ML Interview Q Series: Explain the two types of Data Reducing Algorithms
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
Data reduction is an essential step in many Machine Learning and Data Science pipelines, especially when dealing with high-dimensional datasets or very large sample sizes. Broadly speaking, there are two key categories of data-reducing algorithms: Dimensionality Reduction and Numerosity Reduction.
Dimensionality Reduction
Dimensionality reduction techniques aim to reduce the number of features (or attributes) in a dataset. This can be achieved by either selecting a subset of the original features (feature selection) or transforming the existing features into a new lower-dimensional feature space (feature extraction). Reducing dimensionality can help minimize storage requirements, lower computational costs, mitigate the risk of overfitting, and sometimes improve model performance.
Feature Extraction (Example: Principal Component Analysis)
A well-known example of a feature extraction method is Principal Component Analysis (PCA). PCA transforms the original features into a smaller set of uncorrelated variables called principal components. These components capture the directions in which the data varies the most.
When performing PCA on a data matrix, one common approach involves computing the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) or the eigen-decomposition of the covariance matrix. The core principle of PCA can be summarized by the SVD of the data matrix. If X is the data matrix with n samples and d features, PCA computes the decomposition:
Here, X is an n x d matrix (n rows for data points, d columns for original features). U_k is an n x k matrix containing the left singular vectors associated with the top k singular values. S_k is a k x k diagonal matrix of these top k singular values. V_k^T is a k x d matrix containing the right singular vectors (which form the basis of the new feature space). By selecting only the top k components, PCA ensures most of the variance in the data is retained using fewer dimensions.
In practice, PCA is often performed by centering (and sometimes scaling) the data, then computing the covariance matrix and its eigenvectors. Once we select the top k eigenvectors, we project the data onto these vectors to obtain a k-dimensional representation.
Feature Selection
Feature selection aims to pick a subset of relevant features from the original dataset. Techniques include:
Filter methods (e.g., correlation tests).
Wrapper methods (e.g., recursive feature elimination with a chosen model).
Embedded methods (e.g., L1 regularization in linear models).
Unlike feature extraction, which produces entirely new features, feature selection simply discards irrelevant or redundant features but keeps the original features intact.
Numerosity Reduction
Numerosity reduction deals with reducing the size of the dataset (i.e., the number of data points or the total representation size), rather than the number of features. It is especially useful when the dataset is so large that training models or even storing the full data becomes computationally prohibitive.
Sampling
One of the simplest forms of numerosity reduction is sampling. Instead of using every single data point, you randomly select a smaller representative subset. This approach can drastically reduce computation and memory needs when training or prototyping large-scale models. Common sampling strategies include simple random sampling (with or without replacement) and stratified sampling (to preserve class distribution in classification tasks).
Clustering-Based Methods
Another approach is to represent clusters of data points by summary statistics or representative points. For example, a cluster centroid in k-means could serve as a “prototype” for all points assigned to that cluster. This effectively replaces multiple data points with a single representative point.
Parametric Methods
In some scenarios, you can fit a parametric model (e.g., a Gaussian mixture model or other probabilistic distributions) to your data and store only the parameters of the model instead of the entire dataset. This is especially helpful for large, redundant datasets or sensor data logs where you mainly care about the estimated distribution rather than individual data points.
Code Example: PCA in Python
Below is a simple Python snippet demonstrating how to perform PCA using scikit-learn:
import numpy as np
from sklearn.decomposition import PCA
# Suppose X is your data matrix of shape (n_samples, n_features)
X = np.array([
[2.5, 2.4],
[0.5, 0.7],
[2.2, 2.9],
[1.9, 2.2],
[3.1, 3.0],
[2.3, 2.7],
[2.0, 1.6],
[1.0, 1.1],
[1.5, 1.6],
[1.1, 0.9]
])
# Create PCA object to reduce to 1 dimension
pca = PCA(n_components=1)
X_reduced = pca.fit_transform(X)
print("Original shape:", X.shape)
print("Reduced shape:", X_reduced.shape)
print("Reduced data:\n", X_reduced)
This code snippet fits a PCA model to X and transforms it to a single principal component, illustrating how dimensionality reduction can transform high-dimensional data into fewer dimensions.
Potential Follow-up Questions
What is the difference between feature selection and feature extraction?
Feature selection involves picking a subset of the existing features that are most predictive or informative. Feature extraction, on the other hand, constructs entirely new features from the original data (e.g., principal components). Feature selection preserves interpretability but might miss nonlinear combinations of features, while feature extraction can capture more complex variability but often loses direct interpretability.
When is sampling more beneficial than dimensionality reduction?
Sampling is particularly beneficial when the dataset is extremely large, and even reading or storing it is expensive. Dimensionality reduction focuses on cutting down the number of features, which does not help if your main challenge is having too many data points. In big data scenarios, you may use sampling first to get a smaller, manageable subset of the data, then apply dimensionality reduction to mitigate the curse of dimensionality on this smaller set.
How do we choose the right number of components in PCA?
One common approach is to inspect the cumulative explained variance ratio plot. You gradually increase the number of components and look for the point at which adding more components provides diminishing returns in terms of variance explained. Practical considerations (e.g., memory constraints, model complexity) often play a role in deciding the cutoff.
Can autoencoders be used for dimensionality reduction?
Yes. Autoencoders, a class of neural networks, are often used to learn low-dimensional representations of data by training the network to reconstruct the input from a bottleneck layer with fewer neurons than the number of input features. Unlike PCA, autoencoders can capture nonlinear relationships in data. However, they generally need more computational resources and data to achieve good performance.
What is a potential pitfall of random sampling?
Random sampling might fail to capture important minority classes or rare events if those events are too infrequent. In such cases, stratified or more sophisticated sampling methods are needed to preserve the distribution of classes or patterns in the data. Otherwise, the model might become biased if it never sees enough samples from the minority categories.
How does cluster-based numerosity reduction compare with sampling?
Clustering-based methods can capture representative patterns more systematically by grouping similar data points. If your data naturally forms clusters, representing each cluster by a centroid or a small set of samples can be more informative than taking a purely random sample. However, clustering can introduce additional overhead (the cost of performing clustering) and might lose fine-grained details if you choose too few clusters.
How do feature selection and regularization methods interact?
Methods like L1 (Lasso) regularization inherently perform feature selection by driving coefficients for less relevant features toward zero. In such cases, you do not need a separate feature selection procedure because the optimization process filters out unnecessary features. This approach is particularly useful in linear models but may need to be adapted or combined with other techniques for more complex models.
Are there data scenarios where dimensionality reduction could harm model performance?
Yes. If your data has only a small number of dimensions or each dimension is very informative (e.g., carefully engineered domain-specific features), reducing dimensions might discard meaningful information. Additionally, if the distribution of data is highly non-linear and you use a linear dimensionality reduction method like PCA, you might lose important structure or relationships.
Why might we combine both dimensionality reduction and numerosity reduction?
In massive-scale applications, you might first sample or cluster the data to ensure computational feasibility, then apply techniques like PCA or autoencoders to further reduce the complexity of the features. Combining both approaches can be critical for handling modern large-scale datasets without severe performance or memory bottlenecks.
How can we validate the effectiveness of data reduction?
One approach is to compare performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision, recall, RMSE) of a model trained on the reduced dataset with a baseline model trained on the full dataset (if feasible). You can also measure runtime and memory usage improvements. The key is to confirm that data reduction does not drastically compromise predictive performance while achieving resource savings.
Below are additional follow-up questions
What are the typical real-world complexities when applying dimensionality reduction in streaming or real-time contexts?
In a streaming or real-time environment, data arrives continuously, often at high velocity. Traditional dimensionality reduction methods like PCA usually require the entire dataset to be available for computing covariance matrices or performing singular value decomposition. In a streaming scenario, you need algorithms that can update or refine the reduced representation incrementally as new data arrives. This typically means using online or incremental versions of PCA or other dimensionality reduction methods.
A key challenge is balancing the computational cost of frequent model updates against the real-time requirements of the system. For instance, if you use an online PCA approach, you may need to store partial covariance statistics and update them continually without reprocessing all the historical data. Memory constraints are also critical in streaming contexts, as you do not want to keep the entire data history in memory. These complexities can make streaming dimensionality reduction more difficult to implement and tune than offline methods.
Edge cases include:
Data distribution shifts over time (concept drift), causing outdated principal components to become less relevant.
Sporadic bursts of data (e.g., during peak periods) that strain update processes.
Handling real-time anomalies or outliers without disrupting the learned low-dimensional structure.
How do nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods differ from linear methods, and when might they be more appropriate?
Linear methods, such as PCA or Linear Discriminant Analysis, project data onto linear subspaces. They assume that the principal directions of variance or discriminative directions can be captured by straight lines or planes in the feature space. Nonlinear methods, like t-SNE, kernel PCA, or UMAP, capture more complex manifolds and can model curved, intricate relationships within the data.
Nonlinear methods are especially helpful when your data lies on a manifold that is not well-approximated by flat subspaces. In areas like image recognition, natural language processing embeddings, or sensor data with periodic or cyclical patterns, nonlinear dimensionality reduction often yields more meaningful low-dimensional representations. However, these methods can be more computationally expensive, have more hyperparameters, and might be harder to scale to very large datasets. They may also be more challenging to interpret because the transformations are not simply linear projections.
Potential pitfalls:
Overfitting if the method tries too hard to preserve local structure in high dimensions.
Inconsistency across runs (e.g., t-SNE is sensitive to initialization and parameter tuning).
Difficulty in applying transformations to new, unseen data unless the algorithm supports out-of-sample extensions or has a learned mapping function.
How do we handle missing data or data with outliers when applying dimensionality reduction or sampling-based numerosity reduction?
Missing data and outliers introduce noise and distortions that can severely affect dimensionality and numerosity reduction methods:
Missing Data One option is to impute missing values before applying your dimensionality reduction algorithm. Common strategies include mean imputation, more advanced imputation techniques (e.g., k-nearest neighbors, iterative imputation), or ignoring records with too many missing values. Feature selection approaches might also eliminate features with excessive missingness if they are not critical.
Outliers Outliers can skew the principal components in PCA, since the covariance or correlation structure becomes dominated by extreme values. You can mitigate this by:
Using robust PCA variants that reduce the influence of outliers (e.g., using median-based statistics).
Applying outlier detection and removal or capping extreme values at certain thresholds.
Employing robust numerosity reduction techniques (e.g., outlier-robust clustering methods) so that cluster centroids are not unduly influenced by extreme data points.
Sampling When sampling from data containing outliers, random sampling might miss or might over-represent them if the sample size is too small. Stratified sampling or carefully designed outlier handling strategies (like trimming or winsorizing) can ensure the sample better reflects the overall distribution.
What special concerns arise with extremely high-dimensional data (e.g., tens or hundreds of thousands of features) when applying PCA or autoencoders?
Computational Complexity PCA can become infeasible when the feature dimension is extremely large, because computing and decomposing huge covariance matrices or applying singular value decomposition can be computationally and memory-intensive.
Curse of Dimensionality In extremely high dimensions, distances between points tend to become less meaningful, and naive sampling can lose important rare patterns. Autoencoders can also become very large or over-parameterized if each input feature corresponds to a neuron in the input layer.
Sparsity of Data High-dimensional data often contains sparse features. PCA or classical autoencoders assume dense computations, which might waste resources. Specialized approaches like sparse PCA, random projections, or models designed to handle sparse representations are often more suitable.
Interpretability Even if you manage to reduce the data effectively, explaining which parts of the original feature space contributed to the new components can be challenging. For instance, in text analytics with very large vocabularies, autoencoder-based embeddings may be effective but are often viewed as black-box transformations.
How can we interpret or explain the new feature space generated by dimensionality reduction techniques if the domain requires high interpretability?
Interpretability challenges arise because PCA components or neural autoencoder latent variables are typically linear or nonlinear combinations of many original features. Some strategies to improve interpretability include:
Examining Loadings (For PCA) For each principal component, you can look at the magnitude of the loading vector for each original feature. Features with high loading magnitudes indicate how strongly they contribute to that component. Although still less straightforward than raw features, loadings can provide some insight into which features drive each principal component.
Sparse Methods Sparse PCA or L1-regularized autoencoders can produce representations that use fewer features per component, making it easier to interpret which features dominate each new dimension.
Post-hoc Feature Importance After dimensionality reduction, you can fit a simple model (e.g., linear or decision tree) in the reduced space to predict a target variable. Then, use feature importance methods in the reduced space and map back to the original features. This is an indirect approach but can reveal which original features matter most for the predictive task.
Domain Knowledge Collaborating with domain experts to interpret the combinations of features that appear in the principal components or latent representations. This can be especially crucial in regulated industries, like healthcare or finance, where interpretability is mandatory.
What metrics can be used to measure how well a reduced representation preserves important information compared to the original dataset?
You may employ various strategies depending on your end goals:
Reconstruction Error For methods like PCA or autoencoders, you can measure the mean squared error between the original data and the reconstructed data when you project back from the reduced space.
Preservation of Distance or Neighborhood In manifold learning, you can measure how well local neighborhoods or pairwise distances are preserved (e.g., trustworthiness and continuity metrics for manifold embeddings).
Task-Specific Metrics If your main goal is classification, use accuracy, precision/recall, or F1 score on the reduced dataset. For regression tasks, evaluate metrics like RMSE or MAE. If the performance in the reduced space is comparable to performance in the original space, the reduction strategy is likely effective for your task.
Explained Variance In PCA, the proportion of total variance retained by the selected principal components is a commonly used measure.
How does random projection compare to PCA for dimensionality reduction?
Random projection is a technique where data is multiplied by a random matrix whose columns often have orthonormal or quasi-orthonormal properties. Formally, if X is the data matrix (n by d), then the reduced representation can be obtained by:
Here, X is n by d, and R is a d by k random matrix, where k < d. The idea is based on the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma, which states that distances can be approximately preserved under certain random linear projections when k is sufficiently large relative to log(n).
Parameters:
n is the number of data points.
d is the original dimensionality.
k is the reduced dimensionality.
R is a random matrix, often constructed using Gaussian or sparse random distributions.
Random projection is typically much faster than PCA and does not require computing an expensive decomposition. It works well when preserving pairwise distances (or angles) is sufficient for your application, especially for very high-dimensional data. However, it does not guarantee capturing the directions of maximum variance like PCA does, and if your dataset is not extremely large or sparse, PCA may yield better reconstructions. Nonetheless, for large-scale applications where an exact solution is intractable, random projection can be an appealing approximation method.
Are there domain-specific dimensionality reduction techniques that might outperform general-purpose methods like PCA?
Yes, certain domains have tailored methods that exploit the specific structure of the data:
Wavelet transforms for signal processing: In audio or EEG data, wavelet-based feature extraction can be more effective than PCA because wavelets capture time-frequency information suited for analyzing signals.
Latent semantic analysis (LSA) or topic modeling for text: Techniques like LSA or LDA (Latent Dirichlet Allocation) are specialized for text corpora to discover latent topics. While LSA is linear (using SVD), LDA is probabilistic and often more interpretable in text domains.
Graph-based embedding methods: When data is naturally structured as a graph (e.g., social networks, knowledge graphs), graph embeddings such as node2vec or graph convolutional networks can produce lower-dimensional representations more aligned with topological relationships than PCA could.
Domain-specific methods leverage known constraints or structures, which often yield more semantically meaningful representations compared to generic linear or nonlinear methods.
Can data augmentation ever reduce the need for data reduction techniques?
Data augmentation typically increases the volume of your dataset (especially in image or text tasks) to improve model generalization. However, in some cases, data augmentation can reduce the complexity of the learned representation. For instance, if augmented data covers variations that a model would otherwise learn as separate parameters, the model might effectively learn more robust, “compressed” representations internally.
In practice, data augmentation does not directly reduce the dimensionality or numerosity of your dataset. Instead, it might reduce your reliance on explicit dimensionality reduction by helping models (especially neural networks) learn more general representations from the data. Still, if your dataset is extremely large or has a huge feature space, you might need both data augmentation to improve generalization and data reduction to manage computational resources.
If you have limited computational resources, how might you combine partial dataset sampling with an online or incremental dimensionality reduction approach?
A practical strategy in resource-constrained settings is to apply careful sampling, then train an online or incremental dimensionality reduction model on that sampled data. Steps might include:
Initial Sampling Select a smaller subset of data that is still representative, possibly using stratified or cluster-based sampling.
Train an Incremental Model Use incremental PCA or an online autoencoder approach on the sampled data. This yields an initial reduced representation or set of projection parameters.
Incremental Updates Feed new batches of data (or random samples from the full data) into the dimensionality reduction model. Update the learned components or network weights without retraining from scratch. This approach keeps memory usage modest, as you never load or process the entire dataset at once.
Periodic Resampling If the data distribution changes or you suspect your sample is no longer representative, re-sample from the raw dataset. This refreshes the model with more recent or varied information without incurring the cost of a full dataset pass.
A potential pitfall is that if your initial sample is not representative enough, the incremental method may converge to a suboptimal representation. There is also a risk of catastrophic forgetting if new data significantly differs from the initial sampling distribution.