REVIEW
Empirical comparison between autoencoders and traditional dimensionality reduction methods
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Empirical comparison between autoencoders and traditional dimensionality reduction methods
read the original 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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.