Are Crossings Important for Drawing Large Graphs?

Kobourov, Stephen G.; Pupyrev, Sergey; Saket, Bahador

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45803-7_20

Cited by 42 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because many of the above readability metrics are derived from user studies on small graphs, and because users' analysis tasks may be different on large graphs than small graphs [EHNK17], it is not clear that the above readability metrics are useful for quantifying the readability of large graphs [EHNK17,KPS14]. To address this, Shape-based metrics are a type of neighborhood metric that attempt to quantify the faithfulness of a graph layout by measuring the similarity between a graph layout and a proximity graph derived from the same graph layout.…”

Section: Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Random Sampling O(n) Force‐calculation Algorithm for Graph Layouts

Gove¹

2019

Computer Graphics Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a linear‐time repulsive‐force‐calculation algorithm with sub‐linear auxiliary space requirements, achieving an asymptotic improvement over the Barnes‐Hut and Fast Multipole Method force‐calculation algorithms. The algorithm, named random vertex sampling (RVS), achieves its speed by updating a random sample of vertices at each iteration, each with a random sample of repulsive forces. This paper also proposes a combination algorithm that uses RVS to derive an initial layout and then applies Barnes‐Hut to refine the layout. An evaluation of RVS and the combination algorithm compares their speed and quality on 109 graphs against a Barnes‐Hut layout algorithm. The RVS algorithm performs up to 6.1 times faster on the tested graphs while maintaining comparable layout quality. The combination algorithm also performs faster than Barnes‐Hut, but produces layouts that are more symmetric than using RVS alone. Data and code: https://osf.io/nb7m8/

show abstract

Section: Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Random Sampling O(n) Force‐calculation Algorithm for Graph Layouts

Gove¹

2019

Computer Graphics Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vizter [HB05] also produces node-link drawings of graphs, in this case identifying and highlighting communities in social networks. More recent and ongoing work also considers whether the aesthetic criteria of graph layouts contribute to human understanding of the relational data [HEH14,KPS14].…”

Section: Graph Properties and Graph Miningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Perception of Graph Properties in Graph Layouts

Soni

Hansen

et al. 2018

Computer Graphics Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When looking at drawings of graphs, questions about graph density, community structures, local clustering and other graph properties may be of critical importance for analysis. While graph layout algorithms have focused on minimizing edge crossing, symmetry, and other such layout properties, there is not much known about how these algorithms relate to a user's ability to perceive graph properties for a given graph layout. In this study, we apply previously established methodologies for perceptual analysis to identify which graph drawing layout will help the user best perceive a particular graph property. We conduct a large scale (n = 588) crowdsourced experiment to investigate whether the perception of two graph properties (graph density and average local clustering coefficient) can be modeled using Weber's law. We study three graph layout algorithms from three representative classes (Force Directed -FD, Circular, and Multi-Dimensional Scaling -MDS), and the results of this experiment establish the precision of judgment for these graph layouts and properties. Our findings demonstrate that the perception of graph density can be modeled with Weber's law. Furthermore, the perception of the average clustering coefficient can be modeled as an inverse of Weber's law, and the MDS layout showed a significantly different precision of judgment than the FD layout.

show abstract

“…First of all, the number of crossings does not equal to layout quality as a graph with one more crossings is not necessarily less readable. Secondly, more and more evidence has emerged from recent research demonstrating that crossings may not be as important as we normally think [15], and that in some cases, more-crossings drawings can be perceived as more readable or more desirable [24]. Thirdly, it is the joint effect of all aesthetics that affects the overall quality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%