Empirical Comparison between Autoencoders and Traditional Dimensionality Reduction Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to process efficiently ever-higher dimensional data such as images, sentences, or audio recordings, one needs to find a proper way to reduce the dimensionality of such data. In this regard, SVD-based methods including PCA and Isomap have been extensively used. Recently, a neural network alternative called autoencoder has been proposed and is often preferred for its higher flexibility. This work aims to show that PCA is still a relevant technique for dimensionality reduction in the context of classification. To this purpose, we evaluated the performance of PCA compared to Isomap, a deep autoencoder, and a variational autoencoder. Experiments were conducted on three commonly used image datasets: MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, and CIFAR-10. The four different dimensionality reduction techniques were separately employed on each dataset to project data into a low-dimensional space. Then a k-NN classifier was trained on each projection with a cross-validated random search over the number of neighbours. Interestingly, our experiments revealed that k-NN achieved comparable accuracy on PCA and both autoencoders projections provided a big enough dimension. However, PCA computation time was two orders of magnitude faster than its neural network counterparts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".