Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Establishes NP-completeness of upward book embeddings in partitioned digraphs, highlighting complexity challenges.
In 1999, Heath, Pemmaraju, and Trenk [SIAM J. Comput. 28(4), 1999] extended the classic notion of book embeddings to digraphs, introducing the concept of upward book embeddings, in which the vertices must appear along the spine in a topological order and the edges are partitioned into pages, so that no two edges in the same page cross. For a partitioned digraph G = (V, ⋃^kᵢ₌₁ E_i), that is, a digraph whose edge set is partitioned into k subsets, an upward book embedding is required to assign edges to pages as prescribed by the given partition. In a companion paper, Heath and Pemmaraju [SIAM J. Comput. 28(5), 1999] proved that the problem of testing the existence of an upward book embedding of a partitioned digraph is linear-time solvable for k = 1 and recently Akitaya, Demaine, Hesterberg, and Liu [GD, 2017] have shown the problem NP-complete for k ≥ 3. In this paper, we study upward book embeddings of partitioned digraphs and focus on the unsolved case k = 2. Our first main result is a novel characterization of the upward embeddings that support an upward book embedding in two pages. We exploit this characterization in several ways, and obtain a rich picture of the complexity landscape of the problem. First, we show that the problem remains NP-complete when k = 2, thus closing the complexity gap for the problem. Second, we show that, for an n-vertex partitioned digraph with a prescribed planar embedding, the existence of an upward book embedding that respects the given planar embedding can be tested in O(n log³ n) time. Finally, leveraging the SPQ(R)-tree decomposition of biconnected graphs into triconnected components, we present a cubic-time testing algorithm for biconnected directed partial 2-trees.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lozzo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: