Abstract
The need for a similarity measure for comparing two drawings of graphs arises in problems such as interactive graph drawing and the indexing or browsing of large sets of graphs. This paper builds on our previous work [3] by defining some additional similarity measures, refining some existing ones, and presenting the results of a user study designed to evaluate the suitability of the measures.
Research supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants CCR- 9732327 and CDA-9703080, and by the U.S. Army Research Office under grant DAAH04-96-1-0013.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
T. Biedl, J. Marks, K. Ryall, and S. Whitesides. Graph multidrawing: Finding nice drawings without defining nice. In GD’ 98, volume 1547 of LNCS, pages 347–355. Springer-Verlag, 1998.
T. C. Biedl and M. Kaufmann. Area-efficient static and incremental graph darwings. In ESA’ 97, volume 1284 of LNCS, pages 37–52. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
S. Bridgeman and R. Tamassia. Difference metrics for interactive orthogonal drawing. J. Graph Alg. Appl. to appear.
S. S. Bridgeman, J. Fanto, A. Garg, R. Tamassia, and L. Vismara. InteractiveGiotto: An algorithm for interactive orthogonal graph drawing. In GD’ 97, volume 1353 of LNCS, pages 303–308. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
E. Dengler and W. Cowan. Human perception of laid-out graphs. In GD’ 98, volume 1547 of LNCS, pages 441–443. Springer-Verlag, 1998.
E. Dengler, M. Friedell, and J. Marks. Constraint-driven diagram layout. In Proc. IEEE Sympos. on Visual Languages, pages 330–335, 1993.
G. Di Battista, A. Garg, G. Liotta, R. Tamassia, E. Tassinari, and F. Vargiu. An experimental comparison of four graph drawing algorithms. Comput. Geom. Theory Appl., 7: 303–325, 1997.
U. Fößmeier. Interactive orthogonal graph drawing: Algorithms and bounds. In GD’ 97, volume 1353 of LNCS, pages 111–123. Springer-Verlag, 1998.
J. E. Goodman and R. Pollack. Multidimensional sorting. SIAM J. Comput., 12(3):484–507, Aug. 1983.
K. A. Lyons, H. Meijer, and D. Rappaport. Algorithms for cluster busting in anchored graph drawing. J. Graph Algorithms Appl., 2(1):1–24, 1998.
A. Marzal and E. Vidal. Computation of normalized edit distance and applications. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 15(9):926–932, Sept. 1993.
K. Misue, P. Eades, W. Lai, and K. Sugiyama. Layout adjustment and the mental map. J. Visual Lang. Comput., 6(2):183–210, 1995.
S. North. Incremental layout in DynaDAG. In GD’ 95, volume 1027 of LNCS, pages 409–418. Springer-Verlag, 1996.
A. Papakostas, J. M. Six, and I. G. Tollis. Experimental and theoretical results in interactive graph drawing. In GD’ 96, volume 1190 of LNCS, pages 371–386. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
A. Papakostas and I. G. Tollis. Interactive orthogonal graph drawing. IEEE Trans. Comput., C-47(11):1297–1309, 1998.
K. Ryall, J. Marks, and S. Shieber. An interactive system for drawing graphs. In GD’ 96, volume 1190 of LNCS, pages 387–393. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
R. Tamassia, G. Di Battista, and C. Batini. Automatic graph drawing and readability of diagrams. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., SMC-18(1):61–79, 1988.
W. A. Wickelgren. Cognitive Psychology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1979.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bridgeman, S., Tamassia, R. (2001). A User Study in Similarity Measures for Graph Drawing. In: Marks, J. (eds) Graph Drawing. GD 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1984. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44541-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44541-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41554-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44541-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive