On the Spanning Ratio of Gabriel Graphs and β-skeletons

  • Prosenjit Bose
  • Luc Devroye
  • William Evans
  • David Kirkpatrick
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2286)

Abstract

The spanning ratio of a graph defined on n points in the Euclidean plane is the maximal ratio over all pairs of data points (u, v), of the minimum graph distance between u and v, over the Euclidean distance between u and v. A connected graph is said to be a k-spanner if the spanning ratio does not exceed k. For example, for any k, there exists a point set whose minimum spanning tree is not a k-spanner. At the other end of the spectrum, a Delaunay triangulation is guaranteed to be a 2.42- spanner[11]. For proximity graphs inbetween these two extremes, such as Gabriel graphs[8], relative neighborhood graphs[16] and β-skeletons[12] with β ∈ [0, 2] some interesting questions arise. We show that the spanning ratio for Gabriel graphs (which are β-skeletons with β = 1) is Θ(√n) in the worst case. For all β-skeletons with β ∈ [0, 1], we prove that the spanning ratio is at most O(nλ) where λ = (1 - log2(1 +√1 - β2))/2. For all β-skeletons with β ∈ [1, 2), we prove that there exist point sets whose spanning ratio is at least (12 - o(1))√n. For relative neighborhood graphs[16] (skeletons with β = 2), we show that there exist point sets where the spanning ratio is ω(n). For points drawn independently from the uniform distribution on the unit square, we show that the spanning ratio of the (random) Gabriel graph and all β-skeletons with β ∈ [1, 2] tends to ∞ in probability as √log n/ log log n.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.A. Bondy and U.S.R. Murty. Graph theory with applications. North Holland, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L.P. Chew. There is a planar graph almost as good as the complete graph. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual ACM Symposium on Computional Geometry, pages 169–177, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L.P. Chew. There are planar graphs almost as good as the complete graph. Journal of Computers and Systems Sciences, 39:205–219, 1989.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Devroye. The expected size of some graphs in computational geometry. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 15:53–64, 1988.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D.P. Dobkin, S.J. Friedman, and K.J. Supowit. Delaunay graphs are almost as good as complete graphs. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pages 20–26, 1987. Also in Discrete and Computational Geometry, vol. 5, pp. 399–407, 1990.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Eppstein. Beta-skeletons have unbounded dilation, Tech. Report 96-15, Dept. of Comp. Sci, University of California, Irvine, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Eppstein. Spanning trees and spanners, Handbook of Computational Geometry (J. Sack and J. Urrutia eds.), North Holland, pp. 425–462, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K.R. Gabriel and R.R. Sokal. A new statistical approach to geographic variation analysis. Systematic Zoology, 18:259–278, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. W. Jaromczyk and G. T. Toussaint. Relative neighborhood graphs and their relatives. Proceedings of the IEEE, 80(9), pp. 1502–1517, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.M. Keil and C.A. Gutwin. The Delaunay triangulation closely approximates the complete Euclidean graph. In Proc. 1st Workshop Algorithms Data Struct., volume 382 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 47–56. Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.M. Keil and C.A. Gutwin. Classes of graphs which approximate the complete Euclidean graph. Discrete and Computational Geometry, 7:13–28, 1992.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. G. Kirkpatrick and J. D. Radke. A framework for computational morphology. Computational Geometry, G. T. Toussaint, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 217–248, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D.W. Matula and R.R. Sokal. Properties of gabriel graphs relevant to geographic variation research and the clustering of points in the plane. Geographical Analysis, 12:205–222, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. McDiarmid. On the method of bounded di.erences. Surveys in Combinatorics, 141:148–188, 1989.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. P. Preparata and M. I. Shamos, Computational geometry — an introduction. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. T. Toussaint. The relative neighborhood graph of a finite planar set. Pattern Recognition, 12: 261–268, 1980.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prosenjit Bose
    • 1
  • Luc Devroye
    • 2
  • William Evans
    • 3
  • David Kirkpatrick
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations