Online Routing in Directed Graphs
Abstract
The and graphs are two families of directed geometric graphs whose vertices are points in the plane, and each vertex has up to four outgoing edges. Consider a horizontal and a vertical line through each vertex , defining four quadrants around . Then has an outgoing edge to the closest vertex in each of its four quadrants. When the distance is measured using the Euclidean norm, the resulting graph is the graph, whereas with the -norm, we obtain the graph, which is a sub-graph of the well-known -Delaunay graph.
In this paper, we provide a local routing algorithm with routing ratio at most for graphs. Prior to this work, no constant spanning or routing ratios for graphs were previously known. Now, graphs are the sparsest family of directed planar graphs supporting a competitive local routing strategy. Furthermore, we show that no local routing algorithm for graphs can have a routing ratio lower than . Moreover, we prove that the spanning ratio is at least in the worst case. The techniques we develop in this paper also allow us to prove lower bounds of and for the spanning and routing ratios of , respectively.
Keywords and phrases:
Geometric Spanners, Yao Graphs, Local Routing AlgorithmsCopyright and License:
2012 ACM Subject Classification:
Theory of computation Sparsification and spannersFunding:
This research is supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).Editors:
Pat Morin and Eunjin OhSeries and Publisher:
Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik
1 Introduction
A fundamental problem in geometric routing is to construct a directed planar graph on a given set of points that supports competitive local routing, using the fewest number of edges. A routing algorithm is competitive if the length of the path that it finds is at most a constant times the length of the shortest path, however a local algorithm does not have access to the full graph. This problem has applications in wireless sensor networks, robotic navigation, and distributed computing. Routing is inherently directional, and in many real-world settings, signals are sent from a transmitter to an antenna. This directional nature is particularly relevant in wireless communication, where signal transmission can be costly. Wide-angle broadcasting consumes excessive power, and long-distance transmission is expensive, with energy consumption proportional to the distance squared. As a result, nodes should send signals in restricted directions, ensuring that each transmitted signal has a unique receiver. To reduce the effects of interference, we desire planarity, meaning that signals do not cross. However, we allow bidirectional edges, which count as two directed edges, since otherwise, not all point sets admit strongly-connected directed planar graphs. Disallowing bidirectional edges presents different challenges and has led to the study of oriented spanners [12]. Note that every undirected graph can be converted into a directed graph by replacing every undirected edge with two directed edges. This implies that every routing result on undirected graphs can also be viewed as a routing result on directed graphs with twice as many edges. Thus, the challenge is to construct directed planar graphs that support local routing while minimizing the number of directed edges.
Routing on graphs in an online fashion, without relying on precomputed routing tables is a compelling motivation for studying routing on geometric embeddings of graphs. The use of routing tables can be circumvented by exploiting geometric properties of the graph, such as empty proximity regions, to guide path-finding. Routing tables are often inefficient to compute and difficult to maintain in a dynamic setting, compared to maintaining a geometric embedding of a graph. Embeddings like Yao and Theta graphs provide a framework for leveraging these empty proximity regions to facilitate efficient routing. Our focus on the graph stems from its unique combination of properties: it is planar, has a bounded out-degree of , and supports a novel competitive local routing algorithm.
For decades, researchers have been studying the distance-preserving properties of geometric graphs, such as the Delaunay triangulation [17]. The vertex set of a geometric graph is a finite set of points in the plane and the edges are weighted by the -norm. The Delaunay triangulation has an edge between two vertices exactly when they lie on the boundary of a disk which contains no other vertex in its interior [15]. When the disk is replaced with a square, then we obtain an -Delaunay graph. Also a geometric graph of interest is the Yao graph. For any , a graph is constructed by considering equal-sized cones around each vertex and connecting each vertex to the nearest point in each cone [18]. In this way, a graph on points has at most edges. Normally, nearest is defined using the -norm, however in the case of , replacing with is a natural choice because the resulting graph, denoted , is a subgraph of the well-known -Delaunay graph. In other words, the graph has an edge between two vertices when there exists an empty square with one endpoint on a corner and the other endpoint on an opposing side. If the graph is defined using the -norm, then we obtain the well-studied -graph.
Given a geometric graph , the spanning ratio of a subgraph is a measure of how well distances of are preserved. A subgraph is called a -spanner of if for every edge , the shortest path in from to is at most times the length of the edge in [17]. The smallest such is referred to as the spanning ratio of . Throughout this paper, we consider to be the complete graph with edges weighted by Euclidean distance. The undirected graph was first proved to be a spanner by Bose et al. [9] with a stretch factor of approximately . As part of the proof, the authors established that the undirected graph is an -spanner. Then, Bonichon et al. [6] proved that the graph has spanning ratio at most . Later, Damian and Nelavalli [14] improved both results by showing that the and graphs have spanning ratios of at most and , respectively. We will denote the directed versions of these graphs using an arrow: for example, the directed version of is denoted . Despite being a natural construction, the graph previously had no known upper bound on the spanning ratio. The spanning ratio of the -Delaunay graph was originally shown to be at most by Chew [13]. Then, Bonichon et al. [5] improved the spanning ratio of the -Delaunay triangulation to , which is tight. Their lower bound construction also shows that has a spanning ratio of at least .
While spanning ratios deal with the existence of short paths, routing ratios are based on finding short directed paths with only local information. Roughly speaking, a path-finding algorithm has routing ratio if the paths produced have length at most times the straight-line distance from source to destination. In the context of planar graphs, Chew gave a local routing algorithm for -Delaunay graphs in 1986 [13]. An -Delaunay graph can contain nearly directed edges in the worst case. Since then, Bonichon et al. [4] defined a number of bounded-degree planar spanners, including and . In [10], local routing algorithms were provided for these graphs. A parametrized construction, denoted , was used in [2] to attain several lightness properties. In all of these planar graphs, the number of directed edges required is still on the order of . In this paper, we define a local routing algorithm for the graph, which contains at most directed edges, which is the fewest number of edges among all planar directed graphs that admit a local routing algorithm.
In any bounded out-degree graph, each vertex only needs to store a constant amount of information to fully describe its outgoing neighbourhood. As a result, bounded out-degree directed graphs are a natural setting for local routing. For example, when is larger than , the optimal local routing algorithm for graphs is simply cone routing, where each decision is to move to the neighbour in the same cone as the destination. For smaller values of , the graph is less dense and cone routing can fail to produce short paths. However, [16] provides a local routing algorithm for the graph with routing ratio at most . The smallest possible for which the graph is strongly connected is , and Bose et al. [11] recently provided a local routing algorithm achieving a routing ratio of at most for graphs. Furthermore, they show how to modify the path output by their local routing algorithm to upper bound the spanning ratio by for undirected graphs. Interestingly, their algorithm is based on the Greedy/Sweep algorithm from [7] which has a routing ratio of in the directed graph.
Our local routing algorithm extends the Greedy/Sweep approach from graphs to graphs. The original Greedy/Sweep algorithm is quite simple. If the current vertex is and the target vertex is , then we consider the right triangle bounded by vertical and horizontal lines through and a diagonal line through with slope . If no vertices are in , we say that is clean and we take a greedy step in the cone containing . Otherwise, if is not clean, then we take a sweeping step in the cone of . The authors of [11] adapted the Greedy/Sweep approach to graphs by replacing the right triangle with a wedge. However, in the case of graphs, a direct application of the Greedy/Sweep approach fails miserably, resulting in long paths. The main challenge is that sweeping steps can cross the diagonal while making negligible progress towards the destination. To overcome this, we modify the definition of clean to penalize such diagonal crossings and force provable progress toward the target. Given our redefinition of cleanliness, we refer to our local routing algorithm as the DIRTY Algorithm (Directed Infinity Routing Through Yao). Our analysis yields an upper bound of on the routing ratio of our local routing algorithm.
Notice that our routing ratio of is also the best known upper bound on the spanning ratio for graphs. Next, we give a lower bound of on the spanning ratio of graphs in the worst case, highlighting a clear gap compared to the upper bound of for graphs. Finally, we prove that no local routing algorithm for graphs can achieve a routing ratio below . Additionally, we use a similar technique to provide lower bounds of and for the spanning and routing ratios of , respectively.
| Reference | Graph | Planar | Max out-degree | Routing Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [11] | No | |||
| [16] | No | |||
| [3] | () | No | ||
| [7] | No | |||
| [1] | No | |||
| [8] | () | No | ||
| [2] | Yes | |||
| [10] | Yes | 12 | ||
| [10] | Yes | 9 | ||
| This paper | Yes |
2 Preliminaries
For any point , we let and denote the - and -coordinates of , respectively. We denote the line segment between points as , and define and . For , the -length of is denoted . We also define . A geometric graph is a graph whose vertex set contains points in the plane and whose edge weights are the (Euclidean) lengths of the corresponding line segments. In a geometric graph, each vertex is identified with its coordinates. Throughout the paper, we make the general position assumption that no two vertices have the same - or -coordinates and all distances between pairs of vertices are unique in the -norm. On such a point set, the edges of the graph are well-defined. For two vertices in a geometric graph , the length of the shortest path from to in is denoted . Then for a constant , is said to be a -spanner if for all points in , we have . The spanning ratio of is the least for which is a -spanner. The spanning ratio of a class of graphs is the least for which all graphs in are -spanners.
We make the assumption that the graph is embedded on a polynomial-sized grid and therefore the coordinates of the points require bits. Formally, an -memory local routing algorithm is a function that takes as input , and outputs some memory and a vertex where is the current vertex, is the outgoing neighbourhood of , is the destination, and both are bit-strings of length . An algorithm is said to be -competitive for a family of geometric graphs if the path output by the algorithm for any pair of vertices for has length at most . The routing ratio of an algorithm is the least for which the algorithm is -competitive for . Note that the routing ratio is an upper bound on the spanning ratio.
3 A Local Routing Algorithm for Graphs
We will now describe our local routing algorithm for graphs. Without loss of generality, assume the coordinates of are and . Let , and define the green square to be the set of points such that . In addition, we define the diagonal lines with slope passing through . Define the north, east, south and western quadrants as the cones delimited by and . Refer to the four cones as , , respectively.
Next, for a point , we define its height, , as the distance from to the nearest diagonal through . Notice that . The bands, denoted by , are the regions close to the diagonals, excluding the green square. More precisely, let refer to the set of points such that and . Refer to Figure 1. Note that and is composed of four regions, which we label clockwise from the north-eastern region. Then define the truncated wedges as those points such that . We have and since is composed of four regions, we label them clockwise from the northern region.
Next we describe the terminology used in our local routing algorithm, which we will refer to as DIRTY Algorithm 1 (Directed Infinity Routing Through Yao). For any vertex , a band step from follows the edge in the cone of containing . For any vertex , is clean if the quadrant of facing the closest diagonal does not contain any vertex such that . Intuitively, is clean if there are no points between and the nearest diagonal. For example, see Figure 1. A sweep step from follows the edge in the cone towards the closest diagonal to . We denote the vertex resulting from a sweep step from as . A greedy step from follows the edge in the cone of containing . The vertex resulting from a greedy step from is denoted . Note that a band step is technically a greedy step, however we will distinguish band steps from greedy steps in the analysis. Now we will present the local routing algorithm. In short, if there is a neighbour in the green square, then we choose it and rescale . On the other hand, we take a greedy edge if the current vertex is in or is clean. When the current vertex is not clean, we take a sweep edge. A partial trace of Algorithm 1 is shown in Figure 1. The constant in step 1 of Algorithm 1 will be set to , however the analysis holds for a general . Furthermore, should be set to for the first call of Algorithm 1.
Local routing decision in graph.
3.1 Analysis of DIRTY Algorithm 1
If edge is chosen by Algorithm 1, then notice that regardless of whether is a sweep, a greedy, or a band edge. In fact, by the general position assumption that all vertices have distinct - and -coordinates, we have .
Remark 1.
If is an edge chosen by Algorithm 1, then . That is, the vertex is inside the square centered at with on the boundary.
The vertex set being finite means that choosing each successive edge according to Algorithm 1 will output a path from to , which we will denote . For any two vertices on path with occurring after , we let denote the sub-path of from to .
We define to be the first vertex of chosen by step 1 of Algorithm 1. In other words, is the first vertex of such that because is initially set to and . We will focus on upper bounding the length of , which is a path such that each edge is chosen according to step 2 except the last edge. As such, we will only refer to edges of . In particular, define the set as the sweep edges of and define the set as the greedy edges of , where . Next we define the set of band edges, , as the greedy edges of , where . These definitions allow us to partition the edges: .
Lemma 2.
If and does not cross a diagonal, then .
Proof.
Since both lie in the same cone among , then .
Lemma 3.
If and crosses a diagonal of , then , and .
Proof.
Assume without loss of generality that and crosses . This means that , as in Figure 2. Since is not clean, we have . Also since is above we have . Combining these two inequalities yields . Next, and together imply , so we have .
Lemma 4.
If , then .
Proof.
Suppose without loss of generality that with . Then since is greedy, we have and . Combining these inequalities yields
Since , then we have shown . The result follows from the reverse triangle inequality .
Next we will characterize the behaviour of band edges.
Lemma 5.
If , then .
Proof.
Assume without loss of generality that . Notice that , which is at most when . Assume towards a contradiction that . When is above , then . Otherwise when is below the diagonal , we have . Either way is a contradiction since and are in the same cone of , so . A symmetric argument completes the proof when . Lemma 5 tells us that when is a band edge with , then . Indeed, the proof describes why and , and the region is a subset of . In other words, a sequence of consecutive band edges remains in the same region of until it ends in a neighbouring truncated wedge, or in the green square. To formalize this, we will define a set containing pairs of vertices that correspond to maximal sub-paths of band edges.
Definition 6 (Maximal sYaoub-paths of band edges).
Define the set as follows. Let be vertices of such that is a sequence of band edges. We let the pair if and only if , , and is not the tip of a band edge.
Notice that if , then must be - and -monotone since all edges between and are band edges in the same cone.
Lemma 7.
For all , we have .
Proof.
Suppose without loss of generality that and . Then we have and . The rest of the proof is identical to that of Lemma 4.
To better understand which band edges are accounted for by paths in , we provide the following definition.
Definition 8 (Vertices and ).
Let be the last vertex of in . If no such exists, . Then, let be the vertex directly after on .
Notice that all band edges of are contained in a sub-path for some . In addition, the path consists entirely of band edges.
Lemma 9.
We have .
Proof.
Each difference in the following telescoping sum corresponds to a sub-path of and is therefore positive by Remark 1.
Dropping the terms corresponding to sweep edges yields the desired inequality.
Now we can establish a bound on the sweep edges that depends on the greedy edges and paths.
Lemma 10.
Let . We have
Proof.
First, we split the sum based on whether the sweeping edge crosses a diagonal. Let denote the set of sweep edges that cross a diagonal or .
| By Lemma 2 | ||||
Next, by Definition 8, the path is precisely all the greedy edges, sweep edges, and sub-paths of band edges . This means that
| (1) |
Next we rearrange (1) and use Lemmas 4 and 7:
Now, let , and label the edges of as in the order they appear on the path . By Lemma 3, we have for all . Additionally, appears after on the path , then by Remark 1 we have for . Since , the above inequalities imply that for . Next, vertex was defined to be the first vertex on the path such that , therefore we must have since is an edge in . Combining inequalities yields , and isolating yields . Also, Lemma 3 gives us and . The result follows:
| By | |||||
From Lemma 10, we can see that the total distance of sweep edges can be upper bounded if we upper bound the total distance of greedy edges and pairs in .
Lemma 11.
We have .
Proof.
Consider the set of greedy edges where and . We will show that using a disjoint projection argument illustrated in Figure 3.
Firstly, label the edges of as . Note that the edges are labelled in the order they appear, and not necessarily consecutive. For , define the point . Note that . Next, define the projection as . Notice that for a point , the point lies on the vertical line through with the segment having slope . We will show that the segments are disjoint.
Let . Firstly, since is greedy, we have , hence . Next, we have by Remark 1 and since is clean. Combining these coordinate restrictions with the fact that lies on the southeast corner of the empty square corresponding to , we obtain . This means that the projections are disjoint and their -coordinates range from to . Since , then . Also, we have given that .
The proof is completed after multiplication by to account for the greedy edges of originating in the seven other regions symmetric to .
At this stage, we could multiply the bound from Lemma 11 by in order to bound the total length of the greedy edges. However, we can do better with a more careful analysis described in Lemma 12.
Lemma 12.
We have .
Proof.
We start by partitioning into three parts that correspond to the following three types of greedy edges, illustrated in Figure 4. Suppose without loss of generality that and with . Then the edge is Type A if , Type B if , and Type C if . Now we extend the definition of Types A, B, and C to all edges in by symmetry. For example, an edge with , and would be Type C. Define the sets of Type , , and greedy edges, respectively. This means that we have partitioned the greedy edges as follows: . We proceed with the following claim for Type A and B edges.
Claim.
If then .
Proof.
Suppose without loss of generality that and . If then , so . Combining this with yields the result. If instead , then , giving us . Adding this to completes the claim.
Next, we prove that for Type C edges, . Consider the greedy edges with labelled in the order they appear in . Then by the two empty squares (one from being clean and one from ), we have for and . Then we have . The final step is multiplication by to account for the four connected components of .
Now we combine the above claim with Lemma 11 to complete the proof.
Next, a similar projection argument can be used to bound the total the length of band edges. First, we provide the following definition.
Definition 13.
For , define the eastern hexagon to be the set of points such that and . Define the north, west and south hexagons of radius similarly.
Next, we present a lemma that formalizes the idea that when the path exits , either becomes significantly closer to , or never revisits the region .
Lemma 14.
Suppose vertex , and let be the next vertex of outside of . Then at least one of the following must be true:
-
1.
,
-
2.
,
-
3.
Proof.
Throughout the proof, let denote the vertex before in , meaning . Since , then we must have . Without loss of generality, assume , implying that . Since we have assumed Item 1 to be false, we will show that in each of the following three cases, Item 2 or Item 3 is true. The cases are shown in Figure 5.
Case: is a sweep edge.
Then we must have and , therefore . Item (2) follows from .
Case: is a band edge.
Since , we must have , meaning . By definition of , we have , which again satisfies Item (2).
Case: is a greedy edge.
Assume . We will show that the region contains no vertices, implying Item (3). Since , then the closest diagonal to must be . Let points be the southwest and northeast corners of the empty square corresponding to . Then and since the square bounding is empty. Furthermore, since , we must have . This leads to , so . Then since is clean with respect to , and also and then the region contains no vertices. Item (3) follows since by Remark 1.
We will also make use of the following remark:
Remark 15.
If , then is clean with respect to the closest diagonal to . Indeed, is the tip of a band edge from the connected component of containing by Lemma 5.
Now we have the tools to prove Lemma 16.
Lemma 16.
We have .
Proof.
We will first focus on paths where and . Let be labelled according to their order on , where . Recall that all edges between and are band edges, so by Lemma 5, we have . Then . Consider the point and the resulting segment with length . We will show how to project onto the line such that when , the projections of and are disjoint, illustrated in Figure 6. Furthermore, we will show that all projections lie on a sub-segment of length .
Define the projections as and . Note that for , both and project onto the vertical line , and the slope of the segments and are and , respectively. For , we define the projection
Let . Now we show that that and are disjoint by cases. Assume without loss of generality that , so by Remark 15, is clean with respect to . We will show that is entirely below in both cases.
Case: .
By Lemma 14, we have . Indeed, , therefore either , or since and . Furthermore, . Combining with and the fact that is clean with respect to , we have that . Lastly, since is -monotone, then , so . By transitivity, we have completing this case.
Case: .
Assume towards a contradiction that . Then since we must have . However, this implies that is not clean with respect to since with and .
Now that we have proven that the projections are disjoint on the vertical line , we can proceed to showing that the projections lie on a sub-segment of the line with length at most . Assume without loss of generality that . Then all projections lie below . Furthermore, we will show that all projections lie above . Indeed, if for all , then the projections are all above . Otherwise, let be the least index in such that . Then all projections are above , and by Lemma 14 we have . This means that . Therefore all projections have -coordinates between and . Summarizing, we have shown
Multiplying by for the four connected components of concludes the proof.
Now we can use Lemma 16 to bound the length of all band edges.
Lemma 17.
We have .
Proof.
By Definition 8, we can rewrite . For now we focus on . If , then . Otherwise, assume without loss of generality that and . Then and by Lemma 5, since is the tip of a band edge. Since is - and -monotone, we have
Next, for , we have since is - and - monotone. Also, since crosses a diagonal boundary of by Lemma 5, yielding
The bounds we have proved for sweep, greedy and band edges can now be combined to prove Theorem 18.
Theorem 18.
DIRTY Algorithm 1 is an -memory local routing algorithm with routing ratio of at most for graphs.
Proof.
We bound the total distance of sweep edges by combining Lemmas 10, 11 and 16:
| (2) |
Finally, we can bound the length of the path from to .
| by (2) | ||||
| by Lemma 12 | ||||
| by Lemma 17 | ||||
| by Lemma 9. | ||||
Notice that by the definition of step 1 of Algorithm 1, the path is identical to the path that Algorithm 1 would output if the first vertex was chosen to be . This means that the entire path from to has length at most because is initially set to until an edge is chosen in step 1. The ratio evaluates to when . Furthermore, by assumption. The only memory required to construct the path locally is to store for each successive iteration. Hence we have given a local routing algorithm with routing ratio at most for using at most bits of memory.
4 Lower Bounds
Lemma 19.
Let . There exists a graph with spanning ratio at least .
Proof.
Let be arbitrarily small. We will create a graph with spanning ratio at least , shown in Figure 7.
We let and choose its exact value later in the proof. Let , , , , , , , , and . Let be the graph with vertices . Then excluding the outgoing edges from , contains the following edges: . Since the only incoming edge to is , then the shortest path from to must pass by . The shortest path from to is since
Next, we have , therefore the shortest path from to in has length at least . Finally, when . Therefore choosing means that the spanning ratio of is at least .
Lemma 20.
Let . Then any local routing algorithm for graphs has routing ratio at least in the worst case.
Proof.
Let be arbitrarily small and let be a local routing algorithm. We will construct three graphs such that has a routing ratio of at least in at least one of when routing from to . The three graphs are shown in Figure 9. Let be arbitrarily small.
We will start by defining the zip-zag paths, illustrated in Figure 8, which will act as sub-graphs. Define the two segments and . Let , and such that . Let such that has slope . Then for define and such that triangle is similar to triangle . Let be the greatest index such that . Then define .
The shortest path from to in the graph of WestZag is , and it is -monotone. We will now express the length of this path in terms of . Firstly, we have and . By similar triangles, for all we have
Combining this with the observation that , then the shortest path from to in WestZag has length at least
Additionally, the shortest path from to in WestZag has length at least since . Analogously, we define NorthZag to be WestZag reflected about the line . Similarly, define EastZag to be WestZag reflected about the vertical line through .
Now, define the points , , , , , , , , , , . Note that since . We define vertex sets , , .
This construction guarantees that the shortest path from any vertex not in a zip-zag path to must pass through a zip-zag path.
The decision tree for which graph to provide to is illustrated in Figure 10. One can verify that the decision tree represents a valid adversarial strategy since the collections of graphs at each node contain identical neighbourhoods at all previously visited vertices.
Finally, if we exclude the zig-zag paths, then each vertex is within a distance of from its nearest integer coordinate. Since the shortest path to in each case uses at least six edges with length at least before passing through , then the total path length in any case is at least . Setting completes the proof.
Lemma 21.
Let . There exists a graph with spanning ratio at least .
Proof.
Let be arbitrarily small. We will create a graph with spanning ratio at least , shown in Figure 11.
Let be arbitrarily small. Define , , , , , , , , and .
Next, we define a point in the region below and to the left of . More precisely, start by defining to be the north-most point satisfying and . Next, let be the east-most point such that and is orthogonal to . Finally let . Define the convex combination . Note that this construction guarantees that is in the triangle . Let be the graph with vertices . By construction, ignoring outgoing edges from , the edges of are . Note that the only incoming edge to is , and that the only incoming edge to is . Also, for any distinct , the coordinates of and differ by at most from their nearest integer grid points, so the edge has length at least . Furthermore, and both have length at least . It remains to bound the lengths and . We have
Next, the and coordinates of and are in , so by definition, we have
This allows us to bound the distance from to :
Now we can lower bound the edge length and as follows:
The shortest path from to in will follow either path or , followed by the edges and . We have
Setting completes the proof since .
Lemma 22.
Let . Then any local routing algorithm for graphs has routing ratio at least in the worst case.
Proof.
Let be arbitrarily small. We will construct five graphs such that any local routing algorithm has a routing ratio of at least in at least one of the five graphs. The five graphs are shown in Figure 12.
Let be arbitrarily small. Define the points , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . We have since . Then define the graphs by their point sets: , , , , . Notice that the only incoming edges to in the five graphs are , respectively. The decision tree for which graph to provide to any algorithm is illustrated in Figure 13.
By construction, each coordinate of each vertex differs by at most from its nearest integer grid point. This implies that any edge connecting two different letters must have length of at least . Moreover, and have length at least . Furthermore, the nearly diagonal edges, , have length at least . In any case, we append the shortest path to from a leaf of the decision tree to get a routing ratio of at least in the worst case. Setting guarantees that the routing ratio is at least .
