Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 51 references

An Algorithmic Perspective on Information Visualization

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Visualization quality can be made measurable by separating design intent from the algorithms that draw it.

desk verdict A genuinely useful position piece that formalizes the 'metric idiom' as a bridge between visualization design and layout algorithms; the central idea holds, with a real but minor soft spot around encoding manual layouts. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29360 v1 pith:QUSU6KEJ submitted 2026-07-31 cs.HC

Wouter Meulemans This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords visualizationtheorymetricidiomalgorithmdesignlayoutalgorithmsqualityadequacysolvabilityalgorithmicperspective
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 information visualization research conflates the visual idiom — how a visualization is meant to be read — with the algorithm that constructs it, and that this entanglement leaves quality undefined and comparisons unreliable. It proposes adding an explicit modeling layer, the metric idiom, which captures the constraints and quality measures a layout should satisfy, independent of any algorithm. From a metric idiom, one can derive precise computational problems with a single optimization objective, enabling proofs, approximation guarantees, and fair experimental comparison. The paper introduces adequacy (whether the metric predicts human preference or performance) and solvability (whether algorithms can achieve the metric) as two separable evaluation axes, and integrates them into the established nested model of visualization research.

What carries the argument

The metric idiom: an algorithm-independent specification of the constraints and quality measures that a layout must satisfy. It decomposes quality into facets (legibility vs. correspondence), separates layout constraints from design constraints, and allows multiple measures that define a partial order on valid layouts. From the idiom, a computational problem is derived by narrowing to a single objective via thresholding, combining, prioritizing, or omitting measures. The relation between idiom and human perception is called adequacy; the relation between computational problem and algorithmic performance is called solvability. This separation is the mechanism that lets design and algorithm be

What would settle it

Construct two layouts of the same data that score identically on every facet of a proposed metric idiom but consistently yield different human task performance or preference in controlled experiments; if this occurs for a well-designed idiom, the idiom fails to capture quality and the separation collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the root cause of undefined quality and ad-hoc heuristics in visualization research is the entanglement of visual idiom and algorithm. The remedy is a clearer separation of concerns: a metric idiom that formally captures quality facets through constraints and measures, without reference to any algorithm, and from which computational problems are derived by reducing multiple measures to a single objective. The paper defines adequacy as the correspondence between the metric idiom and human-quality judgment, and solvability as how well algorithms solve the resulting computational problem; it shows that proxy models and trade-offs among facets become explicitly analyzab

Load-bearing premise

A metric idiom can be written down that is independent of any algorithm and still meaningfully captures the human-relevant quality of a visualization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If visualization papers specify their metric idiom, different algorithms for the same visual idiom can be compared by measured quality rather than by subjective image inspection.
  • Once adequacy of an idiom is established, algorithmic work can focus on solving the stated computational problem without a user study at every step, since the quality criterion is already defined.
  • Explicit computational problems make logical flaws visible, such as applying a single-matrix ordering algorithm to a sum of matrices when simultaneous orderings are needed.
  • Modeling trade-offs between facets reveals the Pareto front of layouts, enabling algorithms with controllable trade-offs and a principled way to generate diverse layout alternatives.
  • A metric idiom can evaluate any layout, including manually constructed ones, once appropriately encoded, so quality assessment is decoupled from the generating process.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The framework likely generalizes beyond layout algorithms to data-handling and interaction algorithms, since the paper notes the concern applies wherever algorithms make decisions that affect the eventual visualization.
  • A testable extension: for a given visual idiom, one could empirically map which simple proxy measures positively correlate with a complex multicriteria idiom, following the displacement-proxy example for grid maps, to build a library of validated proxies.
  • The adequacy-solvability diagnosis predicts that user studies comparing whole systems will continue to produce 'inseparable stacks'—tying algorithm and design together—unless metric idioms are reported alongside algorithms; this could be verified by replicating a system-level user study with and without idiom-based algorithm comparison.
  • A broader implication is that quality measures crossing visual-idiom boundaries, which the paper names as a challenge, could eventually let algorithms reason about encoding choice itself, not just layout within a chosen idiom.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that Munzner's nested model for visualization design, which is primarily design-oriented, neglects the formal modeling step needed for algorithmic work. To remedy this, the author proposes inserting a "metric idiom" level between visual-encoding design and algorithm design. The metric idiom captures visualization quality through facets, constraints, and measures, and it serves as the basis for deriving formal computational problems. The paper then introduces adequacy (correspondence between the metric idiom and human-judged quality) and solvability (algorithmic solution quality and efficiency), discusses proxy models, trade-offs, and hidden facets, and illustrates the framework on matrix ordering, grid maps, overlap removal, and thematic maps. The central claim is that separating the question of "what to compute" from "how to compute" enables fairer comparison of visualization algorithms, better integration with Munzner's model, and new research opportunities.

Significance. If the proposed framework is adopted, it could genuinely improve how visualization algorithms are designed, evaluated, and compared, and it would give a concrete way to discuss quality without conflating the visual idiom with a particular algorithm. The paper is coherent, self-contained, and firmly grounded in established visualization literature, and it explicitly connects to prior work on quality metrics and the nested-blocks-and-guidelines model. It also ships a useful set of illustrative case studies that make the abstract framework tangible. Its value is conceptual rather than formal; there are no machine-checked proofs or parameter-free derivations, but the paper is a well-argued position piece that could shape research practice.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3 and Section 6.1] The algorithm-independence of the metric idiom is load-bearing for the separation-of-concerns claim, yet it rests on the undefined phrase 'assuming that they have been encoded appropriately' (Section 3; repeated in Section 6.1's downstream validation). For algorithmically generated layouts, an encoding is naturally provided by the algorithm's data structures; for manual layouts or layouts from other tools, the encoding must be reconstructed from a drawing. That reconstruction is itself a constructive act: different encodings of the same visual artifact could yield different node positions, edge routes, or symbol sizes, and therefore different evaluations under the same metric idiom. The paper asserts that the idiom is independent of any algorithm but does not supply a canonical encoding procedure or a demonstration that evaluations are invariant under faithful transcription. Without this
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2 / Figure 6] The text refers to 'various local maxima in the partial order', but in a partial order the relevant notion is that of maximal elements (Pareto-optimal layouts), not local maxima in the continuous or metric sense. Please adjust the wording to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section 3.4] The statement 'algorithms can inherently optimize only a single function' is too categorical; multi-objective optimization is an established and practically used approach. The intended point is that a computational problem for standard algorithm design is typically stated with one objective. Consider rephrasing, for example: 'for the formal treatment in this paper, we assume algorithms optimize a single objective after the metric idiom is narrowed to a computational problem.'
  3. [Section 4] Adequacy is first defined as a binary predicate ('A metric idiom is adequate if...') and then discussed as a matter of degree ('level of adequacy', 'high adequacy', Figure 5). Clarify whether adequacy is a graded notion (e.g., a correlation between idiom scores and human performance) or a binary threshold, since these have different methodological consequences.
  4. [Section 8.1] The description of Bach et al.'s algorithm as 'effectively sums all matrices' is presented as a factual characterization, but it appears to be a reverse-engineering based on later work by Van Beusekom et al. Consider hedging the claim, for example 'as reconstructed by Van Beusekom et al.'.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The claim that 'ad-hoc heuristics tend to be applied, reducing trustworthiness and potentially leading to incorrect conclusions' is an empirical assertion without systematic evidence. Since it is motivational rather than central, consider softening the wording or citing the quality-metrics survey [5] and related literature for support.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a self-contained conceptual proposal, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

