ML Interview Q Series: How do high-dimensional feature spaces affect distance-based mining methods, and why does this occur?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

High-dimensional datasets pose a fundamental challenge known as the “curse of dimensionality.” When the number of features grows, intuitive notions of distance become less meaningful for several reasons. In high-dimensional spaces, points tend to appear almost equidistant from one another, causing distance-based techniques (like k-Nearest Neighbors or clustering with distance metrics) to perform poorly.

One way to formalize distance-based methods is through the Minkowski distance. In many practical scenarios, p is set to 1 (Manhattan distance) or 2 (Euclidean distance). Let x = (x_1, x_2, ..., x_d) and y = (y_1, y_2, ..., y_d) be two data points in d-dimensional space. The Minkowski distance is often expressed as:

Here, x_k and y_k represent the kth components (features) of the data points x and y, respectively. The exponent p controls the type of Minkowski distance (p=1 is Manhattan, p=2 is Euclidean, etc.). As d grows large, the relative difference between the nearest and farthest distances often shrinks. In other words, many points in a high-dimensional space appear nearly the same distance from each other, which undermines methods relying on distance comparisons.

This dilution of distance-based discrimination stems from several phenomena. First, coordinate-wise variances can accumulate, making it difficult to detect subtle differences in individual features. Second, the volume of the space grows exponentially with the number of dimensions, so data becomes very sparse. Consequently, even if you use carefully selected distance metrics, you may still find that everything is “far away” or “equally far” when d is large.

Below is a short Python snippet that illustrates how, as the dimensionality increases, distances start to concentrate in a narrow band:

import numpy as np

def average_distance_ratio(dim, num_points=1000):
    # Generate random points
    X = np.random.randn(num_points, dim)

    # Compute pairwise distances for the first 100 pairs
    distances = []
    for i in range(100):
        a = X[i]
        b = X[i + 1]
        dist = np.linalg.norm(a - b)  # Euclidean distance
        distances.append(dist)

    # Return the ratio of (max distance / min distance)
    return np.max(distances) / np.min(distances)

dimensions = [2, 10, 50, 100, 200, 500]
for d in dimensions:
    ratio = average_distance_ratio(d)
    print(f"Dimension: {d}, Max/Min Distance Ratio: {ratio:.2f}")

In lower dimensions (e.g., 2D or 10D), the ratio between maximum and minimum distances might be large, indicating that one pair of points can be much farther than another pair. As dimensions increase, you may observe this ratio getting closer to 1, showing that the distances become harder to distinguish.

Why High Dimensionality Causes Distance-Based Methods to Suffer

When distance metrics start to lose discrimination power, algorithms relying on nearest-neighbor relationships or distance thresholds degrade. For clustering algorithms, for instance, assigning points to the nearest cluster center becomes less distinct. For k-Nearest Neighbors, identifying which neighbors are truly “closest” loses meaning when nearly all points are similarly distant.

In data mining applications such as anomaly detection, distance-based outlier definitions also become problematic. A potential outlier in high dimensions may still have a distance to the rest of the data that is not significantly different from “normal” points, making outlier detection ambiguous.

Mitigation Techniques

Feature Selection or Dimensionality Reduction

Methods like Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), autoencoders, and others reduce dimensionality by projecting onto fewer meaningful dimensions. These techniques preserve most of the variance or important features in lower-dimensional subspaces, making distance measurements more meaningful again.

Adopting Alternative Distance Measures

Sometimes using more robust distances such as cosine similarity (especially for text or high-dimensional sparse data) can help. Cosine similarity normalizes vectors and focuses on orientation rather than magnitude, partially mitigating the curse of dimensionality in certain contexts.

Domain-Specific Embeddings

If data naturally lies on a lower-dimensional manifold, domain-specific embeddings or deep learning techniques can capture these structures and embed them into more tractable representations. This approach helps distance-based methods remain relevant.

Approximate Nearest Neighbor (ANN) Approaches

Even if distances are less discriminative, approximate methods can still be efficient in large-scale settings. ANN structures (like HNSW, Annoy, or Faiss) offer faster queries, though they do not solve the fundamental issue of distance concentration; they simply make the search feasible in practice.

Are Tree-Based Indexes Still Effective?

Tree-based spatial data structures (like kd-trees) degrade severely in performance as dimensions grow. They rely on partitioning the feature space in a way that distinct regions can be pruned. In very high dimensions, these partitions lose efficacy because almost every region is large enough to potentially contain all data points, negating the benefit of the tree’s hierarchical structure.

Potential Follow-up Questions

How Can We Efficiently Evaluate Similarity in a High-Dimensional Space?

One possibility is to move away from purely metric-based approaches and consider hashing or projection-based techniques, such as Locality-Sensitive Hashing (LSH). These methods can quickly group points that are likely to be close in the original space without computing all pairwise distances.

What Is the Role of Sparsity in High Dimensions?

Many high-dimensional datasets (e.g., text or user-behavior logs) are extremely sparse. In such cases, distances focusing on the overlap of nonzero features (like Jaccard similarity or cosine similarity) are often more effective than Euclidean distance.

How Do We Choose the Right Dimensionality Reduction Technique?

Selecting a technique depends on the data. PCA works well when the data is mostly linear. If data is nonlinear, kernel PCA, t-SNE, or autoencoders might uncover structure more effectively. Choosing among these methods depends on whether interpretability, preservation of local/global structure, or computational efficiency is a priority.