Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Rerouting Curves on Surfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-07 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Forests always reconfigure on the torus

desk verdict Solid paper resolving the Ito et al. open problem on forest reconfiguration on the torus. The two-phase construction works, the negative results are clean, and the boundary between positive and negative results is well-drawn. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05362 v1 pith:IMQZRDQL submitted 2026-07-06 cs.CG math.GT

Timo Brand , Stefan Felsner , Henry Förster , Stephen Kobourov , Anna Lubiw , Yoshio Okamoto , János Pach , Csaba D. Tóth
show 3 more authors
Géza Tóth Torsten Ueckerdt Pavel Valtr
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CGmath.GT PACS 02.40.-k02.40.Pc02.10.Ox
keywords alwayspossiblereconfigurationcrossing-freeedgesgraphplanesame
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

This paper proves that any two crossing-free embeddings of a forest on a torus can be reconfigured into each other by rerouting one edge at a time while keeping all intermediate embeddings crossing-free. The result extends to every orientable surface of genus at least one. The authors give a constructive two-phase algorithm: Phase 1 reroutes all edge curves away from the boundary of a fundamental polygon representation using a sequence of auxiliary spanning trees called frame trees, and Phase 2 exploits the torus topology—specifically the ability to route curves around the identified boundary—to systematically eliminate crossings between the two embeddings. The reconfiguration sequence length is O(c^3 k s^2) where c is the number of connected components, s is the total number of polyline segments, and k is the number of boundary-crossing segments. Beyond forests, the paper shows that planar graphs with a fixed rotation system and series-parallel graphs are also always reconfigurable on orientable surfaces of genus at least one, provides sufficient conditions for reconfiguration in the projective plane, and proves that for general graphs reconfiguration is not always possible.

What carries the argument

Frame trees (auxiliary Steiner trees used in Phase 1 to progressively eliminate boundary crossings), desire paths (curves that hug the target embedding and cross the boundary once, used in Phase 2 to guide rerouting), and the fundamental polygon representation of the surface.

What would settle it

If one could exhibit two embeddings of a forest on the torus where every possible single-edge rerouting sequence necessarily passes through a crossing configuration, the main theorem would fail. More concretely, a pair of forest embeddings on the torus that are provably not reconfigurable would contradict Theorem 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the topological freedom provided by any positive genus—specifically, the ability to route curves around the boundary of a fundamental polygon—suffices to guarantee reconfigurability for forests, and this extends to several broader graph classes. The key mechanism is a two-phase reduction: first eliminate all boundary crossings using frame trees (auxiliary Steiner trees that gradually absorb boundary-crossing segments), then use the now-clean boundary as a corridor to reroute edges one at a time past fixed subtrees. The torus provides just enough room to route a desire path that wraps around the boundary once, creating a non-separating curve that allows parallel弧

Load-bearing premise

The algorithm assumes a specific geometric input model where each edge is a polyline whose individual segments cross the fundamental polygon boundary at most once. The complexity bounds depend on the number of such boundary-crossing segments k, which is a property of this particular representation rather than an intrinsic property of the graph or surface. While the authors argue arbitrary embeddings can be converted to this form, the exponential dependence on k means the cost

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the reconfiguration of crossing-free graph embeddings on surfaces, where vertices are fixed and edges are rerouted one at a time while maintaining a crossing-free embedding. The main result (Theorem 1) proves that for any forest with c components, any two embeddings on the torus can be reconfigured into each other, with a sequence length of O(c^3 k s^2) where s is the total number of polyline segments and k is the number of boundary-crossing segments. This extends to all orientable surfaces of genus g >= 1 (Corollary 5). The proof uses a two-phase approach: Phase 1 (Lemma 2) reconfigures both embeddings to interior embeddings via frame trees, and Phase 2 (Lemmas 3-4) reconfigures between interior embeddings using the torus boundary. The paper also provides sufficient conditions for reconfiguration on orientable surfaces for planar graphs with fixed rotation systems (Theorem 6) and series-parallel graphs (Theorem 7), results for perfect matchings in the projective plane (Theorem 8), and non-reconfigurability examples for general graphs (Theorem 11).

Significance. The main result resolves an open problem posed by Ito et al. [TALG 2025] by extending reconfigurability from 2-edge matchings on the torus to arbitrary forests on all orientable surfaces of genus >= 1. The two-phase construction (frame trees for Phase 1, desire paths for Phase 2) is a novel and clean technical contribution. The algorithmic results are constructive with explicit complexity bounds that are transparently representation-dependent. The paper also provides falsifiable negative examples (Theorem 11) and clearly delineates the boundary between positive and negative results in Table 1. The sufficient conditions for planar graphs with fixed rotation systems and series-parallel graphs further broaden the applicability. The generalization to the projective plane for matchings in a disk (Theorem 8) demonstrates the technique extends partially to non-orientable surfaces.

major comments (3)
  1. Lemma 3, Step 1b (p. 10-11): The nesting argument for top loop detours states that 'each successively rerouted curve will nest inside the previous ones, i.e., lie closer to d and closer to the top boundary.' This nesting is load-bearing for the claim that rerouted curves do not cross each other. However, the proof does not explicitly bound the number of nesting levels or argue that the epsilon-neighborhood has sufficient 'depth' to accommodate all crossings. Since the number of crossings along d_x can be as large as chi, and each nesting level requires additional space, a reader cannot verify from the text alone that the geometric construction does not self-intersect when chi is large. The appendix proof (Appendix A, p. 18-19) addresses the reuse of rho but does not revisit this geometric nesting bound. Please add a sentence or two clarifying why the nesting depth is not a geometrically载
  2. Corollary 5 (p. 21): The complexity bound for genus g > 1 states the reconfiguration length is O(c^3 k g^2 s^2), but the proof argues that Phase 1 produces B* and R* with O(3^k * g * s) segments and chi = O(3^k * g^2 * s^2). Substituting into Lemma 4's bound of O(c(chi + s*)) gives O(c * (3^k * g^2 * s^2 + 3^k * g * s)) = O(c * 3^k * g^2 * s^2), which is O(c * 3^k * g^2 * s^2), not O(c^3 * k * g^2 * s^2) as stated. The factor of c^3 and k (vs 3^k) appear to come from the proof of Theorem 1 where chi is bounded by O(3^k s^2) with k = k(B)+k(R). Please verify that the stated bound in Corollary 5 correctly accounts for the substitution, or clarify the derivation.
  3. Theorem 8 (p. 13-14): The proof constructs a canonical matching M where every curve passes through the crosscap exactly once, and then reconfigures B to M. The argument in Stage 1 (Claim 9) reduces intersections between curves in P and M_i. However, the proof of Claim 9 (Appendix D, p. 28-29) handles two cases, and in Case 2 uses a five-stage process involving the crosscap. The claim is that the number of intersections is reduced, but in intermediate stages 'the number of crossings may increase.' The proof should clarify that the intermediate embeddings remain crossing-free (i.e., that the curves in P remain pairwise disjoint throughout the five stages), since this is a requirement of the reconfiguration model.
minor comments (6)
  1. Section 3, p. 6, footnote 1: The discussion of epsilon being 'not constant' and numbered epsilon_1, epsilon_2, ... is somewhat unusual. Consider adding a brief remark that this is a standard cascading-neighborhood argument, or simply state that epsilon is chosen sufficiently small at each step.
  2. Figure 2 (p. 6): The four panels are dense and the labels (a_j, b_j, etc.) are small. Consider enlarging or splitting into two figures for readability.
  3. Lemma 2 (p. 5): The bound 'O(3^k)' on the reconfiguration sequence length should perhaps be 'O(3^k * k)' or clarified, since there are k steps and each step processes up to 3^{j-1} segments. The appendix (p. 18) states 'at most 3^j segments of B_j are reconfigured' in step j, and summation gives O(3^k), but a factor of k from the number of steps seems missing. Please verify.
  4. Table 1 (p. 3): The entry for 'Perfect Matchings (inside disk)' under Non-Orientable references Theorem 8, but Theorem 8 is specifically about RP^2, not general non-orientable surfaces. Consider clarifying in the table that this is for the projective plane.
  5. p. 7, line 3: 's1, ..., sk denote these k segments' — it would help to note that these are the boundary-crossing segments of B_0, not all segments of B.
  6. The paper uses both 'Sigma-embedding' and 'bar-Sigma-embedding' notation. A brief reminder near Section 3 that bar-Sigma refers to the fundamental polygon representation would aid readers who skip to later sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying three substantive points. All three comments are valid and require revision: (1) the nesting argument in Lemma 3 Step 1b needs an explicit geometric bound, (2) the complexity bound in Corollary 5 has a derivation error (the factor 3^k should appear instead of k), and (3) the proof of Claim 9 in Theorem 8 must clarify that intermediate embeddings remain crossing-free. We address each below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Lemma 3, Step 1b (p. 10-11): The nesting argument for top loop detours states that 'each successively rerouted curve will nest inside the previous ones, i.e., lie closer to d and closer to the top boundary.' This nesting is load-bearing for the claim that rerouted curves do not cross each other. However, the proof does not explicitly bound the number of nesting levels or argue that the epsilon-neighborhood has sufficient 'depth' to accommodate all crossings. Since the number of crossings along d_x can be as large as chi, and each nesting level requires additional space, a reader cannot verify from the text alone that the geometric construction does not self-intersect when chi is large. The appendix proof (Appendix A, p. 18-19) addresses the reuse of rho but does not revisit this geometric nesting bound. Please add a sentence or two clarifying why the nesting depth is not a geometrically.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the nesting argument is not sufficiently justified in the current text. We will add an explicit clarification. The key observation is that the nesting does not require geometrically distinct epsilon-neighborhoods of increasing depth. Rather, each successively rerouted curve detours to the left/right boundary of the fundamental square near the top, and the nesting is achieved by routing each subsequent detour in a thinner annular region between the previous detour and the curve d_x. Since the fundamental square boundary provides an unbounded (in the combinatorial sense) corridor along which parallel non-crossing polylines can be placed at arbitrarily small separation, the number of nesting levels is not constrained by any fixed geometric budget. Concretely, after the j-th rerouting, the (j+1)-th detour is placed in a strip of width epsilon_{j+1} < epsilon_j between the j-th detour and d_x, where the epsilon values form a decreasing sequence. This is the same mechanism used in Phase 1 (Lemma 2), where parallel polylines are placed in an epsilon-neighborhood of rho_j. We will add two sentences to Step 1b making this explicit: that the nesting is realized by a decreasing sequence of positive offsets, and that the corridor along the boundary of the fundamental square has sufficient room because the offsets can be chosen arbitrarily small. We note that this is consistent with the footnote on epsilon already present in the manuscript (p. 6), which acknowledges that epsilon is not a single constant but a sequence of suitably small values. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Corollary 5 (p. 21): The complexity bound for genus g > 1 states the reconfiguration length is O(c^3 k g^2 s^2), but the proof argues that Phase 1 produces B* and R* with O(3^k * g * s) segments and chi = O(3^k * g^2 * s^2). Substituting into Lemma 4's bound of O(c(chi + s*)) gives O(c * (3^k * g^2 * s^2 + 3^k * g * s)) = O(c * 3^k * g^2 * s^2), which is O(c * 3^k * g^2 * s^2), not O(c^3 * k * g^2 * s^2) as stated. The factor of c^3 and k (vs 3^k) appear to come from the proof of Theorem 1 where chi is bounded by O(3^k s^2) with k = k(B)+k(R). Please verify that the stated bound in Corollary 5 correctly accounts for the substitution, or clarify the derivation.

    Authors: The referee has identified a genuine error in the stated bound of Corollary 5. The proof of Corollary 5 in Appendix A (p. 20-21) derives that Phase 1 produces s* = O(3^k * g * s) and chi = O(3^k * g^2 * s^2), and Phase 2 (via Lemma 4) gives a reconfiguration sequence of length O(c * (chi + s*)) = O(c * 3^k * g^2 * s^2). The correct bound is therefore O(c * 3^k * g^2 * s^2), not O(c^3 * k * g^2 * s^2). The erroneous factors of c^3 and k (in place of 3^k) appear to have been carried over from Theorem 1 without proper re-derivation. We note that in Theorem 1 itself, the bound O(c^3 * k * s^2) also appears to be incorrect: the proof of Theorem 1 substitutes chi = O(3^k * s^2) and s* = O(3^k * s) into Lemma 4's bound O(c * (chi + s*)), yielding O(c * 3^k * s^2), not O(c^3 * k * s^2). The factor c^3 may arise from the runtime bound O(c^3 * s* * (chi + s*)^2) of Lemma 4, but this is a runtime bound, not a sequence length bound. We will correct both Theorem 1 and Corollary 5 to state the bounds O(c * 3^k * s^2) and O(c * 3^k * g^2 * s^2) respectively for the sequence length, and verify that the segment counts and runtime bounds are similarly consistent. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Theorem 8 (p. 13-14): The proof constructs a canonical matching M where every curve passes through the crosscap exactly once, and then reconfigures B to M. The argument in Stage 1 (Claim 9) reduces intersections between curves in P and M_i. However, the proof of Claim 9 (Appendix D, p. 28-29) handles two cases, and in Case 2 uses a five-stage process involving the crosscap. The claim is that the number of intersections is reduced, but in intermediate stages 'the number of crossings may increase.' The proof should clarify that the intermediate embeddings remain crossing-free (i.e., that the curves in P remain pairwise disjoint throughout the five stages), since this is a requirement of the reconfiguration model.

    Authors: The referee is correct that this needs clarification. The proof of Claim 9 in Appendix D describes modifications to the curves in P = {P_i, ..., P_n} and notes that 'the number of crossings between {P_i, ..., P_n} and M_i may increase in intermediate steps.' This refers to crossings between the P-curves and M_i, not crossings among the P-curves themselves. However, the proof does not explicitly state that the curves in P remain pairwise disjoint throughout the five stages, which is indeed a requirement of the reconfiguration model. We have verified that pairwise disjointness is maintained: in each stage, the modifications replace arcs of individual curves with new arcs that closely follow M_i, previously redrawn arcs, or the boundary of the thickening N_i, and these new arcs are routed in sufficiently small neighborhoods that are chosen to be disjoint from all other curves. Specifically, in Step 1, each gamma'_ell closely follows M_i and the previously redrawn arcs in a nested fashion (analogous to the nesting in Lemma 3); in Step 2, each new arc closely follows the union of M_i and the Stage 1 arcs, again in a nested fashion; in Steps 4 and 5, the reversions follow the boundary of N_i. We will add a sentence after the description of the five stages stating explicitly that throughout all stages, the curves in P remain pairwise disjoint because each new arc is routed in a sufficiently small neighborhood that avoids all other curves, and that each stage consists of valid reconfiguration moves (one edge rerouted at a time). revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found.

full rationale

The paper's central result (Theorem 1) is derived from two independent phases: Phase 1 (Lemma 2) uses frame trees to reconfigure boundary-crossing embeddings to interior embeddings, and Phase 2 (Lemmas 3-4) uses desire paths and torus boundary crossings to reconfigure between interior embeddings. The construction is self-contained: the frame tree machinery is built from the input embedding's geometry, the annulus neighborhood argument for orientable surfaces is a standard topological fact, and the complexity bounds follow from tracking segment counts through the induction. The paper cites Ito et al. [22] for the problem formulation and the planar non-reconfigurability result used in Theorem 11, but these are external results used as building blocks, not self-citations that circularly justify the main claims. Negami's theorem [27] is invoked for uniquely embeddable triangulations in Theorem 11 and is an independent external result. The generalization to higher genus (Corollary 5) follows by verifying that the same techniques apply with additional boundary sides. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its inputs by definition, and no prediction is a renamed fit. The geometric input model (polyline segments crossing the boundary at most once) is a representation choice with transparently acknowledged complexity dependence, not a circular assumption. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters (no fitting to data) and no new physical or mathematical entities with independent existence. The frame trees and desire paths are algorithmic constructs internal to the proof. The axioms are standard results from topological graph theory (Negami's theorem) and the prior work of Ito et al., plus the geometric input model assumption which is a domain restriction rather than a deep axiom.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Geometric input model: edge curves are polylines of straight-line segments, each segment crosses the boundary of the fundamental square at most once, no vertex on the boundary
    Stated in Section 3 as the input specification for Theorem 1. The complexity bounds depend on s and k which are properties of this representation.
  • standard math Negami's theorem: a triangulation of a closed surface is uniquely embeddable if it has no core skew vertex
    Invoked in Appendix E to construct the uniquely embeddable graph H(Sigma) used in the proof of Theorem 11.
  • domain assumption Ito et al.'s planar non-reconfigurability result: two specific embeddings of a 2-edge matching in the plane are not reconfigurable
    Used as the base case for the negative results in Theorem 11, via the simulation argument.
  • ad hoc to paper A sufficiently small epsilon > 0 exists such that epsilon-neighborhoods of frame trees and edge curves have the required topological properties (contractibility, annulus structure, disjointness)
    Used throughout Phase 1 (Lemma 2) and Phase 2 (Lemma 3) proofs. The authors acknowledge this informally in footnote 1.
invented entities (2)
  • Frame trees F_0, ..., F_k
    purpose: Steiner trees used in Phase 1 to guide the rerouting of edge curves away from the boundary of the fundamental square
    Constructive tool specific to this paper's algorithm; not a new mathematical object with independent existence.
  • Desire path d
    purpose: Intermediate edge curve in Phase 2 that crosses the boundary of the fundamental square once, enabling the torus topology to be used for rerouting
    Algorithmic construct specific to this paper's reconfiguration strategy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rerouting Curves on Surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IMQZRDQL

