Analysis of Dimensionality Reduction Techniques on Big Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to digitization, a huge volume of data is being generated across several sectors such as healthcare, production, sales, IoT devices, Web, organizations. Machine learning algorithms are used to uncover patterns among the attributes of this data. Hence, they can be used to make predictions that can be used by medical practitioners and people at managerial level to make executive decisions. Not all the attributes in the datasets generated are important for training the machine learning algorithms. Some attributes might be irrelevant and some might not affect the outcome of the prediction. Ignoring or removing these irrelevant or less important attributes reduces the burden on machine learning algorithms. In this work two of the prominent dimensionality reduction techniques, Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) are investigated on four popular Machine Learning (ML) algorithms, Decision Tree Induction, Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naive Bayes Classifier and Random Forest Classifier using publicly available Cardiotocography (CTG) dataset from University of California and Irvine Machine Learning Repository. The experimentation results prove that PCA outperforms LDA in all the measures. Also, the performance of the classifiers, Decision Tree, Random Forest examined is not affected much by using PCA and LDA.To further analyze the performance of PCA and LDA the eperimentation is carried out on Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) and Intrusion Detection System (IDS) datasets. Experimentation results prove that ML algorithms with PCA produce better results when dimensionality of the datasets is high. When dimensionality of datasets is low it is observed that the ML algorithms without dimensionality reduction yields better results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".