Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 54 references

StorySets: Ordering Curves and Dimensions for Visualizing Uncertain Sets and Multi-Dimensional Discrete Data

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces StorySets, a storyline-style visualization for set systems with uncertain memberships, and proves that for any fixed element order its algorithm orders the set curves with the minimum number of crossings in O(n m log…

desk verdict StorySets is a genuinely new uncertain-set visualization idiom with a correct exact crossing-minimizing algorithm, but the paper's stated equivalence between crossings and total wiggle is false. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12776 v1 pith:7MRG3T3U submitted 2025-04-17 cs.GR

Markus Wallinger , Annika Bonerath , Wouter Meulemans , Martin Nöllenburg , Spehen Kobourov , Alexander Wolff This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GR
keywords uncertainsetvisualizationmembershipuncertaintystorylineparallelcoordinateplotscrossingminimizationbin-basedglyphstravelingsalespersonproblemcontainment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that set membership uncertainty can be shown directly in a storyline-style plot: each element is a vertical glyph whose stacked bins encode certainty levels, and each set is an x-monotone curve passing through the bin matching its membership certainty. Its central theoretical claim is that, once the left-to-right order of elements is fixed, the set curves can be ordered vertically so that the number of crossings is the minimum possible, and that this ordering can be computed in O(n m log m) time. Without this exact step, the method would be a heuristic and could not guarantee readable, low-clutter pictures. The paper also frames element ordering as a traveling-salesperson problem with three weighting schemes and shows experimentally that exact near-real-time layouts are feasible on datasets of practical size. The upshot is a first concrete visualization idiom for uncertain set systems that keeps containment relationships visible while representing degrees of membership.

What carries the argument

The central object is a StorySets drawing: m x-monotone set curves passing through n vertical element glyphs, where each glyph is subdivided into k uncertainty bins and a curve's height inside a glyph encodes the membership certainty bin. The mechanism carrying the argument is the lookahead ordering rule in Section 4.3: before fixing the vertical order at an element, each pair of curves is compared by their first future bin difference, with the lower-bin curve placed below; later, when bin assignments at a current element force a swap, that swap is the only permitted change. The proof's key step is the assertion that a crossing is necessary exactly when it corresponds to an inversion of bin assignments, so changing order only at those forced moments is both necessary and sufficient for a minimum crossing count. This same step yields the O(n m log m) bound and makes the exact curve-ordering stage fast enough for interactive use.

What would settle it

Compute the true minimum crossing count by brute-force enumeration of all vertical permutations of the set curves at every element for small random instances (for example, 4 to 6 sets and 5 to 8 elements), and compare it with the paper's O(n m log m) rule; a single instance where the greedy output has more crossings than the brute-force optimum would refute Theorem 1. A simpler check is to search for a case where reordering two same-bin curves at an earlier element reduces crossings at a later element.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a greedy left-to-right lookahead rule yields the optimal vertical order of set curves for a fixed element order. For each pair of curves, the algorithm finds the first element at which their certainty-bin assignments differ, places the lower-bin curve below, and only changes the relative order of two curves when a later element forces it by a bin inversion. The authors claim that this rule cannot create any unnecessary crossing, so it produces the minimum crossing count under the standard inversion definition, and the whole pass runs in O(n m log m) time. The same geometry also makes set containment directly visible: if one curve stays strictly below another, the corresponding set is contained in the larger one.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the assumption that swapping two curves only when the certainty bins force it is enough to guarantee the fewest possible crossings for every curve together, so that no smarter ordering inside a bin could do better.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any fixed element order, StorySets displays as few curve crossings as the geometry allows, so crossing clutter is not an artifact of the ordering heuristic.
  • Because the curve-ordering step is exact and runs in near-real time, StorySets can support interactive reordering and filtering; the reported runtimes stay under about 600 ms for tested sizes.
  • Set containment is directly readable: if one curve always stays below another, the corresponding set is contained, matching Euler-diagram intuition.
  • On multi-dimensional discrete data, binning and curve reordering avoid the overplotting that makes parallel coordinate plots hard to trace, as the Covid-19 case study illustrates.
  • The underlying element-ordering problems remain NP-hard, so the method pairs the exact curve-ordering step with TSP-based element ordering; the experiments identify which weighting scheme works best by problem size.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that the same minimum-crossing guarantee likely transfers to the star layout variant, though the cyclic first/last constraint there is only sketched, not explicitly proven.
  • Because the paper notes that combinatorial wiggle is proportional to twice the number of crossings in the uniform-bin variant, the exact algorithm also minimizes total curve length in that setting, an identity that could be used as a secondary quality metric.
  • A natural testable extension is to add a second-phase optimization that reorders curves within each bin, solving the remaining same-bin subproblems by dynamic programming and checking whether adversarial instances ever beat the greedy lookahead output.
  • Reading pair-wise set intersections requires following two curves simultaneously, so StorySets may benefit from interaction such as curve highlighting for larger numbers of sets, beyond the static case shown in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces StorySets, a visualization method for set systems with uncertain element-set memberships. Elements are drawn as vertical glyphs divided into bins; sets are x-monotone curves crossing the glyphs at a height determined by the membership certainty. The authors explore a design space, formulate the layout as two coupled ordering problems, propose three TSP-based weight models for element ordering, and give an O(n m log m) algorithm (Theorem 1) that, for a fixed element order, computes a vertical order of the set curves at every element with the minimum number of crossings. They evaluate variants on 1500 synthetic instances derived from the MSSCQ dataset using crossings, turns, and runtime, and demonstrate the method in two case studies (Simpsons traits and Covid-19 wellbeing data). The paper claims to be the first to visualize uncertain set systems in this storyline/parallel-coordinate style.

