Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Visualizing Treewidth

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Given a path or tree decomposition of width ω, the fewest-crossing witness drawing of the graph — counting edge, track, and mixed crossings — can be computed exactly in time linear in the graph size and exponential only in ω.

desk verdict The L-drawing algorithms are a solid new contribution, but the circular-drawing DP misses a three-bag track-track crossing term, so Theorem 5.1 as stated is wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19935 v1 pith:3GEANFBR submitted 2025-08-27 cs.CG cs.DS

Alvin Chiu , Thomas Depian , David Eppstein , Michael T. Goodrich , Martin Nöllenburg This is my paper
classification cs.CGcs.DS MSC 05C6205C8568R10
keywords graphdrawingtreewidthpathwidthwitnessdrawingscrossingminimizationdynamicprogrammingtreedecompositionsbook
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

A graph's treewidth and pathwidth measure how tree-like it is; graphs of small width admit "witness drawings" that make the bound visible at a glance: the decomposition is drawn as a tree of disks, each disk shows the induced subgraph on its bag, and colored tracks connect the copies of each vertex across disks. The paper tries to establish that the natural quality goal for such drawings — minimizing the total number of edge-edge, track-edge, and track-track crossings — is exactly solvable for constant width, by a dynamic program whose running time is linear in the number of vertices and only exponential in the width. It introduces a taxonomy of drawing styles — one- and two-page arc diagrams, circular straight-line layouts, and orbital track routing — so that one algorithmic skeleton covers all of them, with crossing counts computed from a bag's order (and page assignment, or orbit assignment) together with the states of its immediate neighbours. If the paper is right, any bounded-width decomposition can be rendered as a certified, human-readable visual proof of the width bound, and the prototype shows that exact crossing-minimal drawings for width up to three are computable in seconds, with heuristics covering larger widths.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a dynamic program over the bags of the decomposition, in which a state is the combinatorial description of one bag's drawing: for linear drawings, a spine order together with a left/right page assignment for edges (L1 drops the assignment); for circular drawings, a circular order with a single shared rotation angle α; for orbital drawings, the circular order plus an orbit assignment and a clockwise/counterclockwise direction per track. The recurrence exploits a locality assumption — every crossing involves edges or tracks incident to a bag and its immediate neighbours — so the crossing functions reduce to counting alternating endpoints (e/e), betweenness (t/e), and inversion

What would settle it

Take a small width-2 or width-3 decomposition (for instance, the Petersen graph instance used in the paper), run the DP, and independently enumerate all drawings of the bags by brute force over spine orders, page assignments, and rotation angles; if any enumerated drawing has fewer crossings than the DP reports, or if the DP's own output cannot be realized geometrically, the locality premise fails. A second check targets the rotation-angle assumption: for the same instances, search over per-disk rotation angles and test whether a single global α ever forces a track through a vertex that a per-

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a given path or tree decomposition T of width ω of a graph G, the paper computes a drawing of T that minimizes the total of edge-edge, track-edge, and track-track crossings. It runs in time linear in the graph size but exponential only in ω — O(n·(ω!)²·4^{ω²}·ω⁴) for two-page linear drawings on path decompositions, O(n·(ω!)³·8^{ω²}·ω⁴) on tree decompositions, with analogous bounds for circular and orbital styles. Each bag's drawing is finitely described (spine order plus page assignment, or circular order with shared rotation, plus an orbit and direction per track for the orbital style), and a recurrence (Lemma 4.2) shows the minimum comes from local pairs of adjacent bag states. The pap

Load-bearing premise

The dynamic program assumes every crossing in the finished picture involves edges or tracks incident to one bag and an immediate neighbour, so if two non-adjacent parts could ever cross, the computed "minimum" would undercount the true number of crossings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every fixed width ω, exact crossing-minimal witness drawings are computable in time linear in the number of vertices, so the exponential complexity is paid purely in the width parameter.
  • The three crossing types can be weighted differently without touching the framework, letting a user penalize track-track crossings the most, since those interfere with verifying that each vertex's bags form a connected subtree.
  • Because the decision problem is NP-hard even for "at most c crossings", no polynomial-time exact algorithm exists once the width is part of the input — the DP's fixed-parameter behaviour is essentially the best one can hope for.
  • A working prototype computes optimal certificates for width-2 and width-3 decompositions in seconds, making small-width witness drawings practical for visual certification of pathwidth/treewidth bounds.
  • The heuristic pipeline with local search handles decompositions of substantially larger width, producing low-crossing drawings without optimality guarantees.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same locality-based DP skeleton should transfer to other width parameters with connected vertex supports, such as branchwidth or cutwidth, and to other tree-of-bags visualizations — the paper names this direction for future work without developing it.
  • The unproven existence of a single rotation angle α that keeps every track clear of vertices is directly testable: allowing each disk its own rotation might strictly reduce crossings on some instances, and an empirical comparison would show whether the restriction ever costs optimality.
  • The double-exponential-in-ω running time means exact computation is practical only for tiny widths, so a natural next step the paper does not take is an approximation scheme or a branch-and-bound exact solver built on the same local recurrence.
  • The experimental observation that local search helps most at moderate width suggests that for very large decompositions the bottleneck is the quality of the initial spine order, not the evaluation of crossings — a hypothesis the paper leaves implicit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a taxonomy of 'witness drawings' for path/tree decompositions: linear (one- and two-page arc), circular, and orbital styles, with tracks drawn either as straight lines or as orbital routes. It proves NP-hardness for deciding whether a given decomposition admits one of these drawing styles with at most c crossings, and it gives fixed-parameter dynamic-programming algorithms, linear in n for constant width, that claim to compute crossing-minimal L1/L2/C/O drawings. The paper also describes a prototype, several heuristics, and an experimental comparison on graphs from a public repository. The central claim is that, for a given decomposition of width ω, exact crossing-minimal witness drawings can be computed in time O(n·(ω!)²·4^{ω²}·ω⁴) for L2 path decompositions, with analogous bounds for L1, C, and O drawings and for tree decompositions.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable contribution: a first systematic treatment of visual certificates for bounded treewidth and pathwidth, exact fixed-parameter algorithms with linear dependence on the number of bags, an NP-hardness reduction, and a working implementation with public code and data. The L-drawing DP is the most defensible part: the recurrence (Eq. 1) and Lemma 4.2 are clean, and the crossing formulas in Section 4 are explicit and plausible. The NP-hardness reduction is also convincing. The C- and O-drawing theorems, however, rest on an unproved locality premise and an asserted but unproved existence of a rotation angle α; one of these premises is actually false for circular drawings. These gaps are load-bearing for Theorem 5.1, so the exact C/O claims require substantive repair before the full set of results can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5 (Circular Drawings), Theorems 5.1 and Eq. (1)/(4)] The DP for C-drawings counts t/t-crossings only between tracks incident to two adjacent bags, e.g., as inversions between the orders of V_{i-1} and V_i. But in a circular drawing a track entering D_i from D_{i-1} and a track leaving D_i to D_{i+1} can cross inside D_i. The two tracks have endpoints in three different bags, so this crossing appears in no cr(S_i,S_{i-1}) term. For a concrete configuration: let v,u∈V_i be placed at 300° and 240° in D_i, while the other endpoint of v's track is at 120° in D_{i-1} and the other endpoint of u's track is at 60° in D_{i+1}; the two chords cross near the center of D_i. Consequently the locality claim in Section 4.1 ('the number of crossings involving edges and/or tracks incident to V_i is determined by the drawings of G_i in the disk D_i and the drawings of the induced subgraphs of neighboring bags') is false for C-drawings. The same omitted thre
  2. [Section 3, p.5 (rotation angle α)] The paper asserts that we can choose a single angle α so that no interior of a track crosses a vertex, 'independent of the order of the vertices inside each disk,' but gives no proof. This is load-bearing: the crossing counts in Figure 6 depend on α, and Theorems 5.1 quantify over all valid drawings. The proof should supply a measure-zero / forbidden-set argument for existence, or the DP should optimize over α explicitly. Without such an argument, the C- and O-drawing algorithms cannot be instantiated for a given decomposition with a certified choice of α.
  3. [Section 5 (Orbital Drawings), Theorem 5.1] The O-drawing crossing rules are described only informally through two cases (Figure 8), and no equations are given for cr_t/t in this style. Given the C-drawing gap identified above, it is not verifiable that the two cases enumerate all t/t-crossings, including those involving tracks to different adjacent bags, and that no crossing is double-counted. The theorem's exact-minimality claim needs a formal definition of Δ(Γ_i) = (λ_i, δ_i), a precise crossing-counting function, and a proof that the DP recurrence computes the minimum correctly for that function.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 (drawing taxonomy)] The parameter α is defined on the range 0 ≤ α < 2π/ω; for ω = 1 this interval has length 2π and all rotations coincide combinatorially, which is fine but worth stating. Also, the term 'no interior of a track crosses a vertex' needs a definition of what counts when a track passes through a vertex on the boundary of a disk.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is written in a compact way; the two displayed sums would be clearer with a short sentence explaining why an edge in E_{i-1} on the right page and an edge in E_i on the left page are the only t/e-crossing cases. The current text explains this in prose, but the equation alone is hard to parse.
  3. [References] Reference [42] contains a typo: 'Proc. 30th Proc. 21st International Symposium' should read 'Proc. 30th International Symposium' (or the correct venue).
  4. [Section 7] The experimental section reports that the exact DP solved only 13 instances within the 15-minute limit and 21 within six hours. The conclusions about exactness for width at most three are reasonable, but the comparison in Figures 11–12 would benefit from a statement about whether the 'best' reference values for larger widths are themselves only heuristic upper bounds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: DP crossing-minimization results are derived from first principles; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (Theorems 4.3, 4.5, 5.1) are constructive algorithms whose correctness is shown by the recurrence in Equation (1) / (5) and the induction in Lemma 4.2. The crossing-counting functions in Equations (2)-(4) and (6)-(8) directly count geometric/combinatorial crossings between explicitly represented states; they are not fitted parameters and are not defined in terms of the claimed optimum. The NP-hardness result (Theorem 4.1) reduces from externally known problems [44,53] and is independent of the paper's own algorithms. The self-citations that appear — [7] and [36] in the related-work/background discussion, and [16] as the supplementary code repository — are not load-bearing: the formal derivations do not rely on them, and the conGreedy+ heuristic from [36] is used only as an experimental baseline/recommendation. The reader's and skeptic's concerns about the unproved locality premise (Section 4.1) and the asserted existence of a common rotation angle α (Section 3) are correctness/rigor risks, not circularity: no equation or claim reduces to its own input by construction. I therefore find no significant circularity and score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants, new particles, or speculative entities. The only hand-set design parameter is the angle α. The central claims depend on standard treewidth machinery plus three geometric/modeling assumptions that are stated informally.

