<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Pattern Matching and Classification of Clusters in Collision Cascades · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1811.10923/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1811.10923/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Pattern Matching and Classification of Clusters in Collision Cascades — mentioned by haptork</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21178926</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1811.10923:21178926</guid><pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2019 09:33:17 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Nice article. We recently used t-SNE and UMAP in the field of radiation damage, for visualising the damage shapes (point defect clusters of different shapes). The results were interesting in many ways. We found that the general layout of classes of shapes is more or less same in UMAP or t-SNE, so the global &amp;amp; local relationship argument didn&amp;#x27;t really work for our data. Since, the data was around 1000 points of around 50 dimensional histograms, efficiency was also not a big distinction. For us, real advantage of UMAP came out to be its amenability to work with HDBSCAN and embedding new test…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1811.10923/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.comp-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
