State of the Art in Edge and Trail Bundling Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bundling techniques provide a visual simplification of a graph drawing or trail set, by spatially grouping similar graph edges or trails. This way, the structure of the visualization becomes simpler and thereby easier to comprehend in terms of assessing relations that are encoded by such paths, such as finding groups of strongly interrelated nodes in a graph, finding connections between spatial regions on a map linked by a number of vehicle trails, or discerning the motion structure of a set of objects by analyzing their paths. In this state of the art report, we aim to improve the understanding of graph and trail bundling via the following main contributions. First, we propose a data‐based taxonomy that organizes bundling methods on the type of data they work on (graphs vs trails, which we refer to as paths). Based on a formal definition of path bundling, we propose a generic framework that describes the typical steps of all bundling algorithms in terms of high‐level operations and show how existing method classes implement these steps. Next, we propose a description of tasks that bundling aims to address. Finally, we provide a wide set of example applications of bundling techniques and relate these to the above‐mentioned taxonomies. Through these contributions, we aim to help both researchers and users to understand the bundling landscape as well as its technicalities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".