Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 90 references

Uncovering smooth structures in single-cell data with PCS-guided neighbor embeddings

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the instability of t-SNE and UMAP across random restarts can be converted into a per-cell score that separates truly transitioning cells from stable ones, giving a label-free window into developmental dynamics.

desk verdict A useful stability-guided tuning method for neighbor embeddings on single-cell trajectories, with a novel t-SNE fragmentation theorem; the biological transition-state interpretation is plausible but rests on an untested continuity assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22228 v2 pith:WH7OWPRJ submitted 2025-06-27 stat.ML cs.LGq-bio.GNstat.AP

Rong Ma , Xi Li , Jingyuan Hu , Bin Yu This is my paper
classification stat.MLcs.LGq-bio.GNstat.AP
keywords single-cellRNA-seqneighborembeddingt-SNEUMAPstabilityanalysiscell-statetransitionstrajectoryinferencetranscriptionaldynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that common neighbor embedding algorithms, including t-SNE, UMAP, and PHATE, distort the smooth, continuous structure of single-cell developmental data when their graph connectivity parameter is set too low, and that the resulting fragments and layout variability are artifacts, not biology. It introduces NESS, a procedure that reruns any neighbor embedding many times from random starting points, compares the neighborhood graphs across runs, and assigns each cell a local stability score. The central claim is that this score separates stable cell states from transitional ones along developmental trajectories and provides a proxy for transcriptional dynamics, using only an expression matrix. The paper supports this with correlations to transition entropy from a dynamic model and to independently computed RNA velocity, and it uses the score to resolve neuronal subpopulations in embryoid-body data that earlier analysis could not separate. If correct, NESS makes cell-state dynamics readable from ordinary single-cell RNA-seq data without extra data modalities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the NESS local stability score. For a fixed neighbor embedding algorithm and a chosen graph connectivity parameter (perplexity for t-SNE, number of neighbors for UMAP and PHATE), NESS runs the algorithm multiple times under random initialization, constructs a k-nearest-neighbor graph for each embedding, and counts, for every cell, how often each potential neighbor appears across runs. The local stability score is the 75th percentile of those normalized neighbor counts, the global stability score is their mean, and an embedding rareness score flags layouts that deviate strongly from the ensemble. The accompanying theory analyzes t-SNE on a discretized circle and proves that when the graph connectivity parameter is constant and the embedding diameter grows sublinearly, the optimal t-SNE embedding has unbounded bilipschitz distortion, formalizing why low graph connectivity produces gaps and fragmentation.

What would settle it

Take a time-resolved lineage-tracing dataset with known division and fate-commitment times and ask whether cells in the lowest stability decile are enriched for cells that subsequently divide or change fate; if they are not, the transition-state interpretation of NESS collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the stochasticity of neighbor embedding algorithms, normally treated as a nuisance, carries useful signal. NESS turns random initialization into a structured perturbation: it generates multiple embeddings of the same cells, builds a k-nearest-neighbor graph from each, and measures how often each cell's neighbors are preserved. Cells whose neighborhoods are stable across runs receive high local stability scores; cells whose neighborhoods vary sit in low-stability regions. The paper argues that these low-stability cells are precisely the cells in transitional states, because they occupy low-density regions of the expression manifold where the continuity of cell-state change predicts fast transitions. Across six datasets it reports that low-stability cells align with high transition entropy, that instability scores track total RNA velocity in spermatogenesis and neurogenesis, and that removing unstable cells improves embedding faithfulness; it also claims to resolve neuronal subtypes NS-3 and NS-4 as progenitor-like and intermediate states.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that low stability marks biological transition states rests on assuming that cells occupying low-density regions of the expression manifold are undergoing fast state transitions; if that continuity assumption fails, low stability could just be technical noise or sampling gaps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Analysts can replace default t-SNE, UMAP, or PHATE hyperparameters with the smallest graph connectivity parameter that reaches high NESS global stability, avoiding fragmentation without extra data.
  • Excluding cells with the lowest local stability scores improves neighborhood concordance and neighbor purity, yielding cleaner trajectory visualizations.
  • NESS instability scores can serve as a label-free substitute for RNA velocity, so transcriptional dynamics can be inferred from standard scRNA-seq data.
  • The automated workflow makes stability-guided embedding practical for datasets with tens of thousands of cells, since the cost grows roughly linearly with the graph connectivity parameter.
  • In datasets with cell-state annotations, low stability is predicted to mark intermediate or progenitor-like states and high stability to mark self-renewing or terminally differentiated populations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because local stability is linked to local density, NESS scores could also flag sampling gaps and dropout-dominated regions; separating technical sparsity from true biological transition is a natural next test.
  • The same score could be used for unsupervised gene discovery: genes whose expression tracks local stability across multiple datasets would nominate candidate regulators of cell-state transitions.
  • The circle theorem suggests the fragmentation mechanism generalizes to any one-dimensional manifold with small graph connectivity; simulations on branching trees would show whether the stability threshold scales with branch geometry.
  • Since the score is defined purely through embedding stochasticity, the approach extends to any future stochastic embedding algorithm, turning the global stability line chart into a general model-selection device.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes NESS, a PCS-guided framework for assessing and improving neighbor embedding (NE) stability in single-cell data. It first provides an empirical, simulation-based, and theoretical evaluation of t-SNE, UMAP, PHATE, and densMAP under varying graph connectivity parameters (GCP), arguing that low GCP causes artificial fragmentation and instability. NESS then uses random initializations to generate multiple embeddings, forms KNN graphs from each, and defines per-cell local stability, global stability, and embedding rareness scores, plus an automated GCP selection workflow. The method is applied to six single-cell datasets spanning hematopoiesis, iPSC differentiation, organoid development, embryoid body formation, neurogenesis, and spermatogenesis. The central claims are that NESS local stability identifies transitional versus stable cell states, that NESS instability scores quantify transcriptional dynamics, and that NESS-assisted embeddings correct artifacts of default NE parameter settings. Validation is performed against MuTrans transition entropy, scVelo RNA velocity, and external cell-state annotations, with comparisons to EMBEDR, DynamicViz, and scDEED.

Significance. If the central claims hold, NESS would be a practically useful and conceptually simple addition to the single-cell visualization toolbox: it is label-free, computationally scalable, implemented in an R package with documented workflows, and it demonstrates on six datasets that default NE hyperparameters can produce artifacts that stability-guided GCP selection mitigates. The paper also contributes a theoretical result linking low graph connectivity to t-SNE distortion, a detailed supplement with proofs, and systematic benchmarking against existing embedding-assessment methods. These are genuine strengths. However, the paper's biological interpretation of local stability as transition-state identity rests on an untested continuity/density assumption, and the main external validations either share the embedding geometry with NESS (MuTrans on t-SNE coordinates) or rely on RNA velocity methods whose reliability the paper itself flags through citation [26]. The theoretical artifact result is conditional on an unverified diameter assumption.

major comments (5)
  1. [Results, near Fig. 3c,d; Methods 4.4] The biological interpretation of NESS local stability as a transition-state indicator depends on the stated assumption that low-density regions contain cells undergoing fast state transitions. This assumption is not tested, and low density can also arise from technical dropout, undersampling of a stable but rare population, or sampling gaps unrelated to dynamics. The association in Fig. 3c only connects low stability to low density, not to transition rate. Because the paper's headline claim is that NESS identifies transitional versus stable cell states, this load-bearing assumption needs direct support, for example via independent perturbation-based transition labels, time-course validation, or a formal sensitivity analysis with synthetic trajectories where cell-state change rates are known.
  2. [Methods 4.6 and Results, Fig. 4a] The MuTrans validation is weakened by a shared-geometry concern: MuTrans transition entropy is computed on t-SNE coordinates (Methods 4.6: reduction_coord = 'tsne'), while the NESS local stability scores being validated are also derived from t-SNE embeddings. The observed association in Fig. 4a may therefore reflect common embedding geometry rather than independent evidence of biological transition kinetics. Please report MuTrans transition entropy computed on PCA or diffusion-map coordinates, or provide a quantitative analysis showing that the association is robust to the choice of reduction coordinates.
  3. [Methods 4.2, Theorem 4.1 and Supplement B] Theorem 4.1 is explicitly conditional on the assumptions S(phi*) = n^tau for some 0 < tau < 1 and k = O(1). The diameter assumption is used critically in the proof (Supplement B, Proposition B.4 and the final argument) but is not derived or empirically verified for actual t-SNE solutions. Moreover, the theorem is proved for the simplified affinity model in Eq. (4.2) with constant bandwidth and uniform kNN weights, which omits the data-dependent bandwidths of real t-SNE. Without justification that these assumptions are met, the theorem does not establish that actual t-SNE under low perplexity 'inevitably' fragments smooth structures. Please provide empirical support for the diameter scaling, or state the result as a conditional contribution with the scope limitations made explicit.
  4. [Methods 4.3 and Results, Fig. 3b] The reported improvements in global stability after removing low-stability cells are partly circular, because the GCP is selected using the NESS global stability score itself, and the same score is then used to evaluate the improvement. Figure 3b shows relative improvement in GS, concordance, and neighbor purity, but without a pre-specified holdout procedure or comparison against an independent GCP choice it is unclear how much of the GS improvement is guaranteed by construction. Please report concordance and purity improvements under a fixed, independently chosen GCP, or use a cross-validation scheme that separates GCP selection from evaluation.
  5. [Results, Fig. 5 and Methods 4.4] The claim that NESS instability score quantifies transcriptional dynamics is supported only by cell-type-level visual comparisons with scVelo total RNA velocity. scVelo is model-based and its reliability is disputed, as the paper itself notes through citation [26]. The paper does not report per-cell correlations between the NESS instability score and RNA velocity, nor does it examine sensitivity of the comparison to scVelo preprocessing choices. Given that this section is one of the paper's two headline biological applications, please provide quantitative per-cell concordance measures and a robustness check, or explicitly soften the claim to 'concordant at the level of cell-type medians under a standard scVelo configuration.'
minor comments (7)
  1. [Results, heading near Fig. 5] The heading contains a typo: 'sermatogenesis' should be 'spermatogenesis'.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption contains 'cell tyles'; this should be 'cell types'.
  3. [Methods 4.5] The sentence 'Thess results demonstrate' contains a typo; it should be 'These results'.
  4. [Methods 4.4] The name 'Murine Instestinal' appears in the paragraph on identifying transitional and stable cell states; it should be 'Murine Intestinal'.
  5. [Results, iPSC gene section versus Table S2] The text lists 'PCH1' among positively correlated genes, but Table S2 lists 'PTCH1'; please make the gene symbol consistent.
  6. [Figure 4a caption versus Methods 4.4] The caption reports bottom percentiles 2%, 8%, 15%, and 100%, while Methods 4.4 states p = 2, 10, 20, 100 for the same comparison. Please reconcile these numbers.
  7. [Methods 4.4] In the pathway enrichment paragraph, 'DA VID' is written with an internal space; it should be 'DAVID'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central NESS derivation is independent, but one supporting 'stability improvement' claim is tautological and the MuTrans validation shares t-SNE geometry.

