Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Visualization of Very Large High-Dimensional Data Sets as Minimum Spanning Trees

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TMAP lays out very large, high-dimensional data sets as a two-dimensional minimum spanning tree, and the resulting tree preserves local and global structure at scales t-SNE and UMAP cannot reach.

desk verdict TMAP is a genuine engineering contribution that scales tree-based visualization to millions of high-dimensional points, but the sub-linear complexity claim is an empirical fit, not a bound, and the faithfulness of the MST of an approximate k-NN graph at scale is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10410 v3 pith:OOGLEW65 submitted 2019-08-16 cs.HC cs.CVcs.DScs.IR

Daniel Probst , Jean-Louis Reymond This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CVcs.DScs.IR
keywords minimumspanningtreehigh-dimensionaldatavisualizationlocalitysensitivehashingapproximatenearestneighborgraphchemicalspaceUMAPcomparisoninteractive
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 introduces TMAP, a visualization method that represents data sets of up to millions of points and arbitrary dimensionality as a two-dimensional tree. Its claim is that this tree preserves both local and global structure far better than current tools such as t-SNE or UMAP, while being faster and using less memory. The central move is to replace manifold embedding with a minimum spanning tree built on an approximate nearest-neighbor graph, which removes cycles and makes the final layout computationally tractable. The authors demonstrate the method on molecular databases with over eleven million compounds, as well as images, text, proteins, and particle-physics data, and report an empirical sub-linear running time of $O(n^{0.931})$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the minimum spanning tree (MST) of a Jaccard-weighted c-approximate k-nearest-neighbor graph. A minimum spanning tree is the set of edges that connects all points with the smallest total edge weight, so it removes every cycle while keeping the data connected. This tree is what makes the visualization interpretable: branches and sub-branches encode cluster structure, and because trees are far cheaper to lay out than general graphs, it is also what allows million-point visualizations to be computed on a single workstation.

What would settle it

Run TMAP on a labeled set such as MNIST with fixed parameters and measure the fraction of true 1-nearest neighbors that fall within topological distance 1 on the MST; the paper reports more than 80% for TMAP on MNIST. A replication that falls far below that with standard parameters would show the approximate k-NN graph is not carrying the neighborhood structure the MST is supposed to encode.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a minimum spanning tree of a c-approximate k-nearest-neighbor graph is a faithful, scalable two-dimensional representation of very large high-dimensional data. The pipeline indexes the data with a locality-sensitive hash forest, builds a Jaccard-weighted approximate k-NN graph, extracts its MST with Kruskal's algorithm, and lays the tree out with a spring-electrical force model. Removing all cycles converts the data into a single tree whose branches and sub-branches expose both global cluster relationships and local neighborhood detail, at a reported empirical cost of $O(n^{0.931})$ and with peak memory that stays manageable for sets of millions of points. The authors argue this makes TMAP better suited than t-SNE or UMAP for exploring large data sets, and illustrate it on 11.26 million molecules, images, texts, proteins, and particle-physics events.

Load-bearing premise

The visualization's fidelity rests on the c-approximate k-nearest-neighbor graph built from locality-sensitive-hashing queries: if that graph misses true neighbor edges, the minimum spanning tree that follows cannot recover them, and the paper itself notes the graph can be disconnected when outliers exist or dense clusters of size at least k form isolated components.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Molecule databases of millions of compounds become explorable as single interactive trees, with structurally related compounds grouped into the same branches.
  • For any data type with a locality-sensitive hashing scheme, including text, images, gene expression, and physics measurements, the same four-phase pipeline applies without changing the tree or layout phases.
  • TMAP's layouts are reproducible from run to run on identical inputs and parameters, unlike the stochastic embeddings produced by UMAP.
  • According to the paper's measurements, a one-million-point set can be visualized in about six minutes with roughly 8.5 GB of memory, where UMAP required about 11.5 hours and 48.5 GB.
  • Neighborhood quality is controlled mainly by the LSH hash count, while the nearest-neighbor count and query-expansion factor have only minor influence on the final visualization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the MST is built on top of an approximate graph, the tree topology should be read as one plausible organization of the data rather than the unique ground-truth hierarchy; changing the LSH parameters can change which edges survive cycle removal.
  • The same tree pipeline could be repurposed as a feature extractor: MST-based distances or tree paths could serve as input to machine-learning models that currently rely on raw high-dimensional vectors.
  • For data that genuinely lies on a closed manifold, such as the rotating-object images in COIL20, TMAP is forced to cut the manifold at some edge; a preprocessing step that detects and stitches such cuts could extend the method to manifold-structured data.
  • Because the paper notes that disconnected approximate graphs are possible when outliers exist or dense clusters of size at least k form isolated components, practical deployments should expose a connectivity warning or a fallback that reconnects tree components.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TMAP, a four-phase pipeline — LSH forest indexing, construction of a c-approximate k-nearest-neighbor graph, minimum spanning tree extraction via Kruskal's algorithm, and force-based layout — for visualizing large high-dimensional data sets as two-dimensional trees. The method is demonstrated on toy benchmarks (MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, COIL20) and on chemical data sets up to 11,261,085 points, with additional examples from biology, physics, and text data. The authors claim that TMAP preserves local and global structure better than t-SNE or UMAP, scales to millions of points on commodity hardware, and exhibits an empirical sub-linear time complexity of O(n^0.931).

Significance. If the claims hold, TMAP fills a genuine gap: interactive, interpretable visualization of million-scale, high-dimensional data sets without specialized hardware. The paper's strengths include an open-source implementation, interactive online examples, evaluation against external benchmarks (MNIST, COIL20, ChEMBL, MoleculeNet), a modular phase design that permits alternative hashing schemes, and fully reproducible deterministic output. However, the headline scaling claim and the structure-preservation claims at the largest scales are currently extrapolations from a four-point runtime fit and from exact-nearest-neighbor checks performed only on small data sets. The paper also leaves open how the acknowledged possibility of a disconnected k-NNG affects the global-structure guarantees of the resulting forest.

major comments (3)
  1. [Conclusion (also Fig. 2g–i)] The claim of an 'empirical sub-linear time complexity of O(n^0.931)' is not a valid asymptotic statement for the full pipeline: any implementation must read all n input points, which gives an Ω(n) lower bound, so a fitted exponent below 1 cannot describe the complete algorithm in the standard computational model. The exponent is obtained from only four runtime measurements (n = 10^4, 10^5, 5×10^5, 10^6) with no error bars or cross-validation, and it likely reflects the graph-layout phase rather than the whole pipeline. Please restrict the claim to 'observed roughly linear scaling in the tested range' and report per-phase timings at more granular values of n.
  2. [Methods, phase II and phase III] The paper explicitly notes that the c-approximate k-NNG can be disconnected when outliers have Jaccard distance 1.0 to all other points or when dense clusters of size at least k form connected components; in those cases phase III produces a minimum spanning forest rather than a single tree, and phase IV lays out the forest without a principled global arrangement for the separate components. None of the large-scale demonstrations (e.g., n = 11,261,085 in Fig. 3b) report the number of connected components, the size of the largest component, or where disconnections occur, so the central 'tree' visualization and its implied global-structure fidelity are not substantiated at scale. Please report connectivity statistics for the real data sets and either add a component-connecting step or restrict the global-structure claims accordingly.
  3. [Results, Fig. 2e/f and Fig. S6] The quantitative locality-preservation comparisons are limited to small data sets (n = 10,000 for ChEMBL and MNIST) where exact k-NN in the input space is computationally feasible. No ground-truth validation is provided for the headline n ≈ 10^7 cases, so the claim that TMAP preserves both global and local features at million scale is an extrapolation from the small-scale regime. In addition, the comparison is made against UMAP only, despite t-SNE appearing in the title and abstract; and because UMAP is stochastic — as the authors' own Fig. S8 demonstrates — single-run comparisons such as those in Fig. 2h,i should include error bars or repeated runs. Please add a subsampled exact-nearest-neighbor validation protocol for large data sets and quantify the variability of the runtime/memory comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods, phase III] Kruskal's algorithm complexity is stated as O(E + log V); the standard bound is O(E log E) with sorting, or near-linear O(E α(V)) when edges are already sorted by weight. Please correct this statement.
  2. [Methods, phases I and II] The statement that a query has time complexity sub-linear in n omits the dependence on k and k_c; for k growing with n, the phase II complexity O(n(k·k_c + log n)) is not necessarily sub-linear. Please state the parameter regime under which the claimed sub-linear behavior holds.
  3. [Fig. 2h,i] The runtime and memory comparisons appear to be single measurements; given the demonstrated run-to-run variability of UMAP in Fig. S8, please report repeated runs with variance or clearly mark the measurements as indicative single runs.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrase 'arbitrary high dimensionality' is stronger than what is demonstrated: the experiments emphasize very high-dimensional sparse/binary data, and the method's efficiency depends on the availability of a suitable LSH family for the chosen metric. The modularity point is acknowledged, but the wording could be softened.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: TMAP's quality claims rest on external benchmarks and true-nearest-neighbor ground truth; the self-cited MHFP6/LSH components are replaceable inputs, not forced conclusions.

  1. other [Methods, phase II; Results, 'TMAPs of small molecule data sets']
    "an augmented variant of the LSH forest query algorithm we previously introduced for virtual screening tasks is used to increase efficiency.45 ... we use MHFP6 ... with better performance for virtual screening tasks and the ability to be directly indexed in an LSH Forest data structure, which considerably speeds up computation for large data sets.45"

    The only self-citation pattern of note is the authors' own MHFP6 fingerprint and augmented LSH query. It is not load-bearing: the ChEMBL locality comparison is evaluated against true nearest neighbors in the original 512-D ECFP4 space, MNIST/COIL20 comparisons use external benchmarks, and the pipeline also runs with ECFP4 and Annoy/cosine indexing. The MST and layout phases are agnostic to the self-cited component, so the central visualization claims do not reduce to this citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Phases I-IV use standard components (LSH Forest, c-approximate k-NNG, Kruskal MST, OGDF layout). The paper's main claims are tested externally: locality preservation is measured against true k-NNs in the input fingerprint space (Fig. 2c-f, Fig. S6), and visual quality is compared with UMAP on MNIST, FMNIST, COIL20, and ChEMBL, while runtime and memory are benchmarked against UMAP on identical data. The large-scale chemical maps and the O(n^0.931) 'empirical sub-linear time complexity' are extrapolations from the authors' own runs rather than externally validated asymptotic bounds, but that is a correctness or overstatement risk, not circularity: the exponent is a fit, not an independent quantity predicted from the inputs. The self-citation to MHFP6/ref. 45 is real but not load-bearing, and no central claim in the paper is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard LSH, k-NN graph, MST, and graph layout machinery, plus the domain assumption that Jaccard distance and the approximate graph capture true structure. The only fitted numeric output is the reported O(n^0.931) exponent, which is an empirical fit rather than a derived bound.

free parameters (6)
  • empirical time-complexity exponent alpha = 0.931
    Fitted to wall-clock runtimes on ChEMBL subsets of sizes 10,000, 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000 (Fig. 2h,i); reported as O(n^0.931) but not a derived asymptotic bound.
  • hash functions d = not fixed (512 for MHFP6 examples)
    Number of MinHash permutations or hash functions; influences locality preservation and memory usage (Fig. S1, S7).
  • prefix trees l = not fixed
    LSH Forest prefix-tree count; affects memory and query speed (Fig. S1).
  • nearest neighbors k = example values such as 10 used in Fig. S4
    Target degree of the approximate k-NN graph; has minor influence on visualization quality (Fig. S2, S7).
  • query factor kc = not fixed
    Used by the augmented LSH query algorithm; minor effect on quality (Fig. S2, S7).
  • layout point size p = not fixed
    Controls sparseness and aesthetics of the drawn tree, and has a minor effect on Euclidean-distance-based locality (Fig. S3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LSH Forest returns c-approximate k-NN queries whose graph is a faithful proxy for true distances in the input space.
    Phases I and II rely on this; no error analysis ties LSH approximation quality to visualization fidelity, and the paper notes the graph can be disconnected for outliers or dense clusters.
  • domain assumption Jaccard distance, estimated via MinHash or weighted MinHash, is a suitable dissimilarity measure for the data being visualized.
    Used for chemical fingerprints and most examples; the paper acknowledges that other LSH families and metrics can replace phase I.
  • ad hoc to paper The minimum spanning tree of the weighted c-approximate k-NN graph preserves the local and global structure needed for human interpretation.
    Central design choice in phase III; asserted rather than proven, and it deliberately removes cycles and cuts circular structure.
  • standard math Kruskal's algorithm and OGDF spring-electrical layout perform correctly and efficiently on graphs with millions of vertices.
    Standard algorithms cited and assumed reliable.
  • domain assumption A minimum spanning forest is an acceptable layout when the k-NN graph is disconnected.
    The paper states the phases are agnostic to disconnectedness, but does not analyze how disconnected components affect global structure preservation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Visualization of Very Large High-Dimensional Data Sets as Minimum Spanning Trees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OOGLEW65