References
- [1] Hugo A. Akitaya, Ahmad Biniaz, and Prosenjit Bose. On the spanning and routing ratios of the directed -graph. Comput. Geom., 105-106:101881, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.comgeo.2022.101881.
- [2] Vikrant Ashvinkumar, Joachim Gudmundsson, Christos Levcopoulos, Bengt J. Nilsson, and André van Renssen. Local routing in sparse and lightweight geometric graphs. Algorithmica, 84(5):1316–1340, 2022. doi:10.1007/s00453-022-00930-2.
- [3] Luis Barba, Prosenjit Bose, Mirela Damian, Rolf Fagerberg, Wah Loon Keng, Joseph O’Rourke, André van Renssen, Perouz Taslakian, Sander Verdonschot, and Ge Xia. New and improved spanning ratios for Yao graphs. J. Comput. Geom., 6(2):19–53, 2015. doi:10.20382/jocg.v6i2a3.
- [4] Nicolas Bonichon, Cyril Gavoille, Nicolas Hanusse, and Ljubomir Perkovic. Plane spanners of maximum degree six. In ICALP (1), volume 6198 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 19–30. Springer, 2010. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14165-2_3.
- [5] Nicolas Bonichon, Cyril Gavoille, Nicolas Hanusse, and Ljubomir Perkovic. Tight stretch factors for L- and L-Delaunay triangulations. Comput. Geom., 48(3):237–250, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.comgeo.2014.10.005.
- [6] Nicolas Bonichon, Iyad A. Kanj, Ljubomir Perkovic, and Ge Xia. There are plane spanners of degree 4 and moderate stretch factor. Discret. Comput. Geom., 53(3):514–546, 2015. doi:10.1007/s00454-015-9676-z.
- [7] Prosenjit Bose, Jean-Lou De Carufel, Darryl Hill, and Michiel Smid. On the spanning and routing ratio of the directed theta-four graph. Discret. Comput. Geom., 71(3):872–892, 2024. doi:10.1007/s00454-023-00597-8.
- [8] Prosenjit Bose, Jean-Lou De Carufel, Pat Morin, André van Renssen, and Sander Verdonschot. Towards tight bounds on theta-graphs: More is not always better. Theor. Comput. Sci., 616:70–93, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2015.12.017.
- [9] Prosenjit Bose, Mirela Damian, Karim Douïeb, Joseph O’Rourke, Ben Seamone, Michiel H. M. Smid, and Stefanie Wuhrer. /2-angle Yao graphs are spanners. Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl., 22(1):61–82, 2012. doi:10.1142/S0218195912600047.
- [10] Prosenjit Bose, Rolf Fagerberg, André van Renssen, and Sander Verdonschot. Optimal local routing on Delaunay triangulations defined by empty equilateral triangles. SIAM J. Comput., 44(6):1626–1649, 2015. doi:10.1137/140988103.
- [11] Prosenjit Bose, Darryl Hill, Michiel Smid, and Tyler Tuttle. On the spanning and routing ratios of the Yao-four graph. In ISAAC, volume 322 of LIPIcs, pages 15:1–15:17. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2024. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ISAAC.2024.15.
- [12] Kevin Buchin, Joachim Gudmundsson, Antonia Kalb, Aleksandr Popov, Carolin Rehs, André van Renssen, and Sampson Wong. Oriented spanners. In ESA, volume 274 of LIPIcs, pages 26:1–26:16. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2023. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ESA.2023.26.
- [13] Paul Chew. There is a planar graph almost as good as the complete graph. In SCG, pages 169–177. ACM, 1986. doi:10.1145/10515.10534.
- [14] Mirela Damian and Naresh Nelavalli. Improved bounds on the stretch factor of y. Comput. Geom., 62:14–24, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.comgeo.2016.12.001.
- [15] Mark de Berg, Otfried Cheong, Marc J. van Kreveld, and Mark H. Overmars. Computational geometry: algorithms and applications, 3rd Edition. Springer, 2008. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77974-2.
- [16] William Michael Zoltan Kalnay. Routing ratio of the directed Yao-6 graphs. Master’s thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, 2023.
- [17] Giri Narasimhan and Michiel Smid. Geometric Spanner Networks. Cambridge University Press, 2007. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511546884.
- [18] Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. On constructing minimum spanning trees in k-dimensional spaces and related problems. SIAM J. Comput., 11(4):721–736, 1982. doi:10.1137/0211059.
