4
$\begingroup$

I ran into a question where the answer ran me into a big doubt.

Suppose we have a dataset $A=${$x1,x2,y$} in which $x1$ and $x2$ are our features and $y$ is the label.

Also, suppose that the covariance matrix between these three random variables are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|} \hline &x1&x2&y\\ \hline x1&a&d&e\\ \hline x2&d&b&f\\\hline y&e&f&c\\\hline \end{array}$$

When $|d| \gg 0$, someone may ignore either of the two features, without losing any performance.

The claim was marked as a true question. Is there any idea why the mentioned proposition is True and performance was not affected?

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

$|d| \gg 0$ means there is a very strong correlation between $x_1$ and $x_2$. This means one can be expressed (almost completely) in terms of the other, thus one of two is almost redundant.

A simple example:

Consider that $x_2$ is simply a copy of $x_1$, ie $x_2=x_1$. Does $x_2$ offer any new information about the the label $y$ apart from the information $x_1$ provides? No, it is clear.

Now consider that $x_2$ is simply a shifted version of $x_1$, ie $x_2=c_0+x_1$. Does it now offer any new information apart from what $x_1$ provides? Again no, by simply changing the reference point $c_0$, which is equivalent to changing the baseline of the measuring system, does not by itself offer new information.

Thirdly consider that $x_2$ is a re-scaled version of $x_1$, ie $x_2 = s \cdot x_1$. Does it offer now different information than what $x_1$ provides? Again, no since scaling is equivalent to changing the measuring unit of $x_1$, but this is simply a re-naming of units, no new information is added.

One can see that any transformation of the form $x_2 = c_0 + s \cdot x_1$ does not offer any new information from what $x_1$ already provides, by the arguments above.

If one wants to be more realistic one can add some noise, ie $x_2 = c_0 + s \cdot x_1 + \epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is some random variable with zero mean and very small variance.

A correlation value $|d|$ which is quite high actualy means that $x_2$ can be expressed as such a transformation of $x_1$, ie $x_2 = c_0 + s \cdot x_1 + \epsilon$ (or vice-versa) (there are some non-trivial exceptions to this). So $x_2$ offers no new information apart from what $x_1$ offers and is redundant.

So if such a high correlation exists between variables/features, one of them can be always eliminated without diminishing performance as being redundant (in the sense that, as far as second-order statistics are concerned, the two variables are identical).

This is one of the main rationales of feature selection and dimensionality reduction in machine learning.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree that the question poser almost surely had that explanation in mind as the answer. But I disagree with the answer, at least the "always" qualification. Your "nontrivial exceptions" link suggests that at least sometimes the two variables contribute useful information when both included. $\endgroup$ – Ben Reiniger Jan 8 at 15:58
  • $\begingroup$ @BenReiniger, "always" is qualified in the sense of use of 2nd-order statistics only. In this sense and for algorithms relying only on 2nd-order statistics, the 2 variables are indeed equivalent. $\endgroup$ – Nikos M. Jan 8 at 16:11
1
$\begingroup$

I primarily agree with @NikosM., but take issue with the question's assertion (my emphasis)

without losing any performance

Having very high correlation means they are very nearly in a linear relationship, but it is possible that the deviation from linearity is not random, and in fact is predictive. Here's a simple example:

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sklearn.linear_model import LinearRegression
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score, KFold

x1 = np.linspace(0, 10, num=1000)
x2 = x1 + np.sqrt(x1)
X = np.vstack([x1, x2]).T
y = np.sqrt(x1)  # so y = x2 - x1

plt.plot(x1, x2);

print(np.corrcoef(x1, x2))  # = 0.9991

lr = LinearRegression()
cv = KFold(shuffle=True, random_state=314)

print(cross_val_score(lr, X, y, cv=cv).mean())
print(cross_val_score(lr, x1.reshape(-1,1), y, cv=cv).mean())
print(cross_val_score(lr, x2.reshape(-1,1), y, cv=cv).mean())

outputs

1.0
0.9592797987922872
0.9741089428341769

and the plot of $x_1$ vs $x_2$:
nearly linear plot, with curve near the origin from the sqrt term

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ In the notation in Nikos's answer, in my example we have $x_2=c_0 + s\cdot x_1+\epsilon$, but $\epsilon\approx\sqrt{x_1}$ is predictive; in this concocted example, that actually is the target. $\endgroup$ – Ben Reiniger Jan 14 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ If they are "linearly dependent," then their correlation coefficient is $\pm1$, and you can indeed ignore one. When their corr-coef is close to but not equal to $\pm1$, as in this example, removing one degrades performance (not a lot perhaps, but clearly some). If their corr-coef is not close to $\pm1$, then we're out of scope of the question. $\endgroup$ – Ben Reiniger Jan 14 at 17:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.