Advertisement

Constrained graph layout

  • Weiqing He
  • Kim Marriott
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1190)

Abstract

Most current graph layout technology does not lend itself to interactive applications such as animation or advanced user interfaces. We introduce the constrained graph layout model which is better suited for interactive applications. In this model, input to the layout module includes suggested positions for nodes and constraints over the node positions in the graph to be layed out. We describe three implementations of layout modules which are based on the constrained graph layout model. The first two implementations are for undirected graph layout and the third is for tree layout. The implementations use active set techniques to solve the layout. Our empirical evaluation shows that they are quite fast and give reasonable layout.

Keywords

Constrain Optimization Problem Interactive Application Visual Language Graph Draw Layout Algorithm 
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

  1. 1.
    G.D. Battisa, P. Eades, R. Tamassia, and I.G. Tollis. Algorithms for drawing graphs: an annotated bibliography. Computational Geometry: Theory and Applications, 4:235–282, 1994.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Borning. The programming language aspects of ThingLab, a constraint-oriented simulation laboratory. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 3(4):252–387, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M.J. Box, D. Davies, and W.H. Swann. Non-linear optimization techniques. Oliver & Boyd, 1969.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. J. Brandenburg. Designing graph drawings by layout graph grammars. In Proceedings of DIMACS International Workshop, GD'94, LNCS 894, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, October 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. J. Brandenburg, M. Himsolt, and C. Rohrer. An experimental comparison of force-directed and randomized graph drawing algorithms. In Symposium on Graph Drawing, GD'95, LNCS 1027, Passau, Germany, September 1995. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.S. Chok and K. Marriott. Automatic construction of user interfaces from constraint multiset grammars. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. F. Cruz and A. Garg. Drawing graphs by example efficiently: trees and planar acylic digraphs. In Proceedings of DIMACS International Workshop, GD'94, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, October 1994, LNCS 894, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, October 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Davidson and D. Harel. Drawing graphs nicely using simulated annealing. Technical report, Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Dengler, M. Friedell, and J. Marks. Constraint-driven diagram layout. In Proceedings of the 1993 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Eades. A heuristic for graph drawing. Congressus Numerantium, 42:149–160, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Eades, W. Lai, K. Misue, and K. Sugiyama. Preserving the mental map of a diagram. In Proceedings of Compugraphics '91, pages 24–33, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Eades and J. Marks. Graph-drawing contest report. In Symposium on Graph Drawing, GD'95, LNCS 1027, Passau, Germany, September 1995. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Fletcher. Practical Methods of Optimization. John Wiley & Sons, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Frick, A. Ludwig, and H. Mehldau. A fast adaptive layout algorithm for undirected graphs. In Proceedings of DIMACS International Workshop, GD'94, LNCS 894, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, October 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. M. J. Fruchterman and E. M. Reingold. Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software-Practice and Experience, 21(11):1129–1164, November 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Garg, M. T. Goodrich, and R. Tamassia. Area-efficient upward tree drawing. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, ACM, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D Goldfarb and A Idnani. A numerically stable dual method for solving strictly convex quadratic programs. Math. Prog., 27:1–33, 1983.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Helm and K. Marriott. Declarative graphics. In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Logic Programming, LNCS 225, pages 513–527, London, England, 1986. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Helm and K. Marriott. A declarative specification and semantics for visual languages. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 2:311–331, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Helm, K. Marriott, T. Huynh, and J. Vlissides. An object-oriented architecture for constraint-based graphical editing. In Object-Oriented Programming for Graphics, pages 217–238. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Q. Walker II. A node-position algorithm for general tree. Software-Practice and Experience, 20(7):685–705, July 1990.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. Kamada. Visualizing abstract objects and relations:a constraints-based approach, volume 5 of Computer Science. Singapore, New Jersey:World Scientific, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. Kamada and S. Kawai. An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters, 31(1):7–15, April 1989.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Kamps, J. Kleinz, and J. Read. Constraint-based spring-model algorithm for graph layout. In Symposium on Graph Drawing, GD'95, LNCS 1027, Passsu, Germany, September 1995. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. Kikusts and P. Rucevskis. Layout algorithm of graph-like diagrams for grade windows graphic editors. In Symposium on Graph Drawing, GD'95, LNCS 1027, Passau, Germany, September 1995. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    T. Lin and P. Eades. Integration of declarative and algorithmic approaches for layout creation. Technical Report TR-HJ-94-10, CSIRO Division of Information Technology, Centre for Spatial Information Systems, 1994.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Luders, R. Ernst, and S. Stille. An approach to automatic display layout using combinatorial optimization. Software-Practice and Experience, 25(11):1183–1202, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. Misue, P. Eades, W. Lai, and K. Sugiyama. Layout adjustment and the mental map. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 6:183–210, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. A. Myers, D. A. Giuse, R. B. Dannenberg, B. V. Zanden, D. S. Kosbie, E. Pervin, A. Mickish, and P. Marchal. Garnet: comprehensive support for graphical highly interactive user interfaces. Computer, pages 71–85, November 1990.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. C. North. Incremental layout in dynadag. In Symposium on Graph Drawing, GD'95, LNCS 1027, Passau, Germany, September 1995. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    T. Lin P. Eades and X. Lin. Two tree drawing conventions. Technical Report 174, Key Centre for Software Technology, Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 1990.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    F. N. Paulisch. The design of an extendible graph editor. LNCS 704, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    E. M. Reingold and J. S. Tilford. Tidier drawing of trees. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, SE-7(2):223–228, March 1981.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    K. Sugiyama and K. Misue. A simple and unified method for drawing graphs: magnetic-spring algorithm. In Proceedings of DIMACS International Workshop, GD'94, LNCS 894, Princeton, New Jersey, USA, 1994. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    K. Tsuchida, Y. Adachi, Y. Oi, Y. Miyadera, and T. Yaku. Constraints and algorithm for drawing tree-structured diagrams. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Constraints for Graphics and Visualization, CGV '95, Cassis, France, September 1995.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    D. Tunkelang. A practical approach to drawing undirected graphs. Carnegie Mellon University, 1994.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    J. G. Vaucher. Pretty-printing of trees. Softwart-Practice and Experience, 10:553–561, 1980.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    L. Weitzman and K. Wittenburg. Relation grammars for interactive design. In Proceedings of IEEE Visual Languages, pages 4–11, 1993.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    C. Wetherell and A. Shannon. Tidy drawing of trees. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, SE-5(5):514–520, September 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weiqing He
    • 1
  • Kim Marriott
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations