Skip to main content
Advertisement

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Toy data sets.

(A) Balls; (B) elongated with bridge; (C) swiss roll; and (D) GL manifold. (A) and (B) show the 2-dimensional data sets. (C) plots the first two coordinates of the Swiss roll. (D) shows the 2-dimensional PCA plot of the SO(3) manifolds.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

UMAP and PCA on Tabula Muris data sets.

Tabula Muris data sets have elongated clusters in the PCA embedding and clusters connected with a bridge of points in the UMAP embedding. For both PCA and UMAP embeddings, certain clusters are not well-separated and connected by high density regions.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Notations.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

Optimal p path between two points in a moon data set.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 2.

The results of clustering accuracy (ARI) for manifold data.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Geometric perturbation for manifold data.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

The results of clustering accuracy (ARI) for scRNAseq data.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 4.

Comparison of cluster structure preservation on PCA, UMAP and t-SNE embeddings.

Top row: 2d PCA, PM2, UMAP, and t-SNE embeddings of Cell Mix data set, colored by true cell type. Bottom row: average linkage dendrograms of cluster means for the rd embeddings, where r = 40 for PCA, r = 4 for PM2 and UMAP, and r = 3 for t-SNE.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 5.

Geometric perturbation for RNA data.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 5.

Processing and clustering time for PBMC4K and Baron’s Pancreatic data sets.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Clustering performance for different values of p.

More »

Fig 6 Expand