ML Interview Q Series: How would you decide on the most suitable distance metric among the many possible choices when performing clustering?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
Clustering often relies on a metric that quantifies “closeness” or “distance” between data points. Choosing the most appropriate distance measure critically influences the resulting clusters. The main considerations usually include the nature of the data (continuous, categorical, mixed types), the scale or magnitude of the features, the presence of outliers, and the overarching goal of the clustering task.
Euclidean Distance
This is one of the most standard metrics, commonly used in k-Means clustering. It computes the straight-line distance in the feature space. It assumes that the variance in each dimension contributes equally and that the axes are orthogonal. However, it can be sensitive to outliers and can be misleading if features are on different scales. Normalizing or standardizing each feature is often a prerequisite when using Euclidean distance.
Manhattan Distance
Manhattan distance sums the absolute differences of coordinates. It tends to be more robust to outliers than Euclidean distance because large deviations in one dimension do not affect the measure as dramatically. It might be more suitable for grid-like structures or scenarios where movements are constrained along axes (for instance, city block distances).
Minkowski Distance as a Generalization
When p is varied, Minkowski distance can represent both Euclidean (p=2) and Manhattan (p=1) distances, along with other variants. The general form of Minkowski distance is often used to create a family of distance measures, letting us choose the parameter p to suit the data’s characteristic sensitivity to outliers or the geometry of interest.
Where d(x, y) is the Minkowski distance between points x and y; n is the dimensionality of the data; x_i is the i-th coordinate of x; y_i is the i-th coordinate of y; p is a real number that determines which specific distance metric is used (p=1: Manhattan, p=2: Euclidean, etc.).
Cosine Distance
Cosine distance (or 1 – cosine similarity) measures how close two vectors’ directions are. It does not take magnitude into account. This is commonly used in text mining, high-dimensional sparse datasets, and scenarios where the angle between vectors is more relevant than their absolute magnitudes. For instance, two documents with similar term distributions (similar directions in a high-dimensional space) are considered close, even if they have significantly different word counts.
Correlation Distance
Correlation distance focuses on how two vectors vary together relative to their mean. It subtracts any scale differences, so if two data points have the same shape of values across features but different magnitudes, they can be considered “close.” This measure is frequently used in fields like genomics, where the pattern of gene expression (the relative up or down across genes) is more important than the absolute levels.
Mahalanobis Distance
Mahalanobis distance accounts for the covariance among features. It can be more informative than Euclidean distance if the features are correlated because it transforms the feature space according to the covariance matrix. This helps to identify how many “standard deviations” away from the mean a point is. However, it requires sufficient data points to estimate the covariance matrix reliably, and it can be computationally expensive for large-dimensional data.
Categorical and Mixed Data
If the data has categorical or mixed (categorical plus numerical) attributes, specialized distance measures might be necessary. For categorical attributes, distances often rely on the notion of matching vs. non-matching attributes. With mixed types, it may be necessary to combine distance functions separately defined for numerical versus categorical features (for example, Gower’s distance).
Practical Considerations
In practice, there are crucial factors to keep in mind:
Scaling: Normalizing or standardizing features is vital if their ranges differ significantly and if the distance measure is sensitive to scale (e.g., Euclidean).
Outliers: If outliers exist, measures like Manhattan or robust transformations can mitigate undue influence from extremely large feature values.
Data Type: Cosine and correlation measures are more meaningful for high-dimensional, sparse data. Euclidean or Mahalanobis distances are more common for continuous numeric data without extreme skew.
Interpretability: Some distances are easier to interpret. For instance, Euclidean distance is often more intuitive than, say, correlation distance for those unfamiliar with correlation-based measures.
Computational Complexity: Mahalanobis distance requires inverting the covariance matrix, which can be expensive for high-dimensional data. Simpler distances might be computationally more efficient at large scale.
Python Code Example for K-Means with a Custom Distance
Although standard libraries like scikit-learn primarily use Euclidean distance for k-Means, a custom approach can be used to demonstrate how one might incorporate a different metric:
import numpy as np
def manhattan_distance(a, b):
return np.sum(np.abs(a - b))
def kmeans_custom_distance(X, k, distance_func, max_iters=100):
# Randomly initialize cluster centers
np.random.seed(42)
initial_indices = np.random.choice(len(X), k, replace=False)
centers = X[initial_indices]
for _ in range(max_iters):
# Assign each point to the nearest cluster center
clusters = [[] for _ in range(k)]
for i, x in enumerate(X):
distances = [distance_func(x, center) for center in centers]
cluster_idx = np.argmin(distances)
clusters[cluster_idx].append(i)
# Update cluster centers as the mean or median (depending on distance)
new_centers = []
for cluster_idx in range(k):
if clusters[cluster_idx]:
# For Manhattan distance, the median is often used instead of the mean
points = X[clusters[cluster_idx]]
center = np.median(points, axis=0) # For Euclidean you'd use np.mean
new_centers.append(center)
else:
# If a cluster is empty, reinitialize
new_centers.append(X[np.random.choice(len(X))])
new_centers = np.array(new_centers)
# Check for convergence
if np.allclose(centers, new_centers):
break
centers = new_centers
# Create final cluster assignments
labels = np.zeros(len(X), dtype=int)
for idx, cluster_indices in enumerate(clusters):
for sample_i in cluster_indices:
labels[sample_i] = idx
return centers, labels
# Example usage
X_example = np.array([[1,2],[2,3],[10,12],[11,14],[50,80],[52,82]])
centers_manhattan, labels_manhattan = kmeans_custom_distance(X_example, k=2, distance_func=manhattan_distance)
print("Cluster centers:", centers_manhattan)
print("Labels:", labels_manhattan)
This illustrates how one could plug in a custom distance function (Manhattan in this case) and then use the median for cluster center updates. Adapting it further for other distance metrics is straightforward.
Follow-Up Questions
When might you choose correlation distance over Euclidean distance?
Correlation distance is particularly useful if the absolute magnitude of the features is not as important as their relative patterns across dimensions. In areas like genomics or financial time series, if you primarily care about how one variable moves with respect to another—rather than their absolute levels—then correlation distance provides a better notion of similarity. This is because it normalizes for mean and variance, focusing on the shape of the pattern.
How do you handle different scales of features when using distance-based clustering?
A common approach is to standardize or normalize all features so they contribute equally to the distance. For Euclidean or Manhattan distances, large-scale variables can otherwise dominate the distance computations. Standard practice is to compute a z-score for each feature by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation. Alternatively, you can normalize each feature to a specific range, for instance, [0,1].
What if your data has strong outliers? How does that affect the choice of distance?
Outliers can heavily affect certain distance measures, especially Euclidean distance. If outliers are present:
You might use Manhattan distance because it is less influenced by extreme values.
Consider robust scaling techniques (e.g., using the interquartile range) before computing distances.
Evaluate alternative clustering algorithms like DBSCAN or robust variants that can automatically handle noisy points.
Does Mahalanobis distance always provide better results than Euclidean distance?
Not necessarily. While Mahalanobis distance can capture correlations among features, it requires estimating the covariance matrix. This estimation:
Demands a large sample size relative to dimensionality. In high-dimensional, low-sample-size scenarios, covariance estimates can be unstable, leading to inaccurate distances.
Involves more computation. In large-scale scenarios with thousands of features, matrix inversion can be expensive.
Works best if your data truly has correlated features that matter for clustering.
Are there specific scenarios where cosine distance is more natural than Euclidean or Manhattan distance?
Yes. In text data or other high-dimensional sparse representations, the length of the vectors (frequency of words, for example) can vary drastically, but it might be the orientation or angle that conveys more information. Cosine distance ignores magnitude differences and emphasizes directional similarity. It is especially common in document clustering, where we care more about the distribution of terms rather than the absolute counts.
How do you manage categorical features or mixed data types?
If you have purely categorical data, you can use measures such as simple matching distance or Hamming distance (for binary attributes). For mixed data (some numeric, some categorical), Gower’s distance is a popular choice because it handles each feature type separately and then combines distances. The overarching idea is to calculate partial distances dimension by dimension, normalizing them to a [0,1] scale, and then aggregating.
Could you simply try different distances and see which yields the best clustering result?
Yes, in practice you can perform an empirical approach: try different distance metrics and then evaluate the resulting clusters with internal or external validation metrics (e.g., silhouette score, Calinski-Harabasz index, or comparing to ground truth labels if available). However, blindly testing multiple measures without considering the domain context can be time-consuming and might not guarantee the best conceptual fit. The best practice is to combine domain knowledge with an exploratory approach.