@misc{pith2026190810410,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Visualization of Very Large High-Dimensional Data Sets as Minimum Spanning Trees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OOGLEW65}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10410}
}
read the original abstract

The chemical sciences are producing an unprecedented amount of large, high-dimensional data sets containing chemical structures and associated properties. However, there are currently no algorithms to visualize such data while preserving both global and local features with a sufficient level of detail to allow for human inspection and interpretation. Here, we propose a solution to this problem with a new data visualization method, TMAP, capable of representing data sets of up to millions of data points and arbitrary high dimensionality as a two-dimensional tree (http://tmap.gdb.tools). Visualizations based on TMAP are better suited than t-SNE or UMAP for the exploration and interpretation of large data sets due to their tree-like nature, increased local and global neighborhood and structure preservation, and the transparency of the methods the algorithm is based on. We apply TMAP to the most used chemistry data sets including databases of molecules such as ChEMBL, FDB17, the Natural Products Atlas, DSSTox, as well as to the MoleculeNet benchmark collection of data sets. We also show its broad applicability with further examples from biology, particle physics, and literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10410 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between TMAP and UMAP on benchmark data sets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. PaccMann$^{RL}$: Designing anticancer drugs from transcriptomic data via reinforcement learning

    q-bio.BM 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-VAE generative model, fine-tuned with reinforcement learning and a drug-sensitivity critic, produces molecules with high predicted efficacy against specific cancer transcriptomic profiles, but only in silico.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Callahan, S. P. et al. VisTrails: Visualization Meets Data Management. in Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data 745–747 (ACM, 2006). doi:10.1145/1142473.1142574

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    & Hendler, J

    Fox, P. & Hendler, J. Changing the Equation on Scientific Data Visualization. Science 331, 705–708 (2011)

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Michel, J.-B. et al. Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science 331, 176–182 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Keim, D., Qu, H. & Ma, K. Big-Data Visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 33, 20–21 (2013). 21

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Costa, F. F. Big data in biomedicine. Drug Discovery Today 19, 433–440 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Stephens, Z. D. et al. Big Data: Astronomical or Genomical? PLOS Biology 13, e1002195 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Exploration and Visualization in the Web of Big Linked Data: A Survey of the State of the Art

    Bikakis, N. & Sellis, T. Exploration and Visualization in the Web of Big Linked Data: A Survey of the State of the Art. arXiv:1601.08059 [cs] (2016)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Kahles, A. et al. Comprehensive Analysis of Alternative Splicing Across Tumors from 8,705 Patients. Cancer Cell 34, 211-224.e6 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Arús-Pous, J. et al. Exploring the GDB-13 chemical space using deep generative models. Journal of Cheminformatics 11, 20 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    van der, Postma, E

    Maaten, L. van der, Postma, E. O. & Herik, H. J. van den. Dimensionality Reduction : A Comparative Review. J Mach Learn Res 10, 66–71 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Gaulton, A. et al. The ChEMBL database in 2017. Nucleic Acids Research 45, D945– D954 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Ruddigkeit, L., van Deursen, R., Blum, L. C. & Reymond, J.-L. Enumeration of 166 Billion Organic Small Molecules in the Chemical Universe Database GDB-17. J. Chem. Inf. Model 52, 2864–2875 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    & Reymond, J.-L

    Visini, R., Awale, M. & Reymond, J.-L. Fragment Database FDB-17. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 57, 700–709 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    & Reymond, J.-L

    Awale, M., Visini, R., Probst, D., Arús-Pous, J. & Reymond, J.-L. Chemical Space: Big Data Challenge for Molecular Diversity. Chimia 71, 661–666 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Richard, A. M. & Williams, C. R. Distributed structure-searchable toxicity (DSSTox) public database network: a proposal. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 499, 27–52 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    https://www.npatlas.org/joomla/

    Natural Products Atlas. https://www.npatlas.org/joomla/

  9. [17]

    Wishart, D. S. et al. DrugBank 5.0: a major update to the DrugBank database for

  10. [18]