free parameters (1)
  • rotation angle α
    Uniform starting angle for the first vertex in every disk in C- and O-drawings. The paper asserts an α exists that prevents tracks from passing through vertices, but existence is not proven and the crossing counts depend on this value (Sections 3 and 5).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Every graph of treewidth ω admits a certifying tree decomposition with O(n) bags and maximum degree at most three.
    Cited from [14,45] in Section 2 and used to keep the DP table and recurrence tractable; without bounded degree the DP gains an exponential factor in the maximum degree.
  • domain assumption The drawing of the decomposition tree (children placed to the right of the parent) and the chosen track routing guarantee that crossings occur only between adjacent bags, so the DP can sum local crossing counts.
    This locality premise underpins Equations (1) and (5) and is stated in Section 4.1 but never proved. If non-local crossings occurred, the DP would miss them.
  • domain assumption Straight-line tracks and the arc drawing of edges satisfy the crossing conditions expressed in Equations (3), (4), (6), (7), and (8).
    The t/e crossing formula, for instance, assumes an edge on the right page is crossed exactly by tracks of shared vertices lying between its endpoints. The geometry of disks, arcs, and track endpoints is not specified precisely enough to make this a theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Visualizing Treewidth." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3GEANFBR

@misc{pith2026250819935,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Visualizing Treewidth},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3GEANFBR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19935}
}
read the original abstract

A witness drawing of a graph is a visualization that clearly shows a given property of a graph. We study and implement various drawing paradigms for witness drawings to clearly show that graphs have bounded pathwidth or treewidth. Our approach draws the tree decomposition or path decomposition as a tree of bags, with induced subgraphs shown in each bag, and with ''tracks'' for each graph vertex connecting its copies in multiple bags. Within bags, we optimize the vertex layout to avoid crossings of edges and tracks. We implement a visualization prototype for crossing minimization using dynamic programming for graphs of small width and heuristic approaches for graphs of larger width. We introduce a taxonomy of drawing styles, which render the subgraph for each bag as an arc diagram with one or two pages or as a circular layout with straight-line edges, and we render tracks either with straight lines or with orbital-radial paths.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    8 Lukas Barth, Benjamin Niedermann, Ignaz Rutter, and Matthias Wolf

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45803-7_18. 8 Lukas Barth, Benjamin Niedermann, Ignaz Rutter, and Matthias Wolf. A topology-shape- metrics framework for ortho-radial graph drawing. Discrete & Computational Geometry , 70(4):1292–1355,

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45803-7_18

  2. [10]

    14 Hans L

    doi:10.1007/11917496_1. 14 Hans L. Bodlaender and Ton Kloks. Efficient and constructive algorithms for the pathwidth and treewidth of graphs. Journal of Algorithms , 21(2):358–402,

    work page doi:10.1007/11917496_1

  3. [15]

    20 Walter Didimo, Giuseppe Liotta, and Fabrizio Montecchiani

    doi:10.1007/s004539900017. 20 Walter Didimo, Giuseppe Liotta, and Fabrizio Montecchiani. A survey on graph drawing beyond planarity. ACM Computing Surveys , 52(1):4:1–4:37,

    work page doi:10.1007/s004539900017

  4. [23]

    URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/ Tree_decomposition.svg

    Last accessed: 2025-08-14. URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/ Tree_decomposition.svg. 29 David Eppstein. What is ... treewidth? Notices of the AMS , 72(2):172–175,

    work page 2025

  5. [24]

    30 Martin Fink and Sergey Pupyrev

    doi: 10.1090/noti3043. 30 Martin Fink and Sergey Pupyrev. Metro-line crossing minimization: Hardness, approximations, and tractable cases. In Stephen Wismath and Alexander Wolff, editors,Proc. 21st International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD’13) , volume 8242 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages328–339.Springer,

    work page doi:10.1090/noti3043

  6. [25]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03841-4_

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03841-4_

  7. [26]

    32 Emden R

    doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.GD.2024.16. 32 Emden R. Gansner and Yehuda Koren. Improved circular layouts. In Michael Kaufmann and Dorothea Wagner, editors,Proc. 14th International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD’06) , volume 4372 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 386–398. Springer,

    doi:10.4230/lipics.gd.2024.16 2024

  8. [27]

    33 Martin Gronemann, Michael Jünger, Frauke Liers, and Francesco Mambelli

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70904-6_37. 33 Martin Gronemann, Michael Jünger, Frauke Liers, and Francesco Mambelli. Crossing minimization in storyline visualization. In Yifan Hu and Martin Nöllenburg, editors, Proc. 24th International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD’16) , volume 9801 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 367–381. ...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70904-6_37

Show all 41 references
  1. [29]

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73915-1_

    doi

  2. [31]

    22 Visualizing Treewidth 39 Dieter Kratsch, Ross M

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27261-0_16. 22 Visualizing Treewidth 39 Dieter Kratsch, Ross M. McConnell, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Jeremy P. Spinrad. Certifying algorithms for recognizing interval graphs and permutation graphs. InProc. 14th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA’03)...

    doi

  3. [32]

    41 William J

    doi:10.1137/S0097539703437855. 41 William J. Lenhart and Giuseppe Liotta. Mutual witness Gabriel drawings of complete bipartite graphs. Theoretical Computer Science, 974:114115,

    doi

  4. [33]

    42 William J

    doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2023.114115. 42 William J. Lenhart and Giuseppe Liotta. Mutual witness gabriel drawings of complete bipartite graphs. In Patrizio Angelini and Reinhard von Hanxleden, editors, Proc. 30th Proc. 21st International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualiz...

    2023

  5. [34]

    43 Silviu Maniu, Pierre Senellart, and Suraj Jog

    doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-22203-0_3. 43 Silviu Maniu, Pierre Senellart, and Suraj Jog. An experimental study of the treewidth of real-world graph data. In Pablo Barceló and Marco Calautti, editors,Proc. 22nd International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT’19) , volume 127 ofLIP...

    2019 doi

  6. [36]

    doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2010. 09.009. 47 Kurt Mehlhorn, Stefan Näher, Thomas Schilz, Stefan Schirra, Michael Seel, Raimund Seidel, and Christian Uhrig. Checking geometric programs or verification of geometric structures. In Sue Whitesides, editor,Proc. 12th International Symposiu...

