Constraints

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 143–171

# Removing Node Overlapping in Graph Layout Using Constrained Optimization

• Kim Marriott
• Peter Stuckey
• Vincent Tam
• Weiqing He
Article

## Abstract

Although graph drawing has been extensively studied, little attention has been paid to the problem of node overlapping. The problem arises because almost all existing graph layout algorithms assume that nodes are points. In practice, however, nodes may be labelled, and these labels may overlap. Here we investigate how such node overlapping can be removed in a subsequent layout adjustment phase. We propose four different approaches for removing node overlapping, all of which are based on constrained optimization techniques. The first is the simplest. It performs the minimal linear scaling which will remove node-overlapping. The second approach relies on formulating the node overlapping problem as a convex quadratic programming problem, which can then be solved by any quadratic solver. The disadvantage is that, since constraints must be linear, the node overlapping constraints cannot be expressed directly, but must be strengthened to obtain a linear constraint strong enough to ensure no node overlapping. The third and fourth approaches are based on local search methods. The third is an adaptation of the EGENET solver originally designed for solving general constraint satisfaction problems, while the fourth approach is a form of Lagrangian multiplier method, a well-known optimization technique used in operations research. Both the third and fourth method are able to handle the node overlapping constraints directly, and thus may potentially find better solutions. Their disadvantage is that no efficient global optimization methods are available for such problems, and hence we must accept a local minimum. We illustrate all of the above methods on a series of layout adjustment problems.

graph layout constrained optimization disjunctive constraints

## References

1. 1.
Aarts, E. H. L., & Korst, J. H. M. (1989). Boltzmann machines for traveling salesman problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 39: 79–95.Google Scholar
2. 2.
Adorf, H., & Johnston, M. (1990). A discrete stochastic neural network algorithm for constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, pages 917–924.Google Scholar
3. 3.
Böhringer, K., & Paulisch, F. N. (1990). Using constraints to achieve stability in automatic graph layout algorithms. In CHI'90 Proceedings, pages 43–51, ACM.Google Scholar
4. 4.
Borning, A., Marriott, K., Stuckey, P., & Xiao, Y. (1997). Solving linear arithmetic constraints for user interface applications. In Proceedings of the 1997 ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 87–96.Google Scholar
5. 5.
Davenport, A., Tsang, E. P. K., Wang, C. J., & Zhu, K. (1994). GENET: A connectionist architecture for solving constraint satisfaction problems by iterative improvement. In Proceedings of AAAI'94, pages 325–330.Google Scholar
6. 6.
di Battista, T., Eades, P., Tamassia, R., & Tollis, I. G. (1999). Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
7. 7.
Dozier, G., Bowen, J., & Bahler, D. (1994). Solving small and large scale constraint satisfaction problems using a heuristic-based microgenetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pages 306–311.Google Scholar
8. 8.
Eades, P., Lai, W., Misue, K., & Sugiyama, K. (1991). Preserving the mental map of a diagram. Technical Report IIAS-RR-91-16E, International Institute for Advanced Study of Social Information Science, Fujitsu LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
9. 9.
He, W., & Marriott, K. (1998). Removing node overlapping using constrained optimization. In Australasian Computer Science Conference, pages 169–180, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
10. 10.
Huang, M. L., Eades, P., & Wang, J. (1998). On-line animated visualization of huge graphs using a modified spring algorithm. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 9: 623–645.Google Scholar
11. 11.
Lee, J. H. M., Leung, H. F., & Won, H. W. (1995). Extending GENET for non-binary CSP's. In Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pages 338–343.Google Scholar
12. 12.
Lee, J. H. M., Leung, H. F., & Won, H. W. (1996). Towards a more efficient stochastic constraint solver. In Proceedings of Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP96), LNCS 1118, pages 338–352.Google Scholar
13. 13.
Leunberger, D. G. (1994). Linear and Nonlinear Programming. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
14. 14.
Lüders, P., Ernst, R., & Stille, S. (1995). An approach to automatic display layout using combinatorial optimization. Software-Practice and Experience, 25(11): 1183–1202.Google Scholar
15. 15.
Lyons, K. A. (1996). Cluster busting in anchored graph drawing. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computing & Information Science Queen's University.Google Scholar
16. 16.
Mackworth, A. K. (1997). Consistency in networks of relations. AI Journal, 8(1): 99–118.Google Scholar
17. 17.
Minton, S., Johnston, M. D., Phillips, A. B., & Laird, P. (1992). Minimizing conflicts: a heuristic repair method for constraint satisfaction and scheduling problems. Artificial Intelligence, 58: 161–205.Google Scholar
18. 18.
Misue, K., Eades, P., Lai, W., & Sugiyama, K. (1995). Layout adjustment and the mental map. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 6: 183–210.Google Scholar
19. 19.
Papakostas, A., Six, J. M., & Tollis, I. G. (1997). Experimental and theoretical results in interactive orthogonal graph drawing. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Graph Drawing, GD'96, LNCS 1190, pages 371–386, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
20. 20.
Paulisch, F. N., & Tichy, W. F. (1990). Edge: an extendible graph editor. Software-Practice and Experience, 20(S1): 63–88.Google Scholar
21. 21.
Simmons, D. M. (1975). Nonlinear Programming for Operations Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
22. 22.
Storey, M. D., & Müller, H. A. (1995). Graph layout adjustment strategies. In Symposium on Graph Drawing, GD'95, LNCS 1027, pages 487–499, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
23. 23.
24. 24.
Voudoris, C., & Tsang, E., (1999). Guided local search and its application to the travelling saleman problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 11(2): 469–499.Google Scholar
25. 25.
Voudouris, C. (1997). Guided local search for combinatorial optimization problems. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Essex.Google Scholar
26. 26.
Voudouris, C., & Tsang, E. (1996). Partial constraint satisfaction problems and guided local search. In Proceedings of Practical Application of Constraint Technology, PACT96, pages 337–356.Google Scholar
27. 27.
Voudouris, C., & Tsang, E. (1999). Guided local search and its application to the traveling salesman problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 113: 469–499.Google Scholar
28. 28.
Walsh, G. R. (1975). Methods of Optimization. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
29. 29.
Wang, C., & Tsang, E. (1991). Solving satisfaction problems using neural-networks. In Proceedings of IEE Second International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, pages 295–299.Google Scholar

## Authors and Affiliations

• Kim Marriott
• 1
• Peter Stuckey
• 2
• Vincent Tam
• 3
• Weiqing He
• 4
1. 1.School of Computer Science & Software EngineeringMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
2. 2.Department of Computer Science & Software EngineeringUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
4. 4.School of Computer Science & Software EngineeringMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia