Rerouting Planar Curves and Disjoint Paths

First suppose that \mathcal{P} is reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q}, namely \mathcal{P} is reconfigurable to \mathcal{P}' such that P'_i\cap Q_i=\{s_i,t_i\} and P'_i\cap Q_j=\emptyset for j \in [k] \setminus \{i\}. Then, w'_j=1 for any j \in [k]. Since \mathcal{P}' is reconfigurable to \mathcal{P}, Lemma 3.4 implies that w_j \in \langlex_j\rangle for any j \in [k].

The converse is shown by induction on the number, say n, of intersections of \mathcal{P} and \mathcal{Q} except their endpoints. The case n=0 is obvious. Let us consider the case n\geq 1. If P_i \cap Q_j = \emptyset for any pair of distinct i, j \in [k], then the reconfiguration is obviously possible. Otherwise, there exists x_ix_i^{-1} or x_i^{-1}x_i in the product of the definition of w_{j^*} for some i,j^* \in [k] (possibly i=j^*). This means that P_i can be reconfigured to a curve P'_i as illustrated in Figure ?. This process eliminates at least two intersections and we have w'_j \in \langlex_j\rangle for any j \in [k] by Lemma 3.4. Thus, the induction hypothesis concludes that \mathcal{P}' is reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q}.

Suppose that we are given a two-face instance I = (G, \mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q}) of Disjoint Paths Reconfiguration.

We first test whether I has a terminal separator of size k, which can be done in polynomial time by a standard minimum cut algorithm. If there is no terminal separator of size k, then Theorem 4.2 shows that we can easily solve Disjoint Paths Reconfigurationby checking whether \mu(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q}) = 0 or not.

Suppose that we obtain a terminal separator U of size k. Then, we obtain subgraphs G_1 and G_2 of G such that G=G_1 \cup G_2, V(G_1) \cap V(G_2) = U, \{s_1, \dots , s_k\} \subseteq V(G_1), and \{t_1, \dots , t_k\} \subseteq V(G_2). We test whether V(P_i) \cap U = V(Q_i) \cap U holds for any i \in [k] or not, where we note that each of V(P_i) \cap U and V(Q_i) \cap U consists of a single vertex. If this does not hold, then we can immediately conclude that \mathcal{P} is not reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q}, because V(P_i) \cap U does not change in the reconfiguration. If V(P_i) \cap U = V(Q_i) \cap U for i \in [k], then we consider the instance I_i =(G_i, \mathcal{P}_i, \mathcal{Q}_i) for i=1, 2, where \mathcal{P}_i and \mathcal{Q}_i are the restrictions of \mathcal{P} and \mathcal{Q} to G_i. That is, I_i is the restriction of I to G_i. Then, we see that \mathcal{P} is reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q} if and only if \mathcal{P}_i is reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q}_i for i=1, 2. Since I_1 and I_2 are one-face or two-face instances, by solving them recursively, we can solve the original instance I in polynomial time. See Algorithm ? for a pseudocode of the algorithm.

By the definition of an isotopy (see [FaMa12, Section 1.2.5]), P'_i is obtained from P_i by a finite sequence of the moves illustrated in Figure ?. By (I), one intersection of P_i and Q_i is created or eliminated, and thus (I) changes w_i to w_ix_i^{\pm 1} or x_i^{\pm 1}w_i. In (II), two intersections of P_i and Q_\ell are created or eliminated for some \ell \in [k]. Since x_i^{\pm 1}x_i^{\mp 1}=1, w_j is unchanged under (II) for any j \in [k].

Define a group homomorphism f_{ij}\colon F_k \to F_k by f_{ij}(x_\ell)=x_\ell if \ell\neq j, and f_{ij}(x_j)=x_ix_jx_i^{-1}. Then, one can check that w'_\ell=f_{ij}(w_\ell) if \ell\neq j, and w'_j=x_i^{-1}f_{ij}(w_j)x_i (see Figure ?). Since w_\ell=x_\ell^{e_\ell} for some e_\ell \in \mathbb{Z} by the assumption, we have w'_\ell=w_\ell if \ell\neq j. Also, one has

This completes the proof.

It suffices to consider the case when there is i\in[k] such that P'_\ell = P_\ell if \ell\neq i, and P'_i \neq P_i. Since P_i is isotopic to P'_i (relative to \{s_i,t_i\}) in \mathbb{R}^2, the curve P'_i is obtained from P_i by the moves in Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3. Therefore, these lemmas imply that if w_j \in \langlex_j\rangle then w'_j \in \langlex_j\rangle.

We prove the proposition by induction on the number of vertices in G. Let I = (G, \mathcal{P}, \mathcal{Q}) be a one-face instance of Disjoint Paths Reconfiguration.

If G is not connected, then we can consider each connected component separately. If G is connected but not 2-connected, then there exist subgraphs G_1 and G_2 such that G = G_1 \cup G_2 and V(G_1) \cap V(G_2) = \{v\} for some v \in V. For i=1, 2, define I_i as the restriction of I to G_i if some path in \mathcal{P} \cup \mathcal{Q} uses an edge in G_i incident to v, and define I_i as the restriction of I to G_i \setminus \{v\} otherwise. Since I_1 and I_2 are one-face instances (or trivial instances with at most one terminal pair), the induction hypothesis shows that there exist reconfiguration sequences for I_1 and I_2. By combining them, we obtain a reconfiguration sequence from \mathcal{P} to \mathcal{Q}.

In what follows, suppose that G is 2-connected. Let F be a face of G whose boundary contains all the terminals. Note that the boundary of F forms a cycle, because G is 2-connected. Since there is a linkage, for some i \in [k], there exists an s_i-t_i path R_i along \partial{F} that contains no terminals other than s_i and t_i. Since \mathcal{P} and \mathcal{Q} are linkages, P_j and Q_j are disjoint from R_i for j \in [k] \setminus \{i\}. Define \mathcal{P}' (resp. \mathcal{Q}') as the linkage that is obtained from \mathcal{P} (resp. \mathcal{Q}) by replacing P_i (resp. Q_i) with R_i. Then, \mathcal{P} \leftrightarrow \mathcal{P}' and \mathcal{Q} \leftrightarrow \mathcal{Q}'.

Since (G \setminus R_i, \mathcal{P}' \setminus \{R_i\}, \mathcal{Q}' \setminus \{R_i\}) is a one-face instance, \mathcal{P}' \setminus \{R_i\} is reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q}' \setminus \{R_i\} in G \setminus R_i by the induction hypothesis. This implies that \mathcal{P}' is reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q}' in G. Therefore, \mathcal{P} is reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q} in G.

Suppose that G, s, t, \mathcal{P}, and \mathcal{Q} are as in the statement, and assume that there is no s-t separator of size k. We fix an embedding of G on the plane. If there is an edge connecting s and t, then s and t are on the boundary of some face, and hence \mathcal{P} is reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q} in the same way as Proposition 4.1. Thus, it suffices to consider the case when there is no edge connecting s and t.

We now construct an instance of Disjoint Paths Reconfigurationby replacing s and t with large “grids” as follows. Let e_1, e_2, \dots , e_{\ell} be the edges incident to s clockwise in this order. Note that \ell \ge k+1 holds, because G has no s-t separator of size k. For i \in [\ell], we subdivide e_i by introducing p new vertices v^1_i, v^2_i, \dots , v^{p}_i such that they are aligned in this order and v^1_i is closest to s, where p is a sufficiently large integer (e.g., p \ge |V|^2). For i \in [\ell] and for j \in [p], we introduce a new edge connecting v^j_i and v^j_{i+1}, where v^j_{\ell+1} = v^j_{1}. Define s_i = v^1_i for i \in [k] and remove s. Then, the graph is embedded on the plane and s_1, \dots , s_k are on the boundary of some face clockwise in this order; see  ?. By applying a similar procedure to t, we modify the graph around t and define t_1, \dots , t_k that are on the boundary of some face counter-clockwise in this order. Let G' be the obtained graph. Observe that G' contains no terminal separator of size k, because G has no s-t separator of size k.

By rerouting the given s-t linkages \mathcal{P} and \mathcal{Q} around s and t, we obtain linkages \mathcal{P}' and \mathcal{Q}' from \{s_1, \dots , s_k\} to \{t_1, \dots , t_k\} in G'. Note that the restrictions of \mathcal{P} and \mathcal{Q} to G \setminus \{s, t\} coincide with those of \mathcal{P}' and \mathcal{Q}', respectively. Then, we can take \mathcal{P}' and \mathcal{Q}' so that |\mu(\mathcal{P}', \mathcal{Q}')| \le |V|. Furthermore, by using at most |V| concentric cycles around s and t, we can reroute the linkages so that the value \mu(\mathcal{P}', \mathcal{Q}') decreases or increases by one. Therefore, by using p \ge |V|^2 concentric cycles, we can reroute \mathcal{P}' and \mathcal{Q}' so that \mu(\mathcal{P}', \mathcal{Q}') becomes zero.

By Theorem 4.2, \mathcal{P}' is reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q}' in G' (in terms of Disjoint Paths Reconfiguration). Then, the reconfiguration sequence from \mathcal{P}' to \mathcal{Q}' corresponds to that from \mathcal{P} to \mathcal{Q} in G (in terms of Disjoint s-t Paths Reconfiguration). Therefore, \mathcal{P} is reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q} in G.

Suppose that we are given a planar graph G=(V, E) with s, t \in V and s-t linkages \mathcal{P}= \{P_1, \dots , P_k\} and \mathcal{Q}= \{Q_1, \dots , Q_k\} in G. We first test whether G has an s-t separator of size k. If there is no such a separator, then we can immediately conclude that \mathcal{P} is reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q} by Theorem 1.5.

Suppose that G has an s-t separator of size k. Let X be the inclusionwise minimal vertex set subject to s \in X and N(X) is an s-t separator of size k. Note that such X is uniquely determined by the submodularity of |N(X)| and it can be computed in polynomial time by a standard minimum cut algorithm. Similarly, let Y be the unique inclusionwise minimal vertex set subject to t \in Y and N(Y) is an s-t separator of size k. Let U=N(X), W = N(Y), G_1 = G[X \cup U], G_2 = G \setminus (X \cup Y), and G_3 = G[Y \cup W]; see  ?. Since V(P_i) \cap U and V(P_i) \cap W do not change in the reconfiguration, we can consider the reconfiguration in G_1, G_2, and G_3, separately.

We first consider the reconfiguration in G_1. Observe that each path in \mathcal{P} contains exactly one vertex in U, and the restriction of \mathcal{P} to G_1 consists of k paths from s to U that are vertex-disjoint except at s. The same for \mathcal{Q}. By the minimality of X, G_1 contains no vertex set of size k that separates \{s\} and U. Therefore, by the same argument as Theorem 1.5, the restriction of \mathcal{P} to G_1 is reconfigurable to that of \mathcal{Q}.

If U \cap W \neq \emptyset, then G \setminus X contains no vertex set of size k that separates U and \{t\} by the minimality of Y. In such a case, by shrinking U to a single vertex and by applying the same argument as above, the restriction of \mathcal{P} to G \setminus X is reconfigurable to that of \mathcal{Q}. By combining the reconfiguration in G_1 and that in G\setminus X, we obtain a reconfiguration sequence from \mathcal{P} to \mathcal{Q}.

Therefore, it suffices to consider the case when U \cap W = \emptyset. In the same way as G_1, we see that the restriction of \mathcal{P} to G_3 is reconfigurable to that of \mathcal{Q}. This shows that the reconfigurability from \mathcal{P} to \mathcal{Q} in G is equivalent to that in G_2. By changing the indices if necessary, we may assume that P_i \cap U = Q_i \cap U for i \in [k]. If P_i \cap W \neq Q_i \cap W for some i \in [k], then we can conclude that \mathcal{P} is not reconfigurable to \mathcal{Q}. Otherwise, let \mathcal{P}' and \mathcal{Q}' be the restrictions of \mathcal{P} and \mathcal{Q} to G_2, respectively. Since (G_2, \mathcal{P}', \mathcal{Q}') is a one-face or two-face instance of Disjoint Paths Reconfiguration, we can solve it in polynomial time by Proposition 4.1 and Theorem 1.3. Therefore, we can test the reconfigurability from \mathcal{P} to \mathcal{Q} in polynomial time; see Algorithm ?.

To derive a contradiction, assume that such \mathcal{P'} does not exist. Let \hat{W} := \{\hat{v} \in \hat{V} \mid \hat{v} \in P^j_i \setminus Q^j_i \mbox{ for some } i \in [k] \mbox{ and } j \in \mathbb{Z}\} and let W be the subset of V corresponding to \hat{W}. If W = \emptyset, then take an index i \in [k] such that P_i \neq Q_i and let \mathcal{P}' = (P'_1, \dots , P'_k) be the set of paths obtained from \mathcal{P} by replacing P_i with Q_i. Since \mathcal{Q} is a linkage and all the vertices in P'_{h} are contained in Q_{h} for any h \in [k], \mathcal{P}' is a desired linkage, which contradicts the assumption.

Thus, it suffices to consider the case when W \neq \emptyset. Let u \in W. Let \hat{u} \in \hat{W} be a vertex corresponding to u and let i \in [k] and j \in \mathbb{Z} be the indices such that \hat{u} \in P^j_i \setminus Q^j_i. Since \hat{u} \in P^j_i \setminus Q^j_i implies \hat{u} \in L(Q^j_i) \setminus L(P^j_i), there exists a face \hat{F} of \hat{G} such that \partial{\hat{F}} contains an edge of P^j_i incident to \hat{u} and \hat{F} \subseteq L(Q^j_i) \setminus L(P^j_i). Define (P^j_i)' as the s^j_i-t^j_i path in \hat{G} with maximal L((P^j_i)') subject to (P^j_i)' \subseteq P^j_i \cup \partial{\hat{F}}; see  ?. Note that such a path is uniquely determined and P^j_i \prec (P^j_i)' \preceq Q^j_i.

Let P'_i be the s_i-t_i path in G that corresponds to (P^j_i)'. If P'_i is disjoint from P_{h} for any h \in [k] \setminus \{i\}, then we can obtain a desired linkage \mathcal{P}' from \mathcal{P} by replacing P_i with P'_i, which contradicts the assumption. Therefore, P'_i intersects P_{h} for some h \in [k] \setminus \{i\}. This together with P^j_i \prec (P^j_i)' shows that (P^j_i)' intersects P^j_{i+1}, where P^j_{k+1} means P^{j+1}_{1}. Since P^j_{i} and P^j_{i+1} are vertex-disjoint, the intersection of (P^j_i)' and P^j_{i+1} is contained in \partial{\hat{F}}, which implies that \partial{\hat{F}} \cap P^j_{i+1} contains a vertex \hat{v} \in \hat V; see  ? again. Since \hat{F} \subseteq L(Q^j_i), we obtain \hat{v} \in L(Q^j_i) \cup Q^j_i \subseteq L(Q^j_{i+1}), and hence \hat{v} \not\in Q^j_{i+1}. Let v and F be the vertex and the face of G that correspond to \hat{v} and \hat{F}, respectively. Then, \hat{v} \in P^j_{i+1} \setminus Q^j_{i+1} implies that \hat{v} \in \hat{W} and v \in W. Let J be a curve in F from u to v.

By the above argument, for any u \in W on P_i, there exist a vertex v \in W on P_{i+1} and a curve J from u to v contained in some face of G. By repeating this argument and by shifting the indices of P_i if necessary, we obtain v_i and J_i for i=1, 2, \ldots such that v_i \in W is on P_i (where the index is modulo k) and J_i is a curve from v_i to v_{i+1} contained in some face. We consider the curve J obtained by concatenating J_1, J_2, \ldots in this order. Since |W| is finite, this curve visits the same point more than once, and hence it contains a simple closed curve C^*. Since C^* is simple and visits vertices on P_i, P_{i+1}, \dots in this order, C^* surrounds S exactly once in the clockwise direction; see  ?. In particular, C^* contains exactly one vertex on P_i for each i\in [k]. Let U be the set of vertices in V contained in C^*. Then, |U|=k and G \setminus U has no path between \{s_1, \dots , s_k\} and \{t_1, \dots , t_k\} by the choice of C^*. Furthermore, U contains no terminals, because U \subseteq W and W contains no terminals. Therefore, U is a terminal separator of size k, which contradicts the assumption.

We first show that P_i \lor Q_i is a path for each i \in [k]. Assume to the contrary that P_i \lor Q_i visits a vertex v \in V more than once. Then, for j \in \mathbb{Z}, there exist j_1, j_2 \in \mathbb{Z} with j_1 < j_2 such that P^j_i \lor Q^j_i contains both v^{j_1} and v^{j_2}. Since the path P^j_i \lor Q^j_i is contained in the subgraph P^j_i \cup Q^j_i, without loss of generality, we may assume that P^j_i contains v^{j_2}. This shows that v^{j_1} \in L(P^j_i) \subseteq L(P^j_i \lor Q^j_i), which contradicts that v^{j_1} is contained in P^j_i \lor Q^j_i.

We next show that P_1 \lor Q_1, \dots , P_k \lor Q_k are pairwise vertex-disjoint. Assume to the contrary that P_i \lor Q_i and P_{i'} \lor Q_{i'} contain a common vertex v \in V for distinct i, i' \in [k]. Since \hat{G} is periodic, there exist j, j' \in \mathbb{Z} such that P^j_i \lor Q^j_i and P^{j'}_{i'} \lor Q^{j'}_{i'} contain v^0 (i.e., the copy of v in R^0). We may assume that (j, i) is smaller than (j', i') in the lexicographical ordering, that is, either j < j' holds or j=j' and i < i' hold. Since P^j_i \lor Q^j_i \subseteq P^j_i \cup Q^j_i, we may also assume that v^0 \in P^j_i by changing the roles of P^j_i and Q^j_i if necessary. Then, we obtain v^0 \in P^j_i \subseteq L(P^{j'}_{i'}) \subseteq L(P^{j'}_{i'} \lor Q^{j'}_{i'}), which contradicts that v^0 is contained in P^{j'}_{i'} \lor Q^{j'}_{i'}.

