BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Jinwook Seo

Jinwook Seo contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningHuman-Computer Interaction

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2025arXiv

Dataset-Adaptive Dimensionality Reduction

Selecting the appropriate dimensionality reduction (DR) technique and determining its optimal hyperparameter settings that maximize the accuracy of the output projections typically involves extensive trial and error, often resulting in unnecessary computational overhead. To address this challenge, we propose a dataset-adaptive approach to DR optimization guided by structural complexity metrics. These metrics quantify the intrinsic complexity of a dataset, predicting whether higher-dimensional spaces are necessary to represent it accurately. Since complex datasets are often inaccurately represented in two-dimensional projections, leveraging these metrics enables us to predict the maximum achievable accuracy of DR techniques for a given dataset, eliminating redundant trials in optimizing DR. We introduce the design and theoretical foundations of these structural complexity metrics. We quantitatively verify that our metrics effectively approximate the ground truth complexity of datasets and confirm their suitability for guiding dataset-adaptive DR workflow. Finally, we empirically show that our dataset-adaptive workflow significantly enhances the efficiency of DR optimization without compromising accuracy.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2025arXiv

Metric Design != Metric Behavior: Improving Metric Selection for the Unbiased Evaluation of Dimensionality Reduction

Evaluating the accuracy of dimensionality reduction (DR) projections in preserving the structure of high-dimensional data is crucial for reliable visual analytics. Diverse evaluation metrics targeting different structural characteristics have thus been developed. However, evaluations of DR projections can become biased if highly correlated metrics--those measuring similar structural characteristics--are inadvertently selected, favoring DR techniques that emphasize those characteristics. To address this issue, we propose a novel workflow that reduces bias in the selection of evaluation metrics by clustering metrics based on their empirical correlations rather than on their intended design characteristics alone. Our workflow works by computing metric similarity using pairwise correlations, clustering metrics to minimize overlap, and selecting a representative metric from each cluster. Quantitative experiments demonstrate that our approach improves the stability of DR evaluation, which indicates that our workflow contributes to mitigating evaluation bias.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Uniform Manifold Approximation with Two-phase Optimization

We introduce Uniform Manifold Approximation with Two-phase Optimization (UMATO), a dimensionality reduction (DR) technique that improves UMAP to capture the global structure of high-dimensional data more accurately. In UMATO, optimization is divided into two phases so that the resulting embeddings can depict the global structure reliably while preserving the local structure with sufficient accuracy. In the first phase, hub points are identified and projected to construct a skeletal layout for the global structure. In the second phase, the remaining points are added to the embedding preserving the regional characteristics of local areas. Through quantitative experiments, we found that UMATO (1) outperformed widely used DR techniques in preserving the global structure while (2) producing competitive accuracy in representing the local structure. We also verified that UMATO is preferable in terms of robustness over diverse initialization methods, number of epochs, and subsampling techniques.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Comparative Layouts Revisited: Design Space, Guidelines, and Future Directions

We present a systematic review on three comparative layouts (i.e., juxtaposition, superposition, and explicit-encoding) which are information visualization (InfoVis) layouts designed to support comparison tasks. For the last decade, these layouts have served as fundamental idioms in designing many visualization systems. However, we found that the layouts have been used with inconsistent terms and confusion, and the lessons from previous studies are fragmented. The goal of our research is to distill the results from previous studies into a consistent and reusable framework. We review 127 research papers, including 15 papers with quantitative user studies, which employed comparative layouts. We first alleviate the ambiguous boundaries in the design space of comparative layouts by suggesting lucid terminology (e.g., chart-wise and item-wise juxtaposition). We then identify the diverse aspects of comparative layouts, such as the advantages and concerns of using each layout in the real-world scenarios and researchers' approaches to overcome the concerns. Building our knowledge on top of the initial insights gained from the Gleicher et al.'s survey, we elaborate on relevant empirical evidence that we distilled from our survey (e.g., the actual effectiveness of the layouts in different study settings) and identify novel facets that the original work did not cover (e.g., the familiarity of the layouts to people). Finally, we show the consistent and contradictory results on the performance of comparative layouts and offer practical implications for using the layouts by suggesting trade-offs and seven actionable guidelines.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access