This is a position/theory paper, not an empirical derivation. It introduces a modeling layer (the metric idiom) and defines adequacy and solvability as concepts and as a research program; it does not fit parameters and then rename them as predictions, and it does not derive a formal result from a self-citation. Self-citations appear in Section 8 only as worked examples of how existing algorithmic work could be interpreted under the proposed model (e.g., grid maps, overlap removal); the validity of the framework does not rest on these citations. The paper's central premise—that a metric idiom should be independent of any particular algorithm—is explicitly stated as an assumption: 'it should be possible to evaluate, for example, even manual layouts, assuming that they have been encoded appropriately' (Section 3). That is an acknowledged open condition, not a conclusion derived from its own definitions. The paper also explicitly discusses the difficulty of establishing adequacy and warns against overclaiming, further showing that the proposal is not presented as a foregone conclusion. No circular step can be exhibited from the text; the framework is self-contained and its usefulness is argued, not defined into existence.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The paper is a conceptual framework, so it introduces no numeric free parameters. The relevant assumptions are the domain beliefs that algorithms optimize something and that quality can be formalized independently of algorithms. The invented entities are theoretical constructs that organize an argument rather than empirical entities with independent handles.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Algorithms always solve a computational problem; they optimize something.
    This is stated in Section 3 and underlies the entire need for a metric idiom. If some algorithm operates without any implicit or explicit optimization objective, the framework would not apply to it.
  • domain assumption A metric idiom can be defined independently of any algorithm and can meaningfully capture visualization quality.
    In Section 3 the paper asserts 'it should be independent of any algorithm'. This separability is the load-bearing premise for the proposed separation of concerns.
  • domain assumption Munzner's nested model is incomplete and adding a metric idiom level is a valid and beneficial extension.
    The paper argues in Section 2 that the model omits a crucial modeling step. This is a judgment about the adequacy of an existing theoretical model.
invented entities (4)
  • metric idiom
    purpose: A formal description of visualization quality in terms of facets, constraints, and measures, positioned between the visual idiom and the algorithm.
    The paper defines the concept but provides no external validation or falsifiable prediction that would independently confirm its utility.
  • adequacy
    purpose: A measure of how well the metric idiom predicts human performance or preference.
    It is a conceptual tool for framing evaluation; the paper does not supply concrete adequacy measurements for any specific idiom.
  • solvability
    purpose: A measure of how well algorithms can optimize the metric idiom, including solution quality and efficiency.
    It is defined conceptually, not operationalized with specific problems or algorithms.
  • hidden facets
    purpose: Quality facets that are not explicit in a computational problem but are affected by the algorithm, potentially causing differences in real-world performance.
    The concept contributes to analysis but is not empirically measured or validated in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Algorithmic Perspective on Information Visualization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUSU6KEJ

@misc{pith2026260729360,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Algorithmic Perspective on Information Visualization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUSU6KEJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29360}
}
read the original abstract

Information visualization is inherently a field that brings together various research domains. Roughly speaking, we may identify two perspectives: the design perspective, revolving around how to ensure that a human can work effectively with the visual representations of data and the tools that offer them, and the algorithmic perspective, focusing on how to automatically create such visual representations. Munzner's model for visualization design places design choices before algorithmic considerations. It offers predominantly a design perspective; as a consequence, applications of this model may consider the algorithmic perspective as an afterthought, bypassing a step that translates the design into the formalism necessary for algorithmic study. As a result, the design may be entangled with the algorithms used to compute a visualization. Focusing on layout algorithms, we explore the ramifications of this entanglement: quality often goes undefined and unmeasured, and ad-hoc heuristics tend to be applied, reducing trustworthiness and potentially leading to incorrect conclusions. We look at how we may complement Munzner's model---the design perspective---with a clear model of the algorithmic perspective, to obtain a formal, measured understanding of the interplay between visualizations and the algorithms used to create them. Paradoxically, the solution lies in a clearer separation of concerns between design and algorithm. We argue that this model leads to better comparison between approaches, a more fine-grained understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, and allows for uncovering new opportunities, as to eventually lead to a better understanding of visualization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29360 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The four nested levels of Munzner’s model [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two ways of relating an algorithm to a visual idiom. In a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (left) Adequacy as the relation between assessment by humans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The need to balance between solvability and adequacy. Though [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Conceptualization of strategies for reducing the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) The standard problem-solving approach of divergent, then [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alper, N

    B. Alper, N. Riche, G. Ramos, and M. Czerwinski. Design study of LineSets, a novel set visualization technique.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12):2259–2267, 2011. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2011.186 6

    2011

  2. [2]

    B. Bach, N. Henry-Riche, T. Dwyer, T. Madhyastha, J.-D. Fekete, and T. Grabowski. Small MultiPiles: Piling time to explore temporal patterns in dynamic networks.Computer Graphics Forum, 34(3):31–40, 2015. doi: 10.1111/cgf.12615 8

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.12615 2015

  3. [3]

    Behrisch, B

    M. Behrisch, B. Bach, N. Henry Riche, T. Schreck, and J.-D. Fekete. Matrix reordering methods for table and network visualization.Computer Graphics Forum, 35(3):693–716, 2016. doi: 10.1111/cgf.12935 8

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.12935 2016

  4. [4]

    Behrisch, B

    M. Behrisch, B. Bach, M. Hund, M. Delz, L. V on Rüden, J.-D. Fekete et al. Magnostics: Image-based search of interesting matrix views for guided network exploration.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23(1):31–40, 2017. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598467 6

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Behrisch, M

    M. Behrisch, M. Blumenschein, N. W. Kim, L. Shao, M. El-Assady, J. Fuchs et al. Quality metrics for information visualization.Computer Graphics Forum, 37(3):625–662, 2018. doi: 10.1111/cgf.13446 1

    doi:10.1111/cgf.13446 2018

  6. [6]

    Bertini, A

    E. Bertini, A. Tatu, and D. Keim. Quality metrics in high-dimensional data visualization: An overview and systematization.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12):2203–2212, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.229 6

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2011.229 2011

  7. [7]

    Buchin, B

    K. Buchin, B. Speckmann, and K. Verbeek. Flow map layout via spi- ral trees.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12):2536–2544, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.202 9

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2011.202 2011

  8. [8]

    Cabello, H

    S. Cabello, H. Haverkort, M. Van Kreveld, and B. Speckmann. Algorithmic aspects of proportional symbol maps.Algorithmica, 58(3):543–565, 2010. doi: 10.1007/s00453-009-9281-8 3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00453-009-9281-8 2010

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Cabouat, S

    A.-F. Cabouat, S. Huron, T. Isenberg, and P. Isenberg. Readability as a multi-measure construct in data visualization. InProceedings of the CHI 2026 STAR Workshop – Science and Technology for Augmenting Reading, pp. 1–5, 2026. 3

    2026

  2. [10]

    Castermans, M

    T. Castermans, M. Van Garderen, W. Meulemans, M. Nöllenburg, and X. Yuan. Short plane supports for spatial hypergraphs.Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 23(3):463–498, 2019. doi: 10.7155/jgaa. 00499 6

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Chen and A

    M. Chen and A. Golan. What may visualization processes optimize?IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(12):2619–2632,

  4. [12]

    M. Chen, G. Grinstein, C. R. Johnson, J. Kennedy, and M. Tory. Pathways for theoretical advances in visualization.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 37(4):103–112, 2017. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2017.3271463 1, 2

    2017

  5. [13]

    M. Chen, H. Hauser, P. Rheingans, and G. Scheuermann.Foundations of data visualization. Springer, 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-34444-3 2

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Collins, G

    C. Collins, G. Penn, and S. Carpendale. Bubble Sets: Revealing set relations with isocontours over existing visualizations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 15(6):1009–1016, 2009. doi: 10 .1109/TVCG.2009.122 6

    2009

  7. [15]

    T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein.Introduction to algorithms. MIT Press, 2022. 4, 8

    2022

  8. [16]

    H. P. Cowley, M. Natter, K. Gray-Roncal, R. E. Rhodes, E. C. Johnson, N. Drenkow et al. A framework for rigorous evaluation of human per- formance in human and machine learning comparison studies.Scientific Reports, 12(1):Art. 5444, 2022. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08078-3 5

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Dasgupta and R

    A. Dasgupta and R. Kosara. Pargnostics: Screen-space metrics for parallel coordinates.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6):1017–1026, 2010. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2010.184 6

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Eppstein, M

    D. Eppstein, M. van Kreveld, B. Speckmann, and F. Staals. Improved grid map layout by point set matching.International Journal of Com- putational Geometry & Applications, 25(02):101–122, 2015. doi: 10. 1142/S0218195915500077 9

    2015

  11. [19]

    Gärtner, V

    B. Gärtner, V . Kalani, M. M. Reddy, W. Meulemans, B. Speckmann, and M. Stojakovi´c. Optimizing symbol visibility through displacement. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 505:Art. 129529, 2025. doi: 10. 1016/j.amc.2025.129529 3

    2025

  12. [20]

    Giovannangeli, F

    L. Giovannangeli, F. Lalanne, R. Giot, and R. Bourqui. Guaranteed visibility in scatterplots with tolerance.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1):792–802, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023. 3326596 3

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    J. P. Guilford. The structure of intellect.Psychological bulletin, 53(4):267– 293, 1956. doi: 10.1037/h0040755 8

    1956 doi

  14. [22]

    Henry, J.-D

    N. Henry, J.-D. Fekete, and M. J. McGuffin. NodeTrix: a hybrid visualiza- tion of social networks.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13(6):1302–1309, 2007. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2007.70582 6

    2007

  15. [23]

    Kindlmann and C

    G. Kindlmann and C. Scheidegger. An algebraic process for visualization design.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12):2181–2190, 2014. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346325 2, 3

    2014

  16. [24]

    D. J. Lehmann, S. Hundt, and H. Theisel. A study on quality metrics vs. human perception: Can visual measures help us to filter visualizations of interest?Information Technology, 57(1):11–21, 2015. doi: 10.1515/itit -2014-1070 5

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    I. Liiv. Seriation and matrix reordering methods: An historical overview. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, 3(2):70–91, 2010. doi: 10.1002/sam.10071 8

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    Mendling, H

    J. Mendling, H. Leopold, H. Meyerhenke, and B. Depaire. Methodology of algorithm engineering.ACM Computing Surveys, 58(4):1–38, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3769071 8

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Meulemans

    W. Meulemans. Efficient optimal overlap removal: Algorithms and ex- periments.Computer Graphics Forum, 38(3):713–723, 2019. doi: 10. 1111/cgf.13722 9

    2019

  20. [28]

    Meulemans

    W. Meulemans. A simple grid-maps pipeline: Restructured, accelerated and upgraded.Computer Graphics Forum, 45(3), 2026. Forthcoming. doi: 10.1111/cgf.70467 9

    2026 doi

  21. [29]

    Meulemans, J

    W. Meulemans, J. Dykes, A. Slingsby, C. Turkay, and J. Wood. Small multiples with gaps.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23(1):381–390, 2017. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598542 9

    2017

  22. [30]

    Meulemans, N

    W. Meulemans, N. H. Riche, B. Speckmann, B. Alper, and T. Dwyer. KelpFusion: A hybrid set visualization technique.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(11):1846–1858, 2013. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2013.76 7

    2013

  23. [31]

    Meulemans, M

    W. Meulemans, M. Sondag, and B. Speckmann. A simple pipeline for coherent grid maps.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1236–1246, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2020.3028953 9

    2021

  24. [32]

    Meyer, M

    M. Meyer, M. Sedlmair, P. S. Quinan, and T. Munzner. The nested blocks and guidelines model.Information Visualization, 14(3):234–249, 2015. doi: 10.1177/1473871613510429 1, 3, 9

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Moritz, C

    D. Moritz, C. Wang, G. L. Nelson, H. Lin, A. M. Smith, B. Howe et al. Formalizing visualization design knowledge as constraints: Actionable and extensible models in Draco.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):438–448, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018. 2865240 2

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    T. Munzner. A nested model for visualization design and validation.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 15(6):921–928,

  27. [35]

    Munzner.Visualization analysis and design

    T. Munzner.Visualization analysis and design. AK Peters/CRC Press,

  28. [36]

    H. C. Purchase, R. F. Cohen, and M. James. Validating graph drawing aesthetics. InProceedings of the International Symposium on Graph Drawing, LNCS 1027, pp. 435–446, 1995. doi: 10.1007/BFb0021827 5

    1995 doi

  29. [37]

    Satyanarayan, D

    A. Satyanarayan, D. Moritz, K. Wongsuphasawat, and J. Heer. Vega-Lite: A grammar of interactive graphics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23(1):341–350, 2017. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2016. 2599030 2

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Sedlmair and M

    M. Sedlmair and M. Aupetit. Data-driven evaluation of visual quality measures.Computer Graphics Forum, 34(3):201–210, 2015. doi: 10. 1111/cgf.12632 5

    2015

  31. [39]

    L. Shao, T. Schleicher, M. Behrisch, T. Schreck, I. Sipiran, and D. A. Keim. Guiding the exploration of scatter plot data using motif-based interest measures.Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 36:1–12,

  32. [40]

    Speckmann and K

    B. Speckmann and K. Verbeek. Necklace maps.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6):881–889, 2010. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2010.180 9

    2010

  33. [41]

    van Beusekom, W

    N. van Beusekom, W. Meulemans, and B. Speckmann. Simultaneous matrix orderings for graph collections.IEEE Transactions on Visualization 10 and Computer Graphics, 28(1):1–10, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021. 3114773 8

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    doi: 10.1016/j.jvlc.2016.07.003 6

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    van Garderen, B

    M. van Garderen, B. Pampel, A. Nocaj, and U. Brandes. Minimum- displacement overlap removal for geo-referenced data visualization.Com- puter Graphics Forum, 36(3):423–433, 2017. doi: 10.1111/cgf.13199 9

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    J. J. Van Wijk. The value of visualization. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Visualization, pp. 79–86, 2005. doi: 10.1109/VISUAL. 2005.1532781 2

    2005

  37. [45]

    van den Broek, W

    S. van den Broek, W. Meulemans, and B. Speckmann. SimpleSets: Cap- turing categorical point patterns with simple shapes.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(1):262–271, 2025. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2024.3456168 6

    2025

  38. [46]

    B. G. Wigert, V . R. Murugavel, and R. Reiter-Palmon. The utility of divergent and convergent thinking in the problem construction processes during creative problem-solving.Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 18(5):858–868, 2024. doi: 10.1037/aca0000513 8

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Wilkinson, A

    L. Wilkinson, A. Anand, and R. Grossman. Graph-theoretic scagnostics. InProceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, pp. 21–21, 2005. doi: 10.1109/INFVIS.2005.1532142 6

    2005

  40. [48]

    J. J. Van Wijk. Views on visualization.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12(4):421–432, 2006. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2006. 80 8

    2006 doi

  41. [51]

    Y . Zhao, H. Jiang, Q. Chen, Y . Qin, H. Xie, Y . Wu et al. Preserving minority structures in graph sampling.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1698–1708, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG. 2020.3030428 5 11

    2021

  42. [2009]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2009.111 1, 2, 7, 8, 9

    2009 doi

  43. [2016]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2513410 2

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.