Analysis of Dimensionality Reduction Techniques on Big Data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it