I have a training set with the size of (size(X_Training)=122 x 125937).
122 is the number of features
and 125937 is the sample size.
From my little understanding, PCA is useful when you want to reduce the dimension of the features. Meaning, I should reduce 122 to a smaller number.
But when I use in matlab:
X_new = pca(X_Training)
I get a matrix of size 125973x121, I am really confused, because this not only changes the features but also the sample size? This is a big problem for me, because I still have the target vector Y_Training that I want to use for my neural network.
Any help? Did I badly interpret the results? I only want to reduce the number of features.
Firstly, the documentation of the PCA function is useful: https://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/pca.html. It mentions that the rows are the samples while the columns are the features. This means you need to transpose your matrix first.
Secondly, you need to specify the number of dimensions to reduce to a priori. The PCA function does not do that for you automatically. Therefore, in addition to extracting the principal coefficients for each component, you also need to extract the scores as well. Once you have this, you simply subset into the scores and perform the reprojection into the reduced space.
In other words:
n_components = 10; % Change to however you see fit.
[coeff, score] = pca(X_training.');
X_reduce = score(:, 1:n_components);
X_reduce will be the dimensionality reduced feature set with the total number of columns being the total number of reduced features. Also notice that the number of training examples does not change as we expect. If you want to make sure that the number of features are along the rows instead of the columns after we reduce the number of features, transpose this output matrix as well before you proceed.
Finally, if you want to automatically determine the number of features to reduce to, one method to do so is to calculate the variance explained of each feature, then accumulate the values from the first feature up to the point where we exceed some threshold. Usually 95% is used.
Therefore, you need to provide additional output variables to capture these:
[coeff, score, latent, tsquared, explained, mu] = pca(X_training.');
I'll let you go through the documentation to understand the other variables, but the one you're looking at is the explained variable. What you should do is find the point where the total variance explained exceeds 95%:
[~,n_components] = max(cumsum(explained) >= 95);
Finally, if you want to perform a reconstruction and see how well the reconstruction into the original feature space performs from the reduced feature, you need to perform a reprojection into the original space:
X_reconstruct = bsxfun(#plus, score(:, 1:n_components) * coeff(:, 1:n_components).', mu);
mu are the means of each feature as a row vector. Therefore you need add this vector across all examples, so broadcasting is required and that's why bsxfun is used. If you're using MATLAB R2018b, this is now implicitly done when you use the addition operation.
X_reconstruct = score(:, 1:n_components) * coeff(:, 1:n_components).' + mu;
Related
I have to use SVD in Matlab to obtain a reduced version of my data.
I've read that the function svds(X,k) performs the SVD and returns the first k eigenvalues and eigenvectors. There is not mention in the documentation if the data have to be normalized.
With normalization I mean both substraction of the mean value and division by the standard deviation.
When I implemented PCA, I used to normalize in such way. But I know that it is not needed when using the matlab function pca() because it computes the covariance matrix by using cov() which implicitly performs the normalization.
So, the question is. I need the projection matrix useful to reduce my n-dim data to k-dim ones by SVD. Should I perform data normalization of the train data (and therefore, the same normalization to further projected new data) or not?
Thanks
Essentially, the answer is yes, you should typically perform normalization. The reason is that features can have very different scalings, and we typically do not want to take scaling into account when considering the uniqueness of features.
Suppose we have two features x and y, both with variance 1, but where x has a mean of 1 and y has a mean of 1000. Then the matrix of samples will look like
n = 500; % samples
x = 1 + randn(n,1);
y = 1000 + randn(n,1);
svd([x,y])
But the problem with this is that the scale of y (without normalizing) essentially washes out the small variations in x. Specifically, if we just examine the singular values of [x,y], we might be inclined to say that x is a linear factor of y (since one of the singular values is much smaller than the other). But actually, we know that that is not the case since x was generated independently.
In fact, you will often find that you only see the "real" data in a signal once we remove the mean. At the extremely end, you could image that we have some feature
z = 1e6 + sin(t)
Now if somebody just gave you those numbers, you might look at the sequence
z = 1000001.54, 1000001.2, 1000001.4,...
and just think, "that signal is boring, it basically is just 1e6 plus some round off terms...". But once we remove the mean, we see the signal for what it actually is... a very interesting and specific one indeed. So long story short, you should always remove the means and scale.
It really depends on what you want to do with your data. Centering and scaling can be helpful to obtain principial components that are representative of the shape of the variations in the data, irrespective of the scaling. I would say it is mostly needed if you want to further use the principal components itself, particularly, if you want to visualize them. It can also help during classification since your scores will then be normalized which may help your classifier. However, it depends on the application since in some applications the energy also carries useful information that one should not discard - there is no general answer!
Now you write that all you need is "the projection matrix useful to reduce my n-dim data to k-dim ones by SVD". In this case, no need to center or scale anything:
[U,~] = svd(TrainingData);
RecudedData = U(:,k)'*TestData;
will do the job. The svds may be worth considering when your TrainingData is huge (in both dimensions) so that svd is too slow (if it is huge in one dimension, just apply svd to the gram matrix).
It depends!!!
A common use in signal processing where it makes no sense to normalize is noise reduction via dimensionality reduction in correlated signals where all the fearures are contiminated with a random gaussian noise with the same variance. In that case if the magnitude of a certain feature is twice as large it's snr is also approximately twice as large so normalizing the features makes no sense since it would just make the parts with the worse snr larger and the parts with the good snr smaller. You also don't need to subtract the mean in that case (like in PCA), the mean (or dc) isn't different then any other frequency.
I have a matrix X, the size of which is 100*2000 double. I want to know which kind of scaling technique is applied to matrix X in the following command, and why it does not use z-score to do scaling?
X = X./repmat(sqrt(sum(X.^2)),size(X,1),1);
That scaling comes from linear algebra. That's what we call normalizing by producing a unit vector. Assuming that each row is an observation and each column is a feature, what's happening here is that we are going through every observation that you collected and normalizing each feature value over all observations such that the overall length / magnitude of a particular feature for all observations is set to 1.
The bottom division takes a look at each feature and determines the norm or magnitude of the feature over all observations. Once you find these magnitudes, you then take each feature for each observation and divide by their respective magnitudes.
The reason why unit vectors are often employed is to describe a point in feature space with respect to a set of basis vectors. Normalizing by producing unit vectors gives you the smallest possible way to represent one component in feature space and so what's probably happening here is that the observations are now being transformed such that each component / feature is being represented in terms of a set of basis vectors. Each basis vector is one feature in the data.
Check out the Wikipedia article on Unit Vectors for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_vector
I have created an Auto Encoder Neural Network in MATLAB. I have quite large inputs at the first layer which I have to reconstruct through the network's output layer. I cannot use the large inputs as it is,so I convert it to between [0, 1] using sigmf function of MATLAB. It gives me a values of 1.000000 for all the large values. I have tried using setting the format but it does not help.
Is there a workaround to using large values with my auto encoder?
The process of convert your inputs to the range [0,1] is called normalization, however, as you noticed, the sigmf function is not adequate for this task. This link maybe is useful to you.
Suposse that your inputs are given by a matrix of N rows and M columns, where each row represent an input pattern and each column is a feature. If your first column is:
vec =
-0.1941
-2.1384
-0.8396
1.3546
-1.0722
Then you can convert it to the range [0,1] using:
%# get max and min
maxVec = max(vec);
minVec = min(vec);
%# normalize to -1...1
vecNormalized = ((vec-minVec)./(maxVec-minVec))
vecNormalized =
0.5566
0
0.3718
1.0000
0.3052
As #Dan indicates in the comments, another option is to standarize the data. The goal of this process is to scale the inputs to have mean 0 and a variance of 1. In this case, you need to substract the mean value of the column and divide by the standard deviation:
meanVec = mean(vec);
stdVec = std(vec);
vecStandarized = (vec-meanVec)./ stdVec
vecStandarized =
0.2981
-1.2121
-0.2032
1.5011
-0.3839
Before I give you my answer, let's think a bit about the rationale behind an auto-encoder (AE):
The purpose of auto-encoder is to learn, in an unsupervised manner, something about the underlying structure of the input data. How does AE achieves this goal? If it manages to reconstruct the input signal from its output signal (that is usually of lower dimension) it means that it did not lost information and it effectively managed to learn a more compact representation.
In most examples, it is assumed, for simplicity, that both input signal and output signal ranges in [0..1]. Therefore, the same non-linearity (sigmf) is applied both for obtaining the output signal and for reconstructing back the inputs from the outputs.
Something like
output = sigmf( W*input + b ); % compute output signal
reconstruct = sigmf( W'*output + b_prime ); % notice the different constant b_prime
Then the AE learning stage tries to minimize the training error || output - reconstruct ||.
However, who said the reconstruction non-linearity must be identical to the one used for computing the output?
In your case, the assumption that inputs ranges in [0..1] does not hold. Therefore, it seems that you need to use a different non-linearity for the reconstruction. You should pick one that agrees with the actual range of you inputs.
If, for example, your input ranges in (0..inf) you may consider using exp or ().^2 as the reconstruction non-linearity. You may use polynomials of various degrees, log or whatever function you think may fit the spread of your input data.
Disclaimer: I never actually encountered such a case and have not seen this type of solution in literature. However, I believe it makes sense and at least worth trying.
I performed PCA on a 63*2308 matrix and obtained a score and a co-efficient matrix. The score matrix is 63*2308 and the co-efficient matrix is 2308*2308 in dimensions.
How do i extract the column names for the top 100 features which are most important so that i can perform regression on them?
PCA should give you both a set of eigenvectors (your co-efficient matrix) and a vector of eigenvalues (1*2308) often referred to as lambda). You might been to use a different PCA function in matlab to get them.
The eigenvalues indicate how much of your data each eigenvector explains. A simple method for selecting features would be to select the 100 features with the highest eigen values. This gives you a set of feature which explain most of the variance in the data.
If you need to justify your approach for a write up you can actually calculate the amount of variance explained per eigenvector and cut of at, for example, 95% variance explained.
Bear in mind that selecting based solely on eigenvalue, might not correspond to the set of features most important to your regression, so if you don't get the performance you expect you might want to try a different feature selection method such as recursive feature selection. I would suggest using google scholar to find a couple of papers doing something similar and see what methods they use.
A quick matlab example of taking the top 100 principle components using PCA.
[eigenvectors, projected_data, eigenvalues] = princomp(X);
[foo, feature_idx] = sort(eigenvalues, 'descend');
selected_projected_data = projected(:, feature_idx(1:100));
Have you tried with
B = sort(your_matrix,2,'descend');
C = B(:,1:100);
Be careful!
With just 63 observations and 2308 variables, your PCA result will be meaningless because the data is underspecified. You should have at least (rule of thumb) dimensions*3 observations.
With 63 observations, you can at most define a 62 dimensional hyperspace!
I have 10 images(18x18). I save these images inside an array named images[324][10] where the number 324 represents the amount of pixels for an image and the number 10 the total amount of images that I have.
I would like to use these images for a neuron network however 324 is a big number to give as an input and thus I would like to decrease this number but retain as much information as possible.
I heard that you can do this with the princomp function which implements PCA.
The problem is that I haven't found any example on how to use this function, and especially for my case.
If I run
[COEFF, SCORE, latent] = princomp(images);
it runs fine but how can I then get the array newimages[number_of_desired_features][10]?
PCA could be a right choice here (but not the only one). Although, you should be aware of the fact, that PCA does not reduce the number of your input data features automatically. I recommend you reading this tutorial: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1100v1.pdf - it is the one I used to understand PCA and its really good for beginners.
Getting back to your question. An image is an vector in a 324-dimensional space. In this space the first base vector is one having a white pixel in top left corner, next one is having next pixel white, all the other black - and so on. It probably is not the best base vector set to represent this image data. PCA computes new base vectors (the COEFF matrix - the new vectors expressed as values in old vector space) and new image vector values (the SCORE matrix). At that point you have not lost ANY data at all (no feature number reduction). But, you could stop using some of the new base vectors, because they are probably connected with noice, not the data itself. It is all described in details in the tutorial.
images = rand(10,324);
[COEFF, SCORE] = princomp(images);
reconstructed_images = SCORE / COEFF + repmat(mean(images,1), 10, 1);
images - reconstructed_images
%as you see there are almost only zeros - the non-zero values are effects of small numerical errors
%its possible because you are only switching between the sets of base vectors used to represent the data
for i=100:324
SCORE(:,i) = zeros(10,1);
end
%we remove the features 100 to 324, leaving only first 99
%obviously, you could take only the non-zero part of the matrix and use it
%somewhere else, like for your neural network
reconstructed_images_with_reduced_features = SCORE / COEFF + repmat(mean(images,1), 10, 1);
images - reconstructed_images_with_reduced_features
%there are less features, but reconstruction is still pretty good