  1. self definitional [Results, 'NESS local stability score quantifies pointwise embedding reliability' (Figure 3b; Methods 4.3)]
    "in the Mouse Hema, Murine Intestinal, and Embryoid Body datasets, we find that removing the top 5–20% most unstable cells, identified by low NESS(t-SNE/UMAP) local stability scores (see Methods), consistently improves embedding quality. These unstable cells likely contain higher levels of noise or subtle biological signals not aligned with the primary trajectory."

    The reported 'improved overall stability' is the NESS global stability (GS) score, which Methods 4.3 defines as the mean of the local stability scores: GS = (1/n) sum_j S_j. Removing cells with the lowest local stability S_j therefore raises the mean by construction, so the GS component of Figure 3b is not independent evidence of improved embedding quality. The concordance and neighbor-purity improvements are separate, non-tautological empirical checks, which is why this is a peripheral reporting issue rather than a collapse of the paper's central claim.

full rationale

The central NESS local stability score is a well-defined function of KNN graphs across random-initialization ensembles of NE embeddings, and the paper's main biological claims are benchmarked against external cell-state annotations, MuTrans transition entropy, and scVelo RNA velocity. None of these central predictions is a renamed input or a fitted parameter: the stability score does not use biological labels, and the scVelo comparison uses splicing kinetics not used to define NESS. Theorem 4.1 is a separate mathematical proof with a self-contained supplement. Self-citations to the PCS framework and to the authors' SVD thresholding are framing or preprocessing aids, not load-bearing derivations. Two caveats keep the score above 0. First, the GS improvement after deleting unstable cells is tautological because GS is the average of the exact scores used for selection. Second, the MuTrans validation is partly confounded: MuTrans transition entropy is computed with reduction_coord='tsne' (Methods 4.6) while NESS(t-SNE) stability is also derived from t-SNE embeddings, so the two scores share embedding geometry; this weakens the external grounding but does not make the association true by construction. The paper's explicit continuity assumption linking low density to fast state transitions is a stated modeling assumption rather than a circular step, though it is a legitimate correctness risk.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on several hand-set hyperparameters (lambda, k, N, GCP thresholds), domain assumptions about manifold structure and the continuity of cell-state transitions, and a simplified theoretical model with an unverified scaling assumption on the optimizer. NESS scores are methodological constructs, not physical entities; local stability has external validation, while global stability does not.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda (quantile for local stability score) = 0.75
    Hand-chosen; authors report stability across lambda in (0.6, 0.9).
  • k (number of neighbors in NESS KNN graphs) = 50
    Default in all analyses.
  • N (number of random initializations) = 30
    Default in all analyses.
  • GCP selection thresholds = top 5% of GS; stop if GS>0.9 or improvement <5%
    Hand-set rules in automated NESS workflow (Methods 4.3).
  • GCP grid = five equally spaced values from 10 to 10 log n
    Workflow parameter.
  • singular value hard-thresholding constant c = 0.01
    Preprocessing threshold for denoising; rmax rule in Methods 4.6.
  • Concordance neighborhood size = 100
    Metric parameter for structure preservation; k=50 for neighbor purity.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Underlying cell states lie on an intrinsically low-dimensional smooth manifold
    NESS assumes the smooth structure can be represented in 2D without fundamental loss; stated as a limitation in Discussion.
  • domain assumption Cells in low-density regions are undergoing fast state transitions ('continuity of cell state changes')
    Used to interpret low local stability as biological transition state; stated informally in Results near Figure 3d.
  • ad hoc to paper Simplified t-SNE affinity model with constant bandwidth and uniform kNN weights (Eq. 4.2)
    Theoretical analysis of t-SNE uses uniform kNN affinities instead of the Gaussian kernel with perplexity-based bandwidths.
  • ad hoc to paper Optimal t-SNE embedding has diameter S(phi*) = n^tau for some 0 < tau < 1
    Assumed in Theorem 4.1 without verification; the proof's conclusion depends on this scaling of the embedding diameter.
  • domain assumption Random initialization provides a meaningful algorithmic perturbation for stability assessment
    NESS builds on the idea that RI-induced variation reflects genuine uncertainty in the embedding; motivated empirically but not proven.
  • standard math Standard lemmas from analytical geometry and asymptotic analysis used in the proof
    Elementary facts (chord length, sums) in Supplement B.
invented entities (2)
  • NESS local stability score (and derived instability score) independent evidence
    purpose: Quantify per-cell reliability of a neighbor embedding across random initializations, used to identify transitional versus stable cell states and proxy transcriptional dynamics.
    The score is defined from KNN graph consistency across N=30 runs; its biological relevance is independently supported by correlation with MuTrans transition entropy and concordance with scVelo RNA velocity. It is a methodological construct, not a physical entity.
  • NESS global stability score
    purpose: Aggregate stability to guide hyperparameter (GCP) selection and method comparison.
    Used internally as a model-selection criterion; no external falsifiable handle beyond the local scores from which it is derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncovering smooth structures in single-cell data with PCS-guided neighbor embeddings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WH7OWPRJ

@misc{pith2026250622228,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncovering smooth structures in single-cell data with PCS-guided neighbor embeddings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WH7OWPRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22228}
}
read the original abstract

Single-cell sequencing is revolutionizing biology by enabling detailed investigations of cell-state transitions. Many biological processes unfold along continuous trajectories, yet it remains challenging to extract smooth, low-dimensional representations from inherently noisy, high-dimensional single-cell data. Neighbor embedding (NE) algorithms, such as t-SNE and UMAP, are widely used to embed high-dimensional single-cell data into low dimensions. But they often introduce undesirable distortions, resulting in misleading interpretations. Existing evaluation methods for NE algorithms primarily focus on separating discrete cell types rather than capturing continuous cell-state transitions, while dynamic modeling approaches rely on strong assumptions about cellular processes and specialized data. To address these challenges, we build on the Predictability-Computability-Stability (PCS) framework for reliable and reproducible data-driven discoveries. First, we systematically evaluate popular NE algorithms through empirical analysis, simulation, and theory, and reveal their key shortcomings, such as artifacts and instability. We then introduce NESS, a principled and interpretable machine learning approach to improve NE representations by leveraging algorithmic stability and to enable robust inference of smooth biological structures. NESS offers useful concepts, quantitative stability metrics, and efficient computational workflows to uncover developmental trajectories and cell-state transitions in single-cell data. Finally, we apply NESS to six single-cell datasets, spanning pluripotent stem cell differentiation, organoid development, and multiple tissue-specific lineage trajectories. Across these diverse contexts, NESS consistently yields useful biological insights, such as identification of transitional and stable cell states and quantification of transcriptional dynamics during development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22228 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview and illustration of the proposed approach. Our approach is based on the PCS (Pre￾dictability, Computability, and Stability) framework for veridical data science. The “P” in PCS requires a comprehensive reality check for popular NE algorithms. Using numerical simulations, benchmark biological datasets, and theoretical analysis, we evaluate their performance and identify key limitations in capturing smooth st… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Caption next page.) 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Previous page.) PCS-guided assessment identifies artifacts in NE algorithms. (a) Examples of low-dimensional embeddings for synthetic (first row) and benchmark single-cell datasets (last three rows) generated by popular NE algorithms, including t-SNE, UMAP, and PhateR, with cells colored by their labels. The left two columns correspond to two instances of RIs under relative low GCPs, whereas the right two columns s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Caption next page.) 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Previous page.) NESS enhances representation and uncertainty quantification of smooth struc￾tures. (a) Left column: line charts showing the relationship between GCP tuning and the NESS global stability (GS) score for various NE algorithms, evaluated on simulated and r…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Caption next page.) 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Previous page.) NESS identifies transitional and stable cell states in diverse biological devel￾opments. (a) Boxplots of MuTrans’ transition entropy scores for cells whose NESS(t-SNE) local stability (LoS) score, and the pointwise stability measures from EMBEDR, and D…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NESS reveals transcriptional dynamics during spermatogenesis and neurogenesis. (a) Comparison of pointwise NESS instability score, defined as 1/(NESS local stability score), with total RNA velocity for the Spermatogenesis dataset. Each boxplot contains the cells within…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Gorin, M

    G. Gorin, M. Fang, T. Chari, and L. Pachter. Rna velocity unraveled. PLOS Computational Biology, 18(9):e1010492, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Andrae, R

    J. Andrae, R. Gallini, and C. Betsholtz. Role of platelet-derived growth factors in physiology and medicine. Genes & development, 22(10):1276–1312, 2008. 26

    2008

  3. [2]

    Arora, W

    S. Arora, W. Hu, and P. K. Kothari. An analysis of the t-sne algorithm for data visualization. In Conference On Learning Theory, pages 1455–1462. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  4. [3]

    Asahina, S

    K. Asahina, S. Y. Tsai, P. Li, M. Ishii, R. E. Maxson Jr, H. M. Sucov, and H. Tsukamoto. Mes- enchymal origin of hepatic stellate cells, submesothelial cells, and perivascular mesenchymal cells during mouse liver development. Hepatology, 49(3):998–1011, 2009

    2009

  5. [4]

    Auffinger and D

    A. Auffinger and D. Fletcher. Equilibrium distributions for t-distributed stochastic neighbour embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03727, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    Bargaje, K

    R. Bargaje, K. Trachana, M. N. Shelton, C. S. McGinnis, J. X. Zhou, C. Chadick, S. Cook, C. Cavanaugh, S. Huang, and L. Hood. Cell population structure prior to bifurcation predicts efficiency of directed differentiation in human induced pluripotent cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(9):2271–2276, 2017

    2017

  7. [6]

    Battich, J

    N. Battich, J. Beumer, B. De Barbanson, L. Krenning, C. S. Baron, M. E. Tanenbaum, H. Clevers, and A. Van Oudenaarden. Sequencing metabolically labeled transcripts in single cells reveals mrna turnover strategies. Science, 367(6482):1151–1156, 2020

    2020

  8. [7]

    Belkin and P

    M. Belkin and P. Niyogi. Laplacian eigenmaps for dimensionality reduction and data repre- sentation. Neural computation, 15(6):1373–1396, 2003

    2003

Show all 90 references
  1. [8]

    A. C. Belkina, C. O. Ciccolella, R. Anno, R. Halpert, J. Spidlen, and J. E. Snyder-Cappione. Automated optimized parameters for t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding improve visualization and analysis of large datasets. Nature communications, 10(1):5415, 2019

    2019

  2. [9]

    Bergen, M

    V. Bergen, M. Lange, S. Peidli, F. A. Wolf, and F. J. Theis. Generalizing rna velocity to transient cell states through dynamical modeling. Nature biotechnology, 38(12):1408–1414, 2020

    2020

  3. [10]

    Bergen, R

    V. Bergen, R. A. Soldatov, P. V. Kharchenko, and F. J. Theis. Rna velocity—current challenges and future perspectives. Molecular systems biology, 17(8):e10282, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    Betsholtz

    C. Betsholtz. Insight into the physiological functions of pdgf through genetic studies in mice. Cytokine & growth factor reviews, 15(4):215–228, 2004

    2004

  5. [12]

    J. N. B¨ ohm, P. Berens, and D. Kobak. Attraction-repulsion spectrum in neighbor embeddings. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(95):1–32, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    R. E. Braun. Post–transcriptional control of gene expression during spermatogenesis. In Seminars in cell & developmental biology, volume 9, pages 483–489. Elsevier, 1998

    1998

  7. [14]

    T. T. Cai and R. Ma. Theoretical foundations of t-SNE for visualizing high-dimensional clustered data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.07536, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    T. T. Cai and R. Ma. Theoretical foundations of t-sne for visualizing high-dimensional clustered data. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(301):1–54, 2022

    2022

  9. [16]

    J. Cao, M. Spielmann, X. Qiu, X. Huang, D. M. Ibrahim, A. J. Hill, F. Zhang, S. Mundlos, L. Christiansen, F. J. Steemers, et al. The single-cell transcriptional landscape of mammalian organogenesis. Nature, 566(7745):496–502, 2019. 27

    2019

  10. [17]

    Chari and L

    T. Chari and L. Pachter. The specious art of single-cell genomics. PLOS Computational Biology, 19(8):e1011288, 2023

    2023

  11. [18]

    Clifton, M

    K. Clifton, M. Anant, G. Aihara, L. Atta, O. K. Aimiuwu, J. M. Kebschull, M. I. Miller, D. Tward, and J. Fan. Stalign: Alignment of spatial transcriptomics data using diffeomorphic metric mapping. Nature communications, 14(1):8123, 2023

    2023

  12. [19]

    P. H. Crossley, S. Martinez, and G. R. Martin. Midbrain development induced by fgf8 in the chick embryo. Nature, 380(6569):66–68, 1996

    1996

  13. [20]

    E. E. Crouch, T. Joseph, E. Marsan, and E. J. Huang. Disentangling brain vasculature in neurogenesis and neurodegeneration using single-cell transcriptomics. Trends in neurosciences, 46(7):551–565, 2023

    2023

  14. [21]

    Damrich and F

    S. Damrich and F. A. Hamprecht. On umap’s true loss function. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:5798–5809, 2021

    2021

  15. [22]

    Demine, A

    S. Demine, A. A. Schiavo, S. Mar ´ ın-Ca˜ nas, P. Marchetti, M. Cnop, and D. L. Eizirik. Pro- inflammatory cytokines induce cell death, inflammatory responses, and endoplasmic reticulum stress in human ipsc-derived beta cells. Stem cell research & therapy, 11:1–15, 2020

    2020

  16. [23]

    S. Deng, H. Gong, D. Zhang, M. Zhang, and X. He. A statistical method for quantifying progenitor cells reveals incipient cell fate commitments. Nature Methods, 21(4):597–608, 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    J. Ding, N. Sharon, and Z. Bar-Joseph. Temporal modelling using single-cell transcriptomics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 23(6):355–368, 2022

    2022

  18. [25]

    B. I. Garay, S. Givens, P. Abreu, M. Liu, D. Y¨ ucel, J. Baik, N. Stanis, T. M. Rothermel, A. Magli, J. E. Abrahante, et al. Dual inhibition of mapk and pi3k/akt pathways enhances maturation of human ipsc-derived cardiomyocytes. Stem cell reports, 17(9):2005–2022, 2022

    2005

  19. [27]

    M. D. Griswold. Spermatogenesis: the commitment to meiosis. Physiological reviews, 96(1):1– 17, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Heitz, Y

    M. Heitz, Y. Ma, S. Kubal, and G. Schiebinger. Spatial transcriptomics brings new challenges and opportunities for trajectory inference. Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science, 8, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    B. P. Hermann, K. Cheng, A. Singh, L. Roa-De La Cruz, K. N. Mutoji, I.-C. Chen, H. Gilder- sleeve, J. D. Lehle, M. Mayo, B. Westernstr¨ oer, et al. The mammalian spermatogenesis single- cell transcriptome, from spermatogonial stem cells to spermatids. Cell reports, 25(6):1650–...

    2018

  22. [30]

    R. V. Hoch and P. Soriano. Roles of pdgf in animal development. 2003

    2003

  23. [31]

    Hochgerner, A

    H. Hochgerner, A. Zeisel, P. L¨ onnerberg, and S. Linnarsson. Conserved properties of dentate gyrus neurogenesis across postnatal development revealed by single-cell rna sequencing.Nature neuroscience, 21(2):290–299, 2018. 28

    2018

  24. [32]

    Huang, Y

    H. Huang, Y. Wang, C. Rudin, and E. P. Browne. Towards a comprehensive evaluation of dimension reduction methods for transcriptomic data visualization. Communications biology, 5(1):719, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    J. K. Ichida, J. Tcw, L. A. Williams, A. C. Carter, Y. Shi, M. T. Moura, M. Ziller, S. Singh, G. Amabile, C. Bock, et al. Notch inhibition allows oncogene-independent generation of ips cells. Nature chemical biology, 10(8):632–639, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    K. Jahn, J. Kuipers, and N. Beerenwinkel. Tree inference for single-cell data. Genome biology, 17(1):86, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Jeong and H.-T

    S. Jeong and H.-T. Wu. Convergence analysis of t-sne as a gradient flow for point cloud on a manifold. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17675, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Jindal, M

    K. Jindal, M. T. Adil, N. Yamaguchi, X. Yang, H. C. Wang, K. Kamimoto, G. C. Rivera- Gonzalez, and S. A. Morris. Single-cell lineage capture across genomic modalities with celltag- multi reveals fate-specific gene regulatory changes. Nature biotechnology, 42(6):946–959, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    E. M. Johnson, W. Kath, and M. Mani. Embedr: distinguishing signal from noise in single-cell omics data. Patterns, 3(3), 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Kobak and G

    D. Kobak and G. C. Linderman. Initialization is critical for preserving global data structure in both t-sne and umap. Nature biotechnology, 39(2):156–157, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Korsunsky, N

    I. Korsunsky, N. Millard, J. Fan, K. Slowikowski, F. Zhang, K. Wei, Y. Baglaenko, M. Brenner, P.-r. Loh, and S. Raychaudhuri. Fast, sensitive and accurate integration of single-cell data with harmony. Nature methods, 16(12):1289–1296, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Y. Koui, T. Kido, T. Ito, H. Oyama, S.-W. Chen, Y. Katou, K. Shirahige, and A. Miyajima. An in vitro human liver model by ipsc-derived parenchymal and non-parenchymal cells. Stem cell reports, 9(2):490–498, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    La Manno, R

    G. La Manno, R. Soldatov, A. Zeisel, E. Braun, H. Hochgerner, V. Petukhov, K. Lid- schreiber, M. E. Kastriti, P. L¨ onnerberg, A. Furlan, et al. Rna velocity of single cells.Nature, 560(7719):494–498, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Lafon, Y

    S. Lafon, Y. Keller, and R. R. Coifman. Data fusion and multicue data matching by diffusion maps. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 28(11):1784–1797, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    Lange, V

    M. Lange, V. Bergen, M. Klein, M. Setty, B. Reuter, M. Bakhti, H. Lickert, M. Ansari, J. Schniering, H. B. Schiller, et al. Cellrank for directed single-cell fate mapping. Nature methods, 19(2):159–170, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Lennartsson and L

    J. Lennartsson and L. R¨ onnstrand. Stem cell factor receptor/c-kit: from basic science to clinical implications. Physiological reviews, 92(4):1619–1649, 2012

    2012

  37. [45]

    Liang, F

    S. Liang, F. Wang, J. Han, and K. Chen. Latent periodic process inference from single-cell rna-seq data. Nature communications, 11(1):1441, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    L. Lim, D. Mi, A. Llorca, and O. Mar ´ ın. Development and functional diversification of cortical interneurons. Neuron, 100(2):294–313, 2018. 29

    2018

  39. [47]

    G. C. Linderman, M. Rachh, J. G. Hoskins, S. Steinerberger, and Y. Kluger. Fast interpolation- based t-sne for improved visualization of single-cell rna-seq data. Nature methods, 16(3):243– 245, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    G. C. Linderman and S. Steinerberger. Dimensionality reduction via dynamical systems: the case of t-sne. SIAM Review, 64(1):153–178, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Z. Liu, R. Ma, and Y. Zhong. Assessing and improving reliability of neighbor embedding methods: a map-continuity perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16608, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    R. Ma, E. D. Sun, D. Donoho, and J. Zou. Principled and interpretable alignability test- ing and integration of single-cell data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(10):e2313719121, 2024

    2024

  43. [52]

    R. Ma, E. D. Sun, and J. Zou. A spectral method for assessing and combining multiple data visualizations. Nature Communications, 14(1):780, 2023

    2023

  44. [53]

    Masuda, R

    T. Masuda, R. Sankowski, O. Staszewski, and M. Prinz. Microglia heterogeneity in the single- cell era. Cell reports, 30(5):1271–1281, 2020

    2020

  45. [54]

    McInnes, J

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, and J. Melville. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  46. [55]

    K. R. Moon, D. Van Dijk, Z. Wang, S. Gigante, D. B. Burkhardt, W. S. Chen, K. Yim, A. v. d. Elzen, M. J. Hirn, R. R. Coifman, et al. Visualizing structure and transitions in high-dimensional biological data. Nature biotechnology, 37(12):1482–1492, 2019

    2019

  47. [56]

    Narayan, B

    A. Narayan, B. Berger, and H. Cho. Assessing single-cell transcriptomic variability through density-preserving data visualization. Nature biotechnology, 39(6):765–774, 2021

    2021

  48. [57]

    Offen, A

    N. Offen, A. Filatova, and U. A. Nuber. Enrichment of fgf8-expressing cells from neurally induced human pluripotent stem cell cultures. Stem Cell Reports, 18(11):2240–2253, 2023

    2023

  49. [58]

    M. B. Pardi, M. B. Ogando, A. F. Schinder, and A. Marin-Burgin. Differential inhibition onto developing and mature granule cells generates high-frequency filters with variable gain. Elife, 4:e08764, 2015

    2015

  50. [59]

    F. Paul, Y. Arkin, A. Giladi, D. A. Jaitin, E. Kenigsberg, H. Keren-Shaul, D. Winter, D. Lara- Astiaso, M. Gury, A. Weiner, et al. Transcriptional heterogeneity and lineage commitment in myeloid progenitors. Cell, 163(7):1663–1677, 2015

    2015

  51. [60]

    Phillips, J

    R. Phillips, J. Kondev, J. Theriot, and H. Garcia. Physical biology of the cell. Garland Science, 2012

    2012

  52. [61]

    X. Qiu, Y. Zhang, J. D. Martin-Rufino, C. Weng, S. Hosseinzadeh, D. Yang, A. N. Pogson, M. Y. Hein, K. H. J. Min, L. Wang, et al. Mapping transcriptomic vector fields of single cells. Cell, 185(4):690–711, 2022. 30

    2022

  53. [62]

    P. J. Rousseeuw. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20:53–65, 1987

    1987

  54. [63]

    Saelens, R

    W. Saelens, R. Cannoodt, H. Todorov, and Y. Saeys. A comparison of single-cell trajectory inference methods. Nature biotechnology, 37(5):547–554, 2019

    2019

  55. [64]

    Schiebinger, J

    G. Schiebinger, J. Shu, M. Tabaka, B. Cleary, V. Subramanian, A. Solomon, J. Gould, S. Liu, S. Lin, P. Berube, et al. Optimal-transport analysis of single-cell gene expression identifies developmental trajectories in reprogramming. Cell, 176(4):928–943, 2019

    2019

  56. [65]

    Setty, V

    M. Setty, V. Kiseliovas, J. Levine, A. Gayoso, L. Mazutis, and D. Pe’Er. Characterization of cell fate probabilities in single-cell data with palantir. Nature biotechnology, 37(4):451–460, 2019

    2019

  57. [66]

    Sritharan, S

    D. Sritharan, S. Wang, and S. Hormoz. Computing the riemannian curvature of image patch and single-cell rna sequencing data manifolds using extrinsic differential geometry.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(29):e2100473118, 2021

    2021

  58. [67]

    S. V. Stassen, G. G. Yip, K. K. Wong, J. W. Ho, and K. K. Tsia. Generalized and scalable trajectory inference in single-cell omics data with via. Nature communications, 12(1):5528, 2021

    2021

  59. [68]

    E. D. Sun, R. Ma, and J. Zou. Dynamic visualization of high-dimensional data. Nature Computational Science, 3(1):86–100, 2023

    2023

  60. [69]

    J. Tang, J. Liu, M. Zhang, and Q. Mei. Visualizing large-scale and high-dimensional data. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web, pages 287–297, 2016

    2016

  61. [70]

    Toyoda, S

    R. Toyoda, S. Assimacopoulos, J. Wilcoxon, A. Taylor, P. Feldman, A. Suzuki-Hirano, T. Shi- mogori, and E. A. Grove. Fgf8 acts as a classic diffusible morphogen to pattern the neocortex. Development, 137(20):3439–3448, 2010

    2010

  62. [71]

    Van der Maaten and G

    L. Van der Maaten and G. Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(11), 2008

    2008

  63. [72]

    Verma and B

    A. Verma and B. E. Engelhardt. A robust nonlinear low-dimensional manifold for single cell rna-seq data. BMC bioinformatics, 21:1–15, 2020

    2020

  64. [73]

    Vethe, L

    H. Vethe, L. Ghila, M. Berle, L. Hoareau, Ø. A. Haaland, H. Scholz, J. A. Paulo, S. Chera, and H. Ræder. The effect of wnt pathway modulators on human ipsc-derived pancreatic beta cell maturation. Frontiers in endocrinology, 10:293, 2019

    2019

  65. [74]

    B. L. Walker and Q. Nie. Nest: nested hierarchical structure identification in spatial tran- scriptomic data. Nature communications, 14(1):6554, 2023

    2023

  66. [75]

    K. Wang, L. Hou, X. Wang, X. Zhai, Z. Lu, Z. Zi, W. Zhai, X. He, C. Curtis, D. Zhou, et al. Phylovelo enhances transcriptomic velocity field mapping using monotonically expressed genes. Nature Biotechnology, 42(5):778–789, 2024

    2024

  67. [76]

    L. Wang, Q. Zhang, Q. Qin, N. Trasanidis, M. Vinyard, H. Chen, and L. Pinello. Current progress and potential opportunities to infer single-cell developmental trajectory and cell fate. Current opinion in systems biology, 26:1–11, 2021. 31

    2021

  68. [77]

    S.-W. Wang, M. J. Herriges, K. Hurley, D. N. Kotton, and A. M. Klein. Cospar identifies early cell fate biases from single-cell transcriptomic and lineage information. Nature Biotechnology, 40(7):1066–1074, 2022

    2022

  69. [78]

    Z. Wang, E. Oron, B. Nelson, S. Razis, and N. Ivanova. Distinct lineage specification roles for nanog, oct4, and sox2 in human embryonic stem cells. Cell stem cell, 10(4):440–454, 2012

    2012

  70. [79]

    Weiler, M

    P. Weiler, M. Lange, M. Klein, D. Pe’er, and F. Theis. Cellrank 2: unified fate mapping in multiview single-cell data. Nature Methods, pages 1–10, 2024

    2024

  71. [80]

    F. A. Wolf, F. K. Hamey, M. Plass, J. Solana, J. S. Dahlin, B. G¨ ottgens, N. Rajewsky, L. Simon, and F. J. Theis. Paga: graph abstraction reconciles clustering with trajectory inference through a topology preserving map of single cells. Genome biology, 20:1–9, 2019

    2019

  72. [81]

    L. Xia, C. Lee, and J. J. Li. Statistical method scdeed for detecting dubious 2d single- cell embeddings and optimizing t-sne and umap hyperparameters. Nature Communications, 15(1):1753, 2024

    2024

  73. [82]

    J. Yao, S. Zheng, and Z. Bai. Sample covariance matrices and high-dimensional data analysis. Cambridge UP, New York, 2015

    2015

  74. [83]

    Z. Yao, B. Li, Y. Lu, and S.-T. Yau. Single-cell analysis via manifold fitting: A frame- work for rna clustering and beyond. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(37):e2400002121, 2024

    2024

  75. [84]

    B. Yu. What is uncertainty in today’s practice of data science? Journal of Econometrics, 237(1), 2023

    2023

  76. [85]

    Yu and R

    B. Yu and R. Barter. The data science process: One culture. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 115(530):672–674, 2020

    2020

  77. [86]

    Yu and R

    B. Yu and R. L. Barter. Veridical data science: The practice of responsible data analysis and decision making. MIT Press, 2024. Free online version at vdsbook.com

    2024

  78. [87]

    Yu and K

    B. Yu and K. Kumbier. Veridical data science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(8):3920–3929, 2020

    2020

  79. [88]

    A. Yuan, M. V. Rao, Veeranna, and R. A. Nixon. Neurofilaments and neurofilament proteins in health and disease. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 9(4):a018309, 2017

    2017

  80. [89]

    P. Zhou, S. Wang, T. Li, and Q. Nie. Dissecting transition cells from single-cell transcriptome data through multiscale stochastic dynamics. Nature communications, 12(1):5609, 2021

    2021

  81. [90]

    Y. Zhou, Y. Su, S. Li, B. C. Kennedy, D. Y. Zhang, A. M. Bond, Y. Sun, F. Jacob, L. Lu, P. Hu, et al. Molecular landscapes of human hippocampal immature neurons across lifespan. Nature, 607(7919):527–533, 2022. 32 A Supplementary Tables and Figures Data Name Cell NumberF eatur...

    2022

  82. [91]

    In this way, we have so that Tm ⊂ P ′ m ×P ′ m+1 and Tℓ ∩Tk = ∅ for any 1 ≤ k ̸= ℓ ≤ M

    More specifically, if there exists a partition point xim ∈ Pn in the sense that P ′ m = {xim−n/M+1, xim−n/M+2, ..., xim} and P ′ m+1 = {xim+1, xim+2, ..., xim+n/M}, then the subset Tm is defined as Tm = (k, ℓ) : im − nδ 2 + 1 ≤ k ≤ im, im + 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ im + nδ 2 , (B.16) where δ ∈...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.