ArticlePloS one2023
Graph drawing using Jaya.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Graph drawing, involving the automatic layout of graphs, is vital for clear data visualization and interpretation but poses challenges due to the optimization of a multi-metric objective function, an area where current search-based methods seek improvement. In this paper, we investigate the performance of Jaya algorithm for automatic graph layout with straight lines. Jaya algorithm has not been previously used in the field of graph drawing. Unlike most population-based methods, Jaya algorithm is a parameter-less algorithm in that it requires no algorithm-specific control parameters and only population size and number of iterations need to be specified, which makes it easy for researchers to apply in the field. To improve Jaya algorithm's performance, we applied Latin Hypercube Sampling to initialize the population of individuals so that they widely cover the search space. We developed a visualization tool that simplifies the integration of search methods, allowing for easy performance testing of algorithms on graphs with weighted aesthetic metrics. We benchmarked the Jaya algorithm and its enhanced version against Hill Climbing and Simulated Annealing, commonly used graph-drawing search algorithms which have a limited number of parameters, to demonstrate Jaya algorithm's effectiveness in the field. We conducted experiments on synthetic datasets with varying numbers of nodes and edges using the Erdős-Rényi model and real-world graph datasets and evaluated the quality of the generated layouts, and the performance of the methods based on number of function evaluations. We also conducted a scalability experiment on Jaya algorithm to evaluate its ability to handle large-scale graphs. Our results showed that Jaya algorithm significantly outperforms Hill Climbing and Simulated Annealing in terms of the quality of the generated graph layouts and the speed at which the layouts were produced. Using improved population sampling generated better layouts compared to the original Jaya algorithm using the same number of function evaluations. Moreover, Jaya algorithm was able to draw layouts for graphs with 500 nodes in a reasonable time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.