A Grid-Based Method for Removing Overlaps of Dimensionality Reduction Scatterplot Layouts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dimensionality Reduction (DR) scatterplot layouts have become a ubiquitous visualization tool for analyzing multidimensional datasets. Despite their popularity, such scatterplots suffer from occlusion, especially when informative glyphs are used to represent data instances, potentially obfuscating critical information for the analysis under execution. Different strategies have been devised to address this issue, either producing overlap-free layouts that lack the powerful capabilities of contemporary DR techniques in uncovering interesting data patterns or eliminating overlaps as a post-processing strategy. Despite the good results of post-processing techniques, most of the best methods typically expand or distort the scatterplot area, thus reducing glyphs' size (sometimes) to unreadable dimensions, defeating the purpose of removing overlaps. This article presents Distance Grid (DGrid), a novel post-processing strategy to remove overlaps from DR layouts that faithfully preserves the original layout's characteristics and bounds the minimum glyph sizes. We show that DGrid surpasses the state-of-the-art in overlap removal (through an extensive comparative evaluation considering multiple different metrics) while also being one of the fastest techniques, especially for large datasets. A user study with 51 participants also shows that DGrid is consistently ranked among the top techniques for preserving the original scatterplots' visual characteristics and the aesthetics of the final results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".