ML Interview Q Series: When you apply k-Nearest Neighbors, which approach for normalizing your features is generally advised?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) relies on distance calculations to determine the proximity of data points to one another. Features that have large numerical ranges can dominate the distance measure, overshadowing features with smaller ranges. This imbalance can distort how neighbors are identified and lead to suboptimal performance. Normalizing the feature values so they lie on a comparable scale helps ensure that each feature contributes appropriately to the distance calculation.
Commonly used normalization approaches for KNN include standard scaling and min-max scaling. Both methods are suitable, and the choice often depends on the distribution of your features and your domain requirements.
Standard scaling transforms your data so that each feature has zero mean and unit variance. This is particularly helpful when you suspect that outliers may not be extreme or that your feature distributions approximate a Gaussian distribution.
Min-max scaling rescales each feature to a fixed range, typically [0, 1]. If all features must be confined to a bounded interval or if the distribution of features is not strongly assumed to be Gaussian, min-max scaling can be very effective.
Below are the two core formulas often used for normalizing data when working with KNN.
Here, X represents the original feature value, mu is the mean of that feature over the training set, and sigma is the standard deviation of that feature over the training set. This transformation ensures the resulting distribution has mean 0 and standard deviation 1.
In this expression, X is the original feature value, X_{min} is the minimum value of that feature in the training data, and X_{max} is the maximum value of that feature in the training data. The scaled feature lies in the [0, 1] interval.
It is possible to choose other scaling strategies (such as a robust scaler that uses medians and interquartile ranges) if data contains significant outliers. However, for many standard KNN tasks, either standard scaling or min-max scaling is a common and straightforward choice.
The main point is to ensure that all features influence the distance measure fairly. Without normalization, a feature with naturally large values could dominate the distance metric and reduce the effectiveness of KNN’s neighbor search.
Practical Implementation in Python
import numpy as np
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler, MinMaxScaler
from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
# Example dataset
X = np.array([[100, 0.1],
[150, 0.3],
[120, 0.25],
[90, 0.2]])
y = np.array([0, 1, 1, 0])
# Standard scaling
standard_scaler = StandardScaler()
X_std_scaled = standard_scaler.fit_transform(X)
knn_std = KNeighborsClassifier(n_neighbors=3)
knn_std.fit(X_std_scaled, y)
# Min-Max scaling
minmax_scaler = MinMaxScaler()
X_mm_scaled = minmax_scaler.fit_transform(X)
knn_mm = KNeighborsClassifier(n_neighbors=3)
knn_mm.fit(X_mm_scaled, y)
Both methods will successfully rescale your features, ensuring that distance computations reflect all features more equitably.
Why Does KNN Depend on Normalization?
KNN uses distance metrics like Euclidean or Manhattan distance. Distances are affected heavily by the scale of the features, which means that any feature with larger numerical values (even if it is not more important) will unduly affect the outcome. This makes normalization essential to avoid misleading distance metrics.
Could We Skip Normalization if All Features Are on the Same Scale?
If each feature is already measured in a very similar range, for example all features lie between 0 and 1 or are in comparable scales, then normalization may be less crucial. However, even in that case, performing a standard or min-max scaling can still provide benefits in many real-world scenarios, especially if the data distribution drifts or outliers appear.
How to Choose Between Standard Scaling and Min-Max Scaling?
If you suspect that features follow a roughly Gaussian distribution and outliers are not extreme, standard scaling is typically a good default. If your data is not assumed to follow a normal distribution and you want the features to be confined strictly to a [0, 1] range, min-max scaling is a strong option. In practice, it can be helpful to experiment with both methods and compare performance via cross-validation.
Are There Situations Where Another Scaling Method is Preferable?
If your data contains strong outliers, robust scaling that uses medians and interquartile ranges can sometimes be more effective. This approach reduces the sensitivity to outliers, which might otherwise skew the mean and standard deviation used in standard scaling or drastically change the min and max used in min-max scaling.
What Happens When We Have Categorical Features?
If a feature is purely categorical, KNN becomes trickier unless you convert categories to numerical codes using one-hot encoding or some other encoding approach. Even then, the concept of a distance metric for one-hot vectors may or may not be meaningful. Often, more sophisticated distance definitions or different algorithms that handle mixed data types are needed.
How Does Scaling Interact with Other KNN Hyperparameters?
Besides normalization, you will also tune the number of neighbors (k) and possibly the distance metric (for example, Euclidean, Manhattan, or Minkowski distance). Normalization ensures that these distance metrics don’t get skewed by unscaled features, leading to more reliable performance when you subsequently choose your optimal k or distance measure.
Could We Face Issues If We Forget to Apply the Same Scaling on Test Data?
You must always apply the same transformation (using the parameters from the training set) to any test or new data. Failing to do so will lead to inconsistent distances and incorrect predictions. This is typically handled automatically using fit_transform for training data and transform for test data in libraries like scikit-learn.
What If the Data Changes Over Time?
If new data arrives continuously (in an online setting), you might need to update your scaling parameters, especially if the distribution is shifting significantly. This can complicate an online KNN approach, and you might explore adaptive scaling methods. If changes in the data distribution are minor, the original scaling parameters might still be sufficient, but it requires careful monitoring of drift.
Below are additional follow-up questions
Could using a non-Euclidean distance metric reduce the significance of normalization in KNN?
Certain distance metrics, such as cosine similarity, focus more on direction rather than magnitude. When using cosine similarity, each feature vector is often normalized to unit length, making min-max or standard scaling less critical. However, even with cosine similarity, large-valued features can still disproportionately affect the calculation if they are not scaled properly. Moreover, when shifting to metrics like Mahalanobis distance (which includes the covariance structure), proper preprocessing is still important to avoid correlations or scale-driven distortions. In practice, normalization often remains beneficial, but the relative importance can diminish depending on how the selected distance metric handles magnitude differences in features.
One pitfall is to assume that switching to a metric like cosine similarity removes the need for any preprocessing. In reality, data with very wide ranges may still cause numerical stability issues or overshadow smaller-scale features during the computation of angles and dot products. Hence, you typically still want some form of normalization, even if it is as simple as L2 normalization for each feature vector, to maintain consistent numerical behavior.
How can we interpret feature relevance after scaling?
When features are scaled, each of them contributes more evenly to the distance metric used by KNN. This makes it less obvious to see, in raw terms, which features “dominate” the model. However, feature relevance can still be examined by studying how changing a particular feature’s value influences the classification or regression outcomes. Techniques such as permutation importance, where you shuffle one feature’s values to measure how it impacts the model’s performance, can still reveal the relative influence of each feature.
A subtle issue is that after normalization, values lose their original unit or scale. For instance, a change of 0.5 in a feature no longer corresponds to a real-world measurement unless you keep track of how to reverse the scaling. This can create interpretability challenges, so you must carefully document your scaling parameters and possibly revert them when you want to communicate real-world significance.
In what scenarios might we want to apply partial normalization to only some subset of features?
There are situations where certain features are on a comparable scale but others vary drastically. You might decide to standardize or min-max scale only those features that show a very wide range or have large variances, leaving already well-bounded features as is. This partial scaling can be especially useful when some features are inherently on a 0 to 1 scale (e.g., percentages) and others, such as raw counts, span a huge range.
A common pitfall is failing to realize that even features that seem to be on small scales can have outliers or distributions that hamper distance calculations. Therefore, it’s essential to thoroughly explore your data. Partial normalization requires careful documentation so you don’t end up with an inconsistent approach across training and inference data or among multiple features.
Could data transformations like log scaling be combined with standard or min-max scaling for KNN?
Yes, if a feature is heavily skewed (for instance, income data that spans multiple orders of magnitude), a log transformation can help reduce outliers and compress the range. After that, you might still apply standard scaling or min-max scaling to ensure all features lie in similar ranges. This two-step approach can lead to a more normalized distribution and minimize the influence of extremely large values.
One edge case arises when your data contains zero or negative values, which complicates applying a direct log transform. You might need to shift the data if it contains zeros or negative numbers, or resort to other transformations such as Box-Cox. Failing to handle those edge cases can lead to invalid numerical values or runtime errors during preprocessing.
How do we determine the best normalization technique when feature distributions vary widely from each other?
You can explore multiple scaling techniques on a per-feature basis and evaluate them using cross-validation. For example, you might apply standard scaling to features that approximate a Gaussian distribution while using min-max scaling for features that are bounded or do not follow a normal distribution. You could also attempt robust scaling for features with heavy-tailed distributions. Evaluating each variant’s performance on validation splits or through a grid search approach is a practical way to find the most suitable combination.
A pitfall is to rely on a “one-size-fits-all” assumption that all features behave the same. Overlooking different distributions may lead to suboptimal performance. Also, an excessively fragmented approach, where every feature gets a different transformation, can become hard to maintain and interpret. Striking a balance between performance gains and pipeline complexity is key.
Is KNN sensitive to the presence of multicollinearity even after normalization?
Normalization does not eliminate multicollinearity—if multiple features are nearly linear combinations of one another, they will remain correlated even on a standardized or min-max scale. KNN might become redundant in its distance calculations because correlated features can provide overlapping information. This does not necessarily break KNN, but it can reduce computational efficiency and might inflate the dimensionality without adding much new information.
A subtle issue arises when correlated features cause the distance metric to give undue weight to repeated information. Dimensionality reduction techniques like PCA can be considered to remove redundant dimensions. Normalization is still important prior to PCA, because PCA itself is scale sensitive—if your features are not on the same scale, the principal component directions can be skewed by larger-scale features.
How do you ensure a consistent approach to normalization in cross-validation pipelines for model selection with KNN?
You should integrate the scaling step as part of a pipeline in whichever machine learning library you use (e.g., scikit-learn in Python). By doing so, during each fold of cross-validation, the scaler parameters (mean, variance for standard scaling or min, max for min-max scaling) are computed only on the training folds. Then these parameters are applied to scale the validation fold. This mimics the scenario of training and predicting on entirely unseen data, preventing data leakage.
A risk occurs if you scale outside the pipeline, applying .fit_transform() to the entire dataset before splitting into folds. This leads to “information leak,” where scaling parameters are derived from data that includes the validation fold. This can cause overly optimistic performance estimates and hamper your ability to select the genuinely best KNN configuration.
Can feature engineering overshadow the choice of normalization method in KNN?
Certain feature engineering steps (like carefully selecting domain-specific features that capture the underlying pattern) can be far more impactful to model performance than tweaking normalization methods. For instance, adding a powerful derived feature that captures a crucial relationship in the data may improve performance substantially compared to switching from standard to min-max scaling.
A pitfall is to assume that after investing in strong feature engineering, scaling no longer matters. KNN, by its very nature, is sensitive to feature scales, so ignoring proper scaling—even when you have an excellent set of features—can hamper the final performance. Both well-engineered features and carefully chosen normalization strategies can complement each other in delivering a high-performing model.