skip to main content
10.1145/3154353.3154362acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessccgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Super-Ensembler: interactive visual analysis of data surface sets

Published:15 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Multiple-run simulations are widely used for investigation of dynamic systems, where they combine varied input parameters and different kinds of outputs. In this work, we focus on a simulation type that outputs an ensemble of surfaces for each simulation run. Multiple simulation runs, in this case, result in a set of surface ensembles - a super-ensemble. We propose an advanced data model, abstract analysis tasks, and introduce an analysis workflow for the exploration of super-ensembles. To address the challenging exploration and analysis tasks, we present Super-Ensembler, a visual analytics system for analysis of data-surface collections as super-ensembles. We introduce novel aggregation methods and corresponding visualizations. The aggregation techniques reduce data complexity by either yielding a super-ensemble of a simplified data type or a conventional surface ensemble. Novel visual representations include an overview visualization for super-ensembles, 3D multi-resolution box plots, and intersection contours. Together with standard views, such as scatter plots, parallel coordinates, or histograms, they are integrated into a coordinated multiple views framework. The newly proposed methodology is developed in a close collaboration with experts from the automotive domain. We evaluate our approach by means of a case study in the context of gear transmission design. Positive feedback and reported speed-up of the analysis indicate the usefulness of the presented approach.

References

  1. Oluwafemi S. Alabi, Xunlei Wu, Jonathan M. Harter, Madhura Phadke, Lifford Pinto, Hannah Petersen, Steffen Bass, Michael Keifer, Sharon Zhong, Christopher G. Healey, and Russell M. Taylor. 2012. Comparative Visualization of Ensembles Using Ensemble Surface Slicing. In Proc. of Visualization and Data Analytics (VDA). 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. AVL LIST GmbH. 2017. AVL EXCITE Power Unit. https://www.avl.com/excite/-/asset_publisher/gYjUpY19vEA8/content/avl-excite-power-unit. (2017). Accessed: 2017-04-09.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Alethea Bair and Donald House. 2007. Grid With a View: Optimal Texturing for Perception of Layered Surface Shape. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 13, 6 (2007), 1656--1663. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Michael Beham, Wolfgang Herzner, M. Eduard Gröller, and Johannes Kehrer. 2014. Cupid: Cluster-Based Exploration of Geometry Generators with Parallel Coordinates and Radial Trees. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014), 1693--1702.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Yoav Benjamini. 1988. Opening the Box of a Boxplot. The American Statistician 42, 4 (1988), 257--262.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Steven Bergner, Michael Sedlmair, Torsten Möller, Sareh Nabi Abdolyousefi, and Ahmed Saad. 2013. ParaGlide: Interactive Parameter Space Partitioning for Computer Simulations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 19, 9 (2013), 1499--1512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Stef Busking, Charl P. Botha, Luca Ferrarini, Julien Milles, and Frits H. Post. 2011. Image-Based Rendering of Intersecting Surfaces for Dynamic Comparative Visualization. The Visual Computer 27, 5 (2011), 347--363. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Stuart K. Card, Jock D. Mackinlay, and Ben Shneiderman. 1999. Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ismail Demir, Christian Dick, and Rüdiger Westermann. 2014. Multi-Charts for Comparative 3D Ensemble Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. I. Demir, J. Kehrer, and R. Westermann. 2016. Screen-space Silhouettes for Visualizing Ensembles of 3D Isosurfaces. In Proc. of IEEE PacificVis Visualization Notes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Joachim Diepstraten, Daniel Weiskopf, and Thomas Ertl. 2002. Transparency in Interactive Technical Illustrations. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 21. Wiley Online Library, 317--325.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Florian Ferstl, Kai Bürger, and Rüdiger Westermann. 2016. Streamline Variability Plots for Characterizing the Uncertainty in Vector Field Ensembles. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22, 1 (2016), 767--776.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Alexey Fofonov, Vladimir Molchanov, and Lars Linsen. 2016. Visual Analysis of Multi-Run Spatio-Temporal Simulations Using Isocontour Similarity for Projected Views. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22, 8 (2016), 2037--2050. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Bernhard Fröhler, Torsten Möller, and Christoph Heinzl. 2016. GEMSe: Visualization-Guided Exploration of Multi-Channel Segmentation Algorithms. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 35. Wiley Online Library, 191--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Marc G. Genton, Christopher Johnson, Kristin Potter, Georgiy Stenchikov, and Ying Sun. 2014. Surface Boxplots. Stat 3, 1 (2014), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Donna L. Gresh, Bernice E. Rogowitz, Raimond L. Winslow, David F. Scollan, and Christina K. Yung. 2000. WEAVE: A System for Visually Linking 3-D and Statistical Visualizations, Applied to Cardiac Simulation and Measurement Data. In Proc. of IEEE Visualization. 489--492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Mark Harrower and Cynthia A. Brewer. 2003. ColorBrewer.org: an Online Tool for Selecting Colour Schemes for Maps. The Cartographic Journal 40, 1 (2003), 27--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Helwig Hauser. 2006. Generalizing Focus+Context Visualization. In Scientific Visualization: The Visual Extraction of Knowledge from Data. Springer, Chapter Generalizing Focus+Context Visualization, 305--327.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. David Kao, Jennifer L. Dungan, and Alex Pang. 2001. Visualizing 2D Probability Distributions from EOS Satellite Image-Derived Data Sets: A Case Study. In Proc. of IEEE Visualization. 457--589. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Prem S. Mann. 2013. Introductory Statistics. Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kresimir Matković, Denis Gracanin, Borislav Klarin, and Helwig Hauser. 2009. Interactive Visual Analysis of Complex Scientific Data as Families of Data Surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 15, 6 (2009), 1351--1358. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Chris North and Ben Shneiderman. 2000. Snap-Together Visualization: A User Interface for Coordinating Visualizations via Relational Schemata. In Proc. of Advanced Visual Interfaces. ACM, 128--135. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Tobias Pfaffelmoser and Rüdiger Westermann. 2013. Visualizing Contour Distributions in 2D Ensemble Data. In EuroVis-Short Papers. The Eurographics Association, 55--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Harald Piringer, Stephan Pajer, Wolfgang Berger, and Heike Teichmann. 2012. Comparative Visual Analysis of 2D Function Ensembles. Computer Graphics Forum 31, 3 (2012), 1195--1204. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Kristin Potter. 2006. Methods for Presenting Statistical Information: The Box Plot. In Visualization of Large and Unstructured Data Sets (GI-Edition Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI) S-4), Hans Hagen, Andreas Kerren, and Peter Dannenmann (Eds.). 97--106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Kristin Potter, Andrew Wilson, Peer-Timo Bremer, Dean Williams, Charles Doutriaux, Valerio Pascucci, and Chris R. Johnson. 2009. Ensemble-Vis: A Framework for the Statistical Visualization of Ensemble Data. In IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW). 233--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. A. Johannes Pretorius, Mark-Anthony P. Bray, Anne E. Carpenter, and Roy A. Ruddle. 2011. Visualization of Parameter Space for Image Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17, 12 (2011), 2402--2411. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Jonathan C. Roberts. 2007. State of the Art: Coordinated & Multiple Views in Explanatory Visualization. In Proc. of the International Conference on Coordinated and Multiple Views in Explanatory Visualization (CMV). IEEE, 61--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Jibonananda Sanyal, Song Zhang, Jamie Dyer, Andrew Mercer, Philip Amburn, and Robert J. Moorhead. 2010. Noodles: A Tool for Visualization of Numerical Weather Model Ensemble Uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16, 6 (2010), 1421--1430. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Michael Sedlmair, Christoph Heinzl, Stefan Bruckner, Harald Piringer, and Torsten Moeller. 2014. Visual Parameter Space Analysis: A Conceptual Framework. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014), 2161--2170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Ben Shneiderman. 1996. The Eyes Have It: A Task By Data Type Taxonomy for Information Visualizations. In Proc. of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages. IEEE, 336--343. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Gary K. L. Tam, Vivek Kothari, and Min Chen. 2016. An Analysis of Machine-and Human-Analytics in Classification. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2016). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Junpeng Wang, Xiaotong Liu, Han-Wei Shen, and Guang Lin. 2017. Multi-Resolution Climate Ensemble Parameter Analysis with Nested Parallel Coordinates Plots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 1 (2017), 81--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Ross T. Whitaker, Mahsa Mirzargar, and Robert M. Kirby. 2013. Contour Boxplots: A Method for Characterizing Uncertainty in Feature Sets from Simulation Ensembles. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 19, 12 (2013), 2713--2722. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Andrew T. Wilson and Kristin C. Potter. 2009. Toward Visual Analysis of Ensemble Data Sets. In Proc. of the Workshop on Ultrascale Visualization. 48--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Super-Ensembler: interactive visual analysis of data surface sets

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SCCG '17: Proceedings of the 33rd Spring Conference on Computer Graphics
            May 2017
            163 pages
            ISBN:9781450351072
            DOI:10.1145/3154353

            Copyright © 2017 ACM

            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 the author(s) 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].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 15 May 2017

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate42of81submissions,52%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader