4 ms·
The closest I know of is the work on UMAP. I interviewed Leland McInnes who explained to me in detail how category theory was a big part of helping him connect
by j2kun 2y ago
The closest I know of is the work on UMAP. I interviewed Leland McInnes who explained to me in detail how category theory was a big part of helping him connect the dots, even though the final result does not strictly need it in the actual code. Given the relative improvement over the previous state of the art (t-SNE), it's the only example that really makes me reconsider my poo-pooing the way category theory is discussed in software.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426 https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426
- Koshkin 2y agoFascinating. More on the topological data analysis: http://outlace.com/TDApart1.html http://outlace.com/TDApart1.html
- k_s_b 2y agoI felt UMAP and its limitations were explained in a friendly way here https://topos.site/blog/2024-04-05-understanding-umap/ https://topos.site/blog/2024-04-05-understanding-umap/ - written by someone who understands the category theory but is able to explain it without using any category theory.
- nextos 2y agoFor an alternative POV, quite critical of UMAP, see: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011288 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011288
- j2kun 2y agoYes, but I think that it can stand as an answer to the OP regardless of the techniques status as useful for particular domains