# RandDAG

Note: Uniformly sampled from set of level graphs with certain graph parameters, such as number of nodes and number of edges. 
Origin Notes: http://graphdrawing.org highlights the DAGmar graph generator, and provides a benchmark set of randomly generated directed acyclic graphs. While not explicit, it is implied this benchmark comes from the DAGmar generator. 
graph features handled: Acyclic, Directed edges
Graph features in papers: generic
Origin Paper: DAGmar: Library for DAGs (https://www.notion.so/DAGmar-Library-for-DAGs-b0b5183f927e4983b7e9ef0d729674d4?pvs=21)
Originally found at: http://www.graphdrawing.org/data.html
Size: 10-100 nodes, 15-167 edges
Number of Graphs: 909
format: GraphML
Appeared in years: 2018
Type of Collection: Uniform Benchmark
is it stored properly?: No
must be analyzed: No
In repo?: Yes
Related to Literature - Algorithm (1) (Dataset tag relations): ? Aesthetic Discrimination of Graph Layouts (https://www.notion.so/Aesthetic-Discrimination-of-Graph-Layouts-98cc70abc7424e7895cf73e988563219?pvs=21)
cleaned format?: Yes
duplicate?: No
link works?: No
Added in paper: No
OSF link json: https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/j7ucv/providers/osfstorage/64d90eff803e0c0b04558ca3
Origin paper plaintext: DAGmar: Library for DAGs
Page id: 54b6ed8fdecb4256b2cca6298f09965e
unavailable/skip: No
Cleaned ALL data: No
OSF link gexf: https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/j7ucv/providers/osfstorage/64d948061101aa0dc66a0c55
OSF link gml: https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/j7ucv/providers/osfstorage/64d96dec94a6be112512e706
OSF link graphml: https://files.osf.io/v1/resources/j7ucv/providers/osfstorage/64d97088803e0c0cb6558d7e
first look: No
sparkline data: {'min': 10, 'max': 100, 'step_size': 5, 'num_bins': 21, 'bins': [0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100], 'num_nodes': [0, 0, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 9]}
Related to Literature - Algorithm (Dataset tag relations) 1: Aesthetic Discrimination of Graph Layouts (../Benchmark%20sets%200cc6b5e454304aec98f3b59b1a720476/Literature%20ad87f14e7097454fb2f784e2c8a2797a/Literature%20-%20Algorithm%2012e01bfc60a84007aa7d2d34293e123d/Aesthetic%20Discrimination%20of%20Graph%20Layouts%2025f75d8fd4b44bd99006e2316d28f6cd.md)

# Body

### Statistics

![four_in_one.svg](RandDAG%2054b6ed8fdecb4256b2cca6298f09965e/four_in_one.svg)

### Descriptions from the Literature

From “[Aesthetic Discrimination of Graph Layouts](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04414-5_12)”:

> We have assembled such a dataset using two types of sources. First, we used the collections of the well-known graph archives ROME, NORTH and RANDDAG which are published on [graphdrawing.org](http://www.graphdrawing.org/) as well as the NIST’s “Matrix Market” [[2](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04414-5_12#ref-CR2)].
> 

### Example Figures

From “[Aesthetic Discrimination of Graph Layouts](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04414-5_12) ([Appendix](https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01017))”:

![Untitled](RandDAG%2054b6ed8fdecb4256b2cca6298f09965e/Untitled.png)

**Fig. 5.** (cropped)… All graphs are visualized using the $FM^3$ algorithm. 

=== STOP RENDERING ===

Might be same as DAGmar graphs? looked at internet archive to see what the GD data website looked like in 2018 and there is no mention of RAndDAG as a thing, but there are the randomly generated DAGs which makes sense tto believe it is those.