Table 1.
Comparison of global and local structure preservation metrics for two datasets: the Swiss roll and artificial tree datasets
| Swiss roll | Artificial tree | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global | Local | Global | Local | |||
| Method | Pearson | Spearman | Trustworthiness | Pearson | Spearman | Trustworthiness |
| Diffusion Map | 0.493 | 0.458 | 0.947 | 0.727 | 0.681 | 0.990 |
| PHATE | 0.428 | 0.314 | 0.956 | 0.615 | 0.361 | 0.991 |
| Shortest Path | 0.534 | 0.538 | 0.950 | 0.879 | 0.892 | 0.991 |
| HeatGeo | 0.529 | 0.548 | 0.959 | 0.798 | 0.884 | 0.992 |
| DTNE | 0.640 | 0.635 | 0.964 | 0.912 | 0.918 | 0.993 |
Pearson and Spearman correlations between algorithm-derived and ground truth distance matrices assess global structure preservation, while the trustworthiness metric evaluates local structure preservation (higher values indicate better performance. Bold indicates best average performance).