2
$\begingroup$

How does PCA work when we reduce the original space to a 2 or higher-dimensional space? I understand the case when we reduce the dimensionality to $1$, but not this case.

$$\begin{array}{ll} \text{maximize} & \mathrm{Tr}\left( \mathbf{w}^T\mathbf{X}\mathbf{X}^T\mathbf{w} \right)\\ \text{subject to} & \mathbf{w}^T\mathbf{w} = 1\end{array}$$

$\endgroup$
1

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

You might want to have a look at the wikipedia article of PCA, where it says:

"The $k$th component can be found by subtracting the first $k − 1$ principal components from $\mathbf{X}$:"

$$\hat{\mathbf{X}}_k = \mathbf{X} - \sum_{s=1}^{k-1}\mathbf{X}\mathbf{w}_s\mathbf{w}_s^T$$

Then you repeat the process to find the next component:

$$\mathbf{w}_k = \arg\max \mathbf{w}^T\mathbf{\hat{X}}^T_k\mathbf{\hat{X}}_k\mathbf{w}$$ $$\text{s.t. } \mathbf{w}_k^T\mathbf{w}_k = 1$$

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

You can also understand the logic from the view of constrained optimisation. Introduce a Lagrange function: $$ \mathcal{L} = \text{Tr} (w^{T} X X^{T} w) - \lambda w^{T} w $$ And take the derivative with respect to $w$: $$ \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial w} = 2 (X X^{T} - \lambda) w $$ For the general case of dimension $\geqslant 1$ $w$ is a set of vectors $w = (w_1 w_2 \ldots w_n)$. This expression vanishes, if for some index $i$ $w_i$ is an of eigenvector of $XX^{T}$ with the eigenvalue $\lambda_i$, and all other components are set to zero. In other words, stationary points are the eigenvectors of $X X^{T}$.

The condititon $w^T w = 1$ imposes the orthogonality condition on the eigenvectors. In fact, going back to the initial functional, one sees, that $w_i X X^{T} w_j = \lambda_j w_i^{T} w_j = 0$ for $i \neq j$. Therefore, we have finally: $$ \mathcal{L} =\sum \lambda_i - \lambda $$ Which is maximized for any $k \geq 1$, by taking $k$ largest eigenvalues.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ 1.) Is the duality gap zero for such functions? 2.) The $L$ is minimised for k largest Eigen values. And the major concern I haven't seen this type of formulation without building the dual problem, can you link a resource? (Not doubting, but I am interested) $\endgroup$
    – user9947
    Sep 1, 2020 at 23:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .