Reyan Ahmed, Cesim Erten, Stephen Kobourov, Jonah Lotz, Jacob Miller, Hamlet Taraz
{"title":"Size Should not Matter: Scale-invariant Stress Metrics","authors":"Reyan Ahmed, Cesim Erten, Stephen Kobourov, Jonah Lotz, Jacob Miller, Hamlet Taraz","doi":"arxiv-2408.04688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The normalized stress metric measures how closely distances between vertices\nin a graph drawing match the graph-theoretic distances between those vertices.\nIt is one of the most widely employed quality metrics for graph drawing, and is\neven the optimization goal of several popular graph layout algorithms. However,\nnormalized stress can be misleading when used to compare the outputs of two or\nmore algorithms, as it is sensitive to the size of the drawing compared to the\ngraph-theoretic distances used. Uniformly scaling a layout will change the\nvalue of stress despite not meaningfully changing the drawing. In fact, the\nchange in stress values can be so significant that a clearly better layout can\nappear to have a worse stress score than a random layout. In this paper, we\nstudy different variants for calculating stress used in the literature (raw\nstress, normalized stress, etc.) and show that many of them are affected by\nthis problem, which threatens the validity of experiments that compare the\nquality of one algorithm to that of another. We then experimentally justify one\nof the stress calculation variants, scale-normalized stress, as one that fairly\ncompares drawing outputs regardless of their size. We also describe an\nefficient computation for scale-normalized stress and provide an open source\nimplementation.","PeriodicalId":501570,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Computational Geometry","volume":"95 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Computational Geometry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2408.04688","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The normalized stress metric measures how closely distances between vertices
in a graph drawing match the graph-theoretic distances between those vertices.
It is one of the most widely employed quality metrics for graph drawing, and is
even the optimization goal of several popular graph layout algorithms. However,
normalized stress can be misleading when used to compare the outputs of two or
more algorithms, as it is sensitive to the size of the drawing compared to the
graph-theoretic distances used. Uniformly scaling a layout will change the
value of stress despite not meaningfully changing the drawing. In fact, the
change in stress values can be so significant that a clearly better layout can
appear to have a worse stress score than a random layout. In this paper, we
study different variants for calculating stress used in the literature (raw
stress, normalized stress, etc.) and show that many of them are affected by
this problem, which threatens the validity of experiments that compare the
quality of one algorithm to that of another. We then experimentally justify one
of the stress calculation variants, scale-normalized stress, as one that fairly
compares drawing outputs regardless of their size. We also describe an
efficient computation for scale-normalized stress and provide an open source
implementation.