- 79 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Visual Analysis of Large Graphs Using ( X , Y )-clustering and Hybrid Visualizations

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Visual Analysis of Large Graphs Using (X, Y)-clustering and Hybrid Visualizations

V. Batagelj, W. Didimo, G. Liotta,P. Palladino, M. Patrignani

(Univ. Ljubljana, Univ. Perugia, Univ. Roma Tre)

In Proc. IEEE Pacific Visualization 2010

- The problem of visualizing large graphs
- State of the art
- Our contribution
- Conclusions and open problems

- Some major issues in the visualization of large graphs:
- Readability: optimization of aesthetic criteria
- Scalability: fast computation
- Visual complexity: interaction tools that allow users to limit the amount of information displayed on the screen
- overview of the graph
- details on demand
- user’s mental map preservation

- Readability: there are many effective algorithms that are computationally fast for relatively small and sparse graphs (see the graph drawing book of Di Battista, Eades, Tamassia, Tollis , 1999)

- Scalability: there are some fast graph drawing algorithms based on physical or algebraic models; the drawings have high visual complexity and do not allow detailed views (see the survey of Hacul and Jünger, 2007)

- Visual complexity: draw the whole graph and then interact with it; ex. focus+context techniques, like fisheye view or hyperbolic layouts; conceived for tree-like graphs (see the survey of Herman, Melançon, Marshall, 2000)

- Interactive approaches for visualizing and exploring large graphs:
- graph visualized incrementally or at different levels of details
- strong interaction between the user and the drawing

- Bottom-up strategies: the graph is visualized a piece at a time
- topological window moving through canvas (Eades et al. ,1997)
- Limits: no overview, the user’s mental map preservation is difficult

- Bottom-up strategies: the graph is visualized a piece at a time
- incremental enhancement of the drawing (ex. Carmignani et al., 2002)
- Limits: no overview, the user’s mental map preservation is difficult without readability degradation

- Top-down approaches

- Top-down approaches
- the graph is clustered (vertices are grouped together)

- Top-down approaches
- the graph is clustered (vertices are grouped together)
- a simplified view is shown (overview)

- Top-down approaches
- the graph is clustered (vertices are grouped together)
- a simplified view is shown (overview)
- the user interactively explores the clusters (detailed views)

- Top-down strategies
- the graph is clustered (vertices are grouped together)
- a simplified view is shown
- the user interactively explores the clusters

- Limits
- someone/something has to define clustering rules
- existing clustering algorithms do not guarantee properties on the graph of clusters

- A top-down approach with these ingredients:
- a new clustering framework
- new clustering algorithm within the framework
- hybrid visualizations

- A system: VHyXY
- Some case studies

- G=(V, E): graph with vertex set V and edge set E
- A cluster of G=(V, E) is a subset of V
- A clusteringC of G isa set of disjoint clusters of G

- Thegraph of clusters H(G, C)is the graph obtained by collapsing each cluster of C into a single vertex and by replacing multiple edges with a single one

- Thegraph of clusters H(G, C)is the graph obtained by collapsing each cluster of C into a single vertex and by replacing multiple edges with a single one

- Clustering algorithms usually detect groups of highly connected vertices without taking care of the graph of clusters
- We adopt a new framework for the design of automatic clustering algorithms that guarantee:
- desired properties for the clusters
- desired properties for the graph of clusters

- X and Y are two classes of graphs with certain properties
- G is called an (X,Y)-graph if there exists a clustering of G such that:
- each cluster induces a subgraphthat belongs to Y
- the graph of clusters belongs to X

- Let X be the class of cycles and let Y be the class of K4

- Let X be the class of cycles and let Y be the class of K4

- Let X be the class of cycles and let Y be the class of K4

- The graph is a (cycle,K4)-graph

- Xis some class of sparse graphs:
- planar graphs, cycles, trees, paths, …

- Y is some class of highly connected graphs:
- cliques, subgraphs with high-degree vertices, …

- One can think of using different visual paradigms and algorithms for drawing the graph of clusters and the subgraph induced by each cluster (hybrid visualization)

- (X, Y)-clustering was previously defined by Brandenburg (GD 1997), but his model requires that every vertex belongs to some cluster
- Our model does not have this requirement, which poses severe practical limitations

- Problem: Given a graph G and two desired classes X and Y, is G an (X,Y)-graph?
- This problem is NP-hard in general
- Theorem: Deciding whether G is a (planar, k-clique)-graph for desired k ≥ 5 is NP-hard
- This result motivates us to look for some relaxation of cliques

- The subgraph induced by a cluster is ak-core component if it is a maximal connected subgraph such that every vertex has degree at least k

5-core component

4-core component

4-core component

- We investigate (X,Y)-graphs G such that:
- X is the class of planar graphs
- Y is the class of k-core components of G

- In particular, for a given k > 0, one can ask whether G is a (planar, k-core component)-graph
- this decision problem can be solved in polynomial time
- we give a polynomial-time algorithm that finds the maximum k for which G is a (planar, k-core component)-graph, and that computes the corresponding clustering

The union of all k-core components of G is called the k-core of G (the k-core of G, if it exists, is unique)

Property. If Ghas the k-core Gk (for some k≥ 1), then Ghas the (k−1)-core G(k−1) and Gk ⊆ G(k−1)

Lemma. If G is a (planar, k-core component)-graph then it is a (planar, (k−1)-core component)-graph

V1

V2

V1

V2

u(V1)

u(V2)

H(G, C)

V1’

V2’

u(V1)

u(V2)

H(G, C)

V1’

V2’

u(V1)

u(V1’)

u(V2)

u(V2’)

H(G, C)

H(G, C’)

V1’

V2’

u(V1)

u(V1’)

u(V2)

u(V2’)

H(G, C)

H(G, C’)

- Theorem: Let G be a graph with n vertices and m edges. There exists an O((n+m)log n)-time algorithm that computes the maximum k for which G is a (planar, k-core component)-graph, and the corresponding clustering
- Steps of the algorithm:
- Compute core-numbers for the vertices
- Perform a binary search on core-numbers
- For each graph of clusters, test its planarity

- Compute the core number of each vertex, i.e., the maximum k for which there exists a k-core that contains the vertex

- Compute the core number of each vertex, i.e., the maximum k for which there exists a k-core that contains the vertex

3

4

5

3

3

2

5

3

5

2

5

4

5

4

4

5

2

4

4

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

3

3

2

5

3

5

2

5

4

5

4

4

5

2

4

4

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

3

3

2

5

3

5

2

5

4

5

4

4

5

2

4

4

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

3

3

2

5

3

5

2

5

4

5

4

4

5

2

4

4

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

2

2

2

1

1

G is Planar

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

3

3

2

5

3

5

2

5

4

5

4

4

5

2

4

4

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

3

3

2

5

3

5

2

5

4

5

4

4

5

2

4

4

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

3

3

2

3

2

K5

4

4

4

2

4

4

G is not Planar

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

3

3

2

5

3

5

2

5

4

5

4

4

5

2

4

4

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

3

4

5

3

3

2

5

3

5

2

5

4

5

4

4

5

2

4

4

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

3

3

3

2

3

2

Maximum k = 4

2

1

1

G is Planar

- The (X, Y)-clustering technique can be used to design hybrid visualizations
- combination of different drawing conventions for different parts of the graph
- Example:
- node-link representation for sparse subgraphs
- matrix-based representation for dense subgraphs

- Highly readable drawings for the graph of clusters (which is always planar)

- Matrix-based representation
- vertices are rows and columns
- edges are cells

- The ordering of vertices in rows/columns may strongly affect the number of crossings in the drawing

vertex1

vertex2

vertex3

vertex4

vertex5

vertex6

vertex7

vertex8

vertex10

vertex11

vertex12

vertex13

vertex14

vertex15

vertex16

vertex17

vertex18

vertex19

vertex10

vertex20

vertex1

vertex2

vertex3

vertex4

vertex5

vertex6

vertex7

vertex8

vertex10

vertex11

vertex12

vertex13

vertex14

vertex15

vertex16

vertex17

vertex18

vertex19

vertex10

vertex20

vertex20

vertex1

vertex2

vertex3

vertex4

vertex5

vertex6

vertex7

vertex8

vertex10

vertex11

vertex12

vertex13

vertex14

vertex15

vertex16

vertex17

vertex18

vertex19

vertex10

vertex20

vertex1

vertex2

vertex3

vertex4

vertex5

vertex6

vertex7

vertex8

vertex10

vertex12

vertex13

vertex14

vertex15

vertex16

vertex11

vertex17

vertex18

vertex19

vertex10

- A hybrid visualization that combines node-link and matrix-based representations was previously used in the literature (Henry et al., 2007 - NodeTrix)
- Clusters are manually defined
- no automatic clustering
- no automatic ordering for rows-columns

- VHyXYintegrates the clustering algorithm and hybrid visualizations
- X-class chooser (e.g., planar, forest)
- Y-class chooser (e.g., k-core component)
- Filters on edge weights
- Specific drawing algorithms for each component

- DBLP: on-line database of publications in Computer Science
- VHyXYallows user to query DBLP on a specific topic
- It retrieves data about all papers on that topic (looking at the title of the papers)
- It builds a network where
- authors are vertices
- there is an edge between two authors if they share a paper (edge’s weight = number of papers)

- Co-authorship network for “orthogonal drawing”

- Hybrid visualizations: a matrix and a circular in an orthogonal layout

- Hybrid visualizations: a matrix and a circular inside an orthogonal

114 vertices and 494 edges

- Larger network for “graph drawing”

- Same network with edge filtering (weight > 2)

- Graph clustering
- Property of a graph: the higher the value the better can be the clustering

- Coverage
- How the computed clusters covers edges of the whole graph

- Performance
- Counts the number of “correctly interpreted pairs of nodes” in a graph

- Error
- 1-performance

0.94

0.999

[Brandes et al. “Engineering graph clustering: Models and experimental evaluation” ACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics 2007]

- Explore additional X-classes or Y-classes for which polynomial-time clustering algorithms exist
- X: forest, path, outerplanar, …
- Y: relaxations of cliques, …

- Extend our techniques to
- multi-level clustering (hierarchical clustering)
- overlapping clusters

- Experiment the system on a larger set of application domains
- biological networks, criminal networks, …