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

Moritz Herrmann

Moritz Herrmann contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine LearningApplicationsMethodology

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
3topics
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

Rethinking the handling of method failure in comparison studies

Comparison studies in methodological research are intended to compare methods in an evidence-based manner to help data analysts select a suitable method for their application. To provide trustworthy evidence, they must be carefully designed, implemented, and reported, especially given the many decisions made in planning and running. A common challenge in comparison studies is to handle the "failure" of one or more methods to produce a result for some (real or simulated) data sets, such that their performances cannot be measured in those instances. Despite an increasing emphasis on this topic in recent literature (focusing on non-convergence as a common manifestation), there is little guidance on proper handling and interpretation, and reporting of the chosen approach is often neglected. This paper aims to fill this gap and offers practical guidance on handling method failure in comparison studies. After exploring common handlings across various published comparison studies from classical statistics and predictive modeling, we show that the popular approaches of discarding data sets yielding failure (either for all or the failing methods only) and imputing are inappropriate in most cases. We then recommend a different perspective on method failure - viewing it as the result of a complex interplay of several factors rather than just its manifestation. Building on this, we provide recommendations on more adequate handlings of method failure derived from realistic considerations. In particular, we propose considering fallback strategies that directly reflect the behavior of real-world users. Finally, we illustrate our recommendations and the dangers of inadequate handling of method failure through two exemplary comparison studies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2024arXiv

To tweak or not to tweak. How exploiting flexibilities in gene set analysis leads to over-optimism

Gene set analysis, a popular approach for analysing high-throughput gene expression data, aims to identify sets of genes that show enriched expression patterns between two conditions. In addition to the multitude of methods available for this task, users are typically left with many options when creating the required input and specifying the internal parameters of the chosen method. This flexibility can lead to uncertainty about the 'right' choice, further reinforced by a lack of evidence-based guidance. Especially when their statistical experience is scarce, this uncertainty might entice users to produce preferable results using a 'trial-and-error' approach. While it may seem unproblematic at first glance, this practice can be viewed as a form of 'cherry-picking' and cause an optimistic bias, rendering the results non-replicable on independent data. After this problem has attracted a lot of attention in the context of classical hypothesis testing, we now aim to raise awareness of such over-optimism in the different and more complex context of gene set analyses. We mimic a hypothetical researcher who systematically selects the analysis variants yielding their preferred results, thereby considering three distinct goals they might pursue. Using a selection of popular gene set analysis methods, we tweak the results in this way for two frequently used benchmark gene expression data sets. Our study indicates that the potential for over-optimism is particularly high for a group of methods frequently used despite being commonly criticised. We conclude by providing practical recommendations to counter over-optimism in research findings in gene set analysis and beyond.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

A geometric framework for outlier detection in high-dimensional data

Outlier or anomaly detection is an important task in data analysis. We discuss the problem from a geometrical perspective and provide a framework that exploits the metric structure of a data set. Our approach rests on the manifold assumption, i.e., that the observed, nominally high-dimensional data lie on a much lower dimensional manifold and that this intrinsic structure can be inferred with manifold learning methods. We show that exploiting this structure significantly improves the detection of outlying observations in high-dimensional data. We also suggest a novel, mathematically precise, and widely applicable distinction between distributional and structural outliers based on the geometry and topology of the data manifold that clarifies conceptual ambiguities prevalent throughout the literature. Our experiments focus on functional data as one class of structured high-dimensional data, but the framework we propose is completely general and we include image and graph data applications. Our results show that the outlier structure of high-dimensional and non-tabular data can be detected and visualized using manifold learning methods and quantified using standard outlier scoring methods applied to the manifold embedding vectors.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Enhancing cluster analysis via topological manifold learning

We discuss topological aspects of cluster analysis and show that inferring the topological structure of a dataset before clustering it can considerably enhance cluster detection: theoretical arguments and empirical evidence show that clustering embedding vectors, representing the structure of a data manifold instead of the observed feature vectors themselves, is highly beneficial. To demonstrate, we combine manifold learning method UMAP for inferring the topological structure with density-based clustering method DBSCAN. Synthetic and real data results show that this both simplifies and improves clustering in a diverse set of low- and high-dimensional problems including clusters of varying density and/or entangled shapes. Our approach simplifies clustering because topological pre-processing consistently reduces parameter sensitivity of DBSCAN. Clustering the resulting embeddings with DBSCAN can then even outperform complex methods such as SPECTACL and ClusterGAN. Finally, our investigation suggests that the crucial issue in clustering does not appear to be the nominal dimension of the data or how many irrelevant features it contains, but rather how \textit{separable} the clusters are in the ambient observation space they are embedded in, which is usually the (high-dimensional) Euclidean space defined by the features of the data. Our approach is successful because we perform the cluster analysis after projecting the data into a more suitable space that is optimized for separability, in some sense.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access