27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces 2022
DOI: 10.1145/3490099.3511122
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Embedding Comparator: Visualizing Differences in Global Structure and Local Neighborhoods via Small Multiples

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
32
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Compare embedding spaces. Most existing embedding-space comparison techniques assume that the correspondences between the two embedding spaces are clear [6,54]. For example, they compare the embeddings of the same group of words generated by different embedding algorithms.…”
Section: Design Considerations and Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compare embedding spaces. Most existing embedding-space comparison techniques assume that the correspondences between the two embedding spaces are clear [6,54]. For example, they compare the embeddings of the same group of words generated by different embedding algorithms.…”
Section: Design Considerations and Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The tool mainly focuses on comparing embedding space properties, such as neighborhood overlap or spread and neighbor distances. The Embedding Comparator system [12] shares this objective, differentiating from embComp in the fact that it simultaneously visualizes global views of embedding structure alongside local views of individual objects and their common and unique neighbors to enable efficient analysis. Vector embedding comparison is also supported by Emblaze [52] which consists of an elaborate interactive scatterplot and mainly focuses on neighborhood discovery for dynamic relation suggestions.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We compared the VeloViz embeddings to more conventional PC, t-SNE, UMAP, and diffusion map embeddings. To evaluate how accurately each embedding captured the ground truth trajectory, we calculated a trajectory consistency (TC) score (Supplementary Information 3, (Boggust et al, 2019)) where high TC scores indicate more accurate representations of the ground truth trajectory. For the simulated cycling trajectory, all evaluated embeddings were able to capture the cycling structure of the trajectory except for the PC embedding (Supplementary Figure 1A).…”
Section: Comparing Veloviz To Other Embeddingsmentioning
confidence: 99%