidimensional euclidean preferences. CoRR, abs/1602.08109, 2016. arXiv:1602.08109.
  • [19] Dominik Peters. Recognising multidimensional Euclidean preferences. In Proc. 21st AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’17), pages 642–648, 2017. doi:10.1609/AAAI.V31I1.10616.
  • [20] Roger N. Shepard. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. I. Psychometrika, 27(2):125–140, 1962.
  • [21] Roger N. Shepard. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II. Psychometrika, 27(3):219–246, 1962.
  • [22] Jacob Steiner. Einige Gesetze über die Theilung der Ebene und des Raumes. J. für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 1:349–364, 1826. doi:10.1515/crll.1826.1.349.
  • [23] Yoshikazu Terada and Ulrike von Luxburg. Local ordinal embedding. In ICML, volume 32 of JMLR Workshop and Conf. Proc., pages 847–855. JMLR.org, 2014. URL: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v32/terada14.html.
  • [24] Leena Chennuru Vankadara, Michael Lohaus, Siavash Haghiri, Faiz Ul Wahab, and Ulrike von Luxburg. Insights into ordinal embedding algorithms: A systematic evaluation. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 24:191:1–191:83, 2023. URL: http://jmlr.org/papers/v24/21-1170.html.
  • [25] Hugh Warren. Lower bounds for approximation by nonlinear manifolds. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 133:167–178, 1968. doi:10.1090/S0002-9947-1968-0226281-1.