Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Given fixed character orderings in a storyline, deciding whether the drawing can use at most k wiggles is NP-complete, while minimizing linear or quadratic wiggle height is polynomial-time solvable.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

With fixed character orderings, linear and quadratic wiggle height minimization are polynomial-time via LP/QP, while wiggle count minimization is NP-complete; a new curve-routing method and railway use case are also presented.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Nice exact algorithms for two wiggle objectives and an honest experimental study, but the NP-hardness proof for wiggle count rests on an unproved rigidity lemma that needs real work before Theorem 5 can be trusted. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.19802 v1 pith:2E3USRVK submitted 2025-08-27 cs.DS

Optimizing Wiggle in Storylines

Alexander Dobler , Tim Hegemann , Martin N\"ollenburg , Alexander Wolff This is my paper
classification cs.DS MSC 68Q1768U0590C0590C20
keywords storyline visualizationwiggle count minimizationNP-completenesslinear programmingquadratic programminginteger linear programmingcurve routingrolling stock schedules
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper investigates how much character curves must move vertically in a storyline visualization, where each character is a curve over time and characters in the same scene at a given time are stacked consecutively. It proves that, once the vertical ordering of characters at every time step is fixed, minimizing the total number of wiggles (turns of a curve) is NP-complete, so no efficient exact algorithm is expected in general. At the same time, it shows that minimizing total wiggle height, either linearly or quadratically, can be done in polynomial time using a linear program and a convex quadratic program. The paper also contributes a curve-routing method that keeps neighboring character curves parallel with constant distances, and it demonstrates the three objectives on existing benchmarks and on railway rolling-stock schedules. This matters because crossings are not the only readability criterion for storylines; the amount and shape of vertical motion visibly affects whether the drawing looks calm or restless.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the main discovery is a complexity dichotomy inside one layout step. Given an ordered storyline instance—fixed character orderings at each time step, meetings marked as vertical bars—the decision problem of whether a nice coordination uses at most k wiggles is NP-complete (Theorem 5). The hardness is shown by a gadget reduction from Planar Monotone 3-Sat, with variable gadgets that can be in a TRUE or FALSE state, clause gadgets that force at least five wiggles unless one wire character is satisfying, and a rigid frame that is supposed to keep coordinates fixed. In contrast, the same instance can be solved in polynomial time for linear wiggle height by an LP and for

What carries the argument

The central objects are a storyline instance (characters, time steps, meetings, and an ordering of active characters at each time step) and a coordination, which assigns each character a y-coordinate at each time step so that meeting members are consecutive and equally spaced by Δ while non-meeting neighbors keep at least Δ distance. Wiggle count, wiggle height, and quadratic wiggle height are three metrics on a coordination. The proof machinery is a gadget reduction: variable gadgets whose characters have either |C_v| or 2|C_v| wiggles, clause gadgets that detect whether at least one wire character ends at its satisfying x-coordinate, and a rigid bounding frame intended to force coordinates

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reduction's rigid frame really is rigid: no coordination within the allowed wiggle budget can shift frame characters, because the lower-bound argument that every good coordination needs at least k wiggles depends entirely on that, and the paper asserts this rigidity for a blown-up construction rather than proving it in full.

What would settle it

Take a concrete small Planar Monotone 3-Sat formula, run the paper's construction, and search (by ILP or exhaustive enumeration) for a coordination with at most k wiggles in which a variable gadget is in the TRUE state while a positive wire is not satisfying, or in which frame characters shift; finding one would break Lemma 10's equivalence. Alternatively, a polynomial-time exact algorithm for WCMin would refute Theorem 5.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • No polynomial-time exact algorithm for minimizing wiggle count exists unless P = NP, so storyline layout pipelines that optimize crossings first must treat wiggle-count minimization as a hard subproblem.
  • Linear and quadratic wiggle height minimization are efficiently solvable exactly, and for integer minimum gaps the LP optimum can be taken integral, so the resulting drawings do not need rounding.
  • For just two time steps, minimizing wiggle count is polynomial (O(|C|^2)), and the largest set of characters that can be drawn without any wiggle can be found in O(|C|^2 ℓ) time.
  • The new curve routing turns each wiggle into two circular arcs with equal tangents, bounded radius, and monotone radial distance between co-oriented neighbors, which produces x-monotone, visually parallel curves.
  • Rolling stock schedules can be drawn as storylines, so wiggle and crossing minimization tools transfer to railway planning visualizations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors leave the frame-rigidity verification to a blowing-up argument; formulating and checking the required local rigidity inequalities would make the reduction fully explicit and is a natural next step.
  • A testable consequence the paper does not spell out: the NP-hardness may be driven by the number of time steps, and the two-time-step result suggests the boundary is worth probing—exactly the fixed-parameter question the authors pose.
  • Because the same wiggle metrics appear in streamgraphs and stacked area charts, the LP and QP exact solutions may transfer to those chart types whenever the stacking order is fixed.
  • The routing LP suggests a possible joint optimization: alternate between choosing coordinates and choosing radii to reduce total drawing width, rather than fixing coordinates first.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies three wiggle-related optimization objectives for ordered storyline instances in which the vertical ordering of active characters is fixed at each time step and meetings must be drawn with prescribed spacing. The main contributions are: (i) polynomial-time LP and QP formulations for linear and quadratic wiggle height minimization, with an integrality argument for the LP; (ii) an NP-completeness result for wiggle count minimization (WCMin), based on a gadget reduction from Planar Monotone 3-Sat, together with an ILP formulation and a polynomial-time algorithm for the special case of two time steps; and (iii) a novel geometric routing method for rendering character curves with nearly parallel concentric arcs, evaluated on benchmark storyline instances and on a new rolling-stock scheduling use case. The paper is clearly written, the LP/QP and routing sections are self-contained, and the experimental section is honest about solver limitations. However, the central NP-hardness proof is incomplete as written: Lemma 10, which is the bridge between the constructed storyline instance and satisfiability of the 3-Sat formula, relies on an unproved assertion that the rigid frame is completely rigid, and the supporting Lemmas 8 and 9 are justified mainly by reference to a figure. The exactness of the ILP in Section 4.3 is also not fully established because the claimed coordinate bound is not proved.

Significance. If the NP-hardness proof can be completed, the paper would establish a clean complexity dichotomy: WCMin is NP-complete while linear and quadratic wiggle height minimization are polynomial-time solvable, which is a useful contribution to storyline visualization research. The LP/QP formulations, the integrality result of Proposition 1, and the experimental comparison across three objectives are valuable and appear sound. The new routing method for parallel wiggles and the rolling-stock case study are interesting and broaden the applicability of storyline techniques. The authors also ship source code, which is a concrete strength. Nevertheless, the load-bearing gap in Lemma 10 means that Theorem 5 is not proved as written, and this is the central claim of the paper. The issue is a missing proof rather than a disagreement with existing consensus, and it is fixable, but it currently blocks acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Lemma 10 and definition of k] The backward direction of the NP-hardness reduction relies entirely on the claim that in any coordination with at most k = kcr + 5|Γ| wiggles, the frame is perfectly rigid, so no frame character wiggles and all gadgets remain pinned to their intended x-coordinates. The proof does not establish this claim. The text states 'the technicalities are tedious to show, but one can convince oneself by blowing up the construction' and later 'Again, the technicalities are tedious to show...', but no quantitative argument is provided to show that scaling or widening corridors prevents a coordinated shift of a frame component or that any such shift costs an extra wiggle. Because k is set exactly to kcr + 5|Γ|, even one unintended wiggle-saving deviation by the frame or a non-satisfying clause gadget would break the equivalence. Additionally, the accounting of kcr is ambiguous: if kcr counts all cross
  2. [Section 4.2, Lemmas 8 and 9] The clause gadget is the heart of the reduction, and the 5-versus-6 wiggle gap between satisfied and unsatisfied clauses is exactly what sets the threshold k. However, the proofs of Lemmas 8 and 9 are given at the level of 'Figure 5 depicts such a nice coordination' and 'there is no nice coordination of the choice and blocking meetings such that ...', with no detailed case analysis. The role of the fixing characters, the shifted positions in the choice meetings, and the possible interactions between the three wire characters need a rigorous treatment. Since Lemma 10 depends directly on these lemmas, the NP-hardness proof cannot be considered complete without them.
  3. [Section 4.3, y-coordinate bound before the ILP] The exactness of the ILP formulation for WCMin rests on the assertion that Y = max{Δ,Δ} · Σ_t |AC(t)| is 'a trivial upper bound' for all y-coordinates. This is not proved and is not a consequence of the niceness constraints, because the wiggle-count objective does not penalize the magnitude of a displacement. For example, a single character active at two consecutive time steps, with no meeting constraints, can realize one wiggle with arbitrarily large displacement. Thus, while there may exist an optimal coordination inside the proposed bound, that fact requires proof. Without it, the ILP is not established as exact, and the WC optimum values reported in Table 1 from this ILP are not guaranteed to be true optima.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (5)] The notation π^{-1}(c) and π^{-1}(c′) is missing the subscript i; it should be π_i^{-1}(c) and π_i^{-1}(c′), consistent with Eq. (4).
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (8)-(9)] The symbol dx_t is used as the horizontal distance between consecutive time layers, but it is not formally defined in the text. Please define it explicitly and clarify that the LP in Section 5 optimizes dx_t^2 as a variable, not dx_t itself.
  3. [References] References [9] and [11] appear to describe the same work with the same title and authors, and both contain the typo 'Minimzing wiggles'. The duplicated reference should be merged or distinguished clearly; the entry [10] is the corresponding master's thesis.
  4. [Section 2, wiggle count definition] The introduction describes wiggle count as the number of inflection points, but Eq. (3) defines it as the number of time-step transitions in which a character's y-coordinate changes. These notions coincide only if every change of y is counted as one turn. Please make the definitional connection explicit.
  5. [Section 6.1, Table 1] The table reports 'respective optimum' values for WC, LWH, QWH, and TH. It would be helpful to state explicitly which values are proven optimal and which are heuristic or incomplete (e.g., the t5 ILP entry marked with a superscript a and 'dnf'). The caption should clarify the status of each column.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claims are proved by direct mathematical programming and an external NP-hardness reduction; self-citations are contextual.

full rationale

The paper's main results do not reduce to their inputs. LWHMin and QWHMin are solved by an explicit LP/QP (Section 3) whose objective and constraints are the definitions of the objectives; Proposition 1 is an integrality argument, not an assumed prediction. The NP-completeness proof (Theorem 5) reduces from Planar Monotone 3-Sat, an external NP-complete problem, and constructs storyline instances graphically. The variable and clause gadget lemmas (Lemmas 8–9) are justified by the construction and figures, not by the target theorem. The only load-bearing gap is Lemma 10's assertion that the frame is rigid: the proof states 'the technicalities are tedious to show, but one can convince oneself by blowing up the construction.' This is an omitted proof, not circularity, because the rigidity claim is asserted as a fact about the constructed instance rather than derived from the answer of WCMin or from a self-citation. Similarly, the self-citations (e.g., to prior ILP crossing-minimization work) are used only for benchmark generation and context, not to force the NP-hardness or the polynomial-time results. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no known result is merely renamed. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The mathematical programs introduce no fitted constants: the gap parameters Delta and overlineDelta are problem inputs, and the routing aesthetic parameter r_min is a user choice, not fitted. The main non-standard item is the rigid-frame rigidity assertion in the NP-hardness proof, which is stated but not rigorously demonstrated.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Linear programming is solvable in polynomial time.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to claim LWHMin is efficiently solvable via the presented LP.
  • standard math Convex quadratic programs with positive semidefinite objective and linear constraints are solvable in polynomial time.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 after observing the QP objective matrix is positive semidefinite.
  • standard math Planar Monotone 3-Sat is NP-complete.
    Used as the source problem for the WCMin NP-hardness reduction in Section 4.2, citing reference [6].
  • ad hoc to paper The constructed rigid frame can be made completely rigid by scaling, so frame characters never wiggle in any coordination with at most k wiggles.
    Asserted in Lemma 10's proof with the phrase 'one can convince oneself by blowing up the construction'; this is load-bearing for the lower bound in the NP-hardness argument and is not fully proven.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Wiggle in Storylines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2E3USRVK

@misc{pith2026250819802,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Wiggle in Storylines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2E3USRVK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19802}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

A storyline visualization shows interactions between characters over time. Each character is represented by an x-monotone curve. Time is mapped to the x-axis, and groups of characters that interact at a particular point $t$ in time must be ordered consecutively in the y-dimension at $x=t$. The predominant objective in storyline optimization so far has been the minimization of crossings between (blocks of) characters. Building on this work, we investigate another important, but less studied quality criterion, namely the minimization of wiggle, i.e., the amount of vertical movement of the characters over time. Given a storyline instance together with an ordering of the characters at any point in time, we show that wiggle count minimization is NP-complete. In contrast, we provide algorithms based on mathematical programming to solve linear wiggle height minimization and quadratic wiggle height minimization efficiently. Finally, we introduce a new method for routing character curves that focuses on keeping distances between neighboring curves constant as long as they run in parallel. We have implemented our algorithms, and we conduct a case study that explores the differences between the three optimization objectives. We use existing benchmark data, but we also present a new use case for storylines, namely the visualization of rolling stock schedules in railway operation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19802 by Alexander Dobler, Alexander Wolff, Martin N\"ollenburg, Tim Hegemann.

Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The first idea is to define a character for each time step and each x-coordinate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Characters belonging to the frame are shown in gray. Meetings involving frame characters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Meetings involving frame characters are not shown explicitly. The necessity of the zig-zag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    The ``y'' of it matters, even for storyline visualization

    Dustin Arendt and Meg Pirrung. The ``y'' of it matters, even for storyline visualization. In Brian D. Fisher, Shixia Liu, and Tobias Schreck, editors, 12th IEEE Conf. Visual Analytics, Science & Technology (VAST) , pages 81--91, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2017.8585487 doi:10.1109/VAST.2017.8585487

    work page arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    There is more to streamgraphs than movies: Better aesthetics via ordering and lassoing

    Marco Di Bartolomeo and Yifan Hu. There is more to streamgraphs than movies: Better aesthetics via ordering and lassoing. Comput. Graph. Forum , 35(3):341--350, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/CGF.12910 doi:10.1111/CGF.12910

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.12910 2016

  3. [3]

    Optimization of handouts for rolling stock rotations

    Ralf Borndörfer, Boris Grimm, Markus Reuther, and Thomas Schlechte. Optimization of handouts for rolling stock rotations. J. Rail Transport Planning & Management , 10:1--8, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrtpm.2019.02.001 doi:10.1016/j.jrtpm.2019.02.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jrtpm.2019.02.001 2019

  4. [4]

    Convex Optimization

    Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Convex Optimization . Cambridge University Press, 7th edition, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Stacked graphs - geometry & aesthetics

    Lee Byron and Martin Wattenberg. Stacked graphs - geometry & aesthetics. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. , 14(6):1245--1252, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2008.166 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2008.166

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2008.166 2008

  6. [6]

