Relating tSNE and UMAP to Classical Dimensionality Reduction

Overview

• Gradient-based dimensionality reduction (DR) methods like t-SNE and UMAP are commonly used to explain what AI models have learned.
• These methods are fast, robust, and can find semantic patterns in high-dimensional data without supervision.
• However, these gradient-based DR methods lack the ability to be explained themselves, which is an important quality for explainability methods.

Plain English Explanation

Dimensionality reduction (DR) techniques like t-SNE and UMAP are often used to visualize what AI models have learned. These methods can take high-dimensional data, like the activations of an AI model's hidden layers, and project it onto a 2D or 3D space, revealing the underlying structure and patterns. This makes it easier for humans to understand what the AI model has learned.

The appeal of these gradient-based DR methods is that they are fast, robust, and can discover semantic relationships in the data without any prior knowledge or supervision. However, the downside is that these methods themselves are not very explainable. If you look at the final 2D or 3D visualization, it's not always clear what it means or how the algorithm arrived at that particular arrangement of the data points.

Technical Explanation

This paper aims to address this issue by relating UMAP to more classical dimensionality reduction techniques, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS), and Isomap. The key insight is that these classical methods can be reproduced by applying attractions and repulsions to a randomly initialized dataset, which is similar to how UMAP works.

The paper also shows that with a small change, Locally Linear Embeddings (LLE) can be used to indistinguishably reproduce UMAP outputs. This suggests that the underlying objective being optimized by UMAP is the same as this modified version of LLE.

By relating UMAP to these more interpretable dimensionality reduction techniques, the authors provide a pathway to understanding what UMAP embeddings actually represent and how they are constructed.

Critical Analysis

The paper makes a valuable contribution by bridging the gap between modern gradient-based DR methods and their more classical counterparts. By showing the connections between UMAP and techniques like PCA, MDS, and LLE, the authors provide a way to better understand what UMAP embeddings are actually capturing.

One limitation is that the analysis is primarily theoretical, and the authors do not provide extensive experimental validation of their claims. It would be interesting to see how well the modified LLE approach can reproduce UMAP outputs in practice, and whether there are any notable differences or caveats.

Additionally, the paper focuses on UMAP specifically, but it would be valuable to see if similar connections can be drawn between t-SNE and classical DR methods as well. Exploring the relationships between different gradient-based DR techniques could lead to a more unified understanding of this class of methods.

Conclusion

This research takes an important step towards making gradient-based dimensionality reduction techniques, like UMAP, more interpretable and explainable. By relating them to classical DR methods, the authors provide a foundation for understanding what these embeddings represent and how they are constructed. This could lead to further developments in making AI models and their learned representations more transparent and accessible to users.