arxiv: 2603.02275 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-01 · 💻 cs.LG · stat.AP· stat.ML

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

A Comparative Study of UMAP and Other Dimensionality Reduction Methods

Guanzhe Zhang , Shanshan Ding , Zhezhen Jin

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 17:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG stat.APstat.ML

keywords UMAPsupervised UMAPdimensionality reductionclassificationregressionPCASIRt-SNE

0 comments

The pith

Supervised UMAP performs well for classification but exhibits limitations in effectively incorporating response information for regression.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection and its supervised version to PCA, Kernel PCA, Sliced Inverse Regression, Kernel SIR, and t-SNE. It tests them on simulated and real datasets by training predictive models on the low-dimensional embeddings and measuring accuracy. Supervised UMAP produces strong results for classification tasks. The same method shows weaker ability to use response values when the task is regression with continuous targets. This evaluation treats downstream prediction accuracy as the practical test of how well each reduction method captures relevant structure.

Core claim

Our results show that supervised UMAP performs well for classification but exhibits limitations in effectively incorporating response information for regression, highlighting an important direction for future development.

What carries the argument

Supervised UMAP, the variant of Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection that folds response labels or values into the embedding construction to guide the reduction.

If this is right

Supervised UMAP serves as a viable option for dimensionality reduction ahead of classification models.
Sliced Inverse Regression and its kernel version remain preferable when the response variable is continuous.
Downstream predictive accuracy offers a direct way to judge how much response information a reduction method has retained.
Supervised manifold methods require further adjustments to handle regression targets more reliably.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Practitioners may default to supervised UMAP when labels are categorical and turn to SIR-based methods for continuous outcomes.
The regression shortfall could be addressed by altering how UMAP balances local neighborhoods against response guidance.
Similar comparative tests on streaming or very high-dimensional data would clarify whether the pattern holds beyond the studied cases.

Load-bearing premise

That predictive accuracy on low-dimensional embeddings is a sufficient and unbiased measure of how well the reduction method has incorporated the response information.

What would settle it

An experiment in which supervised UMAP embeddings produce regression predictions at least as accurate as those from Sliced Inverse Regression or Kernel SIR across multiple datasets would contradict the reported limitation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02275 by Guanzhe Zhang, Shanshan Ding, Zhezhen Jin.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Performance plots of PCA and KPCA 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Performance plots of SIR and KSIR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Performance plot of t-SNE 4.4 Results for real data with continuous responses The second real data studied in our application is the Online News Popularity dataset described in Section 3.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) is a widely used manifold learning technique for dimensionality reduction. This paper studies UMAP, supervised UMAP, and several competing dimensionality reduction methods, including Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Kernel PCA, Sliced Inverse Regression (SIR), Kernel SIR, and t-distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding, through a comprehensive comparative analysis. Although UMAP has attracted substantial attention for preserving local and global structures, its supervised extensions, particularly for regression settings, remain rather underexplored. We provide a systematic evaluation of supervised UMAP for both regression and classification using simulated and real datasets, with performance assessed via predictive accuracy on low-dimensional embeddings. Our results show that supervised UMAP performs well for classification but exhibits limitations in effectively incorporating response information for regression, highlighting an important direction for future development.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a straightforward empirical comparison showing supervised UMAP works for classification embeddings but has trouble folding in response info for regression, measured only through downstream prediction accuracy.

read the letter

The paper runs head-to-head tests of supervised UMAP against PCA, kernel PCA, SIR, kernel SIR, and t-SNE on both simulated and real data. It finds the supervised version helps classification but adds little for regression when you judge by how well a model predicts from the low-dimensional output. That pattern is the main new observation, since supervised UMAP for regression has seen less attention than the classification case. The comparison itself is systematic and covers the usual suspects, which makes the results easy to use as a reference when someone needs to pick a method for labeled data. The experiments use predictive accuracy on the embeddings as the yardstick, which is a practical choice but leaves room for confounding. An embedding could score well simply by keeping the original manifold structure intact without the response variable actually driving the layout. The abstract and setup do not spell out ablations that isolate the supervision term or compare directly to the unsupervised baseline on the same splits, so the claim that supervised UMAP fails to incorporate response information for regression rests on an indirect proxy. The work is aimed at practitioners who preprocess data for downstream modeling rather than theorists looking for new guarantees. It does not introduce algorithms or derivations, so it will not shift the core literature, but the reported patterns could be cited in applied papers that need evidence on method choice. The experiments appear reproducible enough on the surface to warrant referee time, though the interpretation of the regression results would benefit from tighter controls.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper conducts a comparative empirical study of UMAP and its supervised extension against PCA, Kernel PCA, SIR, Kernel SIR, and t-SNE on simulated and real datasets. Performance is measured by downstream predictive accuracy on the resulting low-dimensional embeddings for both classification and regression tasks. The central conclusion is that supervised UMAP performs well for classification but shows limitations in effectively incorporating response information for regression.

Significance. If the empirical patterns are robust, the work would usefully document a practical limitation of current supervised UMAP formulations in regression settings and thereby motivate targeted algorithmic improvements in supervised manifold learning.

major comments (2)

[Results] Evaluation / Results section: the claim that supervised UMAP 'exhibits limitations in effectively incorporating response information for regression' rests solely on downstream predictive accuracy. This metric does not isolate response incorporation from generic manifold preservation; without an explicit ablation against the unsupervised UMAP baseline (or controlled variation of supervision strength), performance differences cannot be attributed specifically to the supervised component.
[Methods] Methods section: the description of how supervision is realized in the regression case (loss weighting, supervision strength parameter, or modification to the UMAP objective) is not provided in sufficient detail to allow readers to reproduce the reported limitation or to diagnose whether the observed shortfall is due to the embedding algorithm itself or to the particular supervision scheme chosen.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: the statement 'using simulated and real datasets' should be expanded to indicate the number and nature of the datasets (or at least the total sample sizes) so that the scope of the comparison is immediately clear.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important opportunities to strengthen the attribution of our results and improve reproducibility. We address each point below and will incorporate the suggested revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results] Evaluation / Results section: the claim that supervised UMAP 'exhibits limitations in effectively incorporating response information for regression' rests solely on downstream predictive accuracy. This metric does not isolate response incorporation from generic manifold preservation; without an explicit ablation against the unsupervised UMAP baseline (or controlled variation of supervision strength), performance differences cannot be attributed specifically to the supervised component.

Authors: We agree that downstream predictive accuracy alone does not fully isolate the contribution of the supervised component from generic manifold preservation. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit ablation comparing supervised UMAP to its unsupervised counterpart on all regression tasks, together with controlled sweeps of the supervision strength parameter. These additions will allow performance differences to be attributed more directly to response incorporation. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the description of how supervision is realized in the regression case (loss weighting, supervision strength parameter, or modification to the UMAP objective) is not provided in sufficient detail to allow readers to reproduce the reported limitation or to diagnose whether the observed shortfall is due to the embedding algorithm itself or to the particular supervision scheme chosen.

Authors: We acknowledge that the current Methods section does not supply enough implementation detail for the regression supervision scheme. In the revision we will expand this section to specify the exact loss-weighting formulation, the numerical range and default value of the supervision strength parameter, and any alterations made to the standard UMAP objective. These additions will enable full reproducibility and help readers evaluate whether the observed regression shortfall stems from the algorithm or from the chosen supervision approach. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation chain; purely empirical comparison

full rationale

The paper is a direct empirical study comparing UMAP variants and other dimensionality reduction techniques on simulated and real datasets, with performance measured by downstream predictive accuracy. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are presented that could reduce to their own inputs by construction. All claims rest on external benchmarks and standard metrics rather than self-referential definitions or self-citations that bear the central load. This is the expected non-finding for a comparative evaluation paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contains no new mathematical framework, derivations, or postulated entities; it is an empirical benchmark study of existing techniques.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5442 in / 939 out tokens · 39820 ms · 2026-05-15T17:37:52.585528+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

supervised UMAP incorporates the information from response variables to modify the construction of the high-dimensional graph... wsup_ij = w_ij × {e^{-f} if labels differ, 1 if labels match}
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

performance assessed via predictive accuracy on low-dimensional embeddings... KNN regression models... MSE

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Christopher J. C. Burges. Dimension reduction: A guided tour.Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 2(4):275–365, 2010

work page 2010
[2]

Hinton and Ruslan R

Geoffrey E. Hinton and Ruslan R. Salakhutdinov. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks.Science, 313(5786):504–507, 2006

work page 2006
[3]

MIT press Cambridge, 2016

Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio.Deep learning, volume 1. MIT press Cambridge, 2016

work page 2016
[4]

Etienne Becht, Leland McInnes, John Healy, Charles-Antoine Dutertre, Immanuel W. H. Kwok, Lai Guan Ng, Florent Ginhoux, and Evan W. Newell. Dimensionality reduction for visualizing single-cell data using umap.Nature Biotechnology, 37(1):38–44, 2019

work page 2019
[5]

Bellman.Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour

Richard E. Bellman.Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour. Princeton University Press, 1961

work page 1961
[6]

Springer, 2006

Christopher M Bishop and Nasser M Nasrabadi.Pattern recognition and machine learning, volume 4. Springer, 2006

work page 2006
[7]

The elements of statistical learning, 2009

Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, Jerome Friedman, et al. The elements of statistical learning, 2009. 26

work page 2009
[8]

Dimensionality reduction: A comparative review.Journal of machine learning research, 10(66-71):13, 2009

Laurens Van Der Maaten, Eric O Postma, H Jaap Van Den Herik, et al. Dimensionality reduction: A comparative review.Journal of machine learning research, 10(66-71):13, 2009

work page 2009
[9]

UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction

Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. Umap: Uniform manifold approxima- tion and projection for dimension reduction.arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426, 2018

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[10]

Tim Sainburg, Leland McInnes, and Timothy Q. Gentner. Parametric umap: Learning embeddings with deep neural networks for representation and visualization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.12981, 2021

work page arXiv 2009
[11]

Marius Pachitariu, Carsen Stringer, and Kenneth D. Harris. Robustness of spike sorting to neural noise using umap.Nature Neuroscience, 22(12):1925–1935, 2019

work page 1925
[12]

Cole, Claudia Monaco, and Ignat Drozdov

Bartosz Szubert, John E. Cole, Claudia Monaco, and Ignat Drozdov. Structure-preserving visualisation of high dimensional single-cell datasets using umap.Scientific Reports, 9(1):1–10, 2019

work page 2019
[13]

Umap reveals cryptic population structure and phenotype heterogeneity in large genomic cohorts.PLoS genetics, 15(11):e1008432, 2019

Alex Diaz-Papkovich, Luke Anderson-Trocm´ e, Chief Ben-Eghan, and Simon Gravel. Umap reveals cryptic population structure and phenotype heterogeneity in large genomic cohorts.PLoS genetics, 15(11):e1008432, 2019

work page 2019
[14]

The art of using t-sne for single-cell transcriptomics

Dmitry Kobak and Philipp Berens. The art of using t-sne for single-cell transcriptomics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.02115, 2019

work page arXiv 1902
[15]

Deep embeddings for high-dimensional data visualization using umap.Pattern Recognition Letters, 137:48–55, 2020

Mourad Allaoui, Mohammed Lamine Kherfi, and Mohamed Cheriet. Deep embeddings for high-dimensional data visualization using umap.Pattern Recognition Letters, 137:48–55, 2020

work page 2020
[16]

On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space.Philosophical Magazine, 2(11):559–572, 1901

Karl Pearson. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space.Philosophical Magazine, 2(11):559–572, 1901. 27

work page 1901
[17]

Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components

Harold Hotelling. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24(6):417–441, 1933

work page 1933
[18]

Jolliffe.Principal Component Analysis

Ian T. Jolliffe.Principal Component Analysis. Springer, 2nd edition, 2002

work page 2002
[19]

