skip to main content
10.1145/1842993.1843106acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaviConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Seeing more than the graph: evaluation of multivariate graph visualization methods

Published: 26 May 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Many real-world networks are multivariate, i.e., they have attributes associated with nodes and/or edges. Examples include social networks whose nodes represent people and edges represent relationships. There is usually information about each person (such as name, age, and gender) and the relationship (such type, duration, and strength). Besides common graph analysis tasks (such as identifying the most influential or structurally important nodes), there are more complex analyses for multivariate networks. One of these is the multivariate graph clustering, i.e., identifying clusters formed by nodes that have similar attributes and are close to each other in terms of graph distance. For instance, in social network analysis, it is interesting to sociologists whether or not people with similar characteristics (node attributes) are also connected to each other. Currently there are very few visualization methods available for such analysis.
Graph and multivariate visualization have been well studied separately in the literature. Herman et al. summarized the recent work on graph visualization [3], and Wong and Bergeron covered the development in multivariate visualization [4]. However, there is relatively less work available on multivariate network visualization. Two types of approaches are commonly used. The first one is the mapping approach, which maps attributes to visual elements of a node or edge. A simple example is to map one attribute to node size and another to node color [2]. A more advanced mapping approach uses glyphs to represent node or edge attributes. One such example is to use the length and width of a rectangle node glyph to represent two node attributes [1]. The second one is the 2.5D approach: it uses the third dimension to present the multivariate information, while the graph is shown on a 2D plane. Examples include the recently proposed "GraphScape" [5], which adopts a landscape metaphor: each attribute is represented by a two-and-a-half- dimensional surface, whose height indicates its value.
Each approach has its strength and weakness. The mapping approach is effective of showing numerical value using visual element such as size, but it can be difficult to compare the value of attributes represented by different elements such as size and color. The problem is alleviated by a carefully designed glyph, but visual complexity increases quickly as the number of attributes that a glyph needs to represent grows. The 2.5D approach is good at showing the distribution of attribute values over the network, but the attribute surface could introduce occlusion and affect the visibility of underlying network.
In this paper, we present a study evaluating the effectiveness of these two approaches for different analysis tasks. We compare the performance of mapping and 2.5D approach in a controlled lab environment. We included both simple tasks (such as identifying nodes with the largest attribute value) and complex tasks (such as multivariate graph clustering). The performance is measured both in terms of accuracy and completion time. The results indicate that statistically mapping approach performs better for the simple tasks, while the 2.5D approach is favored in the complex task. The outcomes from this study provide some guidelines for the design of effective multivariate graph visualization for different analysis tasks.

References

[1]
Becker, R., Eick, S., Wilks, A. 1995 Visualizing network data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 1, 16--28.
[2]
Eick, S. G. and Wills, G. J. 1993 Navigating large networks with hierarchies. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Conference on Visualization, pp. 204--209.
[3]
Herman, I., Melancon, G., Marshall M. S. 2000 Graph visualization and navigation in information visualization: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 6(1), 24--43.
[4]
Wong, P. C. and Bergeron, R. D. 1997 30 years of multidimensional multivariate visualization. In Scientific Visualization, Overviews, Methodologies, and Techniques, pp 3--33, Washington, DC, USA, 1997. IEEE Computer Society.
[5]
Xu, K., Cunningham, A., Hong, S.-H., Thomas B. H. 2007 Graphscape: integrated multivariate network visualization. In Proceedings of the 6th International Asia-Pacific Symposium on Visualization, pp. 33--40, Sydney, Australia.

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Towards Embodied Interaction for Geospatial Energy Sector Analytics in Immersive EnvironmentsProceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Future Energy Systems10.1145/3447555.3466602(396-400)Online publication date: 22-Jun-2021
  • (2014)Scalability Considerations for Multivariate Graph VisualizationMultivariate Network Visualization10.1007/978-3-319-06793-3_10(207-235)Online publication date: 2014

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
AVI '10: Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces
May 2010
427 pages
ISBN:9781450300766
DOI:10.1145/1842993
  • Editor:
  • Giuseppe Santucci
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

  • Consulta Umbria SRL

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 May 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

AVI '10
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 128 of 490 submissions, 26%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)2
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 17 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Towards Embodied Interaction for Geospatial Energy Sector Analytics in Immersive EnvironmentsProceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Future Energy Systems10.1145/3447555.3466602(396-400)Online publication date: 22-Jun-2021
  • (2014)Scalability Considerations for Multivariate Graph VisualizationMultivariate Network Visualization10.1007/978-3-319-06793-3_10(207-235)Online publication date: 2014

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media