Skip to content

Evaluating embedding based on how good the embedding explains a continuous/binary column #9

Open
@hoangthienan95

Description

@hoangthienan95

First off thank you so much for the great package and manuscript. It's awesome to see such important work done in dimensionality reduction/single cell unifying and comparing the DR methods.

My question is about evaluating embedding. In the documentation, you showed how to compare the embeddings based on PCA loss and geodesic spearman R. If I cluster the data and know the cluster labels I can also use metrics like Adjusted Rand Index and Adjusted Mutual Information to evaluate the clustering (and the embedding indirectly).

However, if I only have a binary or continuous column (like expression of a gene) and wants to see how good the embedding "explains" my column (the relationship can be highly non-linear), and evaluate the different embedding methods/parameters based on that, what should I do? I can train an XGBoost model to predict my target and get R-squared/AUC using only the embedding, but then I'll also have the model's hyperparameters to tune. Do you have any suggestions for this problem?

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions