Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Preliminaries 3 A sparse noncrossing Steiner spanner 4 Conclusion and Future Directions References

Euclidean Noncrossing Steiner Spanners of Nearly Optimal Sparsity

Sujoy Bhore ORCID Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India    Sándor Kisfaludi-Bak ORCID Aalto University, Espoo, Finland    Lazar Milenković ORCID Tel Aviv University, Israel
INSAIT, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Bulgaria
   Csaba D. Tóth ORCID Department of Mathematics, California State University Northridge, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Department of Computer Science, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA
   Karol Węgrzycki ORCID Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbrücken, Germany    Sampson Wong ORCID University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Abstract

A Euclidean noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner for a point set P2 is a planar straight-line graph that, for any two points a,bP, contains a path whose length is at most 1+ε times the Euclidean distance between a and b. We construct a Euclidean noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner with O(n/ε3/2) edges for any set of n points in the plane. This result improves upon the previous best upper bound of O(n/ε4) obtained nearly three decades ago. We also establish an almost matching lower bound: There exist n points in the plane for which any Euclidean noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner has Ωμ(n/ε3/2μ) edges for any μ>0. Our lower bound uses recent generalizations of the Szemerédi-Trotter theorem to disk-tube incidences in geometric measure theory.

Keywords and phrases:
geometric network design, spanners, crossing number, incidences
Funding:
Sujoy Bhore: Work supported in part by ANRF ARG-MATRICS, Grant 002465.
Sándor Kisfaludi-Bak: Supported by the Research Council of Finland, Grant 363444.
Lazar Milenković: Funded by a grant from the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), Jerusalem, Israel, and the United States National Science Foundation (NSF). This research was partially funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria (support for INSAIT, part of the Bulgarian National Roadmap for Research Infrastructure).
Csaba D. Tóth: Research supported, in part, by the NSF award DMS-2154347.
Karol Węgrzycki: Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) grant number 559177164.
Sampson Wong: Supported by the European Union’s Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Postdoctoral Fellowship, grant number 101146276.
Copyright and License:
[Uncaptioned image] © Sujoy Bhore, Sándor Kisfaludi-Bak, Lazar Milenković, Csaba D. Tóth,
Karol Węgrzycki, and Sampson Wong; licensed under Creative Commons License CC-BY 4.0
2012 ACM Subject Classification:
Theory of computation Sparsification and spanners
; Theory of computation Routing and network design problems ; Mathematics of computing Graph algorithms
Related Version:
Full Version: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17801v1
Editors:
Hee-Kap Ahn, Michael Hoffmann, and Amir Nayyeri

1 Introduction

Spanners are a classical tool for data compression in graphs and network optimization. Formally, a t-spanner for an edge-weighted graph G=(V,E,w) and a (stretch) parameter t1, is a subgraph H of G in which the shortest-path distance between any two vertices in V is at most t times larger than in G [3]. Metric spanners can approximate distances in a finite metric space (X,d) by setting V=X and the edge weights to be the metric distances between the vertices. Geometric networks [69] are an important class of metric spanners, with applications in the design of physical networks in low-dimensional Euclidean spaces. Results in Euclidean spaces are also applicable for other settings via metric embeddings into Euclidean spaces [5, 28, 66, 67].

For Euclidean spanners in the plane, research efforts have diverged into two distinct regimes: (1) (1+ε)-spanners, where the stretch t=1+ε is arbitrarily close to 1, and the minimum size and weight of a (1+ε)-spanner is bounded by a function of 1/ε [63, 10, 61, 64], and (2) plane spanners, where the edges of the spanner are noncrossing line segments in 2 [27, 24, 56, 26, 46]. Researchers have made strides in both regimes over the last decade, and have uncovered optimal or near-optimal trade-offs between key parameters (see details below). However, very little attention was given to spanners that meet a dual objective: 1+ε stretch for arbitrarily small ε>0 and noncrossing edges in 2.

This paper focuses on this dual objective. The problem may have avoided scrutiny because it has seemingly trivial answers: On the one hand, a simple instance of four points at the vertices of a square shows that a noncrossing straight-line Euclidean spanner cannot achieve stretch less than 2. If we insist on noncrossing edges and stretch close to 1, then we must allow Steiner points. On the other hand, if Steiner points are allowed, then the planarization of an optimal (1+ε)-spanner (by introducing Steiner vertices at edge crossings) provides a noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner with the same weight. However, planarization substantially increases the number of edges (hence the size of the spanner). Our goal is to find the best trade-offs between ε>0 and the number of Steiner points for a Euclidean noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner in 2.

Problem 1.

Determine s(n,ε), defined as the minimum integer such that every set of n points in Euclidean plane admits a Euclidean noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner with at most s(n,ε) Steiner points.

This problem was also posed as Open Problem 17 in a survey by Bose and Smid [27, Section 4] in 2013. The best bound available at that time was given by Arikati et al. [9]: They constructed a Euclidean noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner with O(n/ε4) Steiner points by taking rectangular decompositions for n points in O(1/ε) equally spaced directions.

Previous work.

There are several possible approaches to address Problem 1. For n points in the plane, there are (1+ε)-spanners with O(n/ε) edges (e.g., θ-graphs [37]); and this bound is the best possible. Since the edges of a spanner may pairwise cross, a naïve analysis of straightforward planarization would lead to a Euclidean Steiner (1+ε)-spanner with O(n2/ε2) Steiner points.

Alternatively, one could try to bound the number of edge crossings in a (1+ε)-spanner (without Steiner points). Given a set P2 of n points, the greedy (1+ε)-spanner of Althöfer et al. [7] is constructed as follows: sort the (n2) possible edges by nondecreasing length, initialize an empty graph H=(P,), and add an edge ab to H if dH(a,b)>(1+ε)d(a,b). The greedy (1+ε)-spanner has O(n/ε) edges [7, 30, 31]; and Eppstein and Khodabandeh [49] proved that every edge ab crosses O(1/ε8) edges that are longer than ab. Consequently, it has O(n/ε9) crossings: planarization would create this many Steiner points. This bound is weaker than the previous bound of O(n/ε4) by Arikati et al. [9].

For n points in the plane and k, the emanation graph of grade k, introduced by Hamedmohseni et al. [54], is constructed by shooting 2k+1 rays from each given point, where the shorter rays stop the longer ones upon collision. The emanation graph of grade k is a noncrossing Steiner spanner with O(2kn) Steiner points. Hamedmohseni et al. [54] show that the stretch factor is at most 10, but for every k, there are point sets for which the stretch factor is arbitrarily close to 2; hence this approach does not lead to (1+ε)-spanners.

Figure 1: An ellipse ab with foci a and b, and major axis of length (1+ε)|ab|, and rhombus ab.

Cone-restricted spanners.

Let P be a set of n points in the plane. For any a,bP, any ab-path of length at most (1+ε)|ab| lies in an ellipse a,b with foci a and b and major axis (1+ε)|ab|; see Figure 1. Note that for small ε>0, the ellipse ab is long and narrow. It is known that in every ab-path of length at most (1+ε)|ab|, the total length of the edges that make an angle αO(ε) with the line segment ab is Ω(|ab|) [18]. The angle threshold αO(ε) is the best possible: For example, if c is an intersection point of ab and its minor axis, the ab-path (a,c,b) has length |ac|+|cb|=(1+ε)|ab|, but both ac and cb make an angle of Θ(ε) with ab. We define a variant of Euclidean (1+ε)-spanners (with or without Steiner points), where we require an ab-path, for all a,bP, in which all edges make an angle O(ε) with the line segment ab.

Definition 2.

Let P be a set of n points in d, for constant dimension d, and let α(0,π/2]. A (Steiner) graph G=(V,E), with PV, is a cone-restricted (Steiner) (1+ε)-spanner for P if for every a,bP, there is an ab-path (a=p0,p1,,pm=b) in G such that (ab,pi1pi)ε for all i=1,,m.

Note that if G is a cone-restricted (Steiner) (1+ε)-spanner for P, then for every a,bP, there is an ab-path of length at most (1+ε)|ab| that lies in the rhombus ab spanned by a, b, and the two intersection points of ab with its minor axis; see Lemma 9.

1.1 Contributions and technical highlights

Upper bound.

Our first contribution is a noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner with O(n/ε3/2) Steiner vertices. This improves upon the previous best result by Arikati et al. [9], which has O(n/ε4) Steiner vertices.

Theorem 3.

For every ε>0 and every set of n points in Euclidean plane, there is a noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner with O(n/ε3/2) Steiner vertices. Furthermore, there is such a spanner that is cone-restricted, and can be computed in O((nlogn)/ε3/2) time.

Arikati et al. [9] construct a set of noncrossing graphs Gi for 1ik. The final spanner is i=1kGi, where a Steiner vertex is added at every edge crossing between Gi and Gj, ij. Our construction improves on the construction of Arikati et al. [9] in several ways. First, we use fewer graphs Gi when constructing our spanner. Specifically, we use k=O(1/ε) instead of k=O(1/ε) graphs. Whereas the previous construction [9] uses O(1/ε) rotated copies of the point set to approximate the L2 distance with the L1 distance in one of the copies, we instead use O(1/ε) carefully chosen linear transformations to achieve cone-restricted paths between all pairs of points. Second, our graphs Gi are of smaller size than those in Arikati et al. [9]. Both constructions obtain Gi by refining the Balanced Box Decomposition into an axis-parallel spanner under the L1 metric. We are able to use the properties of our linear transformations to obtain the same stretch guarantee using a coarser refinement of the Balanced Box Decomposition. In particular, we obtain |Gi|=O(n), improving on |Gi|=O(n/ε2) in [9]. Third, our construction fills some details that are missing from both [9] and [27, Chapter 4].

Lower bounds.

Our second contribution is an almost matching lower bound on the number of Steiner vertices in any Euclidean noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner.

Theorem 4.

For every sufficiently small ε,μ>0 and every n, there exists a set of n points in the Euclidean plane for which every noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner has Ωμ(n/ε3/2μ) Steiner vertices, where the constant hidden in the Ωμ(.) notation depends only on μ.

To the best of our knowledge, the best previous unconditional lower bound follows from the known size lower bound of Ω(n/ε) for Euclidean Steiner (1+ε)-spanners [63], which also applies to noncrossing spanners. In this paper, the canonical example to prove lower bounds is the following construction: consider the unit square [0,1]2 and let A (resp., B) be the set of equally spaced points on the left (resp., right) side of [0,1]2 so that the distance between any two consecutive points in A (resp., B) is 4ε. The point set P is the union of points in A and B; see Figure 2 for an illustration. Observe that: (i) the minimum pairwise distance in P is 4ε, (ii) the maximum pairwise distance (a.k.a., diameter) in P is 2, and (iii) for any aA and bB, the slope of the segment ab is between 1 and 1. Let G be a noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner with the minimal number of Steiner points for P.

Figure 2: Point set AB, where A and B lie on two opposite sides of a unit square.

First, we sketch key ideas behind a weaker Ω(n/ε) lower bound (the proof can be found in the full version of the paper).

Theorem 5.

For every sufficiently small ε>0 and every n, there exists a set of n points in the Euclidean plane for which every noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner has Ω(n/ε) Steiner vertices.

Let A0A consist of every third point from the bottom third of the left side, and B0B consist of every third point from the top third of the right side. This ensures |A0|,|B0|=Ω(1/ε) and for each pair (a,b)A0×B0 the segment ab has slope in [13,1]. For each pair (a,b)A0×B0, let γab denote a shortest path in G from a to b. We apply the result of Bhore and Tóth [18, Lemma 4] to conclude that the set Eab of edges in γab having angle at most 3ε with ab satisfies Eab79|ab|, i.e., the total length of the edges in Eab is at least 79|ab|. Moreover, using a geometric argument, we can show that for distinct pairs (a,b),(a,b)A0×B0, the sets Eab and Eab are pairwise disjoint.

Figure 3: An ab-path and its intersections with other paths between point pairs of slope 1/2.

Now, consider the collection of all ellipses cd with c,dAB and slope 12 (see Figure 3). As these ellipses are pairwise disjoint (Lemma 10), each such ellipse creates a Steiner vertex wherever γab (for (a,b)A0×B0) intersects it. Since there are Θ(1/ε) such disjoint ellipses, and each path γab must cross Θ(1/ε) of them, each path γab contains Θ(1/ε) Steiner points in these intersections. The bound on the total length |γab|(1+ε)|ab|<2 combined with the pigeonhole principle implies that the average length of an edge in Eab is O(ε). Consequently, Eab contains at least Ω(1/ε) edges. Since there are Ω(1/ε) pairs in A0×B0 and the sets Eab are edge-disjoint, the total number of edges is Ω(1/ε)Ω(1/ε)=Ω(1/ε3/2)=Ω(n/ε) for the basic construction. See the full version for a detailed proof.

This lower bound is already stronger than the lower bound of Ω(n/ε) that can be derived from the crossing case [63]. However, the limitation of this approach is the fact that the pigeonhole argument can give only Ω(1/ε) edges per path γab. To improve this to Ωμ(n/ε3/2μ) for any μ>0, we will use techniques from geometric measure theory (see the full version for the full proof of Theorem 4). To use these tools, we first need to show that most of the spanner paths have certain properties. Let M be the square of side-length 1/8 in the middle of [0,1]2. We decompose M into an O(1/ε)×O(1/ε) grid consisting of square windows and analyze the structure of spanner paths within each window. We will also restrict our attention to ellipses ab where the corresponding segment ab has slope λ[1/4,3/4], and we say that such ellipses and spanner paths are in the positive bundle, or ab has slope λ[3/4,1/4], where the corresponding ellipses and spanner paths belong to the negative bundle. The key properties we establish are:

  • Each window W contains crossing ellipses for each slope in the positive and negative bundles.

  • Each spanner path γab is adventurous in at most c/ε windows, meaning it goes outside a narrow strip RW(γab) of width O(ε) in only a small number of windows. Here c is a small constant.

  • Each spanner path γab is skewed in at most c/ε windows, meaning its direction deviates significantly from the direction of the segment ab in only a small number of windows. Again, c is a small constant.

  • More than half of the windows in M are well-behaved, meaning they are crossed by sufficiently many non-adventurous, non-skewed spanner paths from both the positive and negative bundles.

In a well-behaved window W, we can also identify collections ΨW+ and ΨW of spanner paths such that each path γΨW+ΨW is non-adventurous, non-skewed, and the paths and their corresponding strips RW(γ) of width O(ε) have the following properties (see Figure 4):

  1. (i)

    Paths in ΨW+ and ΨW pairwise cross within the window.

  2. (ii)

    The directions of the strips RW(γ) corresponding to these paths differ by at least Ω(ε).

  3. (iii)

    The strips corresponding to distinct paths have small intersection areas, at most half the area of any individual strip.

Figure 4: A well-behaved window W with two non-adventurous non-skewed paths γab,γcdΨW+.

After this preparation, we want to analyze the number of Steiner vertices. A natural tool would be the classical Szemerédi–Trotter theorem which states that for any set of lines in the plane, the number of points incident to at least r of these lines is at most O(2/r3+/r). Ideally, we would like to apply this theorem to count the number of Steiner vertices incident to many spanner paths. However, the Szemerédi–Trotter theorem does not directly apply, since our spanner paths are not straight lines.

Motivated by problems in geometric measure theory, the Szemerédi–Trotter theorem was generalized to disk-tube incidences [53]. Instead of points and lines, we count intersections between δ-disks (small disks of radius δ) and δ-tubes (long rectangles of width δ). Fu, Gan and Ren [52] recently proved that only Oμ(|𝒯|2/r3) disjoint r-rich disks (each intersecting at least r tubes) exist when tubes in 𝒯 are sufficiently well-spaced and separated in direction.111The exact definition of sufficiently well-spaced is quite technical and is guided by the μ>0 parameter (see the full version for details).

We apply their theorem to the tubes formed by the strips RW(γab) corresponding to the spanner paths with δ=Θ(ε) for every well-behaved window W (see Figure 4). Properties (i), (ii) and (iii) guarantee that the collection of tubes in each well-behaved window W satisfies the spacing and direction separation conditions required by the result of Fu, Gan and Ren [52].

The theorem of Fu, Gan and Ren [52] implies that only Oμ(1/(εr3)) disjoint r-rich δ-disks can intersect tubes in our collection. In their result, there is a technical requirement that r>δ12μ|𝒯max|, and so the smallest value of r we can choose is r=Ωμ(1/εμ). This means that most of the Θ(1/ε) crossing points are not covered by the r-rich disks. Therefore, there must exist Ωμ(1/ε) crossing points where the Steiner vertex is incident to fewer than r0=Θμ(1/εμ) spanner paths from our tube collection. Counting the tube crossings at these low-degree Steiner vertices yields at least Ωμ(1/ε)/r02=Ωμ(1/ε12μ) such vertices per window, and summing over all Ω(1/ε) well-behaved windows gives the Ωμ(1/ε22μ) lower bound on the number of Steiner vertices in G. Since n=Θ(1/ε), this implies the desired lower bound of Ωμ(n/ε3/22μ). Finally, we scale μ by a factor of 2. This concludes the sketch of the proof of Theorem 4, see the full version for details.

Theorem 4 leaves a small gap of roughly εo(1) between our upper and lower bounds. We are able to show that this gap can be closed if we restrict our attention to cone-restricted spanners which were used in the construction of Theorem 3. The proof of Theorem 6 uses a generalization of the celebrated Crossing Lemma to so-called degenerate crossings [2, 70].

Theorem 6.

For every sufficiently small ε>0 and every n, there exists a set of n points in the plane for which every cone-restricted plane Steiner (1+ε)-spanner has Ω(n/ε3/2) Steiner vertices. Up to constant factors, this lower bound is the best possible (cf. Theorem 3).

Organization.

After covering further related works (Section 1.2) and the preliminaries (Section 2), we provide the construction for our sparse noncrossing Steiner spanner (Section 3). Due to space limitations, complete proofs are deferred to the full version. The proofs of the lower bounds (Theorems 4, 5, and 6) are also deferred to the full version.

1.2 Further related previous work

As noted above, Euclidean spanners have been studied under two independent regimes:

(𝟏+𝜺)-Spanners.

The first Euclidean (1+ε)-spanners for arbitrary ε>0 were obtained independently by Clarkson [37] and Keil [57], and these works also introduced the fixed-angle Θ-graph (a close variant of the Yao graph [81]) as a basic construction tool. Ruppert and Seidel [76] extended this to d, by giving (1+ε)-spanners with O(n/εd1) edges for constant d. Le and Solomon [63] proved that this dependence on ε is tight: for every ε>0 and constant d, there exist point sets in d for which any (1+ε)-spanner must have Ω(ε(d1)) edges whenever ε=Ω(n1/(d1)).

Another key parameter of a spanner is its lightness. For a set of points, it is the ratio between its total edge weight and the weight of the MST of the point set. Building on the greedy spanner of Althöfer et al. [7], Das et al. [41] proved that this construction achieves constant lightness and stretch 1+ε in 3, which was later extended to all d by Das et al. [42]. Rao and Smith [72] established that the greedy (1+ε)-spanner in d has lightness 1/εO(d), and a long line of refinements culminated in the bound O(εdlog(1/ε)) by Le and Solomon [63]. Besides achieving small stretch and sparsity222The sparsity of a spanner is the ratio of the number of edges in the spanner to the size of MST., spanners are often required to satisfy additional desirable properties such as bounded degree or diameter. There has been extensive work on understanding the optimal trade-offs among these parameters for Euclidean spanners (see, e.g., [10, 17, 47, 45, 61]).

Euclidean Steiner spanners.

Steiner points can significantly reduce the weight of distance approximation structures (see, e.g., [48, 77]). Note that a Steiner t-spanner for a point set P must guarantee stretch t only for point pairs in P. Le and Solomon [62] constructed Steiner (1+ε)-spanners of sparsity O(ε(1d)/2) in d for all d2, and this bound is the best possible [18]. In the plane, Bhore and Tóth [18] constructed Steiner (1+ε)-spanners of lightness O(1/ε), this bound is also tight [63]. In dimensions d3, the current best upper and lower bounds for lightness are O~(1/ε(d+1)/2) and Ω(1/εd/2) [18, 63]. Recent work has also analyzed online algorithms for Euclidean Steiner spanners and obtained several asymptotically tight bounds [15, 19].

Noncrossing spanners.

Chew [33] first proved the existence of a Euclidean spanner with stretch 10 and O(n) noncrossing edges, the stretch was later improved to 2 [34]. Keil and Gutwin [58] showed that the Delaunay triangulation is a 2.42-spanner. Later, Bonichon et al. [23] gave tight bounds of 4+22 for the L1- and L-Delaunay graphs. Subsequently, Bose et al. [25] showed that the Yao graph is a 82-spanner. See the comprehensive survey by Bose and Smid [27] for results on plane spanners up to 2013. Since then, several core questions raised in that survey on plane spanners have seen notable progress. The long-open existence of bounded-degree plane spanners has been resolved for degree 4 through constructions of Bonichon et al. [24]. Later, Kanj et al. [56] obtained improved stretch bounds. Bose et al. [26] further tightened the trade-off by giving an algorithm to construct degree-8 plane spanners with stretch 4.414. Dumitrescu and Ghosh [46] strengthened lower bounds on plane-spanner dilation. For degree 3, progress has been obtained for restricted families of point sets, such as points in convex position [20]. The framework has also been extended to constrained visibility, where van Renssen and Wong [79] showed that visibility graphs among polygonal obstacles admit noncrossing spanners with bounded degree and constant stretch (see also [16, 1] for some recent work on plane spanners in polygonal domains). Further developments include refined stretch analysis for planar variants of θ-like geometric graphs [26], as well as general geometric conditions under which sweepline-based constructions produce planar spanners [65].

Previous work related to cone-restricted spanners.

We have defined cone-restricted (1+ε)-spanners for finite point sets in the plane (Definition 2). Similar concepts have previously been used for other purposes. In a geometric graph G=(V,E), the vertices are distinct points in the plane and the edges are straight-line segments. A geometric graph is strongly monotone [8, 59, 51] if for every a,bV, there is a ab-path (a=v0,v1,,vm=b) in which (ab,vi1vi)π/2 for all i=1,,m. However, this property does not guarantee any stretch factor.

A geometric graph is angle-monotone with width γ [21, 43, 68] if for every a,bV, there is an ab-path in which the angle between any two edges is at most γ. For example, the axis-aligned grid graph induced by n points in the plane is angle monotone with width (π/2), and is a 2-spanner, however, it uses O(n2) Steiner vertices. Dehkordi et al. [43] constructed, for n points in 2, a plane angle-monotone graph of width π/2 using O(n) Steiner points. Bonichon et al. [21] showed that the half-θ6 graph [22] is angle-monotone with width 2π/3, and O(n) edges, however, it is not necessarily planar. Lubiw and Mondal [68] constructed an angle monotone graph with width π/2 with O(n2loglogn/logn) edges without Steiner vertices (but with crossings). They also consider a version of the problem with Steiner vertices, however, they require the angle-monotone property for all pairs of vertices (including Steiner vertices), and allow additional crossings. For every γ>0 and every set P of n points in the plane, they construct a Steiner angle-monotone graph of width γ with O(nγlogΦ(P)) edges, where Φ(P) is an unbounded parameter that depends on the point configurations.

Other constraints imposed on ab-path include greedy [66, 71], self-approaching [6] and increasing-chord [40] properties: A geometric graph G=(V,E) is greedy if for every a,bV, there is an ab-path (a=v0,v1,,vm=b) that monotonically gets closest to b, that is, d(vi,b)<d(vi1,b) for all i=1,,m. It is self-approaching if d(vj,vk)d(vi,vk) for all 0i<j<km; and increasing-chord if there is an ab-path that is self-approaching in both directions. The self-approaching and increasing-chord properties imply a stretch factor of 5.34 [55], at most 2π/3 [74] (see also [4]), resp., while the greedy property alone does not imply any stretch guarantee.

We also mention a couple of concepts that sound similar to cone-restricted spanners, but are different. The classical θ- and Yao-graphs are constructed by connecting every vertex v to a “closest” point in cones of apex v and aperture θ. They are known to be O(θ)-spanners for θπ/2, but the ab-paths of length O(θ)d(a,b) are not necessarily cone-restricted: They may contain (short) edges that make an arbitrary angle with the line segment ab.

Another concept, under a similar name, was introduced by Carmi and Smid [29]: A geometric graph is θ-angle-constrained if for every vertex vV the angle between any two edges incident to v is at least θ. They note that the classical greedy (1+ε)-spanner by Althöfer et al. [7] is Ω(ε)-angle constrained. For every θ(0,π/3), and n points in the plane, one can construct a θ-angle-constrained (1+O(θ))-spanner in O(nlogn) time [29]; and this is not always possible for θ>π/3 [12].

Connections to incidences and geometric measure theory.

Szemerédi and Trotter [78] proved that n points and lines in 2 determine O(n2/32/3+n+) point-line incidences, and this bound is the best possible [50]. Motivated by connections to geometric measure theory [80] significant progress was made on a generalization to disk-tube incidences, which is the number of intersections between well-spaced disks of radius δ and δ-tubes, where a δ-tube is the δ-neighborhood of a line, in a unit square [0,1]2; see [39, 44, 52, 53].

The number of disk-tube incidences (used in multiple scales) was instrumental in several recent breakthroughs in combinatorial geometry and geometric measure theory. For example, Heilbronn’s classical problem [75] asks for the minimum h(n)>0 such that any set P of n points in the unit square [0,1]2 determines a nondegenerate triangle Δ(abc) of area at most h(n). A line segment ab is the base of a triangle Δ(abc) of area A if and only if there exists a point cP in the 2Ad(a,b)-neighborhood of the line spanned by ab. Cohen et al. [38, 39, 82] recently proved h(n)Ω(n8/71/2000), improving on the previous bound h(n)Ω(n8/7) by Komlós et al. [60]. In another recent breakthrough using this machinery, Ren and Wang [73] completely solved the Furstenberg set problem.

2 Preliminaries

Balanced Box Decomposition.

In our upper bound construction, we will use the Balanced Box Decomposition (BBD) of Arya et al. [11]. Given a set of points P, the BBD partitions the bounding box of P into a set of tiles, such that each tile is either a rectangle or defined by an outer rectangle and a sticky inner rectangle.

Definition 7 (Sticky).

In 1, an inner interval of width w is sticky with respect to an outer interval if its distances to the endpoints of the outer interval are either =0 or w. In d, an inner box is sticky with respect to an outer box if their projections onto each of the d coordinate axes are sticky.

Figure 5: The middle figure shows an inner box that is not sticky, due to its x-projection.
Theorem 8 (BBD [11]).

Given a set of points P, one can partition the bounding box of P into O(n) tiles such that

  1. (a)

    each tile is either a rectangle, or an outer rectangle with a sticky inner rectangular hole,

  2. (b)

    the rectangle, outer rectangle, and inner rectangle must have an aspect ratio of 3,

  3. (c)

    each tile contains at most one point of P, moreover, this point lies on the tile’s boundary.

Properties of cone-restricted spanners.

We prove here that every cone-restricted (Steiner) (1+ε)-spanner is, in fact, a (Steiner) (1+ε)-spanner; which justifies calling them (1+ε)-spanners in Definition 2. (See also [21].)

Lemma 9.

Let a,b, and let γ=(a=p0,p1,,pm=b) be a polygonal path such that (ab,pi1pi)ε for all i=1,,m. Then for 0<ε1,

  1. 1.

    the length of γ is bounded by |γ|(1+ε)|ab|, and

  2. 2.

    γab, where ab is the rhombus ab spanned by a, b, and the two intersection points of ab with its minor axis (cf. Figure 1).

Basic point set for lower bounds.

Our lower bounds are based on the same basic point set, which is known to give asymptotically tight bounds for lightness and sparsity for both Steiner and non-Steiner (1+ε)-spanners in the plane [18, 62, 63].

Let ε(0,116), and assume w.l.o.g. that ε=4k for some k. We first construct a point set P of size |P|=2(2k2+1)=Θ(ε1/2). Consider the unit square [0,1]2. Let A be a set of 2k2+1 equally spaced points on the left side of [0,1]2; and B a set of 2k2+1 equally spaced points on the right side of U. Our point set is P=AB; see Figure 2.

Note that the minimum distance between any two points in A (resp., B) is 22k=4ε; the diameter of P is 2. Note also that for any aA and bB, the segment ab makes an angle at most π/4 with a vertical line, in particular the absolute value of the slope of ab is at most 1.

We observe two easy properties of the point set P=AB.

Lemma 10.

If ab and ab are parallel, then the ellipses ab and ab are disjoint.

Next, we have a lower bound on the angle between two nonparallel segments ab and ab.

Lemma 11.

For any a,aA and b,bB, the following hold:

  1. (1)

    if ab and ab are parallel, then ab and ab are disjoint;

  2. (2)

    if ab and ab are nonparallel, then (ab,ab)>2ε.

3 A sparse noncrossing Steiner spanner

Construction.

Our construction is based on the noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner of Arikati et al. [9]. See also Section 4 in the survey by Bose and Smid [27].

We are given a set P of n points in the plane, and a parameter ε>0. Let k. Note that k=k(ε) and will be chosen later based on ε. We will construct a set of planar straight-line graphs Gi for i{1,,k}. Then we will construct the final spanner G=i=1kGi as the union of the graphs Gi, where a Steiner point is inserted at each edge crossing between edges in Gi and Gj for ij. For i{1,,k}, the graph Gi will be such that the edges have two possible directions: they either make an angle of iπk or (i+δ)πk with the positive x-axis, where δ is a positive integer333We choose δ=3, whereas Arikati et al. [9] choose δ=k2.. Consider the affine transformation Ti:22 that maps unit vectors of direction iπk and (i+δ)πk to unit vectors along the positive x- and y-axes, respectively. By applying the transformation on Gi, we obtain an axis-parallel graph Ti(Gi) on the point set Ti(P).

It remains to construct the axis-parallel graph Ti(Gi). We use the Balanced Box Decomposition (BBD), which we introduced in Section 2. Recall that the BBD divides the bounding box of Ti(P) into O(n) tiles. For each of these O(n) axis-aligned tiles, we will further subdivide the tile into at most 9K2 axis-aligned rectangles. If a tile contains no hole, we subdivide it into rectangles using K equally spaced horizontal lines and K equally spaced vertical lines. If a tile contains a hole, we first subdivide it into at most 9 rectangles using the four lines spanned by the four sides of the inner rectangle, and then subdivide each of these rectangles using K equally spaced horizontal lines and K equally spaced vertical lines. See Figure 6.

Figure 6: Further subdividing a tile into 9K2 rectangles, first by the four lines spanned by the sides of the inner rectangle (dark blue), and second by equally spaced axis-parallel lines (grey).

This yields a partition of the bounding box of Ti(P) into O(nK2) axis-aligned rectangles such that each point in Ti(P) lies on the boundary of one of the rectangles. This partition defines the axis-parallel graph Ti(Gi). In particular, the vertices of the graph are the points Ti(P) and the vertices of the rectangles in the partition, and the edges of the graph are the edges of the rectangles in the partition, or a pair of edges connected to a vertex of Ti(Gi) if the vertex lies on an edge of a rectangle. This completes the construction of Ti(Gi). We can apply the inverse transformation Ti1 to obtain the graph Gi. Finally, by constructing the union G=i=1kGi and adding Steiner points at edge crossings, we obtain the final graph.

A key difference between our construction and that of Arikati et al. [9] is that we use linear transformations, instead of rotated copies, of the BBD construction. This difference ultimately leads to our improved bound on the number of Steiner points. In particular, the properties of our linear transformations (Lemmas 12 and 13) allow us to use significantly fewer graphs and a significantly coarser refinement of the BBD, which correspond to smaller values for the parameters k and K, respectively.

Next, we define the parameters δ, k and K and compare them to [9]. Our linear transformations use δ=3, whereas the rigid motions of Arikati et al. [9] correspond to δ=k2. We use k=O(1/ε) and K=100, instead of the k=O(1/ε), and K=O(1/ε) used in [9]. Notably, we have |Gi|=O(n) instead of |Gi|=O(n/ε2) in [9]. We will show that, even with fewer and smaller graphs Gi, we still obtain a (1+ε)-spanner.

Stretch analysis.

We will prove that G is a (1+ε)-spanner for the new construction, i.e., for the new values of k, δ and K. Let a,bP. Define ab to be the angle between the vector ab and the positive x-axis. For the remainder of this section, we will assume without loss of generality that ab[(i+1)πk,(i+2)πk) where i{1,,k}. The next lemma is to prove that the transformation Ti sends vector ab into the angle class [π12,5π12). See Figure 7. The lemma assumes that ε is sufficiently small, and thus k is sufficiently large.

Lemma 12.

If ab[(i+1)πk,(i+2)πk), then (Ti(a)Ti(b))[π12,5π12).

Figure 7: A visualization of the transformation Ti, which sends the unit vectors in the directions iπk, (i+δ)πk (left, blue) to the unit x- and y-vectors (right, blue). Lemma 12 states that the angle class [(i+1)πk,(i+2)π2k) (left, red) will be sent into the angle class [π12,5π12) (right, red).

Next, we use Lemma 12 to show that there is a staircase path in the graph Ti(Gi).

Lemma 13.

If (Ti(a)Ti(b))[π12,5π12), then there is an xy-monotone axis-parallel path from Ti(a) to Ti(b) in the graph Ti(Gi).

Figure 8: Replacing Ti(a)Ti(b)τ with an xy-monotone axis-parallel path, for each tile τ.

Proof sketch.

We trace the segment Ti(a)Ti(b) across the tiles in the Balanced Box Decomposition of Ti(P), and within each tile, we replace the segments in Ti(a)Ti(b)τ with xy-monotone axis-parallel paths in Ti(Gi). Let cdTi(a)Ti(b)τ be a segment connecting boundary points of τ. We have four cases, where the colors refer to Figure 8:

  1. 1.

    (Orange, Blue) c and d are on the outer boundary and cd connects adjacent sides of τ.

  2. 2.

    (Red) c and d are on the outer boundary and cd connects opposite sides of τ.

  3. 3.

    (Light green) c lies on the inner boundary and cd connects perpendicular sides of τ.

  4. 4.

    (Dark green) c lies on the inner boundary and cd connects parallel sides of τ.

In Cases 1 and 3, constructing the axis-parallel path is relatively straightforward, we can follow the outer boundary, or the extension of the inner boundary and the outer boundary. In Cases 2 and 4, we prove that Lemma 12, in combination with the K=100 constructed horizontal and vertical lines, is sufficient to obtain the “Z-shaped” paths in Figure 8.

The final step is to observe that, since there is an xy-monotone axis-parallel path from Ti(a) to Ti(b) in Ti(Gi), by reversing the transformation Ti, we obtain a cone restricted path from a to b in G. By Lemma 9, the length of this path is at most (1+ε)|ab|. Therefore, G is a (1+ε)-spanner.

Number of Steiner points.

A Steiner vertex is inserted at each edge crossing between edges in Gi and Gj, where 1i<jk=O(1/ε). The next lemma will help bound the number of crossings between edges in Gi and Gj. In this lemma, we will assume that ε is sufficiently small and thus k is sufficiently large, so that sin3πk=Ω(1k).

Lemma 14.

Let 1i<jk=O(1/ε), and e be an edge of Gi. Then Gj contains at most O(1/ε) edges that both (i) intersect e and (ii) are at least as long as e.

Proof.

Let τ be a tile in the Balanced Box Decomposition of Tj(P). Let the outer rectangle of τ have height h and width w. Recall that Tj sends the unit vectors in the directions iπk and (i+3)πk to the unit x- and y-vectors. Therefore, the inverse transformation Tj1(τ) sends the axis-parallel rectangle τ to a parallelogram. The side lengths are preserved, but the angle between the sides is not. Specifically, Tj1(τ) is a parallelogram with side lengths h and w, and two of the four angles of the parallelogram are 3πk. The area of the parallelogram is hwsin3πk.

Next, we will bound the number of tiles τ where Tj1(τ) intersects e, and where one of the sides of τ is at least as long as e. Let this set of tiles be J. Each tile τJ has aspect ratio at most three, so both sides of τ must be at least a third of the length of e. Consider the disk centered at the midpoint of e, with radius twice the length of e. The area of this disk is 4π|e|2. Each parallelogram Tj1(τ), where τJ intersects e, has side lengths |e|3, and has a smallest angle equal to sin3πk. So each parallelogram Tj1(τ) covers a region of area Ω(|e|2/k) in the interior of the ball, since sin3πk=Ω(1k) for k1. Moreover, the parallelograms Tj1(τ) cover disjoint regions since the tiles τJ are disjoint. Therefore, there are O(k) tiles in J.

Finally, each edge of Gj that intersects e and are at least as long as e must lie inside some tile in J. Moreover, every tile in J contains only O(K2)=O(1) edges. Therefore, since there are O(k) tiles satisfying the desired property, there are also O(k)=O(1/ε) edges satisfying the desired property.

For every edge e in Gi, there are O(1/ε) edges in Gj that are longer than e and cross e. So there are O(1/ε) edges in jGj longer than e and crossing e. Next, we count the total number of edge crossings between Gi and Gj for 1i,jk. We charge each edge crossing to the shorter edge. There are O(n/ε) possible choices for the shorter edge, and O(1/ε) possible choices for the longer edge. Therefore, iGi has O(n/ε3/2) edge crossings and our noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner has the same number of Steiner points.

Running time analysis.

Computing the Balanced Box Decomposition for n points in the plane takes O(nlogn) time [11]. Each tile can be subdivided into O(1) rectangles in O(1) time. So each Gi can be computed in O(nlogn) time. All Gi’s can be computed in O((nlogn)/ε) time. Finally, we compute the edge crossings and thus the Steiner points. All crossings among m segments can be computed in O(mlogm+s) time, where s is the number of crossings [13, 32]; also see [14, Chapter 2]. With m=O(n/ε) and s=O(n/ε3/2), the overall running time is bounded by O((nlogn)/ε3/2).

Putting this all together, we obtain the following theorem.

Theorem 3. [Restated, see original statement.]

For every ε>0 and every set of n points in Euclidean plane, there is a noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanner with O(n/ε3/2) Steiner vertices. Furthermore, there is such a spanner that is cone-restricted, and can be computed in O((nlogn)/ε3/2) time.

4 Conclusion and Future Directions

We studied Problem 1 on the minimum number of Steiner points required to construct a noncrossing Euclidean (1+ε)-spanner, thereby almost resolving Open Problem 17 from the survey of Bose and Smid [27]. Our lower and upper bounds, Ωμ(n/ε3/2μ)s(n,ε)O(n/ε3/2), match up to a subpolynomial factor in ε.

An important direction for future work is to understand the trade-off between planarity, total weight, and the number of Steiner points. In particular, known constructions have not been analyzed in terms of lightness, and it remains open whether one can achieve near-optimal weight while retaining asymptotically optimal sparsity in noncrossing Steiner (1+ε)-spanners.

As discussed in Section 1, the number of edge crossings is another structural measure of complexity for geometric (non-Steiner) spanners. It remains an open problem whether a tighter analysis of the number of crossings in a (greedy) (1+ε)-spanner could potentially match our upper bound O(n/ε3/2): Determine the minimum c(n,ε) such that every set of n points in the plane admits a (non-Steiner) (1+ε)-spanner with at most c(n,ε) edge crossings.

We observe that the (1+ε)-stretch constraint is essential for obtaining meaningful bounds. If the stretch requirement is relaxed and one merely requires that each ab-path lies inside the ellipse ab, then for the basic example (Section 2) with n=Θ(1/ε) points, a grid of side length ε already yields a solution with n/ε Steiner points, but the stretch increases to 2. The approximation of straight-line segments using grid paths that satisfy additional nondegeneracy conditions is related to the literature on digital segments [35, 36].

Finally, the connection to disk-tube incidences raises another intriguing open problem: How many Steiner points are required to construct a noncrossing geometric graph for a set P of n points in the plane if, instead of the spanner condition, for every a,bP, one requires an ab-path whose Fréchet distance from the straight-line segment ab is at most ε?