    2010

  7. [38]

    2015.10.005

    doi:10.1016/j.comgeo. 2015.10.005. 53 Marcus Schaefer. The graph crossing number and its variants: A survey.The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics , 1000,

    2015 doi

  8. [39]

    Version 8.doi:10.37236/2713. A. Chiu, T. Depian, D. Eppstein, M.T. Goodrich and M. Nöllenburg 23 54 Roberto Tamassia, editor. Handbook of Graph Drawing and Visualization . Chapman and Hall/CRC,

    doi

  9. [40]

    56 Thomas C

    doi:10.7155/jgaa.00443. 56 Thomas C. van Dijk, Fabian Lipp, Peter Markfelder, and Alexander Wolff. Computing storyline visualizations with few block crossings. In Fabrizio Frati and Kwan-Liu Ma, editors, Proc. 25th International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualiza...

    doi

  10. [41]

    57 Martin Wattenberg

    doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-73915-1_29. 57 Martin Wattenberg. Arc diagrams: Visualizing structure in strings. In Pak Chung Wong and Keith Andrews, editors,Proc. 8th IEEE Information Visualization Conference (InfoVis’02) , pages 110–116. IEEE Computer Society, 2002.doi:10.1109/INFVI...

    2002 arXiv

  11. [1979]

    13 Hans L

    doi:10.1016/0095-8956(79)90021-2. 13 Hans L. Bodlaender. Treewidth: Characterizations, applications, and computations. In Fedor V. Fomin, editor,Proc. 32nd International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science (WG’06) , volume 4271 ofLecture Notes in Computer ...

    doi

  12. [1992]

    46 Ross M

    doi:10.1016/0012-365x(92) 90687-b. 46 Ross M. McConnell, Kurt Mehlhorn, Stefan Näher, and Pascal Schweitzer. Certifying algorithms. Computer Science Review , 5(2):119–161,

    doi

  13. [1993]

    38 Irina Kostitsyna, Martin Nöllenburg, Valentin Polishchuk, André Schulz, and Darren Strash

    doi:10.1016/0166-218X(93)90171-J. 38 Irina Kostitsyna, Martin Nöllenburg, Valentin Polishchuk, André Schulz, and Darren Strash. On minimizing crossings in storyline visualizations. In Emilio Di Giacomo and Anna Lubiw, editors, Proc. 23rd International Symposium on Graph Drawin...

    doi

  14. [1996]

    1996.0049

    doi:10.1006/jagm. 1996.0049. 15 Annika Bonerath, Martin Nöllenburg, Soeren Terziadis, Markus Wallinger, and Jules Wulms. Boundary labeling in a circular orbit. In Stefan Felsner and Karsten Klein, editors,Proc. 32nd International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualiz...

    1996

  15. [1999]

    49 Petra Mutzel

    doi:10.1016/S0925-7721(98)00036-4. 49 Petra Mutzel. The SPQR-tree data structure in graph drawing. In Jos C. M. Baeten, Jan Karel Lenstra, Joachim Parrow, and Gerhard J. Woeginger, editors, Proc. 30th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP’03) ,...

    2003 doi

  16. [2000]

    27 David Eppstein

    doi:10.1007/s004530010020. 27 David Eppstein. Separating thickness from geometric thickness. In Michael T. Goodrich and Stephen G. Kobourov, editors,Proc. 10th International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD’02) , volume 2528 ofLecture Notes in Computer ...

    doi

  17. [2001]

    26 David Eppstein

    doi:10.1007/3-540-45848-4_57. 26 David Eppstein. Diameter and treewidth in minor-closed graph families. Algorithmica, 27(3):275–291,

    doi

  18. [2002]

    28 David Eppstein

    doi:10.1007/3-540-36151-0_15. 28 David Eppstein. Tree decomposition.svg via Wikimedia Commons,

    doi

  19. [2004]

    doi:10.46298/DMTCS.317. A. Chiu, T. Depian, D. Eppstein, M.T. Goodrich and M. Nöllenburg 21 25 John Ellson, Emden R. Gansner, Eleftherios Koutsofios, Stephen C. North, and Gordon Woodhull. Graphviz - open source graph drawing tools. In Petra Mutzel, Michael Jünger, and Sebasti...

    doi

  20. [2005]

    24 Vida Dujmović and David R

    doi:10.1137/S0097539702416141. 24 Vida Dujmović and David R. Wood. On linear layouts of graphs.Discrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science, 6(2):339–358,

    doi

  21. [2006]

    12 Frank Bernhart and Paul C

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70904-6_27. 12 Frank Bernhart and Paul C. Kainen. The book thickness of a graph.Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B , 27(3):320–331,

    doi

  22. [2007]

    11 Marc Benkert, Martin Nöllenburg, Takeaki Uno, and Alexander Wolff

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77537-9_24. 11 Marc Benkert, Martin Nöllenburg, Takeaki Uno, and Alexander Wolff. Minimizing intra- edge crossings in wiring diagrams and public transportation maps. In Michael Kaufmann and Dorothea Wagner, editors,Proc. 14th International Symposium on Gr...

    doi

  23. [2010]

    2 Boris Aronov, Muriel Dulieu, and Ferran Hurtado

    doi:10.7155/jgaa.00199. 2 Boris Aronov, Muriel Dulieu, and Ferran Hurtado. Witness (delaunay) graphs.Computational Geometry, 44(6):329–344,

    doi

  24. [2011]

    3 Boris Aronov, Muriel Dulieu, and Ferran Hurtado

    doi:10.1016/j.comgeo.2011.01.001. 3 Boris Aronov, Muriel Dulieu, and Ferran Hurtado. Witness rectangle graphs. In Frank Dehne, John Iacono, and Jörg-Rüdiger Sack, editors,Proc 12th International Symposium on Algorithms and Data Structures (W ADS’11) , volume 6844 ofLecture Not...

    2011 doi

  25. [2013]

    5 Boris Aronov, Muriel Dulieu, and Ferran Hurtado

    doi:10.1016/j.comgeo.2011.06.004. 5 Boris Aronov, Muriel Dulieu, and Ferran Hurtado. Witness rectangle graphs.Graphs and Combinatorics, 30(4):827–846,

    2011 doi

  26. [2014]

    6 Matthew Asquith, Joachim Gudmundsson, and Damian Merrick

    doi:10.1007/s00373-013-1316-x. 6 Matthew Asquith, Joachim Gudmundsson, and Damian Merrick. An ILP for the metro-line crossing problem. In James Harland and Prabhu Manyem, editors,Proc. 14th Computing: The Australasian Theory Symposium (CATS’08), volume 77 ofCRPIT, pages 49–56....

    doi

  27. [2015]

    18 Giuseppe Di Battista, Peter Eades, Roberto Tamassia, and Ioannis G

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21275-3. 18 Giuseppe Di Battista, Peter Eades, Roberto Tamassia, and Ioannis G. Tollis.Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs . Prentice Hall,

    doi

  28. [2016]

    34 Michael Hoffmann, Lutz Kettner, and Stefan Näher

    doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-50106-2_29. 34 Michael Hoffmann, Lutz Kettner, and Stefan Näher. Two computational geometry libraries: LEDA and CGAL. InHandbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry , pages 1799–1831. Chapman and Hall/CRC,

    doi

  29. [2017]

    23 Vida Dujmović, Pat Morin, and David R

    doi: 10.1137/16M1062879. 23 Vida Dujmović, Pat Morin, and David R. Wood. Layout of graphs with bounded tree-width. SIAM Journal on Computing , 34(3):553–579,

    doi

  30. [2019]

    21 Alexander Dobler, Michael Jünger, Paul J

    doi:10.1145/3301281. 21 Alexander Dobler, Michael Jünger, Paul J. Jünger, Julian Meffert, Petra Mutzel, and Martin Nöllenburg. Revisiting ILP models for exact crossing minimization in storyline drawings. In Stefan Felsner and Karsten Klein, editors,Proc. 32nd International Sym...

    2024 doi

  31. [2023]

    20 Visualizing Treewidth 9 Michael Baur and Ulrik Brandes

    doi:10.1007/s00454-023-00593-y. 20 Visualizing Treewidth 9 Michael Baur and Ulrik Brandes. Crossing reduction in circular layouts. In Juraj Hromkovič, Manfred Nagl, and Bernhard Westfechtel, editors,Proc. 30th International Workshop on Graph- Theoretic Concepts in Computer Sci...

    2004 doi

  32. [2024]

    16 Alvin Chiu, Thomas Depian, David Eppstein, Michael T

    doi:10.4230/LIPICS.GD.2024.22. 16 Alvin Chiu, Thomas Depian, David Eppstein, Michael T. Goodrich, and Martin Nöllenburg. Visualizing treewidth: Supplementary material,

    2024 doi

  33. [2025]

    doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/QFZ5V

    Source Code; Last accessed: 2025-08-18. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/QFZ5V. 17 Marek Cygan, Fedor V. Fomin, Lukasz Kowalik, Daniel Lokshtanov, Dániel Marx, Marcin Pilipczuk, Michal Pilipczuk, and Saket Saurabh.Parameterized Algorithms. Springer,

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.