Graphs and Combinatorics

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 139–144

# On Characterizations of Rigid Graphs in the Plane Using Spanning Trees

On Characterizations of Rigid Graphs in the Plane
• Sergey Bereg
Article

## Abstract

We study characterizations of generic rigid graphs and generic circuits in the plane using only few decompositions into spanning trees. Generic rigid graphs in the plane can be characterized by spanning tree decompositions [5,6]. A graph G with n vertices and 2n − 3 edges is generic rigid in the plane if and only if doubling any edge results in a graph which is the union of two spanning trees. This requires 2n − 3 decompositions into spanning trees. We show that n − 2 decompositions suffice: only edges of G − T can be doubled where T is a spanning tree of G.

A recent result on tensegrity frameworks by Recski [7] implies a characterization of generic circuits in the plane. A graph G with n vertices and 2n − 2 edges is a generic circuit in the plane if and only if replacing any edge of G by any (possibly new) edge results in a graph which is the union of two spanning trees. This requires $$(2n-2)({n\choose 2} - 1)+1$$ decompositions into spanning trees. We show that 2n − 2 decompositions suffice. Let $$e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_{2n-2}$$ be any circular order of edges of G (i.e. $$e_0 = e_{2n-2}$$). The graph G is a generic circuit in the plane if and only if $$G + e_i - e_{i-1}$$ is the union of two spanning trees for any $$i = 1,2, \ldots, 2n-2$$. Furthermore, we show that only n decompositions into spanning trees suffice.

### Keywords

Rigid graphs Circuits Tensegrity frameworks

## Preview

### References

1. 1.
Crapo, H.: On the generic rigidity of structures in the plane. Technical Report, Inst. nat. rech. en informatique et automatique (INRIA) 1143 (1989)Google Scholar
2. 2.
Edmonds, J.: Minimum partition of a matroid into independent sets. Research of the NBS, 69, 67–72 (1965)Google Scholar
3. 3.
Jordán, T., Recski, A., Szabadka, Z.: Rigid tensegrity labellings of graphs. Technical Report TR-2007-08, Egerváry Research Group, Budapest (2007)Google Scholar
4. 4.
Laman, G.: On graphs and rigidity of plane skeletal structures. J. Eng. Math., 4, 331–340 (1970)Google Scholar
5. 5.
Lovász, L., Yemini, Y.: On generic rigidity in the plane. SIAM J. Algebr. Disc. Meth., 3, 91–98 (1982)Google Scholar
6. 6.
Recski, A.: A network theory approach to the rigidity of skeletal structures, Part II. Laman’s theorem and topological formulae. Disc. Appl. Math., 8, 63–68 (1984)Google Scholar
7. 7.
Recski, A.: Combinatorial conditions for the rigidity of tensegrity frameworks. The Kyoto International Conference on Computational Geometry and Graph Theory (2007)Google Scholar
8. 8.
Whiteley, W.: Some matroids from discrete applied geometry. In: Bonin, J. E., Oxley, J. G. Servatius, B. (eds). Contemporary Mathematics, volume 197, pp. 171–311. American Mathematical Society, Seattle, WA, 1997Google Scholar
9. 9.
Whiteley, W.: Rigidity and scene analysis. In: Goodman, J.E., O’Rourke, J. (eds). Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry, chapter 60, pp. 1327–1354. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL (2004)Google Scholar