We have already observed that the problem is in \mathsf{PSPACE}. To show the \mathsf{PSPACE}-hardness, we now give a transformation of a given AND/OR graph H=(V(H),E(H)) to an undirected graph G=(V(G),E(G)). Each weight-2 edge e = \{u, v\} \in E(H) of H is mapped to the following weight-2 edge gadget G_e (see  ?):

Similarly, each weight-1 edge e = \{u, v\} \in E(H) of H is mapped to the following weight-1 edge gadget G_e (see  ?):

Let v \in V(H) be an OR vertex, and e,f,g \in E(H) be three weight-2 edges incident to v. Then, v is mapped to the following OR vertex gadget G_v (see  ?):

Note that the vertices with the same label are identified.

An AND vertex v \in V(H) that is incident to one weight-2 edge e and two weight-1 edges f, g is mapped to the following AND vertex gadget G_v (see  ?):

Define

A vertex of V(G) is red if it is of the form r_{x,i} for some vertex/edge x \in V(H) \cup E(H) and i \in \{1,2\}; a vertex of V(G) is blue if it is of the form b_{x,i} for some vertex/edge x \in V(H) \cup E(H) and i \in \{1,2\}; a vertex of V(G) is white if it is of the form w_{e,v} for some vertex v \in V(H) and edge e \in E(H); a vertex of V(G) is black if it is s, t or of the form k_v for some vertex v \in V(H). The number of red vertices is equal to 2|V^{\mathrm{a}}(H)|+2|E_2(H)|, where V^{\mathrm{a}}(H) is the set of AND vertices and E_2(H) is the set of weight-2 edges; The number of blue vertices is equal to 2|V(H)|+2|E_1(H)|, where E_1(H) is the set of weight-1 edges; The number of white vertices is equal to 3|V(H)|=2|E(H)|; The number of black vertices is equal to 2+|V^{\mathrm{a}}(H)|.

Assume that the elements of V^{\mathrm{a}}(H) \cup E_2(H) are arbitrarily ordered as x_1, x_2, \dots, x_R and the elements of V(H) \cup E_1(H) are arbitrarily ordered as y_1, y_2, \dots, y_B. Then, define

This completes the construction of G.  ? may help the reader understand.

We now describe the way how an NCL configuration of H translates to an s-t linkage \{P_1, P_2\} of G. We force that P_1 goes through all the red vertices and P_2 goes through all the blue vertices. As a sequence of vertices, P_1 is constructed as follows.

1. The path starts at s. Let r_{x_0,2} = s.

2. Now we iterate over i\in \{1,\dots,R\}. As an invariant at the beginning of the iteration, we assume that we have just visited the vertex r_{x_{i-1},2}. Then, the path continues to r_{x_i,1}. We consider two separate cases.

   1. Consider the case where x_i=\{u,v\} is a weight-2 edge. Let the edge be oriented from u to v in the NCL configuration. Then, the path visits w_{x_i,u}, and continues to r_{x_i,2}.

   2. Consider the case where x_i is an AND vertex that is incident to one weight-2 edge e and two weight-1 edges f and g. If e is oriented toward x_i, then the path visits k_{x_i} and continues to r_{x_i,2}. If e is not oriented toward x_i, then the path visits w_{f, x_i}, w_{g, x_i} and continues to r_{x_i, 2}.

3. After the whole iteration, the path now visits r_{x_R, 2}. Then, the path continues to t and we finish the construction of P_1.

Similarly, as a sequence of vertices, P_2 is constructed as follows.

1. The path starts at s. Let b_{y_0,2} = s.

2. Now we iterate over i\in \{1,\dots,B\}. As an invariant at the beginning of the iteration, we assume that we have just visited the vertex b_{y_{i-1},2}. Then, the path continues to b_{y_i,1}. We consider three separate cases.

   1. Consider the case where y_i=\{u,v\} is a weight-1 edge. Let the edge be oriented from u to v in the NCL configuration. Then, the path visits w_{y_i,u}, and continues to b_{y_i,2}.

   2. Consider the case where y_i is an OR vertex that is incident to three weight-2 edges e, f, and g. At least one of those edges is directed toward y_i. Let e be such an edge. Then, the path visits w_{e,y_i} and continues to b_{y_i, 2}.

   3. Consider the case where y_i is an AND vertex that is incident to one weight-2 edge e and two weight-1 edges f and g. If e is oriented toward y_i, then the path visits w_{e,y_i} and continues to b_{y_i,2}. If e is not oriented toward y_i, then the path visits k_{y_i} and continues to b_{y_i, 2}.

3. After the whole iteration, the path now visits b_{y_B, 2}. Then, the path continues to t and we finish the construction of P_2.

The construction is illustrated in  ?. The constructed s-t linkage \mathcal{P}=\{P_1, P_2\} is created from the NCL configuration \sigma. The following claim ensures that the constructed paths are indeed vertex-disjoint.

We now study how a flip in an orientation in an NCL configuration corresponds to a constant-length sequence of reconfiguration steps of paths.

To argue the reverse direction of correspondence, we first observe that a reconfiguration step maintains the property that the paths go through the red and blue vertices.

We now describe a canonical way of constructing an NCL configuration \sigma of H from an s-t linkage \mathcal{P}=\{P_1, P_2\} of G where P_1 goes through all the red vertices and P_2 goes through all the blue vertices.

Let e=\{u,v\} be a weight-2 edge of H. The weight-2 edge gadget G_e of e has vertices r_{e,1} and r_{e,2} that are visited by P_1. The path P_1 should visit one of w_{e,u} and w_{e,v}, but not both. If P_1 visits w_{e,u}, then the edge e is oriented toward v in \sigma. If P_1 visits w_{e,v}, then the edge e is oriented toward u in \sigma.

Let e=\{u,v\} be a weight-1 edge of H. The weight-1 edge gadget G_e of e has vertices b_{e,1} and b_{e,2} that are visited by P_2. The path P_2 should visit one of w_{e,u} and w_{e,v}, but not both. If P_2 visits w_{e,u}, then the edge e is oriented toward v in \sigma. If P_2 visits w_{e,v}, then the edge e is oriented toward u in \sigma.

This finishes the description of the construction of an NCL configuration. We call the constructed NCL configuration the canonical NCL configuration obtained from \{P_1, P_2\}. We observe that if \mathcal{P}=\{P_1, P_2\} is an s-t linkage of G that is created from an NCL configuration \sigma, then \sigma is the canonical NCL configuration obtained from \mathcal{P}.

Let \sigma' be the canonical NCL configuration in Claim ?, and \mathcal{P}'' = (P''_1, P''_2) be the family of two internally vertex-disjoint s-t paths of G that is created from \sigma'. Note that \mathcal{P}'' does not have to be identical to \mathcal{P}'. However, \mathcal{P}'' can be obtained from \mathcal{P}' by at most |V(H)|+|V^{\mathrm{a}}(H)| reconfiguration steps (recall that V^{\mathrm{a}}(H) is the set of AND vertices of H). This is because the situations in edge gadgets are identical in \mathcal{P}' and \mathcal{P}'', and reconfiguration steps would be needed only around vertex gadgets.

As a summary, we have proved that the reduction is sound, complete, and polynomially bounded. See  ?. We now complete the proof of Theorem 1.1. Let \sigma and \tau be two NCL configurations. Then, define two s-t linkages \mathcal{P} = (P_1, P_2) and \mathcal{Q} = (Q_1, Q_2) of G as they are created from \sigma and \tau, respectively. Suppose that we may transform \sigma to \tau by a sequence of flips in such a way that all the intermediate orientations are NCL configurations. Then, the correspondence above gives a sequence of reconfiguration steps to transform \mathcal{P} to \mathcal{Q} so that all the intermediate sets of two s-t paths are internally vertex-disjoint. On the other hand, suppose that we may transform \mathcal{P} to \mathcal{Q} by reconfiguration steps. Then, the correspondence above gives a sequence of flips to transform \sigma to \tau so that all the intermediate orientations are NCL configurations.

We have already observed that the problem is in \mathsf{PSPACE}. To show the \mathsf{PSPACE}-hardness, we now give a transformation of a given planar AND/OR graph H=(V(H),E(H)) of bounded bandwidth to an undirected planar graph G=(V(G),E(G)) of bounded bandwidth. Each edge e = \{u, v\} \in E(H) of H is mapped to the following edge gadget G_e (see  ?):

Let v \in V(H) be an OR vertex, and e,f,g \in E(H) be three weight-2 edges incident to v. Then, v is mapped to the following OR vertex gadget G_v (see  ?):

Note that the vertices with the same label are identified.

An AND vertex v \in V(H) that is incident to one weight-2 edge e and two weight-1 edges f, g is mapped to the following AND vertex gadget G_v (see  ?):

Define

This completes the construction of G.  ? may help the reader understand.

We note that if H is planar and of bounded bandwidth, then so is G. To see that G is planar, observe that each gadget can be drawn on the plane without edge crossing in such a way that the vertices shared with other gadgets are placed on its outer face. Then, a plane drawing of G can be obtained from a plane drawing of H by replacing each vertex and edge of H by the corresponding gadget. To see that the bandwidth of G is bounded, observe that each gadget is of constant size. Therefore, by giving a slack of constant width c for each vertex of H, we may obtain an injective mapping of the vertices of G to \mathbb{Z} whose bandwidth is at most c times the bandwidth of H.(The constant c can be chosen as 16, but this particular choice is not relevant.)

In the constructed graph G, we consider the following pairs of vertices:

where V^{\mathrm{o}}(H) denotes the set of OR vertices in H. The number of pairs is |E(H)|+|V(H)|+|V^{\mathrm{o}}(H)|.

We now describe the way how an NCL configuration \sigma of H translates to a linkage

of G, where P_e joins s_e and t_e for every e \in E(H), P_v joins s_v and t_v for every v \in V(H), and P^{\mathrm{o}}_v joins s^{\mathrm{o}}_v and t^{\mathrm{o}}_v for every v \in V^{\mathrm{o}}(H). For convenience, P_e is called a red path for every e \in E(H), and P^{\mathrm{o}}_v is called a blue path for every v \in V^{\mathrm{o}}(H). Similarly, for every v \in V(H), P_v is called a green path if v is an AND vertex, and a purple path if v is an OR vertex.

First, we specify the red paths P_e for all e=\{u,v\} \in E(H). The path P_e connects s_e and t_e and its length is two. Therefore, there will be a unique middle vertex. If the edge e is oriented from u to v in the NCL configuration \sigma, then the path P_e visits w_{e,u} as its middle vertex. If e is oriented from v to u in \sigma, then P_e visits w_{e,v} as its middle vertex. This finishes the specification of the red paths P_e.

Next, we specify the green paths P_v that connect s_v and t_v for all AND vertices v \in V(H). Recall that v is incident to a weight-2 edge e and two weight-1 edges f, g. If e is oriented toward v, then P_v passes through w_{e,v} and its length is two. Otherwise, f and g must be oriented toward v. Then, P_v passes through w_{f,v} and w_{g,v} and its length is three. This finishes the specification of the green paths P_v.

Finally, we specify the purple paths P_v that connect s_v and t_v and the blue paths P^{\mathrm{o}}_v that connect s^{\mathrm{o}}_v and t^{\mathrm{o}}_v for all OR vertices v \in V^{\mathrm{o}}(H). Recall that v is incident to three weight-2 edges e, f, g. We have three cases, which are not exclusive. If e is oriented toward v, then the purple path P_v passes through c_v, a_v, w_{e,v} (or c_v, b_v, w_{e,v}), and the blue path P^{\mathrm{o}}_v passes through d_v. If f is oriented toward v, then P_v passes through w_{f,v}, a_v, d_v, and P^{\mathrm{o}}_v passes through c_v. If g is oriented toward v, then P_v passes through w_{g,v}, b_v, d_v, and P^{\mathrm{o}}_v passes through c_v. This finishes the specification of the purple paths P_v and the blue paths P^{\mathrm{o}}_v. Note that the lengths of purple paths are always four and the lengths of blue paths are always two.

This finishes the construction of \mathcal{P}. With this construction, we say that the linkage \mathcal{P} is created from the NCL configuration \sigma.

We now study how a flip in an orientation maps to a sequence of reconfiguration steps of paths.

To argue the reverse direction of correspondence, we describe a canonical way of constructing an NCL configuration \sigma of H from a linkage \mathcal{P} of G.

Let e=\{u,v\} be an edge of H. We note that a path connecting s_e and t_e cannot go through both of w_{e,u} and w_{e,v} due to the vertex-disjointness of the paths in \mathcal{P}. If P_e goes through w_{e,u}, then the edge e is oriented toward v in \sigma. If P_e goes through w_{e,v}, then the edge e is oriented toward u in \sigma. We call the obtained orientation \sigma the canonical NCL configuration obtained from \mathcal{P}.

Let \sigma' be the canonical NCL configuration in Claim ?, and \mathcal{P}'' be the linkage created from \sigma'. Note that \mathcal{P}'' does not have to be identical to \mathcal{P}'. However, \mathcal{P}'' can be obtained from \mathcal{P}' by O(|V(H)|) reconfiguration steps. This is because the situations in edge gadgets are identical in \mathcal{P}' and \mathcal{P}'', and reconfiguration steps would be needed only around vertex gadgets.

As a summary, we have proved that the reduction is sound, complete, and polynomially bounded. See  ?. We now complete the proof of Theorem 1.6. Let \sigma and \tau be two NCL configurations. Then, define two linkages \mathcal{P} and \mathcal{Q} as they correspond to \sigma and \tau, respectively. Suppose that we may transform \sigma to \tau by a sequence of flips in such a way that all the intermediate orientations are NCL configurations. Then, the correspondence above gives a sequence of reconfiguration steps to transform \mathcal{P} to \mathcal{Q} so that all the intermediate families of paths are vertex-disjoint. On the other hand, suppose that we may transform \mathcal{P} to \mathcal{Q} by reconfiguration steps. Then, the correspondence above gives a sequence of flips to transform \sigma to \tau so that all the intermediate orientations are NCL configurations.

A small perturbation allows us to assume that the curves intersect transversally. The proof is by induction on the number of intersection points of \mathcal{P} and \mathcal{Q}, say n. The case n=4 is obvious since they intersect only at the endpoints. Suppose that the statement holds up to n-1. We first cut the surface \Sigma_g along \mathcal{P} and \mathcal{Q}. Let S be a connected component. Then, \partial S is a disjoint union of alternating cycles of edges derived from \mathcal{P} and \mathcal{Q}. If \partial S has a 2-cycle, then one can eliminate this cycle by a single step. On the other hand, if \partial S has at least six edges, then there are two edges derived from P_i for some i=1,2, and thus one can find another \mathcal{P}' such that the number of intersections between the curves in \mathcal{P}' and \mathcal{Q} is less than n.

Therefore, we shall consider the case where \partial S is a 4-cycle and show that there is a connected component S such that the genus of the closed surface obtained by capping its boundary with disks is at least 1. Then, one finds a desired \mathcal{P}' after some steps. Assume that there is no such an S, that is, all connected components are disks, and hence we have a cell decomposition of \Sigma_g. Let m be the number of 2-cells, namely disks. Then, the numbers of 1- and 0-cells are 2m and m+2, respectively. It follows that the Euler characteristic of \Sigma_g is (m+2)-2m+m=2, and thus g=0 (see [FaMa12, Section 1.1.1] for example). This is a contradiction.

Let s_{k+1} and s_{k+2} be points on \partial{S} such that s_k, s_{k+1}, s_{k+2}, and s_1 lie on \partial S clockwise in this order. Similarly, let t_{k+1} and t_{k+2} be points on \partial{T} such that t_k, t_{k+1}, t_{k+2}, and t_1 lie on \partial T clockwise in this order. Then, there exist simple curves P_{k+1} from s_{k+1} to t_{k+1} and P_{k+2} from s_{k+2} to t_{k+2} such that \{P_1, \dots , P_k, P_{k+1}, P_{k+2}\} forms a linkage in \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus (S \cup T). Similarly, let Q_{k+1} and Q_{k+2} be simple curves such that \{Q_1, \dots , Q_k, Q_{k+1}, Q_{k+2}\} forms a linkage in \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus (S \cup T). In what follows, we show that \mu(P_i, Q_j) = \mu(P_{k+1}, Q_{k+2}) for any distinct i,j \in [k].

Let i, j \in [k] with i \neq j. Let C_s be a curve in S from s_{k+1} to s_i, and let C_t be a curve in T from t_i to t_{k+1}. Since P_i \cup C_t \cup \overline{P_{k+1}} \cup C_s and \overline{P_j} \cup Q_j are oriented closed curves, by (A3), we obtain \mu(P_i \cup C_t \cup \overline{P_{k+1}} \cup C_s, \overline{P_j} \cup Q_j) = 0. Since \overline{P_j} \cap (P_i \cup C_t \cup \overline{P_{k+1}} \cup C_s) = \emptyset and Q_j \cap (C_s \cup C_t) = \emptyset, this together with (A2) shows that \mu(P_i, Q_j) + \mu(\overline{P_{k+1}}, Q_j) = 0. By (A1), we obtain \mu(P_i, Q_j) = \mu(P_{k+1}, Q_j).

By the same argument, we can show that \mu(P_{k+1}, Q_j) = \mu(P_{k+1}, Q_{k+2}). Therefore, we obtain \mu(P_i, Q_j) =\mu(P_{k+1}, Q_{k+2}) for any distinct i, j \in [k], which completes the proof.