Bounded-Degree Graphs have Arbitrarily Large Geometric Thickness

Janos Barat,Jiri Matousek,David R. Wood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0509150

2005-09-09

Abstract:The geometric thickness of a graph G is the minimum integer k such that there is a straight line drawing of G with its edge set partitioned into k plane subgraphs. Eppstein [Separating thickness from geometric thickness. In: Towards a Theory of Geometric Graphs, vol. 342 of Contemp. Math., AMS, 2004] asked whether every graph of bounded maximum degree has bounded geometric thickness. We answer this question in the negative, by proving that there exists Delta-regular graphs with arbitrarily large geometric thickness. In particular, for all Delta >= 9 and for all large n, there exists a Delta-regular graph with geometric thickness at least c Delta^{1/2} n^{1/2 - 4/Delta - epsilon}. Analogous results concerning graph drawings with few edge slopes are also presented, thus solving open problems by Dujmovic' et al. [Really straight graph drawings. In: Proc. 12th International Symp. on Graph Drawing (GD '04), vol. 3383 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., Springer, 2004] and Ambrus et al. [The slope parameter of graphs. Tech. Rep. MAT-2005-07, Department of Mathematics, Technical University of Denmark, 2005].

Combinatorics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The main problem that this paper attempts to solve is how to determine the optimal hedging strategies for portfolios of stocks, bonds and derivatives in the presence of transaction costs (frictions). Specifically, the author studies how to find the optimal strategy by solving the Hamilton - Jacobi - Bellman (HJB) equation in a multi - period multiplicative Markov market model to maximize the growth rate of investors' capital.

### Main Problems
1. **Optimal Hedging Strategies**: The paper explores how to determine the optimal hedging strategies for portfolios containing stocks, bonds and derivatives when considering transaction costs. This involves how to adjust the portfolio within a limited time range to minimize the impact of transaction costs.
2. **The Impact of Transaction Costs on Pricing**: Although transaction costs will affect hedging strategies, the paper finds that the existence of transaction costs does not change the price of derivatives. Specifically, the price of derivatives still follows the no - arbitrage ("Black - Scholes") pricing principle.
3. **Decomposition of Control Strategies**: The paper proposes that the optimal control strategy can be decomposed into two parts:
- **Strong Control**: Try to adjust the portfolio of stocks and derivatives to a position close to Black - Scholes delta hedging.
- **Weak Control**: Adjust the portfolio by increasing or decreasing Black - Scholes hedging.

### Methods
- **HJB Equation**: The author uses the HJB equation to solve the optimal control problem. The HJB equation is a partial differential equation used to solve dynamic optimization problems.
- **Multiscale Analysis**: To deal with the problem in the limit of small transaction costs, the author introduces the multiscale analysis method, separating the scales of time, stable sub - space and marginal sub - space.

### Conclusions
- **The Impact of Transaction Costs**: Although transaction costs do not change the pricing of derivatives, they will affect the optimal investment strategy. The optimal strategy is that when the transaction costs are small, the portfolio is close to Black - Scholes delta hedging.
- **Mathematical Conditions**: The paper proves that under certain conditions, the HJB equation has a good solution, and these conditions are actually the no - arbitrage conditions for Black - Scholes pricing.
- **Practical Applications**: The results of the paper show that the introduction of derivatives can improve the expected utility, especially when the transaction costs are small, the expected transaction costs will be reduced.

### Formula Summary
- **HJB Equation**:
\[
\partial_t \lambda + a_\zeta \partial_z \lambda + a_\vartheta \partial_y \lambda + \mu p \partial_p \lambda + \frac{\gamma_d (\sigma \partial_z \lambda + \sigma_d \partial_y \lambda)^2 + \gamma (\sigma_d \partial_z \lambda - \sigma \partial_y \lambda)^2}{4 \sigma^2 \gamma \gamma_d (1 - z \partial_z \lambda - y \partial_y \lambda)} + \frac{b_\zeta^2}{2} \partial_z^2 \lambda + \frac{b_\vartheta^2}{2} \partial_y^2 \lambda + \frac{(\sigma p)^2}{2} \partial_p^2 \lambda + b_\zeta b_\vartheta \partial_{zy} \lambda + b_\zeta \sigma p \partial_{zp} \lambda + b_\vartheta \sigma p \partial_{yp} \lambda + \frac{\mu^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \