ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
TreeJuxtaposer: scalable tree comparison using Focus+Context with guaranteed visibility
Full text MovMov (27:45),  PdfPdf (1.09 MB)
Source ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) archive
Volume 22 ,  Issue 3  (July 2003) table of contents
Special issue: Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2003
SESSION: Visualization and printing table of contents
Pages: 453 - 462  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISSN:0730-0301
Also published in ...
Authors
Tamara Munzner  University of British Columbia
François Guimbretière  University of Maryland
Serdar Tasiran  Hewlett Packard Systems Research Center
Li Zhang  Hewlett Packard Systems Research Center
Yunhong Zhou  Hewlett Packard Systems Research Center
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 20,   Downloads (12 Months): 126,   Citation Count: 15
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues   peer to peer  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
Save this Article to a Binder    Display Formats: BibTex  EndNote ACM Ref   
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/882262.882291
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Structural comparison of large trees is a difficult task that is only partially supported by current visualization techniques, which are mainly designed for browsing. We present TreeJuxtaposer, a system designed to support the comparison task for large trees of several hundred thousand nodes. We introduce the idea of "guaranteed visibility", where highlighted areas are treated as landmarks that must remain visually apparent at all times. We propose a new methodology for detailed structural comparison between two trees and provide a new nearly-linear algorithm for computing the best corresponding node from one tree to another. In addition, we present a new rectilinear Focus+Context technique for navigation that is well suited to the dynamic linking of side-by-side views while guaranteeing landmark visibility and constant frame rates. These three contributions result in a system delivering a fluid exploration experience that scales both in the size of the dataset and the number of pixels in the display. We have based the design decisions for our system on the needs of a target audience of biologists who must understand the structural details of many phylogenetic, or evolutionary, trees. Our tool is also useful in many other application domains where tree comparison is needed, ranging from network management to call graph optimization to genealogy.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
ADAMS, E. N. 1972. Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees. Systematic Zoology 21, 390--397.
 
2
 
3
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
CARD, S. K., AND NATION, D. 2002. Degree-of-interest trees: A component of an attention-reactive user interface. In Proc. Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI 2002).
 
9
 
10
 
11
DAY, W. H. E. 1985. Optimal algorithms for comparing trees with labeled leaves. Journal of Classification 2, 7--28.
12
 
13
 
14
GUIMBRETIÈRE, F. 2001. Fluid interaction for high-resolution wall-size displays. PhD thesis, Stanford University.
 
15
 
16
17
 
18
 
19
LYNCH, K. 1960. Image of the City. MIT Press.
 
20
MADDISON, D., AND MADDISON, W., 1992. MacClade: Analysis of phylogeny and character evolution.
 
21
MARGUSH, T., AND MCMORRIS, F. R. 1981. Consensus n-trees. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 3, 239--244.
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
PLAISANT, C., GROSJEAN, J., AND BEDERSON, B. 2002. SpaceTree: Design evolution of a node link tree browser. In Proc. InfoVis 2002.
 
27
28
29
 
30
ROBINSON, D. F., AND FOULDS, L. R. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Mathematical Biosience 53, 131--147.
 
31
ROST, U., AND BORNBERG-BAUER, E. 2002. Treewiz: interactive exploration of huge trees. Bioinformatics 18, 1, 109--114.
32
 
33
 
34
SHIVAKUMAR, N., AND GARCÍA-MOLINA, H. 1995. SCAM: A copy detection mechanism for digital documents. In Proc. 2nd Annual Conf. on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries.
 
35
SOKAL, R. R., AND ROHLF, F. J. 1981. Taxonomic congruence in the Leptopodomorpha re-examined. Systematic Zoology 30, 309--325.
 
36
SWOFFORD, D. L., 1998. PAUP* 4.0 - Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods).
37
 
38
 
39
ZHANG, L. 2003. On matching nodes between trees. Tech. Rep. 2003-67, HP Labs.

CITED BY  15
 
 

Collaborative Colleagues:
Tamara Munzner: colleagues
François Guimbretière: colleagues
Serdar Tasiran: colleagues
Li Zhang: colleagues
Yunhong Zhou: colleagues

Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read: