4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

ClusterSets: Optimizing Planar Clusters in Categorical Point Data

期刊

COMPUTER GRAPHICS FORUM
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 471-481

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cgf.14322

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This passage discusses the analysis of point data in geographic data, proposing a new method to visualize category membership while avoiding data crossings and visual clutter. Case studies and benchmark tests were conducted, showing that their heuristics performed well in certain scenarios.
In geographic data analysis, one is often given point data of different categories (such as facilities of a university categorized by department). Drawing upon recent research on set visualization, we want to visualize category membership by connecting points of the same category with visual links. Existing approaches that follow this path usually insist on connecting all members of a category, which may lead to many crossings and visual clutter. We propose an approach that avoids crossings between connections of different categories completely. Instead of connecting all data points of the same category, we subdivide categories into smaller, local clusters where needed. We do a case study comparing the legibility of drawings produced by our approach and those by existing approaches. In our problem formulation, we are additionally given a graph G on the data points whose edges express some sort of proximity. Our aim is to find a subgraph G ' of G with the following properties: (i) edges connect only data points of the same category, (ii) no two edges cross, and (iii) the number of connected components (clusters) is minimized. We then visualize the clusters in G '. For arbitrary graphs, the resulting optimization problem, Cluster Minimization, is NP-hard (even to approximate). Therefore, we introduce two heuristics. We do an extensive benchmark test on real-world data. Comparisons with exact solutions indicate that our heuristics do astonishing well for certain relative-neighborhood graphs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据