ML Interview Q Series: In what ways does the curse of dimensionality influence the effectiveness of k-means clustering?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
The term “curse of dimensionality” refers to the challenges that arise when dealing with data in high-dimensional spaces. In k-means clustering, the algorithm repeatedly assigns data points to the nearest cluster centroid and then adjusts the centroids to minimize within-cluster distances. This process relies heavily on distance computations and variance-based measures to assess similarity.
In high-dimensional settings, however, distances between points can become less meaningful. Intuitively, points tend to become equidistant from each other, which makes the standard Euclidean distance (often used in k-means) less discriminative. This reduces the contrast between distinct clusters, making it harder for k-means to separate data effectively and converge to a meaningful solution.
When dimensionality grows, the size of the search space also grows exponentially. That means k-means may need more iterations or struggle to find stable clusters. Even if it converges, the final clusters might not accurately reflect the underlying structure of the data.
Key Mathematical Aspect
One central formula in k-means clustering is the Euclidean distance between two data points, since it’s fundamental in the assignment step. In many implementations of k-means, the distance measure between a point x = (x_1, x_2, …, x_D) and a centroid c = (c_1, c_2, …, c_D) is computed as:
Here D denotes the number of dimensions or features. As D increases, each coordinate difference (x_i - c_i) loses its discriminative power because points start becoming comparatively similar in distance to each other. The numerical values of distances in such high-dimensional spaces can also grow large, and small differences in each dimension can aggregate to significant distortions when all are squared and summed.
Effects on k-means
k-means clustering inherently tries to minimize the within-cluster sum of squares. In high dimensions, the distance metric used in that objective function leads to these negative effects:
Distances become large and similar. The magnitude of distances grows with dimension, and the differences between distances to various centroids become less stark.
Clusters can appear to overlap. Since distances lose their contrast, k-means might converge to clusters that do not distinctly separate the data.
Increased computational cost. More dimensions often mean higher computational overhead for distance calculations and for iterating until convergence.
Instability in results. The algorithm might be more prone to finding local minima or requiring careful initialization to get consistent clusters in high-dimensional scenarios.
Mitigations
Dimensionality reduction techniques such as PCA, t-SNE, or autoencoders can help by projecting data into fewer dimensions in which distances regain discriminative power. Normalization or scaling each dimension can also sometimes help, although in very high dimensions, a more sophisticated approach might be necessary.
Practical Insights
Data preprocessing is often crucial. Feature selection or feature extraction can reduce redundancy, isolate meaningful attributes, and alleviate the curse of dimensionality’s impact on k-means.
Depending on the domain, it might be more appropriate to use clustering methods that rely on density-based approaches or other similarity measures that are more robust in higher dimensions than simple Euclidean distance.
Follow-up Questions
How does the dimensionality of data influence distance metrics in general, beyond just Euclidean distance?
In high-dimensional data, many common distance metrics suffer from similar issues as Euclidean distance. For instance, Manhattan distance (sum of absolute differences) can still exhibit the problem that points tend to become nearly equidistant from each other as dimension increases. This is because each new dimension adds another term, and the relative difference contributed by each individual dimension diminishes when there are many dimensions. Furthermore, certain norms or measures may emphasize different aspects of the distance, but they generally still suffer from a lack of contrast in high-dimensional regimes. This overall phenomenon can reduce the effectiveness of clustering, classification, and other distance-based algorithms, not just k-means.
Could we use any other distance measures in k-means that are less susceptible to the curse of dimensionality?
Modifying the distance measure alone often does not fully circumvent the curse of dimensionality because, fundamentally, high-dimensional data tends to distribute in ways that make points appear equidistant regardless of whether you use Euclidean, Manhattan, or some p-norm. However, using distance measures that incorporate correlations or local structures (like Mahalanobis distance) can sometimes be more suitable if it captures the covariance structure of the data. That said, the curse of dimensionality still persists if you don’t reduce the effective dimensionality or adopt specialized methods. Typically, dimensionality reduction is a more direct and effective approach than switching distance metrics in standard k-means.
What are some best practices for handling high-dimensional data before applying k-means?
One best practice is thorough feature selection and engineering to remove redundant or irrelevant features. By selecting only the most informative dimensions, you reduce dimensionality and mitigate the curse. Another common approach is to use dimensionality reduction techniques, such as PCA, to project data onto a smaller number of principal components that capture most of the variance. Alternatively, other linear or nonlinear embeddings (for instance, t-SNE for visualization or autoencoder-based embeddings) can also help reveal more separable structure in fewer dimensions. Normalizing or standardizing the features ensures each dimension has comparable scales, which often helps k-means converge better. Finally, carefully initializing centroids (for example, using k-means++) can also contribute to more stable clustering, although that alone doesn’t fully solve the curse of dimensionality.
What happens if you ignore dimensionality reduction and just proceed with k-means on a very high-dimensional dataset?
If you apply k-means directly on a dataset with extremely high dimensionality, you may find that the algorithm converges, but the clusters formed are not very meaningful. The distances between points can be misleadingly similar, which blurs the separation between clusters. The algorithm might require more iterations to converge or be more sensitive to centroid initialization. In practice, you might see clusters that overlap significantly or produce high levels of misclassification if you later label these clusters. The time and memory costs also increase significantly with dimensionality, and the likelihood of running into numerical instability goes up, making the entire clustering process less reliable.
Can the curse of dimensionality also be observed in other clustering algorithms?
Yes, it can. Any algorithm that depends fundamentally on distances or density estimates can be severely affected by high dimensionality. DBSCAN, hierarchical clustering, and other methods also struggle because density and distance become less meaningful. Some clustering methods, like spectral clustering, rely on more global properties (such as similarity graphs and eigenvectors of Laplacians), but they too can suffer from the underlying issue of constructing a meaningful similarity graph in high dimensions. Typically, applying some form of dimensionality reduction is recommended prior to using these clustering methods to achieve better performance and interpretability.
Why do data points end up being almost equidistant from each other in high-dimensional space?
This effect arises because as dimensionality grows, each dimension adds a new component to the distance metric. Random variations in each dimension accumulate. When points are distributed randomly, the sum of squares (in Euclidean distance) or absolute values (in Manhattan distance) often grows large, and the relative difference between point-to-point distances becomes small compared to the overall magnitude. In other words, everything becomes “far,” but the distance to any given point does not stand out much from the distance to any other point. This compresses the range of distances, making it challenging for clustering algorithms to distinguish close neighbors from distant points effectively.
Is there any way k-means itself can be modified to better handle high-dimensional data?
Most direct modifications to standard k-means focus on altering either the distance measure or incorporating some form of local weighting or projection. One example is to use kernel methods, leading to kernel k-means, which can map data into different spaces. However, kernel methods often exacerbate computational complexity, and they don’t completely eliminate the curse of dimensionality. Another approach is to combine k-means with dimensionality reduction in a single pipeline or to use clustering methods specifically designed for sparse or high-dimensional data. Despite these attempts, the general consensus is that reducing dimensionality via feature selection or feature extraction is typically a more robust and straightforward approach for high-dimensional clustering tasks.