References

  • [1] Mohammad Ali Abam, Mark de Berg, and Mohammad Javad Rezaei Seraji. Geodesic spanners for points on a polyhedral terrain. SIAM J. Comput., 48(6):1796–1810, 2019. doi:10.1137/18M119358X.
  • [2] Eyal Ackerman and Rom Pinchasi. On the degenerate crossing number. Discret. Comput. Geom., 49(3):695–702, 2013. doi:10.1007/S00454-013-9493-1.
  • [3] Abu Reyan Ahmed, Greg Bodwin, Faryad Darabi Sahneh, Keaton Hamm, Mohammad Javad Latifi Jebelli, Stephen G. Kobourov, and Richard Spence. Graph spanners: A tutorial review. Comput. Sci. Rev., 37:100253, 2020. doi:10.1016/J.COSREV.2020.100253.
  • [4] Oswin Aichholzer, Franz Aurenhammer, Christian Icking, Rolf Klein, Elmar Langetepe, and Günter Rote. Generalized self-approaching curves. Discret. Appl. Math., 109(1-2):3–24, 2001. doi:10.1016/S0166-218X(00)00233-X.
  • [5] Oswin Aichholzer, Manuel Borrazzo, Prosenjit Bose, Jean Cardinal, Fabrizio Frati, Pat Morin, and Birgit Vogtenhuber. Drawing graphs as spanners. Discret. Comput. Geom., 68(3):774–795, 2022. doi:10.1007/S00454-022-00398-5.
  • [6] Soroush Alamdari, Timothy M. Chan, Elyot Grant, Anna Lubiw, and Vinayak Pathak. Self-approaching graphs. In Proc. 20th Symposium on Graph Drawing (GD), volume 7704 of LNCS, pages 260–271. Springer, 2012. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36763-2_23.
  • [7] Ingo Althöfer, Gautam Das, David Dobkin, Deborah Joseph, and José Soares. On sparse spanners of weighted graphs. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 9:81–100, 1993. doi:10.1007/BF02189308.
  • [8] Patrizio Angelini, Enrico Colasante, Giuseppe Di Battista, Fabrizio Frati, and Maurizio Patrignani. Monotone drawings of graphs. J. Graph Algorithms Appl., 16(1):5–35, 2012. doi:10.7155/JGAA.00249.
  • [9] Srinivasa Rao Arikati, Danny Z. Chen, L. Paul Chew, Gautam Das, Michiel H. M. Smid, and Christos D. Zaroliagis. Planar spanners and approximate shortest path queries among obstacles in the plane. In Proc. 4th European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA), volume 1136 of LNCS, pages 514–528. Springer, 1996. doi:10.1007/3-540-61680-2_79.
  • [10] Sunil Arya, Gautam Das, David M. Mount, Jeffrey S. Salowe, and Michiel Smid. Euclidean spanners: Short, thin, and lanky. In Proc. 27th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 489–498, 1995. doi:10.1145/225058.225191.
  • [11] Sunil Arya, David M. Mount, Nathan S. Netanyahu, Ruth Silverman, and Angela Y. Wu. An optimal algorithm for approximate nearest neighbor searching fixed dimensions. J. ACM, 45(6):891–923, 1998. doi:10.1145/293347.293348.
  • [12] Davood Bakhshesh and Mohammad Farshi. Angle-constrained spanners with angle at least π/3. Inf. Process. Lett., 120:44–46, 2017. doi:10.1016/J.IPL.2017.01.002.
  • [13] Ivan J. Balaban. An optimal algorithm for finding segments intersections. In Proc. 11th Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG), pages 211–219. ACM Press, 1995. doi:10.1145/220279.220302.
  • [14] Mark de Berg, Otfried Cheong, Marc J. van Kreveld, and Mark H. Overmars. Computational Geometry: Algorithms and Applications. Springer, 3rd edition edition, 2008. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77974-2.
  • [15] Sujoy Bhore, Arnold Filtser, Hadi Khodabandeh, and Csaba D. Tóth. Online spanners in metric spaces. SIAM J. Discret. Math., 38(1):1030–1056, 2024. doi:10.1137/22M1534572.
  • [16] Sujoy Bhore, Balázs Keszegh, Andrey Kupavskii, Hung Le, Alexandre Louvet, Dömötör Pálvölgyi, and Csaba D. Tóth. Spanners in planar domains via Steiner spanners and non-Steiner tree covers. In Proc. 36th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 4292–4326, 2025. doi:10.1137/1.9781611978322.145.
  • [17] Sujoy Bhore and Lazar Milenkovic. Light spanners with small hop-diameter. In Proc. 52nd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), volume 334 of LIPIcs, pages 30:1–30:16. Schloss Dagstuhl, 2025. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2025.30.
  • [18] Sujoy Bhore and Csaba D. Tóth. Euclidean Steiner spanners: Light and sparse. SIAM J. Discret. Math., 36(3):2411–2444, 2022. doi:10.1137/22M1502707.
  • [19] Sujoy Bhore and Csaba D. Tóth. Online Euclidean spanners. ACM Trans. Algorithms, 21(1):5:1–5:22, 2025. doi:10.1145/3681790.
  • [20] Ahmad Biniaz, Prosenjit Bose, Jean-Lou De Carufel, Cyril Gavoille, Anil Maheshwari, and Michiel H. M. Smid. Towards plane spanners of degree 3. J. Comput. Geom., 8(1):11–31, 2017. doi:10.20382/JOCG.V8I1A2.
  • [21] Nicolas Bonichon, Prosenjit Bose, Paz Carmi, Irina Kostitsyna, Anna Lubiw, and Sander Verdonschot. Gabriel triangulations and angle-monotone graphs: Local routing and recognition. In Proc. 24th Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD), volume 9801 of LNCS, pages 519–531. Springer, 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50106-2_40.
  • [22] Nicolas Bonichon, Cyril Gavoille, Nicolas Hanusse, and David Ilcinkas. Connections between Theta-graphs, Delaunay triangulations, and orthogonal surfaces. In Proc. 36th Workshop on Graph Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science (WG), volume 6410 of LNCS, pages 266–278, 2010. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16926-7_25.
  • [23] Nicolas Bonichon, Cyril Gavoille, Nicolas Hanusse, and Ljubomir Perković. The stretch factor of l1-and l-Delaunay triangulations. In European Symposium on Algorithms, pages 205–216, 2012. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33090-2_19.
  • [24] 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.
  • [25] Prosenjit Bose, Mirela Damian, Karim Douïeb, Joseph O’rourke, Ben Seamone, Michiel Smid, and Stefanie Wuhrer. π/2-angle Yao graphs are spanners. International Journal of Computational Geometry & Applications, 22(1):61–82, 2012. doi:10.1142/S0218195912600047.
  • [26] Prosenjit Bose, Darryl Hill, and Michiel Smid. Improved spanning ratio for low degree plane spanners. Algorithmica, 80(3):935–976, 2018. doi:10.1007/S00453-017-0305-5.
  • [27] Prosenjit Bose and Michiel H. M. Smid. On plane geometric spanners: A survey and open problems. Comput. Geom., 46(7):818–830, 2013. doi:10.1016/J.COMGEO.2013.04.002.
  • [28] Jean Bourgain. On Lipschitz embedding of finite metric spaces in Hilbert space. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 52(1):46–52, 1985. doi:10.1007/BF02776078.
  • [29] Paz Carmi and Michiel H. M. Smid. An optimal algorithm for computing angle-constrained spanners. J. Comput. Geom., 3(1):196–221, 2012. doi:10.20382/JOCG.V3I1A10.
  • [30] Barun Chandra, Gautam Das, Giri Narasimhan, and José Soares. New sparseness results on graph spanners. In Proc. 8th ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG), 1992. doi:10.1145/142675.142717.
  • [31] Barun Chandra, Gautam Das, Giri Narasimhan, and José Soares. New sparseness results on graph spanners. Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl., 5:125–144, 1995. doi:10.1142/S0218195995000088.
  • [32] Bernard Chazelle and Herbert Edelsbrunner. An optimal algorithm for intersecting line segments in the plane. J. ACM, 39(1):1–54, 1992. doi:10.1145/147508.147511.
  • [33] L. Paul Chew. There is a planar graph almost as good as the complete graph. In Proc. 2nd Symposium on Computational Geometry, pages 169–177. ACM Press, 1986. doi:10.1145/10515.10534.
  • [34] L. Paul Chew. There are planar graphs almost as good as the complete graph. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 39(2):205–219, 1989. doi:10.1016/0022-0000(89)90044-5.
  • [35] Man-Kwun Chiu, Matias Korman, Martin Suderland, and Takeshi Tokuyama. Distance bounds for high dimensional consistent digital rays and 2-d partially-consistent digital rays. Discret. Comput. Geom., 68(3):902–944, 2022. doi:10.1007/S00454-021-00349-6.
  • [36] Tobias Christ, Dömötör Pálvölgyi, and Milos Stojakovic. Consistent digital line segments. Discret. Comput. Geom., 47(4):691–710, 2012. doi:10.1007/S00454-012-9411-Y.
  • [37] Kenneth Clarkson. Approximation algorithms for shortest path motion planning. In Proc. 19th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 56–65, 1987. doi:10.1145/28395.28402.
  • [38] Alex Cohen, Cosmin Pohoata, and Dmitrii Zakharov. A new upper bound for the Heilbronn triangle problem. Preprint, 2023. arXiv:2305.18253.
  • [39] Alex Cohen, Cosmin Pohoata, and Dmitrii Zakharov. Lower bounds for incidences. Inventiones Mathematicae, 240:1045–1118, 2025. doi:10.1007/s00222-025-01331-2.
  • [40] Hallard T. Croft, Kenneth J. Falconer, and Richard K. Guy. Unsolved Problems in Geometry. Problem Books in Mathematics. Springer, 1991. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0963-8.
  • [41] Gautam Das, Paul Heffernan, and Giri Narasimhan. Optimally sparse spanners in 3-dimensional Euclidean space. In Proc. 9th Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG), pages 53–62. ACM Press, 1993. doi:10.1145/160985.160998.
  • [42] Gautam Das, Giri Narasimhan, and Jeffrey S. Salowe. A new way to weigh malnourished Euclidean graphs. In Proc. 6th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 215–222, 1995. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/313651.313697.
  • [43] Hooman Reisi Dehkordi, Fabrizio Frati, and Joachim Gudmundsson. Increasing-chord graphs on point sets. J. Graph Algorithms Appl., 19(2):761–778, 2015. doi:10.7155/JGAA.00348.
  • [44] Ciprian Demeter and Hong Wang. Szemerédi-Trotter bounds for tubes and applications. Ars Inveniendi Analytica, 1:1–46, 2025. doi:10.15781/mt54-gc31.
  • [45] Yefim Dinitz, Michael Elkin, and Shay Solomon. Low-light trees, and tight lower bounds for Euclidean spanners. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 43:736–783, 2010. doi:10.1007/S00454-009-9230-Y.
  • [46] Adrian Dumitrescu and Anirban Ghosh. Lower bounds on the dilation of plane spanners. Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl., 26(2):89–110, 2016. doi:10.1142/S0218195916500059.
  • [47] Michael Elkin and Shay Solomon. Optimal euclidean spanners: Really short, thin, and lanky. J. ACM, 62(5):35:1–35:45, 2015. doi:10.1145/2819008.
  • [48] Michael Elkin and Shay Solomon. Steiner shallow-light trees are exponentially lighter than spanning ones. SIAM Journal on Computing, 44(4):996–1025, 2015. doi:10.1137/13094791X.
  • [49] David Eppstein and Hadi Khodabandeh. On the edge crossings of the greedy spanner. In Proc. 37th Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG), volume 189 of LIPIcs, pages 33:1–33:17. Schloss Dagstuhl, 2021. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.SOCG.2021.33.
  • [50] Paul Erdős. Problems and results in combinatorial geometry. In Discrete Geometry and Convexity (New York, 1982), volume 440 of Ann. New York Acad. Sci., pages 1–11. Wiley Online Library, 1985.
  • [51] Stefan Felsner, Alexander Igamberdiev, Philipp Kindermann, Boris Klemz, Tamara Mchedlidze, and Manfred Scheucher. Strongly monotone drawings of planar graphs. In Proc. 32nd Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG), volume 51 of LIPIcs, pages 37:1–37:15. Schloss Dagstuhl, 2016. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.SOCG.2016.37.
  • [52] Yuqiu Fu, Shengwen Gan, and Kevin Ren. An incidence estimate and a Furstenberg type estimate for tubes in 2. Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications, 28:59:1–28, 2022. doi:10.1007/s00041-022-09953-3.
  • [53] Larry Guth, Noam Solomon, and Hong Wang. Incidence estimates for well spaced tubes. Geometric and Functional Analysis, 29:1844–1863, 2019. doi:10.1007/s00039-019-00519-y.
  • [54] Bardia Hamedmohseni, Zahed Rahmati, and Debajyoti Mondal. Emanation graph: A plane geometric spanner with Steiner points. Graphs Comb., 39(2):38, 2023. doi:10.1007/S00373-023-02632-0.
  • [55] Christian Icking, Rolf Klain, and Elmar Langetepe. Self-approaching curves. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 125(3):441–453, 1999. doi:10.1017/S0305004198003016.
  • [56] Iyad A. Kanj, Ljubomir Perkovic, and Duru Türkoglu. Degree four plane spanners: Simpler and better. J. Comput. Geom., 8(2):3–31, 2017. doi:10.20382/JOCG.V8I2A2.
  • [57] J. Mark Keil. Approximating the complete Euclidean graph. In Proc. 1st Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory (SWAT), volume 318 of LNCS, pages 208–213. Springer, 1988. doi:10.1007/3-540-19487-8_23.
  • [58] J. Mark Keil and Carl A. Gutwin. Classes of graphs which approximate the complete Euclidean graph. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 7:13–28, 1992. doi:10.1007/BF02187821.
  • [59] Philipp Kindermann, André Schulz, Joachim Spoerhase, and Alexander Wolff. On monotone drawings of trees. In Proc. 22nd International Symposium on Graph Drawing (GD), volume 8871 of LNCS, pages 488–500. Springer, 2014. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45803-7_41.
  • [60] János Komlós, János Pintz, and Endre Szemerédi. A lower bound for Heilbronn’s problem. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 2-25:13–24, 1982. doi:10.1112/jlms/s2-25.1.13.
  • [61] Hung Le, Lazar Milenkovic, and Shay Solomon. Sparse Euclidean spanners with optimal diameter: A general and robust lower bound via a concave inverse-ackermann function. In Proc. 39th International Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG), volume 258 of LIPIcs, pages 47:1–47:17, 2023. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.SOCG.2023.47.
  • [62] Hung Le and Shay Solomon. A unified framework for light spanners. In Proc. 55th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 295–308, 2023. doi:10.1145/3564246.3585185.
  • [63] Hung Le and Shay Solomon. Truly optimal Euclidean spanners. SIAM J. Comput., 54(4):S19–135, 2025. doi:10.1137/20M1317906.
  • [64] Hung Le, Shay Solomon, Cuong Than, Csaba D. Tóth, and Tianyi Zhang. Towards instance-optimal euclidean spanners. In 65th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2024, Chicago, IL, USA, October 27-30, 2024, pages 1579–1609. IEEE, 2024. doi:10.1109/FOCS61266.2024.00099.
  • [65] Keenan Lee and André van Renssen. Generalized sweeping line spanners. Theoretical Computer Science, 989:114390, 2024. doi:10.1016/J.TCS.2024.114390.
  • [66] Tom Leighton and Ankur Moitra. Some results on greedy embeddings in metric spaces. Discret. Comput. Geom., 44(3):686–705, 2010. doi:10.1007/S00454-009-9227-6.
  • [67] Nathan Linial, Eran London, and Yuri Rabinovich. The geometry of graphs and some of its algorithmic applications. Combinatorica, 15(2):215–245, 1995. doi:10.1007/BF01200757.
  • [68] Anna Lubiw and Debajyoti Mondal. Construction and local routing for angle-monotone graphs. J. Graph Algorithms Appl., 23(2):345–369, 2019. doi:10.7155/JGAA.00494.
  • [69] Giri Narasimhan and Michiel Smid. Geometric Spanner Networks. Cambridge University Press, 2007. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511546884.
  • [70] János Pach and Géza Tóth. Degenerate crossing numbers. Discret. Comput. Geom., 41(3):376–384, 2009. doi:10.1007/S00454-009-9141-Y.
  • [71] Christos H. Papadimitriou and David Ratajczak. On a conjecture related to geometric routing. In Proc. 1st Workshop on Algorithmic Aspects of Wireless Sensor Networks (ALGOSENSORS), volume 3121 of LNCS, pages 9–17. Springer, 2004. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27820-7_3.
  • [72] Satish B. Rao and Warren D. Smith. Approximating geometrical graphs via “spanners” and “banyans”. In Proc. 13th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 540–550, 1998. doi:10.1145/276698.276868.
  • [73] Kevin Ren and Hong Wang. Furstenberg sets estimate in the plane. Preprint, 2025. arXiv:2308.08819.
  • [74] Günter Rote. Curves with increasing chords. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 115(1):1–12, 1994. doi:10.1017/S0305004100071875.
  • [75] Klaus F. Roth. On a problem of Heilbronn. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 26(3):198–204, 1951. doi:10.1112/jlms/s1-26.3.198.
  • [76] Jim Ruppert and Raimund Seidel. Approximating the d-dimensional complete Euclidean graph. In Proc. 3rd Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry (CCCG), pages 207–210, 1991.
  • [77] Shay Solomon. Euclidean Steiner shallow-light trees. J. Comput. Geom., 6(2):113–139, 2015. doi:10.20382/jocg.v6i2a7.
  • [78] Endre Szemerédi and William T. Trotter. Extremal problems in discrete geometry. Combinatorica, 3(3-4):381–392, 1983. doi:10.1007/BF02579194.
  • [79] André van Renssen and Gladys Wong. Bounded-degree spanners in the presence of polygonal obstacle. Theor. Comput. Sci., 854:159–173, 2021. doi:10.1016/J.TCS.2020.12.024.
  • [80] Thomas Wolff. Recent work connected with the Kakeya problem. In Prospects in Mathematics (Princeton, NJ, 1996), pages 129–162. AMS, Providence, RI, 1999.
  • [81] 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.
  • [82] Dmitrii Zakharov. Upper bounds for Heilbronn’s triangle problem in higher dimensions. Bull. London Math. Soc., 56:1687–1697, 2024. doi:10.1112/blms.13020.