@misc{pith2026260705362,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rerouting Curves on Surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IMQZRDQL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05362}
}
read the original abstract

We study the problem of reconfiguring a crossing-free embedding of a graph on a surface, with edges represented as curves, into another crossing-free embedding of the same graph on the same surface with the same fixed vertex positions. In this process, we reroute one edge at a time while maintaining crossing-free intermediate embeddings. This problem was introduced by Ito et al. [TALG 2025], who showed that even if the graph is a matching of two edges, reconfiguration is not always possible in the plane, but is always possible on the torus. For matchings of two or more edges, they gave a necessary and sufficient condition for reconfigurable embeddings in the plane, but not on the torus. Our main result is that for matchings, trees and forests, reconfiguration is always possible on the torus, and consequently, on any orientable surface of genus at least one. In addition, we provide sufficient conditions for reconfiguration on orientable surfaces of genus at least one and in the projective plane. For more general graphs, we show that reconfiguration is not always possible.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2025 , volume =

    Ito, Takehiro and Iwamasa, Yuni and Kakimura, Naonori and Kobayashi, Yusuke and Maezawa, Shun-Ichi and Nozaki, Yuta and Okamoto, Yoshio and Ozeki, Kenta , title =. 2025 , volume =. doi:10.1145/3715694 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1145/3715694 2025

  2. [2]

    Proc.\ 32nd ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (

    How to morph graphs on the torus , author=. Proc.\ 32nd ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (. 2021 , doi=

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications , year=

    Planar and Toroidal Morphs Made Easier , author=. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications , year=

    work page

  4. [4]

    Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry , editor=

    Computational topology of graphs on surfaces , author=. Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry , editor=. 2017 , chapter=

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Proc.\ 35th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (

    Untangling graphs on surfaces , author=. Proc.\ 35th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (. 2024 , doi=

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Untangling Planar Curves , journal =

    Hsien. Untangling Planar Curves , journal =. 2017 , _url =. doi:10.1007/S00454-017-9907-6 , timestamp =

    work page doi:10.1007/s00454-017-9907-6 2017

  7. [7]

    Tightening Curves on Surfaces Monotonically with Applications , journal =

    Hsien. Tightening Curves on Surfaces Monotonically with Applications , journal =. 2022 , url =. doi:10.1145/3558097 , timestamp =

    work page doi:10.1145/3558097 2022

  8. [8]

    Tightening Curves on Surfaces via Local Moves , booktitle =

    Hsien. Tightening Curves on Surfaces via Local Moves , booktitle =. 2018 , _url =. doi:10.1137/1.9781611975031.8 , timestamp =

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611975031.8 2018

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    SIAM Journal on Computing , volume=

    How to morph planar graph drawings , author=. SIAM Journal on Computing , volume=. 2017 , doi=

    2017

  2. [10]

    Monma , title =

    Daniel Bienstock and Clyde L. Monma , title =. Algorithmica , volume =. 1990 , url =. doi:10.1007/BF01840379 , timestamp =

    1990 doi

  3. [11]

    Algorithms , volume =

    Naomi Nishimura , title =. Algorithms , volume =. 2018 , _url =. doi:10.3390/A11040052 , timestamp =

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    1996 , url =

    Giuseppe Di Battista and Roberto Tamassia , title =. 1996 , url =. doi:10.1137/S0097539794280736 , timestamp =

    1996 doi

  5. [13]

    The complexity of change , booktitle =

    Jan. The complexity of change , booktitle =. 2013 , url =. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139506748.005 , timestamp =

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    2024 , publisher=

    Elementary Topology: Problem Textbook , author=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  7. [15]

    2001 , doi =

    Bojan Mohar and Carsten Thomassen , title =. 2001 , doi =

    2001

  8. [16]

    Yokohama Mathematical Journal , volume =

    Seiya Negami , title =. Yokohama Mathematical Journal , volume =. 1985 , url =

    1985

  9. [17]

    1994 , issn =

    The combinations of resistances , journal =. 1994 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-218X(94)90024-8 , _url =

    1994 doi

  10. [18]

    , title =

    Riordan, John and Shannon, Claude E. , title =. Journal of Mathematics and Physics , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sapm194221183 , _url =

    doi

  11. [19]

    1965 , issn =

    Topology of series-parallel networks , journal =. 1965 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(65)90125-3 , _url =

    1965 doi

  12. [20]

    Saidur Rahman , _editor =

    Sk Ruhul Azgor and Md. Saidur Rahman , _editor =. On the Rique Number of Series-Parallel Graphs and Planar Bipartite Graphs , booktitle =. 2025 , _url =. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-84543-7_1 , timestamp =

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Algorithmica , volume =

    Walter Didimo and Michael Kaufmann and Giuseppe Liotta and Giacomo Ortali , title =. Algorithmica , volume =. 2023 , _url =. doi:10.1007/S00453-023-01110-6 , timestamp =

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Bekos and Philipp Kindermann and Tamara Mchedlidze , title =

    Patrizio Angelini and Michael A. Bekos and Philipp Kindermann and Tamara Mchedlidze , title =. Theor. Comput. Sci. , volume =. 2022 , _url =. doi:10.1016/J.TCS.2022.09.019 , timestamp =

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    David Eppstein , title =. J. Graph Algorithms Appl. , volume =. 2021 , _url =. doi:10.7155/JGAA.00571 , timestamp =

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    The thief orienteering problem on 2-terminal series-parallel graphs , journal =

    Andrew Bloch. The thief orienteering problem on 2-terminal series-parallel graphs , journal =. 2025 , _url =. doi:10.1007/S00236-025-00486-Y , timestamp =

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Electron

    Ferenc Bencs and Jeroen Huijben and Guus Regts , title =. Electron. J. Comb. , volume =. 2023 , _url =. doi:10.37236/11204 , timestamp =

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Marco A. L. Computing the Clique-Width on Series-Parallel Graphs , journal =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  19. [27]

    Zhishi Pan and Xuding Zhu , title =. Discret. Math. , volume =. 2022 , _url =. doi:10.1016/J.DISC.2021.112733 , timestamp =

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    1992 , booktitle =

    Chapter 5 Polynomially Solvable Cases , author =. 1992 , booktitle =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5060(08)70202-4 , _url =

    1992 doi

  21. [29]

    Detecting Weakly Simple Polygons , booktitle =

    Hsien. Detecting Weakly Simple Polygons , booktitle =. 2015 , _url =. doi:10.1137/1.9781611973730.110 , timestamp =

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    Akitaya and Greg Aloupis and Jeff Erickson and Csaba D

    Hugo A. Akitaya and Greg Aloupis and Jeff Erickson and Csaba D. T. Recognizing Weakly Simple Polygons , journal =. 2017 , _url =. doi:10.1007/S00454-017-9918-3 , timestamp =

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Topology , volume=

    A presentation for the mapping class group of a closed orientable surface , author=. Topology , volume=. 1980 , publisher=

    1980

  24. [32]

    Journal of Topology and Analysis , pages =

    Lackenby, Marc and Yazdi, Mehdi , title =. Journal of Topology and Analysis , pages =. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  25. [33]

    Euler's Formula for General Graph Embeddings

    Bauer, Doug and Lesniak, Linda and Schmeichel, Edward. Euler's Formula for General Graph Embeddings. Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing. 2025. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-83864-4_14 , abstract="Consider an embedding of a graph G(v,e)

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.