Calibrating dimension reduction hyperparameters in the presence of noise.

The goal of dimension reduction tools is to construct a low-dimensional representation of high-dimensional data. These tools are employed for a variety of reasons such as noise reduction, visualization, and to lower computational costs. However, there is a fundamental issue that is discussed in other modeling problems that is often overlooked in dimension reduction—overfitting. In the context of other modeling problems, techniques such as feature-selection, cross-validation, and regularization are employed to combat overfitting, but rarely are such precautions taken when applying dimension reduction. Prior applications of the two most popular non-linear dimension reduction methods, t-SNE and UMAP, fail to acknowledge data as a combination of signal and noise when assessing performance. These methods are typically calibrated to capture the entirety of the data, not just the signal. In this paper, we demonstrate the importance of acknowledging noise when calibrating hyperparameters and present a framework that enables users to do so. We use this framework to explore the role hyperparameter calibration plays in overfitting the data when applying t-SNE and UMAP. More specifically, we show previously recommended values for perplexity and n_neighbors are too small and overfit the noise. We also provide a workflow others may use to calibrate hyperparameters in the presence of noise. Author summary: In our infinitely complex world, perfect data rid of noise is an unattainable ambition. Hence, our goal is to coerce meaningful information, or the signal, from data inevitably riddled with unwanted, random variation. Advances in technology have allowed us to collect and process biological data of increasing size and complexity, so it is now more important than ever to acknowledge noise in our analyses to ensure random structures are not confused for significant patterns. Many algorithms and ideas have been suggested, some more cognizant of noise than others, but it is still unclear how noise should be handled in various situations. Our experiments, however, indicate typical calibrations of popular analysis methods are inadequately handling noisy, complex biological data. In response, we show and explain how alternate calibrations perform better in the presence of noise and lead to results more faithful to the data. By providing evidence of mishandled noise and presenting solutions, we hope to further the discussion on handling noise in biological data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]