Algorithms and Bounds for Drawing Directed Graphs

In this paper we present a new approach to visualize directed graphs and their hierarchies that completely departs from the classical four-phase framework of Sugiyama and computes readable hierarchical visualizations that contain the complete reachability information of a graph. Additionally, our approach has the advantage that only the necessary edges are drawn in the drawing, thus reducing the visual complexity of the resulting drawing. Furthermore, most problems involved in our framework require only polynomial time. Our framework offers a suite of solutions depending upon the requirements, and it consists of only two steps: (a) the cycle removal step (if the graph contains cycles) and (b) the channel decomposition and hierarchical drawing step. Our framework does not introduce any dummy vertices and it keeps the vertices of a channel vertically aligned. The time complexity of the main drawing algorithms of our framework is $O(kn)$, where $k$ is the number of channels, typically much smaller than $n$ (the number of vertices).Comment: Appears in the Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Graph Drawing and Network Visualization (GD 2018

Multilevel Planarity

In this paper, we introduce and study multilevel planarity, a generalization of upward planarity and level planarity. Let $G = (V, E)$ be a directed graph and let $\ell: V \to \mathcal P(\mathbb Z)$ be a function that assigns a finite set of integers to each vertex. A multilevel-planar drawing of $G$ is a planar drawing of $G$ such that for each vertex $v\in V$ its $y$-coordinate $y(v)$ is in $\ell(v)$, nd each edge is drawn as a strictly $y$-monotone curve. We present linear-time algorithms for testing multilevel planarity of embedded graphs with a single source and of oriented cycles. Complementing these algorithmic results, we show that multilevel-planarity testing is NP-complete even in very restricted cases

Explanation of the Model Checker Verification Results

Immer wenn neue Anforderungen an ein System gestellt werden, müssen die Korrektheit und Konsistenz der Systemspezifikation überprüft werden, was in der Praxis in der Regel manuell erfolgt. Eine mögliche Option, um die Nachteile dieser manuellen Analyse zu überwinden, ist das sogenannte Contract-Based Design. Dieser Entwurfsansatz kann den Verifikationsprozess zur Überprüfung, ob die Anforderungen auf oberster Ebene konsistent verfeinert wurden, automatisieren. Die Verifikation kann somit iterativ durchgeführt werden, um die Korrektheit und Konsistenz des Systems angesichts jeglicher Änderung der Spezifikationen sicherzustellen. Allerdings ist es aufgrund der mangelnden Benutzerfreundlichkeit und der Schwierigkeiten bei der Interpretation von Verifizierungsergebnissen immer noch eine Herausforderung, formale Ansätze in der Industrie einzusetzen. Stellt beispielsweise der Model Checker bei der Verifikation eine Inkonsistenz fest, generiert er ein Gegenbeispiel (Counterexample) und weist gleichzeitig darauf hin, dass die gegebenen Eingabespezifikationen inkonsistent sind. Hier besteht die gewaltige Herausforderung darin, das generierte Gegenbeispiel zu verstehen, das oft sehr lang, kryptisch und komplex ist. Darüber hinaus liegt es in der Verantwortung der Ingenieurin bzw. des Ingenieurs, die inkonsistente Spezifikation in einer potenziell großen Menge von Spezifikationen zu identifizieren. Diese Arbeit schlägt einen Ansatz zur Erklärung von Gegenbeispielen (Counterexample Explanation Approach) vor, der die Verwendung von formalen Methoden vereinfacht und fördert, indem benutzerfreundliche Erklärungen der Verifikationsergebnisse der Ingenieurin bzw. dem Ingenieur präsentiert werden. Der Ansatz zur Erklärung von Gegenbeispielen wird mittels zweier Methoden evaluiert: (1) Evaluation anhand verschiedener Anwendungsbeispiele und (2) eine Benutzerstudie in Form eines One-Group Pretest-Posttest Experiments.Whenever new requirements are introduced for a system, the correctness and consistency of the system specification must be verified, which is often done manually in industrial settings. One viable option to traverse disadvantages of this manual analysis is to employ the contract-based design, which can automate the verification process to determine whether the refinements of top-level requirements are consistent. Thus, verification can be performed iteratively to ensure the system’s correctness and consistency in the face of any change in specifications. Having said that, it is still challenging to deploy formal approaches in industries due to their lack of usability and their difficulties in interpreting verification results. For instance, if the model checker identifies inconsistency during the verification, it generates a counterexample while also indicating that the given input specifications are inconsistent. Here, the formidable challenge is to comprehend the generated counterexample, which is often lengthy, cryptic, and complex. Furthermore, it is the engineer’s responsibility to identify the inconsistent specification among a potentially huge set of specifications. This PhD thesis proposes a counterexample explanation approach for formal methods that simplifies and encourages their use by presenting user-friendly explanations of the verification results. The proposed counterexample explanation approach identifies and explains relevant information from the verification result in what seems like a natural language statement. The counterexample explanation approach extracts relevant information by identifying inconsistent specifications from among the set of specifications, as well as erroneous states and variables from the counterexample. The counterexample explanation approach is evaluated using two methods: (1) evaluation with different application examples, and (2) a user-study known as one-group pretest and posttest experiment