Reviewer #2: ''Why didn't you use UMAP?''
dc.contributor.author | Hoorn, Diede P. M. van der | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Arleo, Alessio | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Paulovich, Fernando V. | en_US |
dc.contributor.editor | Diehl, Alexandra | en_US |
dc.contributor.editor | Kucher, Kostiantyn | en_US |
dc.contributor.editor | Médoc, Nicolas | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2025-05-26T06:55:04Z | |
dc.date.available | 2025-05-26T06:55:04Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2025 | |
dc.description.abstract | t-SNE and UMAP are both popular Dimensionality Reduction (DR) techniques. Over recent years, UMAP has gained popularity, but there has been some debate on the difference between the two, and whether a preference for UMAP is justified. We apply a recently defined framework to gain new insights by analyzing these two techniques in two phases: how they model the relationships in the high-dimensional space (relationship phase) and how they create the embedding (mapping phase). Our findings suggest that the main difference lies in the UMAP mapping phase, and not in how the relationships are modeled. | en_US |
dc.description.sectionheaders | Posters | |
dc.description.seriesinformation | EuroVis 2025 - Posters | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.2312/evp.20251132 | |
dc.identifier.isbn | 978-3-03868-286-8 | |
dc.identifier.pages | 3 pages | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.2312/evp.20251132 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://diglib.eg.org/handle/10.2312/evp20251132 | |
dc.publisher | The Eurographics Association | en_US |
dc.rights | Attribution 4.0 International License | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
dc.subject | CCS Concepts: Human-centered computing → Visualization; Computing methodologies → Dimensionality reduction and manifold learning | |
dc.subject | Human centered computing → Visualization | |
dc.subject | Computing methodologies → Dimensionality reduction and manifold learning | |
dc.title | Reviewer #2: ''Why didn't you use UMAP?'' | en_US |