English

Terrain Visibility Graphs: Persistence is Not Enough

Computational Geometry 2020-04-03 v1

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the Visibility Graph Recognition and Reconstruction problems in the context of terrains. Here, we are given a graph GG with labeled vertices v0,v1,,vn1v_0, v_1, \ldots, v_{n-1} such that the labeling corresponds with a Hamiltonian path HH. GG also may contain other edges. We are interested in determining if there is a terrain TT with vertices p0,p1,,pn1p_0, p_1, \ldots, p_{n-1} such that GG is the visibility graph of TT and the boundary of TT corresponds with HH. GG is said to be persistent if and only if it satisfies the so-called X-property and Bar-property. It is known that every "pseudo-terrain" has a persistent visibility graph and that every persistent graph is the visibility graph for some pseudo-terrain. The connection is not as clear for (geometric) terrains. It is known that the visibility graph of any terrain TT is persistent, but it has been unclear whether every persistent graph GG has a terrain TT such that GG is the visibility graph of TT. There actually have been several papers that claim this to be the case (although no formal proof has ever been published), and recent works made steps towards building a terrain reconstruction algorithm for any persistent graph. In this paper, we show that there exists a persistent graph GG that is not the visibility graph for any terrain TT. This means persistence is not enough by itself to characterize the visibility graphs of terrains, and implies that pseudo-terrains are not stretchable.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2004.00750,
  title  = {Terrain Visibility Graphs: Persistence is Not Enough},
  author = {Safwa Ameer and Matt Gibson-Lopez and Erik Krohn and Sean Soderman and Qing Wang},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.00750},
  year   = {2020}
}

Comments

To appear in SoCG 2020

R2 v1 2026-06-23T14:36:08.038Z