    Wu, Z. et al. MoleculeNet: A Benchmark for Molecular Machine Learning. arXiv:1703.00564 [physics, stat] (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Oprea, T. I. & Gottfries, J. Chemography: the art of navigating in chemical space. J Comb Chem 3, 157–166 (2001)

    2001

  12. [20]

    & Reymond, J.-L

    Awale, M., van Deursen, R. & Reymond, J.-L. MQN-Mapplet: Visualization of Chemical Space with Interactive Maps of DrugBank, ChEMBL, PubChem, GDB-11, and GDB-13. J. Chem. Inf. Model 53, 509–518 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    & Reymond, J.-L

    Awale, M. & Reymond, J.-L. Similarity Mapplet: Interactive Visualization of the Directory of Useful Decoys and ChEMBL in High Dimensional Chemical Spaces. J. Chem. Inf. Model 55, 1509–1516 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Jin, X. et al. PDB-Explorer: a web-based interactive map of the protein data bank in shape space. BMC Bioinformatics 16, 339 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    & Reymond, J.-L

    Awale, M. & Reymond, J.-L. Web-based 3D-visualization of the DrugBank chemical space. J. Cheminformatics 8, (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    & Reymond, J.-L

    Awale, M., Probst, D. & Reymond, J.-L. WebMolCS: A Web-Based Interface for Visualizing Molecules in Three-Dimensional Chemical Spaces. J. Chem. Inf. Model 57, 643–649 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    & Reymond, J.-L

    Probst, D. & Reymond, J.-L. FUn: a framework for interactive visualizations of large, high-dimensional datasets on the web. Bioinformatics 34, 1433–1435 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    & Melville, J

    McInnes, L., Healy, J. & Melville, J. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction. arXiv:1802.03426 [cs, stat] (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    van der & Hinton, G

    Maaten, L. van der & Hinton, G. Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9, 2579–2605 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Hinton, G. E. & Salakhutdinov, R. R. Reducing the Dimensionality of Data with Neural Networks. Science 313, 504–507 (2006). 23

    2006

  21. [29]

    M., Svensén, M

    Bishop, C. M., Svensén, M. & Williams, C. K. I. GTM: The Generative Topographic Mapping. Neural Computation 10, 215–234 (1998)

    1998

  22. [30]

    Exploration of very large databases by self-organizing maps

    Kohonen, T. Exploration of very large databases by self-organizing maps. in Proceedings of International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN’97) vol. 1 PL1-PL6 vol.1 (1997)

    1997

  23. [31]

    Dong, W., Moses, C. & Li, K. Efficient k-nearest neighbor graph construction for generic similarity measures. in Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web - WWW ’11 577 (ACM Press, 2011). doi:10.1145/1963405.1963487

    2011

  24. [32]

    & Nei, M

    Saitou, N. & Nei, M. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4, 406–425 (1987)

    1987

  25. [33]

    Zhou, Z. et al. GrapeTree: visualization of core genomic relationships among 100,000 bacterial pathogens. Genome Res. 28, 1395–1404 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    & Carlson, H

    Lu, J. & Carlson, H. A. ChemTreeMap: an interactive map of biochemical similarity in molecular datasets. Bioinformatics 32, 3584–3592 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    P’ng, C. et al. BPG: Seamless, automated and interactive visualization of scientific data. BMC Bioinformatics 20, 42 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    & Chaudhuri, S

    Idreos, S., Papaemmanouil, O. & Chaudhuri, S. Overview of Data Exploration Techniques. in Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data 277–281 (ACM, 2015). doi:10.1145/2723372.2731084

    2015

  29. [37]

    & Nosatzki, N

    Andoni, A., Razenshteyn, I. & Nosatzki, N. S. LSH Forest: Practical Algorithms Made Theoretical. in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 67–78 (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2017). doi:10.1137/1.9781611974782.5

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    & Ganesan, P

    Bawa, M., Condie, T. & Ganesan, P. LSH forest: self-tuning indexes for similarity search. in Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web - WWW ’05 651 (ACM Press, 2005). doi:10.1145/1060745.1060840. 24

    2005

  31. [39]

    Kruskal, J. B. On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 7, 48–48 (1956)

    1956

  32. [40]

    Chimani, M. et al. The Open Graph Drawing Framework (OGDF). Handbook of Graph Drawing and Visualization 2011, 543–569 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Broder, A. Z. On the resemblance and containment of documents. in Proceedings. Compression and Complexity of SEQUENCES 1997 (Cat. No.97TB100171) 21–29 (1997). doi:10.1109/SEQUEN.1997.666900

    1997

  34. [42]

    Finding Similar Files in a Large File System

    Manber, U. Finding Similar Files in a Large File System. in Usenix Winter 1994 Technical Conference 1–10 (1994)

    1994

  35. [43]

    Wu, W., Li, B., Chen, L., Zhang, C. & Yu, P. S. Improved Consistent Weighted Sampling Revisited. arXiv:1706.01172 [cs] (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    & Héberger, K

    Bajusz, D., Rácz, A. & Héberger, K. Why is Tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations? Journal of Cheminformatics 7, 20 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    & Reymond, J.-L

    Probst, D. & Reymond, J.-L. A probabilistic molecular fingerprint for big data settings. Journal of Cheminformatics 10, 66 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    & Hahn, M

    Rogers, D. & Hahn, M. Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model 50, 742–754 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    & Landrum, G

    Riniker, S. & Landrum, G. A. Open-source platform to benchmark fingerprints for ligand-based virtual screening. J. Cheminform. 5, 26 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    & Reymond, J.-L

    Awale, M. & Reymond, J.-L. Polypharmacology Browser PPB2: Target Prediction Combining Nearest Neighbors with Machine Learning. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59, 10–17 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    BindingDB Entry 6310: Compounds and compositions as Syk kinase inhibitors

    BindingDB. BindingDB Entry 6310: Compounds and compositions as Syk kinase inhibitors. (2014) doi:10.7270/q24q7sns

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    T., Song, J

    Wang, J., Shen, H. T., Song, J. & Ji, J. Hashing for Similarity Search: A Survey. arXiv:1408.2927 [cs] (2014). 25

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    & Kingsford, C

    Marcais, G., DeBlasio, D., Pandey, P. & Kingsford, C. Locality sensitive hashing for the edit distance. http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/534446 (2019) doi:10.1101/534446

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    & Reymond, J.-L

    Probst, D. & Reymond, J.-L. SmilesDrawer: Parsing and Drawing SMILES-Encoded Molecular Structures Using Client-Side JavaScript. J. Chem. Inf. Model 58, 1–7 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    & Lilienfeld, O

    Ramakrishnan, R., Hartmann, M., Tapavicza, E. & Lilienfeld, O. A. von. Electronic spectra from TDDFT and machine learning in chemical space. The Journal of Chemical Physics 143, 084111 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Berman, H. M. et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28, 235–242 (2000)

    2000

  47. [55]

    & Reymond, J.-L

    Awale, M. & Reymond, J.-L. Atom Pair 2D-Fingerprints Perceive 3D-Molecular Shape and Pharmacophores for Very Fast Virtual Screening of ZINC and GDB-17. J. Chem. Inf. Model 54, 1892–1907 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan- Cancer analysis project

    The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network et al. The Cancer Genome Atlas Pan- Cancer analysis project. Nature Genetics 45, 1113–1120 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Kustatscher, G. et al. Co-regulation map of the human proteome enables identification of protein functions. Nat Biotechnol 37, 1361–1371 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    B., Lomas, W., Mittar, D., Maino, V

    Hanley, M. B., Lomas, W., Mittar, D., Maino, V. & Park, E. Detection of Low Abundance RNA Molecules in Individual Cells by Flow Cytometry. PLOS ONE 8, e57002 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Roe, B. P. et al. Boosted Decision Trees as an Alternative to Artificial Neural Networks for Particle Identification. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 543, 577– 584 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    Annoy (Approximate Nearest Neighbors Oh Yeah)

    Bernhardsson, E. Annoy (Approximate Nearest Neighbors Oh Yeah). https://github.com/spotify/annoy. 26

  53. [61]

    Complexity of Word Collocation Networks: A Preliminary Structural Analysis

    Lahiri, S. Complexity of Word Collocation Networks: A Preliminary Structural Analysis. arXiv:1310.5111 [physics] (2013). 27 Supplementary Information Fig. S1 Influence of LSH Forest parameters 𝒅 and 𝒍 on visualization of MNIST. While phase I of the algorithm mainly influences ...

    2013 arXiv

  54. [2018]

    46, D1074–D1082 (2018)

    Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D1074–D1082 (2018). 22

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.