Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

Understanding Differentiable Embeddings Through Differential and Integral Geometry

How can an analyst decide whether a nonlinear dimensionality reduction embedding can be trusted? Existing diagnostics provide only partial answers: projection glyphs characterize local sensitivity, map-continuity scores measure local conditioning, and transport-based analyses reveal path-dependent inconsistencies. However, these methods appear unrelated and provide no common framework for understanding when they agree or not. We show that they are all derived from a single geometric object induced by every differentiable embedding, whether defined implicitly through optimization or explicitly by a learned mapping. This framework provides two complementary geometric views of an embedding. ...

AuthorsXinyu Zhang, Klaus Mueller
Primary categorycs.LG
Published7 August 2026
Last updated at source7 August 2026
cs.LG
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/735ab466-9176-49fe-8496-40e83160cd53" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.