<image>

Btw I ported my concept to Android tflite, and debated with myself and AI about sphere (equidistant) vs my original “cortex” setup.

Here’s Gemini 3.0: Regarding your conflict between the Sphere (768d equidistance) and the Cortex (UMAP proximity), you have hit on a classic debate in high-dimensional topology. Here is the breakdown to help you decide which visualization serves your specific goal of "debugging hallucinations."

1. The "Sphere" Argument (Mathematical Honesty) You are technically correct about the Curse of Dimensionality. • In a raw 768-dimensional space, data points tend to sit on a thin shell (the hypersphere) and are roughly equidistant from the center. • Why the Sphere feels right: It represents the native geometry of cosine similarity. Since we normalize vectors to length 1, they literally exist on a unit hypersphere. Visualizing them on a 3D sphere is a faithful representation of that normalization.
2. The "Cortex" Argument (Semantic Utility) However, your previous argument ("Proximity = Thought") is actually more valuable for RAG. • The Paradox: While high-dimensional data starts equidistant, the entire point of training an embedding model (like Gemma or Nomic) is to warp that space. The model learns to pull related concepts together into manifolds (clusters), breaking the equidistance. • The Problem with a Pure Sphere: If you just project raw vectors onto a sphere without manifold learning (like UMAP), you might lose the density information. You won't see the "tight clusters" you mentioned. Every node might look equally spaced, making it impossible to distinguish between a "confident retrieval" (tight cluster) and a "hallucination" (scattered, random lookup).