ML Interview Q Series: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for Dimensionality Reduction, Visualization, and Denoising.
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Describe how PCA works for dimensionality reduction. What do the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the data’s covariance matrix represent in PCA, and how does PCA decide which components to keep? Also, mention how PCA can be used to denoise data or visualize high-dimensional data.
Understanding PCA for Dimensionality Reduction PCA (Principal Component Analysis) is a linear transformation technique designed to identify the directions along which the variance in the data is maximized. These directions are called principal components. By projecting data onto the most significant principal components, PCA reduces dimensionality while retaining as much of the data’s variability as possible. Here is how it conceptually works:
You first gather your data matrix with samples as rows and features as columns (or vice versa, depending on the convention).
You usually preprocess the data by subtracting the mean of each feature so that the data is “centered” around zero.
You compute the covariance matrix of this centered data.
You perform an eigenvalue decomposition of the covariance matrix. The eigenvectors represent directions of maximum variance (principal components), and the corresponding eigenvalues represent the magnitude of the variance in those directions.
You sort the eigenvalues (and associated eigenvectors) in descending order. The top components capture the largest portion of the variance.
You decide on how many components to keep (e.g., choose enough components to represent a certain cumulative percentage of total variance). Then you project the data onto these principal components for a lower-dimensional representation.
Mathematically, if your data is represented by a matrix X of size (N×D) (where N is the number of samples and D is the number of features), you typically compute the sample covariance matrix:
(after mean-centering each column of X). Eigen-decomposition of this covariance matrix yields eigenvalues and eigenvectors, which are then sorted by eigenvalue magnitude.
What Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors Represent In PCA, the covariance matrix’s eigenvectors define orthogonal directions (principal components) in feature space. Each eigenvalue measures the variance of the data along its corresponding eigenvector.
Eigenvector: A direction in the original feature space where data spreads out as much as possible.
Eigenvalue: The amount of variance (i.e., the spread of data) captured by that eigenvector.
PCA’s Criterion for Which Components to Keep The principal components are sorted by descending eigenvalues. Typically, you pick the first k principal components whose eigenvalues collectively represent most of the total variance. One common strategy is to select enough components so that they account for, say, 90% to 95% of the total variance.
Using PCA for Denoising PCA can be used to remove noise from data by reconstructing the original data using only the top principal components. Noisy signals often show up in the lower principal components (with very small eigenvalues). By discarding those components and projecting data back into the original space from only the principal subspace, you effectively reduce noise.
Using PCA for High-Dimensional Visualization For high-dimensional data (e.g., hundreds or thousands of features), PCA can project data into two or three dimensions by keeping the first two or three principal components, enabling easier visualization or exploratory data analysis. In 2D or 3D, you can plot the projected data points, observe cluster structures, or check for outliers.
Practical Code Example in Python
import numpy as np
from sklearn.decomposition import PCA
# Suppose X is our data matrix of shape (N_samples, N_features)
# Step 1: Initialize PCA with the number of components to keep (e.g., 2D visualization)
pca = PCA(n_components=2)
# Step 2: Fit the PCA model to the data
pca.fit(X)
# Step 3: Transform the data
X_reduced = pca.transform(X)
# X_reduced now contains the top 2 principal components
# You can invert the transformation to reconstruct
X_reconstructed = pca.inverse_transform(X_reduced)
In the above code:
PCA(n_components=2)indicates you are keeping two principal components.pca.fit(X)computes the PCA transformation by identifying the principal axes (eigenvectors).pca.transform(X)projects your data onto those two principal axes.pca.inverse_transform(X_reduced)reconstructs the data (useful for denoising).
Why Do We Need to Mean-Center the Data Before PCA?
PCA looks for directions that maximize the variance around the mean. If the data is not centered, then the covariance matrix might not capture the true directions of maximal variance properly. Centering ensures that each feature has mean zero, so the principal components capture directions of variation in a consistent manner. Failing to center the data can lead to incorrect principal components (especially if different features have different means).
Additionally, if you do not center, the first principal component might incorrectly be the direction along which the data is displaced from the origin rather than capturing the directions of maximal variance around the true data mean.
How Is PCA Related to SVD?
Performing PCA via eigen-decomposition of the covariance matrix is closely related to performing a Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) on the data matrix itself. In fact, the principal components from the covariance matrix’s eigen-decomposition correspond to the right-singular vectors of the data matrix in SVD.
SVD of the data matrix X can be written as:
The columns of V (right-singular vectors) are the principal axes in feature space, and the diagonal elements of S (singular values) are related to the square root of the eigenvalues of the covariance matrix.
How Do We Decide the Number of Components to Keep?
explained_variance_ratios = np.cumsum(pca.explained_variance_ratio_)
If the ratio exceeds, say, 0.95, you might stop. This is application-dependent; sometimes you choose fewer or more components depending on your tolerance for information loss or your memory/computational constraints.
What Are Typical Pitfalls or Edge Cases in PCA?
Scaling of Features If different features are measured on vastly different scales, variance might be dominated by high-scale features. Often, data is standardized (subtract mean and divide by standard deviation) so that each feature has mean 0 and unit variance before PCA.
Non-Linear Relationships PCA is a linear method. If the data’s structure is nonlinear (e.g., manifold-shaped data), PCA might not capture the essential features. Kernel PCA or other manifold learning methods can be used in these cases.
Overfitting / Interpreting Principal Components While PCA is unsupervised, one can still “over-interpret” or misinterpret principal components. Sometimes, principal components might not have an immediate intuitive meaning.
Too Few Samples If you have fewer samples than dimensions (i.e., N<D), the covariance matrix might be rank-deficient, and you need to be cautious with how PCA is performed. SVD-based methods are typically more stable in these situations.
Choosing the Number of Components There’s no universal rule. Some rely on explained variance thresholds; others rely on domain knowledge or cross-validation with a supervised task to find a dimension that performs best.
How Exactly Does PCA Denoise Data?
Denoising with PCA leverages the fact that high-variance components often contain the “signal” while low-variance components may contain noise or less meaningful fluctuations. Here is how it is done in practice:
Perform PCA on your data and extract all principal components.
Keep only the top k principal components, discarding components with small eigenvalues.
Reconstruct your data using only these k principal components:
How Is PCA Used for Visualization?
When the dimensionality is very high (like hundreds or thousands of features), you can apply PCA to reduce dimensions to two or three principal components:
2D Visualization: Plot data points along the first two principal components for quick inspection, clustering patterns, outliers, etc.
3D Visualization: Similarly, you can keep the top three components and visualize in a 3D scatter plot.
This approach is common in exploratory data analysis to see if any clustering or separation emerges. Though it’s a linear projection, it often gives valuable insight into broad structure in the data.
Could Eigenvalues Be Negative, and What Would That Mean?
The covariance matrix is symmetric and positive semi-definite. Therefore, its eigenvalues are all non-negative. A negative eigenvalue would imply negative variance in a principal direction, which is not possible for a valid covariance matrix. If you do encounter negative eigenvalues due to numerical approximations (e.g., floating-point round-off), they tend to be very small in magnitude and typically indicate numerical issues, not genuine negative variance.
If the Data Has Missing Values, Can We Still Apply PCA?
PCA generally expects a complete dataset. If some values are missing, you often need to handle them via:
Imputation techniques (e.g., fill in missing data with the mean of that column, or use a more sophisticated model-based imputation).
Specialized algorithms that can handle missing data during PCA, such as probabilistic PCA or EM-based approaches.
A basic approach might just drop rows with missing data, but this can bias your results if many samples are incomplete.
Implementation Detail: Using PCA in Deep Learning
PCA can be used in deep learning pipelines to:
Preprocess input data to decorrelate features.
Visualize high-dimensional embeddings (e.g., looking at how hidden layer activations are distributed).
Although deep learning frameworks typically rely on learned transformations (e.g., autoencoders) for dimensionality reduction, PCA is still a solid, mathematically grounded approach for exploratory data analysis or data compression prior to training models.
Using PCA as a Whitening Transform
Below are additional follow-up questions
How Does PCA Handle Categorical Variables?
PCA is fundamentally a technique relying on continuous numerical data, particularly because it works by examining variance and constructing a covariance (or correlation) matrix. If your dataset has categorical variables, PCA cannot directly handle those in their raw, non-numerical form. Converting categorical data to numerical representations (for instance, using one-hot encoding) might inflate the dimensionality significantly. This high-dimensional encoding could cause the principal components to be skewed by the encoded categories, especially if those categories are numerous or very sparse.
One subtle issue is that one-hot vectors for categorical variables can create strong correlations between different encoded categories, but the meaning of “variance” becomes less straightforward in this space. Another pitfall is that if a particular category has low frequency (few samples), it might resemble outlier-like behavior in the encoded features. This can disproportionately influence principal components.
An alternative is to explore techniques designed for mixed data types (continuous plus categorical). Some practitioners also embed categorical variables into continuous vectors (similar to word embeddings in NLP contexts) before applying PCA, but this requires a separate step of learning or domain-specific encoding. If your dataset is primarily categorical or contains many categorical variables with complex relationships, methods like multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) might be more appropriate.
Is PCA Sensitive to Outliers, and How Can We Make It More Robust?
PCA is known to be sensitive to outliers. By definition, PCA maximizes variance, and an outlier with a large magnitude can substantially inflate that variance in a particular direction, distorting the principal component directions. Even a few extreme points may shift these directions so that they no longer reflect the true “bulk” structure of the data.
To address this, you can consider robust PCA variants that rely on techniques like M-estimators, median-based approaches, or iterative outlier removal. These variants aim to reduce the effect of extreme observations when determining principal components. Another practical approach is to detect and remove outliers prior to performing PCA. However, removing data points must be carefully justified because you risk discarding potentially informative data.
In real-world scenarios, especially in fraud detection or anomaly detection applications, you do not want to remove anomalous data if anomalies are precisely what you want to study. Instead, you might apply robust PCA techniques or transform the data in ways that mitigate outlier impact.
How Do We Handle Extremely High-Dimensional Data with Moderate Sample Size?
When the data dimension (features) is much larger than the number of samples (for example, when dealing with genomics data, text data, or certain image datasets), the covariance matrix can become ill-conditioned or singular. In such a situation, the naive covariance matrix-based PCA can fail because it is rank-deficient.
A practical remedy is to use an SVD-based approach directly on the data matrix rather than explicitly constructing the covariance matrix, since SVD can handle rank-deficient cases more gracefully. Also, randomized PCA methods have been developed to handle extremely large or high-dimensional datasets efficiently. These algorithms sample or sketch the data to approximate the largest principal components without computing the full covariance matrix.
Another subtlety is that in high-dimensional spaces, many directions might appear to have similar variances, so distinguishing the principal components can be more challenging numerically. Regularization or dimensionality reduction methods specifically designed for high-dimensional data (like sparse PCA, which imposes sparsity constraints on the principal components) can sometimes yield better interpretability or stability.
How Does PCA Affect Interpretability in Real Applications?
While PCA discovers directions of maximal variance, these directions might not align with domain concepts or readily interpretable features. For instance, in an image dataset, a principal component might capture a particular combination of pixel intensities that doesn’t correspond to a clear semantic pattern (like object edges or shapes). This becomes more critical when domain experts want to understand the key drivers behind the variability in the data.
A common practice to gain interpretability is to inspect the “loadings,” which are the coefficients in each principal component vector. For each principal component, the loading associated with a particular original feature indicates how much that feature contributes to the component. Large positive or negative loadings suggest that the feature strongly influences that principal direction. However, even these loadings might be difficult to interpret if the features are highly correlated or if there are thousands of features.
In fields like healthcare, finance, or scientific research, domain-specific interpretability is often paramount. You might use PCA for an initial dimensionality reduction but then turn to methods that incorporate sparsity or other constraints that produce components more easily interpreted by practitioners.
Can PCA Be Combined With Classification Models Like Logistic Regression or Random Forests?
PCA is frequently used as a preprocessing step in classification pipelines. One standard approach is:
Mean-center (and possibly standardize) your features.
Apply PCA to reduce dimensionality.
Take the PCA-transformed features and feed them into a classification model, such as logistic regression, random forest, or an SVM.
Dimensionality reduction can help alleviate overfitting, particularly when you have many correlated features. For instance, if you have tens of thousands of features but only a few hundred samples, reducing the dimensionality via PCA before classification can significantly improve computational efficiency and sometimes model accuracy.
However, there are pitfalls: If you reduce the dimensionality too aggressively, you risk discarding features critical for good classification performance. Also, if you select the number of principal components solely based on explained variance, you might miss components that are not associated with large variance but are relevant for the classification boundaries. A good strategy is to cross-validate the combination of PCA dimensionality and the classification model’s hyperparameters.
Finally, keep in mind that once you incorporate PCA in your pipeline, you must apply the exact same PCA transformation (including centering and scaling) to any new incoming test or production data. Failing to do so will lead to inconsistent feature representations.
How Does PCA Handle Highly Correlated Features?
In scenarios where many features are highly correlated, PCA essentially merges those correlated features into a small set of components. Suppose you have dozens of nearly identical features (or features that move together). In that case, the first principal component often captures the common factor driving their correlation, resulting in a large eigenvalue for that component. Subsequent components might capture secondary correlations or smaller variations.
This merging is beneficial when your final goal is to reduce data redundancy. However, you should be aware that if you were relying on differences among those correlated features (for instance, subtle shifts that are important for a particular application), PCA might compress them into fewer dimensions, potentially losing that nuanced detail.
One subtlety is the difference between performing PCA on the covariance matrix versus the correlation matrix. If the features have vastly different scales, and some set of features is also highly correlated, the results can be dominated by the large-scale features. Using the correlation matrix normalizes by each feature’s variance, helping ensure that large-magnitude features do not overshadow features measured in a smaller numeric range.
What If the Distribution of Data Is Not Gaussian?
Although PCA does not strictly require the data to be Gaussian, it works best when the principal directions of variance represent meaningful structure in a linear subspace. If the data has a heavy-tailed distribution (e.g., power-law distributions) or strong skewness, the directions of largest variance may not align with “structure” that is relevant for your application. Moreover, outliers (which can be more common in heavy-tailed distributions) can overly influence the principal components.
In such cases, one approach is to apply transformations (like a log transform or Box-Cox transform) to make the data more “Gaussian-like” before applying PCA. Alternatively, you might employ methods like kernel PCA or other nonlinear dimensionality reduction approaches if the data is believed to have significant nonlinear structure. Also, robust PCA variants can mitigate the impact of outliers that might arise in heavy-tailed distributions.
Can PCA Lose Important Information for Time Series Data?
When applying PCA directly to time series data (treating each time point’s measurements as features), the method ignores temporal ordering. That means any correlations through time—like autocorrelation or seasonality—are not directly considered. If your primary interest is in capturing temporal patterns, PCA alone might not be ideal. It could merge or split time-based signals in ways that are mathematically consistent with maximizing variance but lose meaningful temporal dynamics.
One way to preserve some time-based information is to construct features that encapsulate short-term histories or perform a windowed PCA (where you apply PCA to overlapping segments of data). Another approach is to use methods specifically designed for spatiotemporal data (e.g., dynamic factor models or time-lagged embedding approaches). You can still apply PCA to time series after such transformations, but you should be conscious of the potential loss of sequence-related insights.
How Can We Update PCA Incrementally for Streaming or Continually Evolving Data?
Conventional PCA is a batch process. You collect the dataset, compute the covariance matrix (or run SVD), and extract principal components. But in many real-world applications (for example, streaming sensor data or log data from large-scale web services), the data arrives continuously. You might not want to recalculate the entire PCA from scratch each time new data arrives because that becomes computationally expensive.
Incremental or online PCA methods provide a strategy to update the principal components as new data streams in. These algorithms maintain a partial estimate of the principal components and eigenvalues, then refine those estimates incrementally. The key challenge here is deciding how to weigh older data versus newer data, especially if the distribution drifts over time. Another subtlety is how to handle large bursts of incoming data or data that arrives at irregular intervals. You might also want to discard very old data if it becomes irrelevant—an approach sometimes referred to as a sliding window or forgetting factor strategy.
In practice, libraries like scikit-learn provide incremental PCA classes that allow you to feed batches of data iteratively. This is invaluable for large datasets that do not fit into memory or for genuine streaming applications.
How Does PCA Deal With Very Low Variance Features That Might Still Be Important?
One assumption of PCA is that large variance in a direction correlates with the importance of that direction. However, there can be situations where low-variance features or directions are critical for certain tasks. For instance, in a classification problem, a feature might have low variability across the dataset, yet that small difference could be highly discriminative between classes. PCA would rank that direction as unimportant and possibly discard it, causing a loss of predictive information.
If you suspect certain low-variance features are vital, you might test your final model’s performance with and without PCA-based reduction. Alternatively, a supervised dimensionality reduction approach (like partial least squares, LDA, or specialized feature selection) might be more appropriate. In unsupervised settings, you might need to incorporate domain knowledge to preserve features that, while not varying much overall, are still meaningful for your application.
What Is the Role of Covariance vs. Correlation Matrix in PCA, and Does It Matter Which One We Use?
PCA can be done on either the covariance matrix or the correlation matrix. The difference lies in how each feature is scaled:
When using the covariance matrix: Features with larger numerical ranges typically have bigger variances, so they can dominate the principal components.
When using the correlation matrix: Each feature is effectively standardized to have unit variance before PCA. This is especially relevant if features are measured in different units or if one feature has a much larger spread than another. By normalizing to unit variance, no single feature’s scale can dominate the PCA decomposition.
In practice, using the correlation matrix is the same as performing standardization (subtract mean and divide by standard deviation) on each feature and then computing the covariance. Which approach is “correct” depends on whether the raw scale of features is meaningful for your application. If it is, you may prefer the covariance matrix. If you are only interested in relative variation among features, you may prefer the correlation matrix.
How Can We Evaluate the Quality of PCA Results?
Beyond simply looking at the explained variance, you can analyze how well a reduced-dimensional representation reconstructs the original data. This involves projecting the data onto the selected principal components and then inverse-transforming it to get an approximation of the original. The reconstruction error can be computed and used as an objective measure of how much information has been lost.
One measure of reconstruction error is the mean squared error between original data points and reconstructed data points. If the error remains low for a small number of components, that suggests you are capturing the majority of the variance. However, if your ultimate goal is classification or regression, you might also measure performance on those tasks to see if dimensionality reduction via PCA helps or hurts your predictive accuracy.
Are There Specific Hardware or Software Optimizations for PCA?
Because PCA (via eigen-decomposition or SVD) can be computationally expensive for large datasets, there are optimizations:
GPU acceleration: Libraries like PyTorch and TensorFlow can compute SVD on GPUs. This is beneficial when your data matrix is extremely large. Randomized PCA: Uses randomized matrix algorithms to approximate the principal components. This greatly reduces computation time for large matrices without drastically compromising accuracy. Distributed computing: Some frameworks let you compute PCA in a distributed fashion, splitting data across multiple machines or nodes.
One common pitfall is not considering memory usage. If you try to hold the entire data matrix in memory for classical PCA, you can run out of RAM when N (number of samples) or D (number of features) is enormous. In these cases, incremental methods, randomized methods, or chunk-based approaches are essential.
Do Principal Components Always Correspond to Independent Underlying Factors?
Not necessarily. PCA finds directions that are uncorrelated (orthogonal in feature space), which is not the same as statistical independence. Two signals can be uncorrelated but still not independent. In many domains (like source separation in signal processing), methods like independent component analysis (ICA) are used when independence is required. PCA only ensures orthogonality of components in the sense that the covariance between different components is zero.
When domain knowledge suggests that the true latent variables driving the data have more complex relationships, orthogonality might not be the best criterion. Thus, while PCA can be a good initial guess for dimensionality reduction, it might not reveal truly independent latent factors.