Component retention in principal component analysis with application to cdna microarray data.Biology Direct, 2(1):2, 2007

Richard Cangelosi and Alain Goriely. Component retention in principal component analysis with application to cdna microarray data.Biology Direct, 2(1):2, 2007

work page 2007
[20]

A Tutorial on Principal Component Analysis

Jonathon Shlens. A tutorial on principal component analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.1100, 2014

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[21]

Nonlinear component analysis as a kernel eigenvalue problem.Neural Computation, 10(5):1299–1319, 1998

Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf, Alexander Smola, and Klaus-Robert M¨ uller. Nonlinear component analysis as a kernel eigenvalue problem.Neural Computation, 10(5):1299–1319, 1998

work page 1998
[22]

Kernel pca and de-noising in feature spaces

Sebastian Mika, Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf, Alexander Smola, Klaus-Robert M¨ uller, Matthias Scholz, and Gunnar R¨ atsch. Kernel pca and de-noising in feature spaces. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 11, pages 536–542, 1999

work page 1999
[23]

Sliced inverse regression for dimension reduction.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 86(414):316–327, 1991

Ker-Chau Li. Sliced inverse regression for dimension reduction.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 86(414):316–327, 1991

work page 1991
[24]

Dennis Cook.Regression Graphics: Ideas for Studying Regressions

R. Dennis Cook.Regression Graphics: Ideas for Studying Regressions. Wiley, 2009

work page 2009
[25]

John Wiley & Sons, 2009

R Dennis Cook.Regression graphics: Ideas for studying regressions through graphics. John Wiley & Sons, 2009

work page 2009
[26]

Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018

Bing Li.Sufficient dimension reduction: Methods and applications with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018

work page 2018
[27]

On almost linearity of low dimensional projections from high dimensional data.The Annals of Statistics, 21(2):867–889, 1993

Peter Hall and Ker-Chau Li. On almost linearity of low dimensional projections from high dimensional data.The Annals of Statistics, 21(2):867–889, 1993

work page 1993
[28]

Sliced inverse regression with regularizations.Biometrics, 64(1):124–131, 2008

Lexin Li and Xiangrong Yin. Sliced inverse regression with regularizations.Biometrics, 64(1):124–131, 2008. 28

work page 2008
[29]

Sparse minimum discrepancy approach to sufficient dimension reduction with simultaneous variable selection in ultrahigh dimension

Wei Qian, Shanshan Ding, and R Dennis Cook. Sparse minimum discrepancy approach to sufficient dimension reduction with simultaneous variable selection in ultrahigh dimension. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2019

work page 2019
[30]

Determining the dimension in sliced inverse regression.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 93(441):132–140, 1998

Louis Ferr´ e. Determining the dimension in sliced inverse regression.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 93(441):132–140, 1998

work page 1998
[31]

Yingcun Xia, Howell Tong, W. K. Li, and Li-Xing Zhu. Adaptive regression by mixing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97(458):576–588, 2002

work page 2002
[32]

On dimension folding of matrix-or array-valued statistical objects.The Annals of Statistics, 38:1094–1121, 2010

Bing Li, Min Kyung Kim, and Naomi Altman. On dimension folding of matrix-or array-valued statistical objects.The Annals of Statistics, 38:1094–1121, 2010

work page 2010
[33]

Tensor sliced inverse regression.Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 133:216–231, 2015

Shanshan Ding and R Dennis Cook. Tensor sliced inverse regression.Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 133:216–231, 2015

work page 2015
[34]

Double-slicing assisted sufficient dimension reduction for high-dimensional censored data

Shanshan Ding, Wei Qian, and Lan Wang. Double-slicing assisted sufficient dimension reduction for high-dimensional censored data. 2020

work page 2020
[35]

Visualizing data using t-sne.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(Nov):2579–2605, 2008

Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(Nov):2579–2605, 2008

work page 2008
[36]

Accelerating t-sne using tree-based algorithms.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):3221–3245, 2014

Laurens van der Maaten. Accelerating t-sne using tree-based algorithms.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):3221–3245, 2014

work page 2014
[37]

How to use t-sne effectively

Martin Wattenberg, Fernanda Vi´ egas, and Ian Johnson. How to use t-sne effectively. Distill, 2016

work page 2016
[38]

Accelerating t-sne using tree-based algorithms.The journal of machine learning research, 15(1):3221–3245, 2014

Laurens Van Der Maaten. Accelerating t-sne using tree-based algorithms.The journal of machine learning research, 15(1):3221–3245, 2014

work page 2014
[39]

Linderman and Stefan Steinerberger

George C. Linderman and Stefan Steinerberger. Clustering with t-sne, provably.SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science, 1(2):313–332, 2019. 29

work page 2019
[40]

Umap api guide, 2025

Leland McInnes, John Healy, and contributors. Umap api guide, 2025. Available at: https://umap-learn.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api.html

work page 2025
[41]

Umap module source, 2025

Leland McInnes, John Healy, and contributors. Umap module source, 2025. Available at:https://umap-learn.readthedocs.io/en/latest/_modules/umap/umap_.html

work page 2025
[42]

Kernel principal component analysis for stochastic input model reduction.Journal of Computational Physics, 230(19):7311–7331, 2011

Xiang Ma and Nicholas Zabaras. Kernel principal component analysis for stochastic input model reduction.Journal of Computational Physics, 230(19):7311–7331, 2011

work page 2011
[43]

Smola.Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond

Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf and Alexander J. Smola.Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002

work page 2002
[44]

Kernel sliced inverse regression with applications to classification.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 17(3):590–610, 2008

Han-Ming Wu. Kernel sliced inverse regression with applications to classification.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 17(3):590–610, 2008

work page 2008
[45]

Nonlinear dimension reduction with kernel sliced inverse regression.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(11):1590–1603, 2009

Yi-Ren Yeh, Su-Yun Huang, and Yuh-Jye Lee. Nonlinear dimension reduction with kernel sliced inverse regression.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(11):1590–1603, 2009

work page 2009
[46]

Kernel sliced inverse regression: regu- larization and consistency.Abstract and Applied Analysis, 2013:Article ID 540725, 11 pages, 2013

Qiang Wu, Feng Liang, and Sayan Mukherjee. Kernel sliced inverse regression: regu- larization and consistency.Abstract and Applied Analysis, 2013:Article ID 540725, 11 pages, 2013

work page 2013
[47]

Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithms

Han Xiao, Kashif Rasul, and Roland Vollgraf. Fashion-MNIST: A Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithms. arXiv preprint, 2017. arXiv:1708.07747

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[48]

Mukhamediev

Ravil I. Mukhamediev. State-of-the-Art Results with the Fashion-MNIST Dataset. Mathematics, 12(20):3174, 2024

work page 2024
[49]

Fashion MNIST TensorFlow Datasets Documentation

TensorFlow Datasets. Fashion MNIST TensorFlow Datasets Documentation. Online documentation, 2024

work page 2024
[50]

Fashion MNIST dataset Keras API Documentation

Keras. Fashion MNIST dataset Keras API Documentation. Online documentation, 2025. 30

work page 2025
[51]

Fashion MNIST GitHub Repository

GitHub. Fashion MNIST GitHub Repository. GitHub repository, 2017

work page 2017
[52]

Dua and C

D. Dua and C. Graff. Online news popularity. https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/ datasets/Online+News+Popularity, 2019. UCI Machine Learning Repository

work page 2019
[53]

Cover and Peter E

Thomas M. Cover and Peter E. Hart. Nearest neighbor pattern classification.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 13(1):21–27, 1967

work page 1967
[54]

Naomi S. Altman. An introduction to kernel and nearest-neighbor nonparametric regression.The American Statistician, 46(3):175–185, 1992

work page 1992
[55]

Springer, New York, 2nd edition, 2009

Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman.The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Springer, New York, 2nd edition, 2009. 31

work page 2009