There are also nonlinear techniques. I’ve used UMAP and it’s excellent (particularly if your data approximately lies on a manifold).
https://umap-learn.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
The most general purpose deep learning dimensionality reduction technique is of course the autoencoder (easy to code in PyTorch). Unlike the above, it makes very few assumptions, but this also means you need a ton more data to train it.
Do you mean it makes the *strongest* assumptions? "your data is (locally) linear and more or less Gaussian" seems like a fairly strong assumption. Sorry for the newb question as I'm not very familiar with this space.
However I meant it colloquially in that those assumptions are trivially satisfied by many generating processes in the physical and engineering world, and there aren’t a whole lot of other requirements that need to be met.
There's a newer thing called PacMap which is an interesting thing that handles difference cases better. Not as robustly tested as UMAP but that could be said of any new thing. I'm a little wary that it might be overfitted to common test cases. To my mind it feels like PacMap seems like a partial solution of a better way of doing it.
The three stage process of PacMap is either asking to be developed into either a continuous system or finding a analytical reason/way to conduct a phase change.
T-SNE is good for visualization and for seeing class separation, but in my experience, I haven’t found it to work for me for dimensionality reduction per se (maybe I’m missing something). For me, it’s more of a visualization tool.
On that note, there’s a new algorithm that improves on T-SNE called PaCMAP which preserves local and global structures better. https://github.com/YingfanWang/PaCMAP
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.08.652944v1....
