ML Interview Q Series: How does Normalization reduce the Dimensionality of the Data if you project the data to a Unit Sphere?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
Normalization to a unit sphere typically refers to transforming each data point x in R^n such that it lies on the surface of the unit sphere. When you take the L2 norm of x and divide x by that norm, all resulting data vectors will have a magnitude of 1, which means they live on the surface of the n-dimensional unit sphere. This surface is an (n–1)-dimensional manifold. Constraining the data to the (n–1)-dimensional manifold of the unit sphere effectively removes one degree of freedom (the magnitude), leaving only the direction of the vectors.
Below is the core mathematical formula for L2 normalization of a vector x in R^n:
Here, x_norm is the normalized version of x. The symbol x refers to an n-dimensional vector. The denominator ||x||_2 is the Euclidean norm (square root of the sum of squares of each component of x). The result x_norm has a length of exactly 1, so it lies on the surface of the n-dimensional unit sphere, which is (n–1)-dimensional.
When all points lie on this unit sphere, you have effectively constrained the data to a curved hypersurface. Geometrically, there is one less degree of freedom because any point on the sphere can be described by n–1 parameters (directions only), instead of n parameters (directions plus magnitude).
This dimensionality reduction in the sense of manifold dimension can simplify certain learning algorithms. For instance, when dealing with angular similarity (cosine similarity), normalizing vectors ensures that dot products are more directly related to the angle between vectors. It can also help in alleviating magnitude-based biases in distance metrics, which can be advantageous in certain clustering or classification tasks where direction matters more than magnitude.
However, normalization does not remove dimensions in the sense of physically shrinking R^n into R^(n–1). Rather, it constrains all data points to a specific (n–1)-dimensional manifold embedded in R^n. The degrees of freedom in the data are reduced by eliminating magnitude variations.
Practical Implementation in Python
import numpy as np
# Suppose X is a 2D NumPy array of shape (num_samples, n_features)
# We want to normalize each row to have L2 norm = 1
def normalize_rows_to_unit_sphere(X):
# Compute the L2 norm along each row
norms = np.linalg.norm(X, axis=1, keepdims=True)
# Avoid division by zero in case some rows are all zeros
norms[norms == 0] = 1.0
# Normalize
return X / norms
# Example usage:
if __name__ == "__main__":
X = np.array([[3, 4], [0, 0], [1, 2]])
X_normalized = normalize_rows_to_unit_sphere(X)
print(X_normalized)
In this example, each row of X is divided by its L2 norm. Rows with all zeros are handled by setting their norm to 1 (so they remain zeros). After this operation, each nonzero row lies on the unit circle or sphere (depending on the dimensionality).
Why Does Projection to a Sphere Reduce Dimensionality?
Once magnitude is fixed to 1, the only variability left is the direction of each vector. An n-dimensional vector can be described in spherical coordinates using n–1 angles (e.g., in 3D space you can specify a direction with two angles, latitude and longitude on the sphere). This is the geometric intuition for why projecting onto the unit sphere is sometimes considered a “dimensionality reduction”: you lose one degree of freedom (the overall length of the vector).
Potential Follow-up Questions
What If Some Data Points Are Zero Vectors?
A zero vector cannot be normalized by dividing by its norm because the norm is zero, and you would get a division-by-zero issue. In practice, you need to handle zero vectors separately by either leaving them as zeros or by assigning them a default direction. One real-world approach might be to ignore zero vectors (e.g., missing data or purely zero features).
Why Is the Sphere (n–1)-Dimensional?
An n-dimensional sphere embedded in R^n is described by the constraint ||x||_2 = 1. Mathematically, that constraint removes one degree of freedom from the n parameters in x, so the set of all points satisfying ||x||_2 = 1 is an (n–1)-dimensional manifold. Intuitively, you specify your vector by “angles” only.
Does Normalizing Always Improve Performance?
Not necessarily. Normalizing can be helpful if magnitude differences in data are not informative for your downstream task. For instance, in text or NLP tasks using TF-IDF vectors, scaling to unit norm can be beneficial for focusing on term distribution rather than document length. However, if the magnitude itself is meaningful (e.g., raw intensities in image data, or absolute counts in certain logs), normalizing could discard important information.
How Does Cosine Similarity Relate to Normalization?
Cosine similarity between two vectors x and y is defined as (x dot y) / (||x||_2 * ||y||_2). If both vectors are normalized, their magnitudes are 1, so cosine similarity becomes a simple dot product. This can simplify computations when only directional information is important.
Can We Always Interpret This as True Dimensionality Reduction?
When you project data onto the unit sphere, it still resides in R^n, but constrained on an (n–1)-dimensional manifold. That is sometimes described as dimensionality reduction in a manifold sense, but it is not the same as a linear projection from n to (n–1) dimensions (like PCA would do). Instead, it is a nonlinear constraint that removes the magnitude dimension.
Are There Any Risks When Normalizing Data with Outliers?
If your data has extreme outliers, those points may dominate the scaling factor in certain normalization methods (like min-max scaling). However, in pure L2 normalization, a very large magnitude simply becomes a direction on the sphere. All large vectors end up having norm 1 just like smaller vectors. This might hide the significant difference in magnitude, which could be an important attribute in some contexts. Care must be taken to decide whether discarding magnitude information is beneficial or detrimental to your specific modeling goal.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How Does Prior Scaling Interact with L2 Normalization?
When data has been scaled or standardized (for example, using min-max scaling or z-score standardization), applying L2 normalization afterward can create layered transformations that might have unintended effects. Typically, scaling or standardizing shifts and/or rescales each dimension independently to a particular range (like [0,1]) or to zero mean and unit variance.
Logical Chain of Thought:
Scaling/standardizing transforms each coordinate. For example, z-score standardization will produce new data (\mathbf{z} = \frac{\mathbf{x} - \mu}{\sigma}), where (\mu) and (\sigma) are the mean and standard deviation for each feature.
Applying L2 normalization on top then divides (\mathbf{z}) by (|\mathbf{z}|_2). This step forces each vector’s length to 1, regardless of the earlier scaling.
Interpretation: Even if you carefully scaled features earlier, the final magnitude of each vector becomes 1, potentially negating any advantage from the prior scaling if your main goal was to preserve relative feature scales or variances.
Practical Implication: If direction is your main concern (e.g., you want to focus on angular relationships), combining standardization and L2 normalization can be helpful. If you rely on magnitude differences, you lose them with the L2 normalization step.
Thus, you should check whether you really need both steps, because applying L2 normalization can overshadow some aspects of the previous scaling.
When Is Magnitude More Important Than Direction, and Should We Avoid Normalizing Then?
L2 normalization removes magnitude information entirely, which could be detrimental if the absolute size of your data vectors encodes critical information.
Logical Chain of Thought:
Magnitude vs. direction: In some applications—like measuring the intensity of a signal or the total frequency of certain events—the magnitude of a vector conveys meaningful differences.
Examples:
If you have vectors of word counts, a large count might indicate a more significant textual source compared to a small count.
In sensor-based data, a higher overall reading might denote a stronger signal that you do not want to ignore.
Impact of normalization: By L2-normalizing, a sample that originally had very large counts becomes no larger than any other vector; only its direction is preserved.
Conclusion: If magnitude carries semantic or predictive value, applying L2 normalization might cause a loss of vital information. In such cases, normalizing is not recommended.
How Does L2 Normalization Affect Distance-Based Algorithms Like k-Means?
k-Means clustering often depends on both the direction and magnitude of vectors in Euclidean space. When you normalize all vectors to have unit length, you fundamentally change the meaning of the distance metric.
Logical Chain of Thought:
Regular k-means tries to minimize within-cluster Euclidean distances, which integrate both angle and magnitude.
After normalization, all points lie on the unit sphere, so the distance between points primarily reflects their angular separation.
Potential outcome: If clusters in the original space were partially distinguishable by magnitude, that information is lost, possibly altering the cluster structure drastically.
Practical consideration: Some tasks aim to cluster on the basis of direction (like grouping documents with similar topic distributions, ignoring document length). In that scenario, L2 normalization can be beneficial. But if magnitude matters (like cluster size in revenue data), normalizing can obscure essential differences.
Why Might We Use L1 Normalization Instead of L2 Normalization?
L1 normalization (making the sum of absolute values of components equal to 1) can be more robust in certain applications, especially when sparsity or absolute differences matter.
Logical Chain of Thought:
Definition: An L1-normalized vector (\mathbf{x}\text{norm}) satisfies (|\mathbf{x}\text{norm}|1 = 1). This implies (\mathbf{x}\text{norm} = \frac{\mathbf{x}}{|\mathbf{x}|_1}), where (|\mathbf{x}|_1 = \sum_i |x_i|).
Sparsity: L1 normalization tends to preserve or highlight sparse structures because the distribution of feature weights remains proportional to their absolute contributions.
Interpretation: If you are interested in proportions (e.g., each feature’s share within a vector), L1 normalization can be more meaningful.
Comparison with L2: L2 normalization ensures the vector magnitude is 1, focusing on angular relationships. L1 normalization ensures the sum of absolute values is 1, emphasizing each dimension’s relative proportion.
In short, L1 normalization is valuable if your task involves proportions or if you want to maintain a high level of sparsity.
How Do We Handle Non-Stationary Data Streams When Applying L2 Normalization?
In an online or streaming environment, the data distribution can shift over time, making fixed normalization approaches less suitable if applied naively.
Logical Chain of Thought:
Definition of non-stationarity: The statistical properties of the incoming data can change, causing previously computed norms or typical magnitudes to no longer reflect the current distribution.
Challenges:
Recomputing norms in real-time might be expensive if data arrives at high velocity.
If many data points are near zero or near extremely large magnitudes, normalizing might produce unstable results as the distribution shifts.
Potential solutions:
Maintain a rolling window to compute approximate norms for new data and update them incrementally.
Use streaming statistics or robust approximate calculations to handle outliers and dynamic shifts.
Outcome: In practice, you have to design an online normalization procedure that adapts to changes. Otherwise, your normalization scheme might become outdated and degrade performance.
How Does L2 Normalization Influence PCA Interpretations?
Principal Components Analysis (PCA) finds directions of maximum variance in your data. If you normalize each data vector to unit length, you alter variances significantly.
Logical Chain of Thought:
PCA: By default, PCA seeks the directions in which the data points vary most in Euclidean space.
After normalization: Each data point now has the same magnitude, effectively removing any variance attributable to scale. Directions that differ only by magnitude will vanish in importance.
Interpretation: The principal components in the normalized space capture angles or orientation differences among vectors. The concept of “variance” changes to revolve around directional variance on the sphere.
Practical note: Normalizing before PCA makes sense if your goal is to focus purely on directional or shape-based differences. If total variance (including magnitude) is relevant, L2 normalization will distort that aspect.
Could Partial or Weighted Normalization Be a Better Choice in Some Scenarios?
Sometimes, not all components of a feature vector are equally important to normalize. In partial or weighted normalization, only certain dimensions or weighted sums of dimensions are normalized.
Logical Chain of Thought:
Motivation: In many real-world datasets, some features capture scale-sensitive information (e.g., total count or sensor amplitude), while others represent categorical or frequency-based measures where only direction matters.
Method:
Split the feature vector into subsets.
Normalize only the subset for which direction is relevant, leaving the magnitude-sensitive subset unaltered.
Alternatively, apply a weighting factor (\alpha_i) per dimension: (|\mathbf{x}|{\text{weighted}}^2 = \sum_i \alpha_i x_i^2). Then force (|\mathbf{x}|{\text{weighted}} = 1).
Impact: This approach preserves crucial magnitude signals in certain features while still gaining the benefits of normalization on other features.
Trade-Off: The design of weights or subsets requires domain knowledge to decide which features need magnitude preserved.
How Can We Manage Extremely Large or Extremely Small Floating-Point Values When Normalizing?
When dealing with high-dimensional data with huge or tiny values, numerical stability becomes a concern.
Logical Chain of Thought:
Floating-point underflow/overflow: (|\mathbf{x}|_2) might be extremely large or extremely small if the components of (\mathbf{x}) are themselves huge or near zero.
Potential solutions:
Logarithmic transformations: Sometimes applying a log transformation to reduce the dynamic range of the data before normalization helps.
Chunked computation: Sum squares in smaller segments to avoid immediate overflow. Use higher precision data types (like float64 or even float128 if available).
Practical tips:
Check for
NaNorinfafter computing norms.In many libraries (NumPy, PyTorch, etc.), robust norm functions handle moderate range floating-point issues gracefully but may still need caution with extreme values.
Outcome: Ensuring stable computations for L2 norms can avoid unexpected model failures or silent errors in your pipelines.
How Does L2 Normalization Compare to Other Normalization Approaches Like Min-Max or Standardization?
Different normalization strategies serve different purposes. L2 normalization fixes the vector to a unit magnitude, while min-max normalization and standardization address each dimension individually.
Logical Chain of Thought:
Min-max normalization: Rescales each feature to a specified range (e.g., [0,1]). This retains the shape of the distribution but not the overall magnitude relationships across dimensions.
Standardization (z-score): Subtracts the mean and divides by the standard deviation for each dimension. This results in each feature having zero mean and unit variance independently.
L2 normalization: Sets the norm of each feature vector to 1, preserving only angular information.
Usage:
Min-max is common in constrained-range applications or when neural networks require inputs in [0,1].
Standardization is standard in many machine-learning algorithms sensitive to scale differences across features (e.g., logistic regression).
L2 normalization is best when direction is the sole focus, such as in text similarity or purely angular classification tasks.
Key difference: Min-max and standardization happen per dimension, whereas L2 normalization is a holistic operation on each vector. Choosing the right method depends on whether you want to preserve or discard magnitude and how each dimension’s scale matters.
In What Ways Does Normalizing to a Sphere Facilitate Advanced Geometric Data Analysis?
Certain advanced techniques, especially those related to directional or spherical statistics, become more intuitive or mathematically elegant when the data lies on a sphere.
Logical Chain of Thought:
Directional statistics: If your data represents directions—like wind directions, orientation of geological features, or text embedding directions—placing them on a sphere is a natural representation.
Metric simplification: On the sphere, distance or similarity is typically expressed in terms of angles (like great-circle distance). This can simplify formulas for correlations or alignments.
Manifold methods: Data constrained to a sphere is an example of a nonlinear manifold. Specialized geometric algorithms can be applied (e.g., geodesic computations, spherical clustering methods).
Practical usage:
Spherical k-means: Clusters on the basis of direction alone.
Von Mises-Fisher distributions: Probability models for data on the unit sphere.
Conclusion: By mapping data onto the sphere, you can unlock specialized tools from directional statistics that might be more appropriate than Euclidean-based methods for certain domains.