    Optimal binary space partitions for segments in the plane

    Mark de Berg and Amirali Khosravi. Optimal binary space partitions for segments in the plane. Int. J. Comput. Geom. Appl. , 22(3):187--206, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218195912500045 doi:10.1142/S0218195912500045

    doi:10.1142/s0218195912500045 2012

  7. [7]

    u nger, Paul J. J \

    Alexander Dobler, Michael J \" u nger, Paul J. J \" u nger, Julian Meffert, Petra Mutzel, and Martin N \" o llenburg. Revisiting ILP models for exact crossing minimization in storyline drawings. In Stefan Felsner and Karsten Klein, editors, 32nd International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD) , volume 320 of LIPIcs , pages 31:1--31...

    work page doi:10.4230/lipics.gd.2024.31 2024

  8. [8]

    Crossing Minimization in Time Interval Storylines

    Alexander Dobler, Martin N\"ollenburg, Daniel Stojanovic, Ana \" s Villedieu, and Jules Wulms. Crossing minimization in time interval storylines. In Clemens Huemer and Carlos Seara, editors, Proc. Europ. Workshop Comput. Geom. (EuroCG) , pages 36:1--36:7, 2023. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.14213

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    oschl and Martin N\

    Theresa Fr\"oschl and Martin N\"ollenburg. Minimzing wiggles in storyline visualizations. In Fabrizio Frati and Kwan-Liu Ma, editors, Graph Drawing & Network Vis. (GD) , volume 10692 of LNCS , pages 585--587. Springer, 2018. URL: https://www.ac.tuwien.ac.at/files/pub/fn-mwsv-18.pdf

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Minimizing wiggles in storyline visualizations

    Theresa Fröschl. Minimizing wiggles in storyline visualizations. Master's thesis, Technische Universität Wien, 2018. https://doi.org/10.34726/hss.2018.53581 doi:10.34726/hss.2018.53581

    work page arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Minimzing wiggles in storyline visualizations

    Theresa Fröschl and Martin Nöllenburg. Minimzing wiggles in storyline visualizations. In Fabrizio Frati and Kwan-Liu Ma, editors, Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD'17) , volume 10692 of LNCS , pages 585--587. Springer, 2018. URL: https://www.ac.tuwien.ac.at/files/pub/fn-mwsv-18.pdf

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    A comparison of two models for rolling stock scheduling

    Boris Grimm, Rowan Hoogervorst, and Ralf Borndörfer. A comparison of two models for rolling stock scheduling. Transport. Sci. , 2025. Ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2024.0505 doi:10.1287/trsc.2024.0505

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    u nger, Frauke Liers, and Francesco Mambelli. Crossing minimization in storyline visualization. In Yifan Hu and Martin N \

    Martin Gronemann, Michael J \"u nger, Frauke Liers, and Francesco Mambelli. Crossing minimization in storyline visualization. In Yifan Hu and Martin N \"o llenburg, editors, Graph Drawing & Network Vis. (GD) , volume 8901 of LNCS , pages 367--381. Springer, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50106-2_29 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50106-2_29

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-50106-2_29 2016

  14. [14]

    Storylines with a protagonist

    Tim Hegemann and Alexander Wolff. Storylines with a protagonist. In Stefan Felsner and Karsten Klein, editors, 32nd International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD) , volume 320 of LIPIcs , pages 26:1--26:22. Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f \" u r Informatik, 2024. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPICS.GD.2024.26 doi:10.4230/LIPICS.G...

    work page doi:10.4230/lipics.gd.2024.26 2024

  15. [15]

    A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming

    Narendra Karmarkar. A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming. Comb. , 4(4):373--396, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02579150 doi:10.1007/BF02579150

    doi:10.1007/bf02579150 1984

  16. [16]

    Card, and Jeffrey Heer

    Nam Wook Kim, Stuart K. Card, and Jeffrey Heer. Tracing genealogical data with timenets. In Giuseppe Santucci, editor, Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI) , pages 241--248. ACM Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1145/1842993.1843035 doi:10.1145/1842993.1843035

    work page arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    Donald E. Knuth. The Stanford GraphBase: A platform for combinatorial computing . ACM Press, 1994

    work page 1994

  18. [18]

    On Minimizing Crossings in Storyline Visualizations

    Irina Kostitsyna, Martin N\"ollenburg, Valentin Polishchuk, Andr\'e Schulz, and Darren Strash. On minimizing crossings in storyline visualizations. In Emilio Di Giacomo and Anna Lubiw, editors, Graph Drawing & Network Vis. (GD) , volume 9411 of LNCS , pages 192--198. Springer, 2015. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.00442, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-2...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [20]

    StoryFlow : Tracking the evolution of stories

    Shixia Liu, Yingcai Wu, Enxun Wei, Mengchen Liu, and Yang Liu. StoryFlow : Tracking the evolution of stories. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graphics , 19(12):2436--2445, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2013.196 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2013.196

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.196 2013

  20. [21]

    Aesthetics and ordering in stacked area charts

    Steffen Strunge Mathiesen and Hans - J \" o rg Schulz. Aesthetics and ordering in stacked area charts. In Amrita Basu, Gem Stapleton, Sven Linker, Catherine Legg, Emmanuel Manalo, and Petrucio Viana, editors, Proc. Diagrammatic Representation and Inference (Diagrams'2021) , volume 12909 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 3--19. Springer, 2021. h...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86062-2 2021

  21. [22]

    Movie narrative charts

    Randall Munroe. Movie narrative charts. Diagram available at https://xkcd.com/657/, 2009. Accessed 2017/04/03

    work page 2009

  22. [23]

    Software evolution storylines

    Michael Ogawa and Kwan - Liu Ma. Software evolution storylines. In Alexandru C. Telea, Carsten G \" o rg, and Steven P. Reiss, editors, ACM Symposium on Software Visualization (SoftVis) , pages 35--42, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1145/1879211.1879219 doi:10.1145/1879211.1879219

    work page arXiv 2010

  23. [24]

    Methods for visual understanding of hierarchical system structures

    Kozo Sugiyama, Shojiro Tagawa, and Mitsuhiko Toda. Methods for visual understanding of hierarchical system structures. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. , 11(2):109--125, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1981.4308636 doi:10.1109/TSMC.1981.4308636

    work page arXiv 1981

  24. [25]

    An efficient framework for generating storyline visualizations from streaming data

    Yuzuru Tanahashi, Chien - Hsin Hsueh, and Kwan - Liu Ma. An efficient framework for generating storyline visualizations from streaming data. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. , 21(6):730--742, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2392771 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2015.2392771

    work page arXiv 2015

  25. [26]

    Design considerations for optimizing storyline visualizations

    Yuzuru Tanahashi and Kwan - Liu Ma. Design considerations for optimizing storyline visualizations. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. , 18(12):2679--2688, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.212 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2012.212

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2012.212 2012

  26. [27]

    van Dijk , Martin Fink , Norbert Fischer , Fabian Lipp , Peter Markfelder , Alexander Ravsky , Subhash Suri , and Alexander Wolff

    Thomas C. van Dijk , Martin Fink , Norbert Fischer , Fabian Lipp , Peter Markfelder , Alexander Ravsky , Subhash Suri , and Alexander Wolff . Block crossings in storyline visualizations. J. Graph Alg. Appl. , 21(5):873--913, 2017. https://doi.org/10.7155/jgaa.00443 doi:10.7155/jgaa.00443

    doi:10.7155/jgaa.00443 2017

  27. [28]

    Computing Storyline Visualizations with Few Block Crossings

    Thomas C. van Dijk, Fabian Lipp, Peter Markfelder, and Alexander Wolff. Computing storylines with few block crossings. In Fabrizio Frati and Kwan-Liu Ma, editors, Graph Drawing & Network Vis. (GD) , volume 10692 of LNCS , pages 365--378. Springer, 2018. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.01055, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73915-1_29 doi:10.1007/978-3-3...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.