Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 71 references

Existing graph systems leave a capability and performance gap for interactive network visualization and analysis; a first task-centered benchmark exposes it and finds bugs.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 00:21 UTC pith:3CHD4Y2W

load-bearing objection First real INVA backend benchmark with open artifacts; measured gaps and acknowledged bugs are solid, representativeness of the Markov workloads is the only real caveat. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03725 v1 pith:3CHD4Y2W submitted 2026-07-04 cs.DB

Task-Centered Benchmark for Interactive Network Visualization & Analysis

Ameya Patil , Wei Jun Tan , Ishan Sinha , Leilani Battle This is my paper
classification cs.DB
keywords interactive network visualizationgraph systems benchmarkingtask taxonomyworkload generationgraph databasesINVAscalabilitycorrectness
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.

Interactive network visualization and analysis (INVA) is how people iteratively explore large networks with both visual and algorithmic steps. Prior graph benchmarks test isolated algorithms or database-style queries, not these human-in-the-loop sequences. This paper builds the first task-centered benchmarking framework for INVA: it models analyst work as data scopes plus hierarchical analysis foci (graph, attribute, comparison), tasks, and system operations, then generates workloads with a configurable Markov transition matrix drawn from task taxonomies and published case studies. Running those workloads on backends of a dedicated INVA tool, two graph databases, and a scripting library shows that dedicated INVA systems often fail to scale or meet interactivity thresholds and sometimes return wrong answers, while graph databases and libraries handle larger data better. The results open concrete directions for systems that stay both scalable and usable for interactive network work.

Core claim

Existing graph systems leave a measurable gap in both the analyses they support and the performance they deliver on interactive network visualization and analysis workloads; a new task-centered benchmark is the first framework that can systematically measure that gap and expose correctness bugs on large networks.

What carries the argument

The INVA model: a hierarchical characterization of each interaction (analysis focus → analysis task → system operation) combined with data-scope selection, used by a Markov-based workload generator to produce sequences of workflows that approximate human network analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The model and transition matrix built from published taxonomies and case studies, rather than from logged sessions of real analysts, are assumed representative enough that the comparative rankings transfer to actual interactive use.

What would settle it

Collect interaction logs from domain experts performing INVA on the same or similar networks, regenerate workloads from those logs, re-run the same systems, and check whether the relative scalability, latency, and correctness rankings reverse or stay stable.

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

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a task-centered benchmarking framework for Interactive Network Visualization and Analysis (INVA). It defines a hierarchical INVA model (data scope + analysis focus/task/system operation) grounded in graph task taxonomies and domain case studies, implements a workload generator driven by a configurable Markov transition matrix, a synthetic data generator, and a benchmark driver, then evaluates backends of Cytoscape, Neo4j, Memgraph (and partially Tulip) against NetworKit reference results on eight undirected datasets. Metrics cover scalability limits, load and response times, exact/ranking correctness, workload completion time, and expressiveness (coverage, LOC, ease of implementation). Results show dedicated INVA tools lagging GDBs/GSLs on scale and latency, expose intermittent correctness bugs (some acknowledged by Cytoscape), and argue that GDBs are better positioned for large-scale INVA while calling for better interactivity notions for graph OLAP.

Significance. If the measured gaps and bugs hold under the generated workloads, the work supplies the first systematic, task-centered benchmark for human-in-the-loop network analysis and demonstrates concrete value by surfacing acknowledged correctness issues and clear performance differences (linked-list vs. contiguous storage, in-memory vs. disk, OpenMP). Artifacts (GitHub + OSF Docker) and multi-run measurements strengthen reproducibility. The contribution is primarily empirical and infrastructural rather than a new algorithm; its lasting value depends on how well the literature-derived Markov model transfers to real analyst sessions, which the authors already flag as future work.

major comments (3)
  1. §2.2.3 and §4.1: The central claim that systems leave a gap for INVA suitability rests on workloads generated from a literature-derived hierarchical model and a default Markov matrix M, not from logged expert sessions. While the authors correctly treat this as a limitation, the comparative rankings and “GDBs better equipped for INVA” takeaway (§3.3.6, §4.2) still generalize from this unvalidated proxy. A concrete sensitivity analysis (varying M, reporting rank stability) or a small expert-workflow validation set is needed before the suitability conclusions can be treated as more than preliminary under the stated model.
  2. §3.2.2–3.2.3 and §3.3: Only three systems receive full workload runs (Cytoscape, Neo4j, Memgraph); Tulip is partial, TigerGraph results are omitted for legal reasons, and NetworkX/Kuzu/Gephi are rejected. The category-level claim that “graph databases are better equipped … than dedicated INVA systems” (§3.3.5–3.3.6, §4.2) therefore rests on a single dedicated INVA tool that already has known scale and correctness issues. Either expand the INVA-system sample or narrow the claim to the evaluated backends.
  3. §3.1.3–3.1.4 and Figs. 6–10: Correctness and latency are reported only for a “select few” system operations that reveal differences; many operations listed in Table 1b lack per-operation plots or accuracy numbers. Because the interactivity-threshold and bug-finding claims are load-bearing, the paper should either (a) supply the full per-operation appendix or (b) justify that the selected subset is representative of the three analysis foci rather than cherry-picked.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the INVA model and Markov workloads are constructed from external taxonomies and literature, then used as independent test inputs against external systems and a NetworKit reference.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: existing graph systems leave capability and performance gaps for interactive network visualization and analysis, and a new task-centered benchmark can expose them. The derivation chain is (1) synthesize an INVA model from prior external graph task taxonomies (Lee et al., Nobre et al., operational survey [4]) and domain case studies, (2) generate workloads via a configurable Markov transition matrix whose default is set from literature observation, (3) run those workloads on Cytoscape, Neo4j, Memgraph (and NetworKit as reference), and (4) report measured scalability limits, load/response times, correctness failures, and expressiveness. None of these steps is self-definitional: the model does not define the measured gaps, the transition matrix is not fitted to force a preferred ranking, and correctness is checked against an independent NetworKit reference (with Cytoscape acknowledging bugs). Self-citation of the authors' own survey [4] supplies taxonomy material but is not load-bearing for the performance/correctness results. Representativeness of the synthetic workloads is an acknowledged limitation (§2.2.3, §4.1), not a circular reduction. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central comparative claims rest on a constructed model of analyst behavior, a small set of hand-chosen experimental knobs, and standard graph-systems assumptions—not on free physical constants or new particles. The main invented construct is the INVA hierarchy and generator; free parameters are the transition matrix, interactivity threshold, and workload/dataset design choices.

free parameters (4)
  • INVA transition probability matrix M (default configuration)
    Markov transitions among analysis foci/tasks are set from authors’ reading of prior INVA case studies; different M yields different workloads and can change which operations dominate latency rankings.
  • 1-second interactivity threshold
    Annotated on response-time plots from Nielsen’s classic UI limits; not measured for graph analysis tasks, yet used to interpret when systems ‘fail’ interactivity.
  • Workload length m and per-workflow interaction counts
    Chosen design parameters for W1–W8 (Table 3); affect workload completion time comparisons.
  • Data-scope sampling policy (weighted reuse of prior scope, uniform attribute sample ≥2)
    Controls how often filters/k-hop scopes shrink the graph; influences measured response times and which bugs appear.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Graph analysis tasks can be partitioned into Graph / Attribute / Comparison foci with nested tasks and system operations (Lee et al., Nobre et al., operational survey [4]).
    Foundation of the INVA model in §2.2.1; if the taxonomy is incomplete, coverage and workload semantics are incomplete.
  • ad hoc to paper Literature-derived Markov transitions plus random data-scope selection adequately stand in for expert analyst behavior for preliminary system comparison.
    Explicitly chosen instead of user studies (§2.2); authors flag need for formal validation (§4.1).
  • domain assumption NetworKit results are a valid reference for exact and ranking-based correctness of deterministic graph operations.
    Used throughout §3.1.4 and correctness plots; stochastic ops (layout, clustering) are excluded from correctness.
  • domain assumption Evaluating Python drivers against single-machine backends with default algorithms fairly represents typical non-expert INVA use.
    Stated in §3.2.3; distributed modes and tuned algorithms are out of scope.
  • standard math Standard complexity and systems facts (e.g., vector vs linked-list storage, in-memory vs disk GDB) explain observed performance orderings.
    Used interpretively in §3.3; not proved in-paper but conventional systems reasoning.
invented entities (2)
  • Hierarchical INVA model (data scope + analysis focus/task/system operation) no independent evidence
    purpose: Generate semantically structured interactive network workloads for benchmarking.
    Core modeling contribution of §2.2; independent evidence is only indirect via alignment with prior taxonomies and case studies, not human session logs.
  • Task-centered INVA benchmarking framework (workload generator + data generator + driver) independent evidence
    purpose: Comparatively evaluate graph system backends on INVA workloads.
    The artifact under evaluation; value is demonstrated by experiments, not by external prior existence.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 27098 in / 3439 out tokens · 31906 ms · 2026-07-12T00:21:33.415236+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Interactive network visualization and analysis (INVA) enables iterative, visual and algorithmic analysis of large network datasets. Although numerous benchmarks have been developed to evaluate different graph analysis algorithms and systems, we observe a lack of such efforts for interactive network data understanding. In this work, we address the question - How well do existing graph systems serve the purpose of Interactive Network Visualization and Analysis? To this end, we build and demonstrate the use of the first task-centered benchmarking framework to evaluate a variety of graph system backends on INVA workloads. Our benchmarking results highlight a gap between both the capabilities and performance of existing graph systems for INVA use cases, and uncover possible bugs in these systems. Based on our benchmarking results, we reveal new opportunities for research and development to better support interactive network visualization and analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03725 by Ameya Patil, Ishan Sinha, Leilani Battle, Wei Jun Tan.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Characterizing INVA workflow and workload. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Average data load time across 3 runs with raw val [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average response time across 3 runs with raw values (top row) and average accuracy across 3 runs (bottom row) vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Summary of correctness in terms of accuracy, of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results for reponse time and correctness ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results for response time and correctness ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results for response time and query correctness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Workload completion time for each test system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.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

71 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Maksudul Alam and Kalyan Perumalla. 2021. Fast GPU-Based Generation of Large Graph Networks From Degree Distributions.Frontiers in Big Data Volume 4 - 2021 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2021.737963

    work page doi:10.3389/fdata.2021.737963 2021

  2. [2]

    Armstrong, Vamsi Ponnekanti, Dhruba Borthakur, and Mark Callaghan

    Timothy G. Armstrong, Vamsi Ponnekanti, Dhruba Borthakur, and Mark Callaghan. 2013. LinkBench: a database benchmark based on the Facebook so- cial graph. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, New York New York USA, 1185–1196. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2463676.2465296

    work page doi:10.1145/2463676.2465296 2013

  3. [3]

    David Auber. 2004. Tulip — A Huge Graph Visualization Framework. In Graph Drawing Software, Gerald Farin, Hans-Christian Hege, David Hoffman, Christo- pher R. Johnson, Konrad Polthier, Michael Jünger, and Petra Mutzel (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 105–126. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-642-18638-7_5 Series Title: Mathematics and...

    2004

  4. [4]

    Anonymous authors. 2026. Scalability and Interactivity in Network Visualization & Analysis: a Survey. Available as supplementary material with this submission

    2026

  5. [5]

    Hadis Azizi, Mohammad Sadra Amini, Sadegh Sulaimany, and Aso Mafakheri

  6. [6]

    Scientific reports 15, 1 (September 2025), 32036

    Visibility graph analysis for educational data: potentials and a case study of predicting at-risk online students. Scientific reports 15, 1 (September 2025), 32036. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-17760-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-17760-1 2025

  7. [7]

    Mathieu Bastian, Sebastien Heymann, and Mathieu Jacomy. 2009. Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks.Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 3, 1 (March 2009), 361–362. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13937

    doi:10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13937 2009

  8. [8]

    Jordan Crouser, Audace Nakeshimana, Ananda Montoly, Remco Chang, and Michael Stonebraker

    Leilani Battle, R. Jordan Crouser, Audace Nakeshimana, Ananda Montoly, Remco Chang, and Michael Stonebraker. 2020. The Role of Latency and Task Complexity in Predicting Visual Search Behavior. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 1246–1255. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019. 2934556

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019 2020

  9. [10]

    In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGMOD ’20)

    Database Benchmarking for Supporting Real-Time Interactive Querying of Large Data. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGMOD ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1571–1587. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3318464.3389732

    arXiv 2020

  10. [11]

    Leilani Battle, Philipp Eichmann, Marco Angelini, Tiziana Catarci, Giuseppe Santucci, Yukun Zheng, Carsten Binnig, Jean-Daniel Fekete, and Dominik Moritz

  11. [12]

    In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data

    Database Benchmarking for Supporting Real-Time Interactive Querying of Large Data. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, Portland OR USA, 1571–1587. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3318464.3389732

    doi:10.1145/3318464.3389732 2020

  12. [13]

    Tamer Ozsu, Yuanyuan Tian, Hannes Voigt, Wenyuan Yu, and Enjie Zhang

    Angela Bonifati, M. Tamer Ozsu, Yuanyuan Tian, Hannes Voigt, Wenyuan Yu, and Enjie Zhang. 2025. A Roadmap to Graph Analytics. SIGMOD Rec. 53, 4 (Jan. 2025), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1145/3712311.3712323

    work page doi:10.1145/3712311.3712323 2025

  13. [14]

    Fried, Richard J

    Denny Borsboom, Marie Katharina Deserno, Mijke Rhemtulla, Sacha Epskamp, Eiko I. Fried, Richard J. McNally, Donald J. Robinaugh, Marco Perugini, Jonas Dalege, Giulio Costantini, Adela-Maria Isvoranu, Anna C. Wysocki, Claudia D van Borkulo, Riet van Bork, and Lourens J. Waldorp. 2021. Network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science. Nature R...

    2021

  14. [15]

    Theodosia Charitou, Kenneth Bryan, and {David J.} Lynn. 2016. Using biological networks to integrate, visualize and analyze genomics data. Genetics Selection Evolution 48, 1 (31 March 2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-016-0205-1 Publisher Copyright:©2016 Charitou et al

    work page doi:10.1186/s12711-016-0205-1 2016

  15. [16]

    Ting Chen, Zihao Li, Yuxiao Zhu, Jiachi Chen, Xiapu Luo, John Chi-Shing Lui, Xiaodong Lin, and Xiaosong Zhang. 2020. Understanding Ethereum via Graph Analysis. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 20, 2 (May 2020), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3381036

    work page doi:10.1145/3381036 2020

  16. [17]

    Sajad Darabi, Piotr Bigaj, Dawid Majchrowski, Artur Kasymov, Pawel Morkisz, and Alex Fit-Florea. 2025. A Framework for Large-Scale Synthetic Graph Dataset Generation. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 36, 8 (August 2025), 14258—14268. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnnls.2025.3540392

    work page doi:10.1109/tnnls.2025.3540392 2025

  17. [18]

    Dask Development Team. 2016. Dask: Library for dynamic task scheduling. http://dask.pydata.org

    2016

  18. [19]

    Blelloch, and Julian Shun

    Laxman Dhulipala, Jessica Shi, Tom Tseng, Guy E. Blelloch, and Julian Shun

  19. [20]

    In Proceedings of the 3rd Joint International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences & Systems (GRADES) and Network Data Analytics (NDA)

    The Graph Based Benchmark Suite (GBBS). In Proceedings of the 3rd Joint International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences & Systems (GRADES) and Network Data Analytics (NDA). ACM, Portland OR USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3398682.3399168

    work page doi:10.1145/3398682.3399168

  20. [21]

    Philipp Eichmann, Emanuel Zgraggen, Carsten Binnig, and Tim Kraska. 2020. IDEBench: A Benchmark for Interactive Data Exploration. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, Portland OR USA, 1555–1569. https://doi.org/qzdr

    2020

  21. [22]

    Orri Erling, Alex Averbuch, Josep Larriba-Pey, Hassan Chafi, Andrey Gubichev, Arnau Prat, Minh-Duc Pham, and Peter Boncz. 2015. The LDBC Social Network Benchmark: Interactive Workload. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, Melbourne Victoria Australia, 619–630. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723372.2742786

    doi:10.1145/2723372.2742786 2015

  22. [23]

    FalkorDB Graph Database

    FalkorDB [n.d.]. FalkorDB Graph Database. https://www.falkordb.com/

  23. [24]

    Velitchko Filipov, Alessio Arleo, and Silvia Miksch. 2023. Are We There Yet? A Roadmap of Network Visualization from Surveys to Task Taxonomies.Computer Graphics Forum 42, 6 (Sept. 2023), e14794. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14794

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.14794 2023

  24. [25]

    Sneha Gathani, Shayan Monadjemi, Alvitta Ottley, and Leilani Battle. 2022. A Grammar-Based Approach for Applying Visualization Taxonomies to Interaction Logs. Computer Graphics Forum 41, 3 (June 2022), 489–500. https://doi.org/10. 1111/cgf.14557

    2022

  25. [26]

    Piotr Hadaj, Dominik Strzałka, Marek Nowak, Małgorzata Łatka, and Paweł Dymora. 2022. The use of PLANS and NetworkX in modeling power grid system failures. Scientific Reports 12, Article 17445 (Oct. 2022), 17445 pages. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22268-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-022-22268-z 2022

  26. [27]

    Swart, and Daniel A

    Aric Hagberg, Pieter J. Swart, and Daniel A. Schult. 2008. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. (1 2008). https://www.osti. gov/biblio/960616 https://networkx.org/documentation/stable/index.html

    2008

  27. [28]

    Oliver Huang and Carolina Nobre. 2025. ViStruct: Simulating Expert-Like Reason- ing Through Task Decomposition and Visual Attention. 2025 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS) (2025), 216–220. https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusId:280010918

    2025

  28. [29]

    The LDBC Graphalytics Benchmark

    Alexandru Iosup, Ahmed Musaafir, Alexandru Uta, Arnau Prat-Pérez, Gábor Szárnyas, Hassan Chafi, Ilie Gabriel Tanase, Lifeng Nai, Michael J. Anderson, Mihai Capota, Narayanan Sundaram, Peter A. Boncz, Siegfried Depner, Stijn Heldens, Thomas Manhardt, Tim Hegeman, Wing Lung Ngai, and Yinglong Xia. 2020. The LDBC Graphalytics Benchmark. CoRR abs/2011.15028 (...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.15028 2020

  29. [31]

    Ghazal Kalhor, Amin Asadi Sarijalou, Niloofar Sharifi Sadr, and Behnam Bahrak

  30. [32]

    Applied Network Science 7 (2022)

    A new insight to the analysis of co-authorship in Google Scholar. Applied Network Science 7 (2022). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:248028142

    2022

  31. [33]

    Natalie Kerracher, Jessie Kennedy, and Kevin Chalmers. 2015. A Task Taxon- omy for Temporal Graph Visualisation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 21, 10 (Oct. 2015), 1160–1172. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG. 2015.2424889

    doi:10.1109/tvcg 2015

  32. [34]

    Vesa Kuikka, Lauri Pykälä, Tuomas Takko, and Kimmo K. Kaski. 2025. Network modelling in analysing cyber-related graphs. Frontiers in Complex Systems Volume 3 - 2025 (2025). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcpxs.2025.1620260

    work page doi:10.3389/fcpxs.2025.1620260 2025

  33. [35]

    Kuzu [n.d.]. Kuzu. https://kuzudb.github.io/

  34. [36]

    Bongshin Lee, Catherine Plaisant, Cynthia Sims Parr, Jean-Daniel Fekete, and Nathalie Henry. 2006. Task taxonomy for graph visualization. In Proceedings of the 2006 AVI workshop on BEyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for information visualization. ACM, Venice Italy, 1–5. https://doi.org/b2pm7w

    2006

  35. [37]

    Hellerstein

    Yucheng Low, Danny Bickson, Joseph Gonzalez, Carlos Guestrin, Aapo Kyrola, and Joseph M. Hellerstein. 2012. Distributed GraphLab: a framework for machine learning and data mining in the cloud. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 5, 8 (April 2012), 716–727. https://doi.org/10.14778/2212351.2212354

    work page doi:10.14778/2212351.2212354 2012

  36. [38]

    Austern, Aart J.C Bik, James C

    Grzegorz Malewicz, Matthew H. Austern, Aart J.C Bik, James C. Dehnert, Ilan Horn, Naty Leiser, and Grzegorz Czajkowski. 2010. Pregel: a system for large- scale graph processing. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data. ACM, Indianapolis Indiana USA, 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1145/1807167.1807184

    doi:10.1145/1807167.1807184 2010

  37. [39]

    MemGraph Graph Database

    MemGraph [n.d.]. MemGraph Graph Database. https://memgraph.com/

  38. [40]

    MemGraph Advanced Graph Extensions

    Memgraph MAGE [n.d.]. MemGraph Advanced Graph Extensions. https: //memgraph.com/docs/advanced-algorithms/install-mage

  39. [41]

    Lingkai Meng, Yu Shao, Long Yuan, Longbin Lai, Peng Cheng, Xue Li, Wenyuan Yu, Wenjie Zhang, Xuemin Lin, and Jingren Zhou. 2024. A Survey of Distributed Graph Algorithms on Massive Graphs. ACM Comput. Surv. 57, 2, Article 27 (Oct. 2024), 39 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3694966

    work page doi:10.1145/3694966 2024

  40. [42]

    Lingkai Meng, Yu Shao, Long Yuan, Longbin Lai, Peng Cheng, Xue Li, Wenyuan Yu, Wenjie Zhang, Xuemin Lin, and Jingren Zhou. 2025. Revisiting Graph Analytics Benchmark. Proc. ACM Manag. Data 3, 3, Article 208 (June 2025), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3725345

    work page doi:10.1145/3725345 2025

  41. [43]

    Neo4j Graph Database

    Neo4j [n.d.]. Neo4j Graph Database. https://neo4j.com/

  42. [44]

    Neo4j - APOC Library

    Neo4j APOC [n.d.]. Neo4j - APOC Library. https://neo4j.com/labs/apoc/

  43. [45]

    Neo4j - Graph Data Science Library

    Neo4j GDS [n.d.]. Neo4j - Graph Data Science Library. https://neo4j.com/docs/ graph-data-science/current/

  44. [46]

    Neo4j - Python Driver

    Neo4j Python Driver [n.d.]. Neo4j - Python Driver. https://neo4j.com/docs/api/ python-driver/current/

  45. [47]

    Jakob Nielsen. [n.d.]. Response Times: The 3 Important Limits. https://www. nngroup.com/articles/response-times-3-important-limits/

  46. [48]

