Analysis of ego-networks is a critical research problem when analyzing large-scale social networks, as an ego-network represents the social circle a person actually contacts with. One of the core tasks in ego-network analysis is visual comparison, which includes edge comparison and node comparison. Although various works have been done to support comparing normal networks and ego-networks, intuitive node comparison of two ego-networks is still challenging. In this article, we propose egoComp, an intuitive and expressive visualization technique, to analyze the node difference between two ego-networks. To preserve the latent structure of ego-network and lay emphasis on intuitiveness, our design is node-link-based (radial tree layout) and uses a side-by-side method to compare ego-networks. We design a novel storyflow-like graph layout to reveal the relationship of two ego-networks at the individual node level. Furthermore, three different layout algorithms, including origin, greedy, and assignment algorithms, are proposed to meet different user requirements. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our system through case studies and a user study and then discuss the limitations thoroughly as well as the possible solutions and potential future work.
HeerJBoydD.Vizster: visualizing online social networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on information visualization, Minneapolis, MN, 23–25 October 2005, pp. 32–39. New York: IEEE.
2.
WuYPitipornvivatNZhaoJ. egoSlider: visual analysis of egocentric network evolution. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr2016; 22(1): 260–269.
3.
AbbasiAChungKSKHossainL.Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance. Inform Process Manag2012; 48(4): 671–679.
4.
MoustafaWEDeshpandeAGetoorL.Egocentric graph pattern census. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 28th international conference on data engineering, Washington, DC, 1–5 April 2012, pp. 234–245. New York: IEEE.
5.
GleicherMAlbersDWalkerR. Visual comparison for information visualization. Inf Vis2011; 10(4): 289–309.
6.
AlperBBachBHenry RicheN. Weighted graph comparison techniques for brain connectivity analysis. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Paris, 27 April–2 May 2013, pp. 483–492. New York: ACM.
7.
AndrewsKWohlfahrtMWurzingerG.Visual graph comparison. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on information visualisation, Barcelona, 15–17 July 2009, pp. 62–67. New York: IEEE.
8.
MunznerTGuimbretiereFTasiranS. TreeJuxtaposer: scalable tree comparison using focus+context with guaranteed visibility. ACM T Graphic2003; 22(3): 453–462.
9.
NamataGMStaatsBGetoorL. A dual-view approach to interactive network visualization. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, Lisbon, 6–10 November 2007, pp. 939–942. New York: ACM.
10.
CollinsCMCarpendaleS.VisLink: revealing relationships amongst visualizations. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr2007; 13(6): 1192–1199.
11.
LiuSWuYWeiE. Storyflow: tracking the evolution of stories. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr2013; 19(12): 2436–2445.
12.
ShiLWangCWenZ. 1.5D Egocentric dynamic network visualization. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr2015; 21(5): 624–637.
13.
BrehmerMMunznerT.A multi-level typology of abstract visualization tasks. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr2013; 19(12): 2376–2385.
14.
ShiCWuYLiuS. LoyalTracker: visualizing loyalty dynamics in search engines. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr2014; 20(12): 1733–1742.
15.
WuYWeiFLiuS. OpinionSeer: interactive visualization of hotel customer feedback. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr2010; 16(6): 1109–1118.
16.
ZhouHXuPQuH.Visualization of bipartite relations between graphs and sets. J Visual2015; 18(2): 159–172.
17.
XuPDuFCaoN. Visual analysis of set relations in a graph. Comput Graph Forum2013; 32(3pt 1): 61–70.
18.
HascoetMDragicevicP. Interactive graph matching and visual comparison of graphs and clustered graphs. In: Proceedings of the ACM international working conference on advanced visual interfaces, Capri, 22–25 May 2012, pp. 522–529. New York: ACM.
ZhouHXuPYuanX. Edge bundling in information visualization. Tsinghua Sci Technol2013; 18(2): 145–156.
22.
KruskalJB.Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika1964; 29(1): 1–27.
23.
MacindoeORichardsW.Graph comparison using fine structure analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on social computing and networking, Minneapolis, MN, 20–22 August 2010, pp. 193–200. New York: IEEE.
24.
OgawaMMaK-L.Software evolution storylines. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on software visualization, Salt Lake City, UT, 25–26 October 2010, pp. 35–42. New York: ACM.
25.
TanahashiYMaK-L.Design considerations for optimizing storyline visualizations. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr2012; 18(12): 2679–2688.
26.
BellottiE.What are friends for? Elective communities of single people. Soc Networks2008; 30(4): 318–329.
27.
FisherD.Using egocentric networks to understand communication. IEEE Internet Comput2005; 9(5): 20–28.
28.
GrossettiM.Where do social relations come from? A study of personal networks in the Toulouse area of France. Soc Networks2005; 27(4): 289–300.
29.
KnuthDEKnuthDEKnuthDE.The Stanford GraphBase: a platform for combinatorial computing. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Reading, 1993.
30.
NewmanME.Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. Phys Rev E2006; 74(3): 036104.
31.
HuY.Efficient, high-quality force-directed graph drawing. Math J2005; 10(1): 37–71.
32.
MunznerT.Visualization analysis and design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014.
33.
FruchtermanTMReingoldEM.Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software Pract Ex1991; 21(11): 1129–1164.
34.
MunkresJ.Algorithms for the assignment and transportation problems. J Soc Ind Appl Math1957; 5(1): 32–38.
35.
KuhnHW.The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Nav Res Logist Q1955; 2(1–2): 83–97.
36.
NewmanM. Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. In: NewmanM (ed.) Complex networks. Heidelberg: Springer, 2004, pp. 337–370.
37.
RiehmannPHanflerMFroehlichB. Interactive sankey diagrams. In: Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on information visualization, Minneapolis, MN, 23–25 October 2005, pp. 233–240. New York: IEEE.