Significance. If the technical claims hold, the paper makes a useful methodological contribution: an exact polynomial algorithm for curve ordering in a fixed element order, a practical TSP-based layout pipeline with several weight choices, and an evaluation on reproducible data. Strengths include a clearly stated algorithmic theorem with a complexity bound, a computational evaluation on an external dataset, and an honest discussion of limitations (no user study, scalability limits). The main algorithmic idea, computing pairwise lookahead precedences to avoid unnecessary crossings, is plausible and, in my reading, correct. The central algorithm does not fit parameters to outcomes, so circularity is not a concern. The contribution's significance is somewhat reduced by an overbroad novelty claim and by a false identity between crossings and wiggle in the motivation, but the underlying method is a reasonable and potentially useful addition to set and uncertainty visualization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, paragraph preceding Section 4.1] The statement "twice the number of crossings exactly equals the total amount of combinatorial wiggle" is false. Counterexample: at elements i and i+1, the vertical orders 1,2,3,4 and 4,3,2,1 induce 6 crossings but the sum of rank movements is |4−1|+|3−2|+|2−3|+|1−4| = 8, not 12. Thus minimizing crossings does not, in general, minimize combinatorial wiggle or the turn metric TΣ defined in Section 5.2. Since the paragraph uses this identity to justify optimizing only crossings and the abstract and design requirement R3 refer to turns, the authors should either remove the equivalence and present the algorithm as a crossing minimizer with turns evaluated empirically, or provide a corrected argument for why crossing-optimal layouts also control wiggle in their setting.
  2. [Abstract, Introduction, and Section 8] The claim that StorySets is "the first method for visualizing uncertain set systems" is contradicted by the paper's own Related Work: [53] explicitly visualizes fuzzy sets, [49] visualizes fuzzy overlapping communities, and [46] discusses glyph-based matrix representations for uncertain sets. The claim should be narrowed to the specific storyline/parallel-coordinate-inspired representation, or supported by a precise definition of the class of methods being claimed as new.
  3. [Section 4.3, Theorem 1] The proof is only one sentence and does not demonstrate that the pairwise lookahead rules are simultaneously realizable at every element, nor that a locally forced inversion pattern yields a globally crossing-minimal order. Although I believe the theorem is true, the proof needs an explicit argument, e.g., showing that the relative order of any two curves at element i is determined by the sign of the nearest bin difference (with ties inherited from the previous order), so each pair achieves the lower bound given by the number of sign changes in its bin-comparison sequence; transitivity then follows from the bin ordering. As written, the central algorithmic guarantee is not rigorously established.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 4.3] In the definition of a necessary crossing, "bi,k < bj,k and bi,k′ > bk,k′" should read "bi,k < bj,k and bi,k′ > bj,k′"; the subscript "k" appears outdated.
  2. [Section 5.4] The phrase "As CR an TΣ does not decrease" should be "As CR and TΣ do not decrease".
  3. [Section 6.2] The bin bounds are written as "[0.0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8.1.0]"; this should be "[0.0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,1.0]".
  4. [Section 5.4] The sentence "the efficient implementation of the exact algorithm has equal performance to the heuristic" is surprising without supporting data; please report the actual runtime comparison or qualify the claim.
  5. [Figure 6(a)] The y-axis label "30% of no improvement" is unclear; either relabel the axis or explain in the caption what quantity is plotted.
  6. [Section 4.2] The upper-bound weight in the first weight formula double-counts cases where b_{x,i}=b_{y,i}; this may be intentional, but it deserves an explicit remark so readers do not mistake the formula for an exact inversion count.
  7. [Section 7] The limitations paragraph is candid, but it should also state that the "easy to see set containment" claim rests on informal observation rather than a user study, consistent with the absence of a human-subjects evaluation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Theorem 1 is an exact in-paper combinatorial statement, and the evaluation uses external datasets with no fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central algorithmic claim, Theorem 1 (Section 4.3), is an exact statement about the curve-ordering subroutine. The algorithm constructs each vertical order lambda_i by sorting curves according to their bin memberships, keeping curves in the same bin in their previous relative order. A pair of curves changes relative order only at an element where their bin values enforce a different order. This is a direct combinatorial argument: at each element, any valid vertical order must place a curve in a lower bin below a curve in a higher bin, so each forced pairwise inversion between consecutive elements is unavoidable, and the algorithm realizes exactly those inversions. The proof is terse ('From the description of our algorithm it is clear that it changes the vertical order of two set curves only if necessary. This immediately yields that it produces the minimum number of crossings.'), but the claim is not obtained by assuming the conclusion; it is an internal minimization result, not a fit to data. Step I's TSP edge weights are defined from the bin matrix or from previously computed curve orders, and they are evaluated against externally sampled MSSCQ data; no parameter is calibrated to the reported crossing or turn counts. The paragraph asserting that twice the number of crossings equals the total combinatorial wiggle is an analytical relation used to justify focusing on crossings; even if that relation were disputed, that would be a correctness or modeling concern, not circularity, because it does not make the crossing minimization an input-output tautology. The paper's self-citations (e.g., MetroSets [22], block-crossing storylines [14,47,48], linear diagrams [11,50]) provide context and prior techniques, but the optimality claim does not rest on any of them. Section 7 explicitly acknowledges the absence of a human-subjects study and the possibility that minimizing crossings might not be the correct choice for optimal element order; this is an honest stated limitation, not a hidden circular dependency. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the bin structure and TSP weight strategies are designer choices. The key unvalidated assumptions are perceptual (fewer crossings means better readability) and the unproved global optimality of the greedy curve-ordering step. No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Crossings are fully determined by relative vertical order of set curves at consecutive element markers, and curves in the same uncertainty bin can be arbitrarily reordered without creating crossings.
    Used throughout Section 4 to define the optimization problem and to justify the greedy curve-ordering algorithm; if within-bin reordering is visually constrained (e.g., by curve labeling or line style), the optimality result may not transfer to the rendered visualization.
  • domain assumption Minimizing the number of crossings and turns improves readability (Design Requirement R3).
    The evaluation in Section 5 measures crossings and turns as surrogates for visual quality, and Section 6 claims containment is 'easy to see'; Section 7 acknowledges no human-subjects study was performed, so this premise is unvalidated.
  • standard math TSP can model element ordering, and a short tour corresponds to a good element order.
    Step I (Section 4.2) reduces element ordering to TSP; this is a standard modeling choice from parallel coordinates and linear diagrams literature, not proved here.
  • ad hoc to paper The pairwise lookahead ordering of set curves within each bin is globally consistent, i.e., the resulting orders are realizable for all curves simultaneously.
    Theorem 1 (Section 4.3) assumes the greedy algorithm achieves the global minimum; the proof does not establish acyclicity or simultaneous realizability of the pairwise 'first divergence' precedences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of StorySets: Ordering Curves and Dimensions for Visualizing Uncertain Sets and Multi-Dimensional Discrete Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7MRG3T3U

@misc{pith2026250412776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: StorySets: Ordering Curves and Dimensions for Visualizing Uncertain Sets and Multi-Dimensional Discrete Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7MRG3T3U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12776}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a method for visualizing uncertain set systems, which differs from previous set visualization approaches that are based on certainty (an element either belongs to a set or not). Our method is inspired by storyline visualizations and parallel coordinate plots: (a) each element is represented by a vertical glyph, subdivided into bins that represent different levels of uncertainty; (b) each set is represented by an x-monotone curve that traverses element glyphs through the bins representing the level of uncertainty of their membership. Our implementation also includes optimizations to reduce visual complexity captured by the number of turns for the set curves and the number of crossings. Although several of the natural underlying optimization problems are NP-hard in theory (e.g., optimal element order, optimal set order), in practice, we can compute near-optimal solutions with respect to curve crossings with the help of a new exact algorithm for optimally ordering set curves within each element's bins. With these optimizations, the proposed method makes it easy to see set containment (the smaller set's curve is strictly below the larger set's curve). A brief design-space exploration using uncertain set-membership data, as well as multi-dimensional discrete data, shows the flexibility of the proposed approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12776 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. People and their (uncertain) association with character traits visualized with the StorySets approach. Each x-monotone curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Different design variants of StorySets. where the box width corresponds to the certainty level. The curve of a set passes horizontally through the glyph at the certainty level that corresponds to the set membership certainty. While all of the mentioned visualizations of uncertain sets have their advantages and disadvantages, we aim for a visualization that provides interpretable set membership uncertainty and shows … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The input: the (un)certainty of an element being a member [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) and (b) show the same order of a subset of elements. Even [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Our experiments revealed that a small number of iterations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparision of number of crossings between optimal variants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparision of number of crossings between heuristic variants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The relative difference of crossings (a) and turns (b) between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Traits of fictional characters of the tv show “The Simpsons”. In (a) the dataset is represented with the storyline variant of StorySets. In (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Recently, a study [6] evaluated the protective role of character traits (elements) of 944 participants (sets) during the first Covid-19 lockdown. Here, we show 10 participants with high levels of depression. In (a) a Storyline representation where bin height is scaled…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [46]

    Tominski, M

    C. Tominski, M. Behrisch, S. Bleisch, S. I. Fabrikant, E. Mayr, S. Miksch, and H. C. Purchase. Visualizing uncertainty in sets. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 43(5):49–61, 2023. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2023. 3300441 1, 2, 3, 4

    doi:10.1109/mcg.2023 2023

  2. [53]

    L. Zhu, W. Xia, J. Liu, and A. Song. Visualizing fuzzy sets using opacity- varying freeform diagrams. Inf. Vis., 17(2):146–160, 2018. doi: 10.1177/ 1473871617698517 2, 3 11

    work page 2018

  3. [49]

    Vehlow, T

    C. Vehlow, T. Reinhardt, and D. Weiskopf. Visualizing fuzzy overlapping communities in networks. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 19(12):2486– 2495, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2013.232 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.232 2013

  4. [1]

    Alper, N

    B. Alper, N. Henry Riche, G. Ramos, and M. Czerwinski. Design study of Linesets, a novel set visualization technique. IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12):2259–2267, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG. 2011.186 2

    doi:10.1109/tvcg 2011

  5. [2]

    Alsallakh, L

    B. Alsallakh, L. Micallef, W. Aigner, H. Hauser, S. Miksch, and P. Rodgers. The state-of-the-art of set visualization. Computer Graphics Forum , 35(1):234–260, 2016. doi: 10.1111/cgf.12722 1, 2, 3, 4, 7

    doi:10.1111/cgf.12722 2016

  6. [3]

    Ankerst, S

    M. Ankerst, S. Berchtold, and D. A. Keim. Similarity clustering of dimensions for an enhanced visualization of multidimensional data. In 1998 IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis ’98), 19-20 October 1998, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, Proceedings, pp. 52–60. IEEE Computer Society, 1998. doi: 10.1109/INFVIS.1998.729559 2

    arXiv 1998

  7. [4]

    Bendix, R

    F. Bendix, R. Kosara, and H. Hauser. Parallel sets: Visual analysis of categorical data. In J. T. Stasko and M. O. Ward, eds., IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis 2005), pp. 133–140. IEEE, 2005. doi: 10.1109/INFVIS.2005.1532139 2

    arXiv 2005

  8. [5]

    Bonneau, H

    G. Bonneau, H. Hege, C. R. Johnson, M. M. Oliveira, K. Potter, P. Rhein- gans, and T. Schultz. Overview and state-of-the-art of uncertainty visual- ization. In C. D. Hansen, M. Chen, C. R. Johnson, A. E. Kaufman, and H. Hagen, eds., Scientific Visualization, Mathematics and Visualization, pp. 3–27. Springer, 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-6497-5_1 1, 2

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-6497-5_1 2014

Show all 54 references
  1. [6]

    andrà tutto bene

    N. Casali, T. Feraco, M. Ghisi, and C. Meneghetti. “andrà tutto bene”: Associations between character strengths, psychological distress and self-efficacy during covid-19 lockdown. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(5):2255–2274, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10902-020-00321-w 8, 9

    2021 doi

  2. [7]

    Chambers, W

    J. Chambers, W. Cleveland, B. Kleiner, and P. Tukey.Graphical Methods for Data Analysis. Wadsworth, 1983. doi: 10.1201/9781351072304 2, 3

    1983 doi

  3. [8]

    Christofides

    N. Christofides. Worst-case analysis of a new heuristic for the travelling salesman problem. Oper. Res. Forum, 3(1), 2022. doi: 10.1007/s43069 -021-00101-z 6

    2022 doi

  4. [9]

    Collins, G

    C. Collins, G. Penn, and S. Carpendale. Bubble sets: Revealing set relations with isocontours over existing visualizations. IEEE Trans. Vi- sualization and Computer Graphics , 15(6):1009–1016, 2009. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2009.122 2

    2009

  5. [10]

    Dobler, M

    A. Dobler, M. Nöllenburg, D. Stojanovic, A. Villedieu, and J. Wulms. Crossing minimization in time interval storylines. arxiv report, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.14213 4

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [11]

    Dobler and M

    A. Dobler and M. Nöllenburg. On computing optimal linear diagrams. In V . Giardino, S. Linker, R. Burns, F. Bellucci, J.-M. Boucheix, and P. Viana, eds., Diagrammatic Representation and Inference (DIAGRAMS’22), vol. 13462 of LNAI, pp. 20–36. Springer, 2022. doi: 10.1007/978-3-...

    2022 doi

  7. [12]

    Elmqvist, J

    N. Elmqvist, J. Stasko, and P. Tsigas. Datameadow: A visual canvas for analysis of large-scale multivariate data. Information Visualization, 7(1):18–33, 2008. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500170 2

    2008 doi

  8. [13]

    B. J. Ferdosi and J. Roerdink. Visualizing high-dimensional structures by dimension ordering and filtering using subspace analysis. Computer Graphics Forum, 30(3):1121–1130, 2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2011 .01961.x 2

    2011

  9. [14]

    M. Fink, S. Pupyrev, and A. Wolff. Ordering metro lines by block crossings. J. Graph Alg. Appl., 19(1):111–153, 2015. doi: 10.7155/jgaa.00351 2

    2015 doi

  10. [15]

    Gronemann, M

    M. Gronemann, M. Jünger, F. Liers, and F. Mambelli. Crossing minimiza- tion in storyline visualization. In Y . Hu and M. Nöllenburg, eds.,Int. Symp. Graph Drawing & Network Vis. (GD), vol. 9801 of LNCS, pp. 367–381. Springer, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-50106-2_29 2

    2016 doi

  11. [16]

    Heinrich and D

    J. Heinrich and D. Weiskopf. State of the art of parallel coordinates. In M. Sbert and L. Szirmay-Kalos, eds., 34th Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Graphics, Eurographics 2013 - State of the Art Reports, pp. 95–116. Eurographics Association, 2013. do...

    2013

  12. [17]

    Held and R

    M. Held and R. M. Karp. The traveling-salesman problem and minimum spanning trees. Oper. Res., 18(6):1138–1162, 1970. doi: 10.1287/opre.18. 6.1138 4

    1970 doi

  13. [18]

    Henry Riche and T

    N. Henry Riche and T. Dwyer. Untangling Euler diagrams. IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6):1090–1099, 2010. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2010.210 2

    2010

  14. [19]

    Y . Hu, L. Micallef, M. Nöllenburg, and P. Rodgers. Scalable Set Visual- izations (Dagstuhl Seminar 17332). Dagstuhl Reports, 7(8):1–22, 2018. doi: 10.4230/DagRep.7.8.1 1

    2018 doi

  15. [20]

    Hullman, X

    J. Hullman, X. Qiao, M. Correll, A. Kale, and M. Kay. In pursuit of error: A survey of uncertainty visualization evaluation. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 25(1):903–913, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864889 2

    2019

  16. [21]

    Inselberg and B

    A. Inselberg and B. Dimsdale. Parallel coordinates: A tool for visualizing multi-dimensional geometry. In A. E. Kaufman, ed., 1st IEEE Visualiza- tion Conference, IEEE Vis 1990, San Francisco, CA, USA, October 23-26, 1990, Proceedings, pp. 361–378. IEEE Computer Society Press,...

    1990

  17. [22]

    Jacobsen, M

    B. Jacobsen, M. Wallinger, S. G. Kobourov, and M. Nöllenburg. Met- rosets: Visualizing sets as metro maps. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 27(2):1257–1267, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030475 2

    2021

  18. [23]

    A. Jena, U. Engelke, T. Dwyer, V . Raiamanickam, and C. Paris. Uncer- tainty visualisation: An interactive visual survey. In 2020 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, PacificVis 2020, Tianjin, China, June 3-5, 2020, pp. 201–205. IEEE, 2020. doi: 10.1109/PacificVis48177.2020.1014 1, 2

    2020

  19. [24]

    B. H. Kim, B. Lee, and J. Seo. Visualizing set concordance with permuta- tion matrices and fan diagrams. Interacting with Computers, 19(5-6):630– 643, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2007.05.004 2

    2007 doi

  20. [25]

    Kostitsyna, M

    I. Kostitsyna, M. Nöllenburg, V . Polishchuk, A. Schulz, and D. Strash. On minimizing crossings in storyline visualizations. In E. D. Giacomo and A. Lubiw, eds., Proc. 23rd Int. Symp. Graph Drawing & Network Vis. (GD’15), vol. 9411 of LNCS, pp. 192–198. Springer, 2015. doi: 10...

    2015

  21. [26]

    J. Larsson. eulerr: Area-Proportional Euler and Venn Diagrams with Ellipses, 2020. R package version 6.1.0. 2

    2020

  22. [28]

    S. Liu, Y . Wu, E. Wei, M. Liu, and Y . Liu. Storyflow: Tracking the evolution of stories. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 19(12):2436–2445,

  23. [29]

    L. Lu, M. Huang, and T.-H. Huang. A new axes re-ordering method in parallel coordinates visualization. In 11th IEEE Int. Conf. Machine Learn. Appl., pp. 252–257, 2012. doi: 10.1109/ICMLA.2012.148 2

    2012 doi

  24. [30]

    L. Lu, M. Huang, and J. Zhang. Two axes re-ordering methods in parallel coordinates plots. J. Vis. Lang. Comput., 33:3–12, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j. jvlc.2015.12.001 2

    2016 doi

  25. [31]

    Luz and M

    S. Luz and M. Masoodian. A comparison of linear and mosaic diagrams for set visualization. Information Visualization, 18(3), 2019. doi: 10. 1177/1473871618754343 2

    2019

  26. [32]

    Micallef and P

    L. Micallef and P. Rodgers. eulerforce: Force-directed layout for Euler diagrams. J. Visual Languages and Computing, 25(6):924–934, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.jvlc.2014.09.002 2

    2014 doi

  27. [33]

    Pupyrev, L

    S. Pupyrev, L. Nachmanson, S. Bereg, and A. E. Holroyd. Edge routing with ordered bundles. In M. van Kreveld and B. Speckmann, eds., Proc. 19th Int. Symp. Graph Drawing (GD’11), vol. 7034 of LNCS, pp. 136–147. Springer, 2012. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-25878-7_14 2

    2012 doi

  28. [34]

    Rodgers, P

    P. Rodgers, P. Chapman, A. Blake, M. Nöllenburg, M. Wallinger, and A. Dobler. Hoop diagrams: A set visualization method. In J. Lemanski, M. W. Johansen, E. Manalo, P. Viana, R. Bhattacharjee, and R. Burns, eds., Diagrammatic Representation and Inference - 14th International Co...

    2024 doi

  29. [35]

    P. J. Rodgers, G. Stapleton, and P. Chapman. Visualizing sets with linear diagrams. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact., 22(6):27:1–27:39, 2015. doi: 10.1145/2810012 2, 3

    2015 doi

  30. [36]

    G. E. Rosario, E. A. Rundensteiner, D. C. Brown, M. O. Ward, and S. Huang. Mapping nominal values to numbers for effective visualization. Inf. Vis., 3(2):80–95, 2004. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500072 2

    2004 doi

  31. [37]

    Sadana, T

    R. Sadana, T. Major, A. D. M. Dove, and J. T. Stasko. Onset: A visualiza- tion technique for large-scale binary set data. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 20(12):1993–2002, 2014. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346249 2

    1993

  32. [38]

    Simonetto, D

    P. Simonetto, D. W. Archambault, and C. Scheidegger. A simple approach for boundary improvement of Euler diagrams. IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1):678–687, 2016. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2015. 2467992 2

    2016 doi

  33. [39]

    Simonetto, D

    P. Simonetto, D. Auber, and D. Archambault. Fully automatic visualisation of overlapping sets. Computer Graphics Forum, 28(3):967–974, 2009. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2009.01452.x 2 10 StorySets: Ordering Curves and Dimensions for Visualizing Uncertain Sets and Multi-Dimensiona...

    2009

  34. [40]

    W. E. Snell. The multidimensional sexual self-concept questionnaire. Handbook of sexuality-related measures, pp. 521–524, 1998. 5

    1998

  35. [41]

    Stapleton, P

    G. Stapleton, P. Chapman, P. Rodgers, A. Touloumis, A. Blake, and A. Delaney. The efficacy of Euler diagrams and linear diagrams for visualizing set cardinality using proportions and numbers. PloS one, 14(3),

  36. [42]

    Stapleton, J

    G. Stapleton, J. Flower, P. J. Rodgers, and J. Howse. Automatically drawing Euler diagrams with circles. J. Visual Languages and Computing, 23(3):163–193, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.jvlc.2012.02.001 2

    2012 doi

  37. [43]

    Stapleton, P

    G. Stapleton, P. Rodgers, J. Howse, and L. Zhang. Inductively generat- ing Euler diagrams. IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(1):88–100, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2010.28 2

    2011 doi

  38. [44]

    Tanahashi and K

    Y . Tanahashi and K. Ma. Design considerations for optimizing storyline visualizations. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 18(12):2679–2688, 2012. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.212 2

    2012 doi

  39. [45]

    A. Tatu, G. Albuquerque, M. Eisemann, P. Bak, H. Theisel, M. A. Mag- nor, and D. A. Keim. Automated analytical methods to support visual exploration of high-dimensional data. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 17(5):584–597, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2010.242 2

    2011 doi

  40. [47]

    T. C. van Dijk, M. Fink, N. Fischer, F. Lipp, P. Markfelder, A. Ravsky, S. Suri, and A. Wolff. Block crossings in storyline visualizations.J. Graph Alg. Appl., 21(5):873–913, 2017. doi: 10.7155/jgaa.00443 2, 3

    2017 doi

  41. [48]

    T. C. van Dijk, F. Lipp, P. Markfelder, and A. Wolff. Computing storylines with few block crossings. In F. Frati and K.-L. Ma, eds., Proc. 25th Int. Symp. Graph Drawing & Network Vis. (GD’17), vol. 10692 of LNCS, pp. 365–378. Springer, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-73915-1_29 2

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    Wallinger, A

    M. Wallinger, A. Dobler, and M. Nöllenburg. Linsets.zip: Compressing linear set diagrams. CoRR, abs/2302.08401, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv. 2302.08401 2

    2023 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    Wilkinson

    L. Wilkinson. Exact and approximate area-proportional circular Venn and Euler diagrams. IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(2):321–331, 2012. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.56 2

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    Wilkinson, A

    L. Wilkinson, A. Anand, and R. L. Grossman. High-dimensional visual analytics: Interactive exploration guided by pairwise views of point distri- butions. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 12(6):1363–1372, 2006. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2006.94 2

    2006 doi

  45. [2013]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2013.196 2

    2013 doi

  46. [2019]

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211234 2

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.