    Carolina Nobre, Marc Streit, Miriah Meyer, and Alexander Lex. 2019. The State of the Art in Visualizing Multivariate Networks. Computer Graphics Forum (EuroVis) 38 (2019), 807–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13728 13

    doi:10.1111/cgf.13728 2019

  47. [49]

    Derek O’Callaghan, Derek Greene, Maura Conway, Joe Carthy, and Pádraig Cunningham. 2013. Uncovering the wider structure of extreme right communi- ties spanning popular online networks. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference. ACM, Paris France, 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2464464.2464495

    arXiv 2013

  48. [50]

    Purchase, and John T

    Johannes Pretorius, Helen C. Purchase, and John T. Stasko. 2014. Tasks for Multivariate Network Analysis. In Multivariate Network Visualization, Andreas Kerren, Helen C. Purchase, and Matthew O. Ward (Eds.). Vol. 8380. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06793- 3_5 Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06793- 2014

  49. [51]

    Joanna Purich, Anthony Wise, and Leilani Battle. 2025. An Adaptive Benchmark for Modeling User Exploration of Large Datasets. Proc. ACM Manag. Data 3, 1, Article 8 (Feb. 2025), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3709658

    work page doi:10.1145/3709658 2025

  50. [52]

    Py4Cytoscape Driver

    Py4Cytoscape [n.d.]. Py4Cytoscape Driver. https://py4cytoscape.readthedocs. io/en/latest/

  51. [53]

    Shipeng Qi, Bing Tong, Jiatao Hu, Heng Lin, Yue Pang, Wei Yuan, Songlin Lyu, Zhihui Guo, Ke Huang, Xujin Ba, Qiang Yin, Youren Shen, Yan Zhou, Tao Lv, Jia Li, Lei Zou, Yongwei Wu, Gábor Szárnyas, Xiaowei Zhu, Wenguang Chen, and Chuntao Hong. 2025. The LDBC Financial Benchmark: Transaction Workload. Proc. VLDB Endow. 18, 9 (September 2025), 3007–3020. http...

    arXiv 2025

  52. [55]

    Pedro Ribeiro, Pedro Paredes, Miguel E. P. Silva, David Aparicio, and Fernando Silva. 2022. A Survey on Subgraph Counting: Concepts, Algorithms, and Appli- cations to Network Motifs and Graphlets. Comput. Surveys 54, 2 (March 2022), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3433652

    work page doi:10.1145/3433652 2022

  53. [56]

    Rodriguez, Cesar H

    Mayra Z. Rodriguez, Cesar H. Comin, Dalcimar Casanova, Odemir M. Bruno, Diego R. Amancio, Luciano da F. Costa, and Francisco A. Rodrigues. 2019. Cluster- ing algorithms: A comparative approach. PLOS ONE 14, 1 (Jan. 2019), e0210236. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210236

    doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210236 2019

  54. [57]

    Rossi and Nesreen K

    Ryan A. Rossi and Nesreen K. Ahmed. 2015. The Network Data Reposi- tory with Interactive Graph Analytics and Visualization. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Austin, Texas) (AAAI’15). AAAI Press, 4292–4293. http://networkrepository.com

    2015

  55. [58]

    Amitabha Roy, Ivo Mihailovic, and Willy Zwaenepoel. 2013. X-Stream: edge- centric graph processing using streaming partitions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (Farminton, Pennsylvania) (SOSP ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 472–488. https://doi.org/10.1145/2517349.2522740

    doi:10.1145/2517349.2522740 2013

  56. [59]

    Bahador Saket, Paolo Simonetto, and Stephen Kobourov. 2014. Group-Level Graph Visualization Taxonomy. InEuroVis - Short Papers, N. Elmqvist, M. Hlaw- itschka, and J. Kennedy (Eds.). The Eurographics Association. https://doi.org/ 10.2312/eurovisshort.20141162

    work page doi:10.2312/eurovisshort.20141162 2014

  57. [60]

    Baliga, Jonathan T

    Paul Shannon, Andrew Markiel, Owen Ozier, Nitin S. Baliga, Jonathan T. Wang, Daniel Ramage, Nada Amin, Benno Schwikowski, and Trey Ideker. 2003. Cy- toscape: A Software Environment for Integrated Models of Biomolecular In- teraction Networks. Genome Research 13, 11 (Nov. 2003), 2498–2504. https: //doi.org/10.1101/gr.1239303

    doi:10.1101/gr.1239303 2003

  58. [61]

    Staudt, Aleksejs Sazonovs, and Henning Meyerhenke

    Christian L. Staudt, Aleksejs Sazonovs, and Henning Meyerhenke. 2015. NetworKit: A Tool Suite for Large-scale Complex Network Analysis. arXiv:1403.3005 [cs.SI] https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [62]

    Yuanyuan Tian. 2023. The World of Graph Databases from An Industry Perspec- tive. SIGMOD Rec. 51, 4 (Jan. 2023), 60–67. https://doi.org/qzds

    2023

  60. [63]

    TigerGraph Graph Database

    TigerGraph [n.d.]. TigerGraph Graph Database. https://www.tigergraph.com/

  61. [64]

    Alok Tripathy, Fred Hohman, Duen Horng Chau, and Oded Green. 2018. Scalable K-Core Decomposition for Static Graphs Using a Dynamic Graph Data Structure. In IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data). IEEE. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/BigData.2018.8622056

    work page doi:10.1109/bigdata.2018.8622056 2018

  62. [65]

    Tulip Python

    Tulip Python [n.d.]. Tulip Python. https://tulip.labri.fr/Documentation/current/ tulip-python/html/index.html

  63. [66]

    Zhaohua Wang, Xuewei Li, Xin Zhu, Jing Li, Fan Wang, and Fei Wang. 2021. Big data-driven public transportation network: a simulation approach. Complex & Intelligent Systems 9 (07 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-021-00462-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s40747-021-00462-2 2021

  64. [67]

    Wojcik, Nicole M

    Deborah J. Wojcik, Nicole M. Ardoin, and Rachelle K. Gould. 2021. Using social network analysis to explore and expand our understanding of a robust environ- mental learning landscape. Environmental Education Research 27 (2021), 1263 –

    2021

  65. [68]

    https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:236345328

  66. [69]

    Shufei Wu and Jianfeng Hou. 2023. Graph partitioning: an updated survey. AKCE International Journal of Graphs and Combinatorics 20, 1 (Jan. 2023), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09728600.2022.2148589

    doi:10.1080/09728600.2022.2148589 2023

  67. [70]

    Yifan Wu, Ziyang Guo, Michalis Mamakos, Jason Hartline, and Jessica Hullman

  68. [71]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023), 1–10

    The Rational Agent Benchmark for Data Visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2023.3326513

    arXiv 2023

  69. [72]

    Xin, Joseph E

    Reynold S. Xin, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Michael J. Franklin, and Ion Stoica. 2013. GraphX: a resilient distributed graph system on Spark. In First International Workshop on Graph Data Management Experiences and Systems (New York, New York) (GRADES ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 2, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2484425.2484427

    doi:10.1145/2484425.2484427 2013

  70. [73]

    Pérez, and Victor Muntés-Mulero

    Álvaro Brandón, Marc Solé, Alberto Huélamo, David Solans, María S. Pérez, and Victor Muntés-Mulero. 2020. Graph-based root cause analysis for service- oriented and microservice architectures. Journal of Systems and Software 159 (2020), 110432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110432

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2019.110432 2020

  71. [74]

    Örjan Bodin and Beatrice I. Crona. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change 19, 3 (2009), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2009.05.002 14 A BENCHMARK DRIVER The benchmark driver module serves three purposes (1) provides a blueprint for test system...

    doi:10.1016/j 2009