Covariance- v. correlation-matrix based PCA











up vote
5
down vote

favorite












In principal component analysis (PCA), one can choose either the covariance matrix or the correlation matrix to find the components. These give different results because, I suspect, the eigenvectors between both matrices are not equal. (Mathematically) similar matrices have the same eigenvalues, but not necessarily the same eigenvectors. Several questions: (1) Why this difference? (2) Does PCA make sense, if you can get two different answers? (3) Which of the two methods is 'best'? (4) Since PCA operates on standardized (not) raw data in both cases, i.e., scaled by their standard deviation, does it make sense to use the results to draw conclusions about the dominance of variation for the actual, unstandardized data?






linear-algebra statistics eigenvalues-eigenvectors







share|cite|improve this question






















  • If you scale them by their standard deviation, doesn't that make the covariance matrix into a correlation matrix?
    – Michael Hardy
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:09










  • This is more of a statistics question so is better asked at Cross Validated. You will probably get more/better answers there.
    – kjetil b halvorsen
    Jul 3 '14 at 9:14















up vote
5
down vote

favorite












In principal component analysis (PCA), one can choose either the covariance matrix or the correlation matrix to find the components. These give different results because, I suspect, the eigenvectors between both matrices are not equal. (Mathematically) similar matrices have the same eigenvalues, but not necessarily the same eigenvectors. Several questions: (1) Why this difference? (2) Does PCA make sense, if you can get two different answers? (3) Which of the two methods is 'best'? (4) Since PCA operates on standardized (not) raw data in both cases, i.e., scaled by their standard deviation, does it make sense to use the results to draw conclusions about the dominance of variation for the actual, unstandardized data?






linear-algebra statistics eigenvalues-eigenvectors







share|cite|improve this question






















  • If you scale them by their standard deviation, doesn't that make the covariance matrix into a correlation matrix?
    – Michael Hardy
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:09










  • This is more of a statistics question so is better asked at Cross Validated. You will probably get more/better answers there.
    – kjetil b halvorsen
    Jul 3 '14 at 9:14













up vote
5
down vote

favorite









up vote
5
down vote

favorite











In principal component analysis (PCA), one can choose either the covariance matrix or the correlation matrix to find the components. These give different results because, I suspect, the eigenvectors between both matrices are not equal. (Mathematically) similar matrices have the same eigenvalues, but not necessarily the same eigenvectors. Several questions: (1) Why this difference? (2) Does PCA make sense, if you can get two different answers? (3) Which of the two methods is 'best'? (4) Since PCA operates on standardized (not) raw data in both cases, i.e., scaled by their standard deviation, does it make sense to use the results to draw conclusions about the dominance of variation for the actual, unstandardized data?






linear-algebra statistics eigenvalues-eigenvectors







share|cite|improve this question













In principal component analysis (PCA), one can choose either the covariance matrix or the correlation matrix to find the components. These give different results because, I suspect, the eigenvectors between both matrices are not equal. (Mathematically) similar matrices have the same eigenvalues, but not necessarily the same eigenvectors. Several questions: (1) Why this difference? (2) Does PCA make sense, if you can get two different answers? (3) Which of the two methods is 'best'? (4) Since PCA operates on standardized (not) raw data in both cases, i.e., scaled by their standard deviation, does it make sense to use the results to draw conclusions about the dominance of variation for the actual, unstandardized data?






linear-algebra statistics eigenvalues-eigenvectors




linear-algebra statistics eigenvalues-eigenvectors






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jun 26 '13 at 13:00









Lucozade

60839




60839












  • If you scale them by their standard deviation, doesn't that make the covariance matrix into a correlation matrix?
    – Michael Hardy
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:09










  • This is more of a statistics question so is better asked at Cross Validated. You will probably get more/better answers there.
    – kjetil b halvorsen
    Jul 3 '14 at 9:14


















  • If you scale them by their standard deviation, doesn't that make the covariance matrix into a correlation matrix?
    – Michael Hardy
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:09










  • This is more of a statistics question so is better asked at Cross Validated. You will probably get more/better answers there.
    – kjetil b halvorsen
    Jul 3 '14 at 9:14
















If you scale them by their standard deviation, doesn't that make the covariance matrix into a correlation matrix?
– Michael Hardy
Jun 26 '13 at 13:09




If you scale them by their standard deviation, doesn't that make the covariance matrix into a correlation matrix?
– Michael Hardy
Jun 26 '13 at 13:09












This is more of a statistics question so is better asked at Cross Validated. You will probably get more/better answers there.
– kjetil b halvorsen
Jul 3 '14 at 9:14




This is more of a statistics question so is better asked at Cross Validated. You will probably get more/better answers there.
– kjetil b halvorsen
Jul 3 '14 at 9:14










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













The problem with not standardizing, i.e. with not scaling the variables by their standard deviation, is that if, for example, one variable is measured in centimeters and another in dollars, then changing centimeters to meters can actually change the eigenvectors, so an arbitrary choice of units can alter the results. Hence I'd use the correlation matrix.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Correction to my part (4): "both cases" is incorrect; standardized variables are used in correlation-based PCA, not in covariance-based. But the issue and question still stands for the former.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:23










  • Thanks Michael. Yes, this is the message/advice I am getting from literature too, but in case where the data are physically dimensionless, you still have a choice of two. It is not clear which one should be chosen on a more positive, fundamental basis.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:29










  • My issue with scaling is that it seems to destroy the problem you are trying to solve. If you standardize each variable X by its own (= across different observations for the same variable) standard deviation, before performing correlation based PCA, how can it still make sense to look for directions of maximum variance for combinations of the variables, which is what PCA is all about? I know that that correlation based PCA is very convenient (standardized variables are dimensionless, so their linear combinations can be added; other advantages are also based on pragmatism), but is it correct?
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 23:04










  • It seems to me that covariance based PCA is the only truly correct one (even when the variances of the variables differ greatly) and that, whenever this version cannot be used, correlation based PCA should not be used either.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 23:04











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f429962%2fcovariance-v-correlation-matrix-based-pca%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
0
down vote













The problem with not standardizing, i.e. with not scaling the variables by their standard deviation, is that if, for example, one variable is measured in centimeters and another in dollars, then changing centimeters to meters can actually change the eigenvectors, so an arbitrary choice of units can alter the results. Hence I'd use the correlation matrix.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Correction to my part (4): "both cases" is incorrect; standardized variables are used in correlation-based PCA, not in covariance-based. But the issue and question still stands for the former.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:23










  • Thanks Michael. Yes, this is the message/advice I am getting from literature too, but in case where the data are physically dimensionless, you still have a choice of two. It is not clear which one should be chosen on a more positive, fundamental basis.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:29










  • My issue with scaling is that it seems to destroy the problem you are trying to solve. If you standardize each variable X by its own (= across different observations for the same variable) standard deviation, before performing correlation based PCA, how can it still make sense to look for directions of maximum variance for combinations of the variables, which is what PCA is all about? I know that that correlation based PCA is very convenient (standardized variables are dimensionless, so their linear combinations can be added; other advantages are also based on pragmatism), but is it correct?
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 23:04










  • It seems to me that covariance based PCA is the only truly correct one (even when the variances of the variables differ greatly) and that, whenever this version cannot be used, correlation based PCA should not be used either.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 23:04















up vote
0
down vote













The problem with not standardizing, i.e. with not scaling the variables by their standard deviation, is that if, for example, one variable is measured in centimeters and another in dollars, then changing centimeters to meters can actually change the eigenvectors, so an arbitrary choice of units can alter the results. Hence I'd use the correlation matrix.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Correction to my part (4): "both cases" is incorrect; standardized variables are used in correlation-based PCA, not in covariance-based. But the issue and question still stands for the former.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:23










  • Thanks Michael. Yes, this is the message/advice I am getting from literature too, but in case where the data are physically dimensionless, you still have a choice of two. It is not clear which one should be chosen on a more positive, fundamental basis.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:29










  • My issue with scaling is that it seems to destroy the problem you are trying to solve. If you standardize each variable X by its own (= across different observations for the same variable) standard deviation, before performing correlation based PCA, how can it still make sense to look for directions of maximum variance for combinations of the variables, which is what PCA is all about? I know that that correlation based PCA is very convenient (standardized variables are dimensionless, so their linear combinations can be added; other advantages are also based on pragmatism), but is it correct?
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 23:04










  • It seems to me that covariance based PCA is the only truly correct one (even when the variances of the variables differ greatly) and that, whenever this version cannot be used, correlation based PCA should not be used either.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 23:04













up vote
0
down vote










up vote
0
down vote









The problem with not standardizing, i.e. with not scaling the variables by their standard deviation, is that if, for example, one variable is measured in centimeters and another in dollars, then changing centimeters to meters can actually change the eigenvectors, so an arbitrary choice of units can alter the results. Hence I'd use the correlation matrix.






share|cite|improve this answer












The problem with not standardizing, i.e. with not scaling the variables by their standard deviation, is that if, for example, one variable is measured in centimeters and another in dollars, then changing centimeters to meters can actually change the eigenvectors, so an arbitrary choice of units can alter the results. Hence I'd use the correlation matrix.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Jun 26 '13 at 13:16









Michael Hardy

1




1












  • Correction to my part (4): "both cases" is incorrect; standardized variables are used in correlation-based PCA, not in covariance-based. But the issue and question still stands for the former.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:23










  • Thanks Michael. Yes, this is the message/advice I am getting from literature too, but in case where the data are physically dimensionless, you still have a choice of two. It is not clear which one should be chosen on a more positive, fundamental basis.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:29










  • My issue with scaling is that it seems to destroy the problem you are trying to solve. If you standardize each variable X by its own (= across different observations for the same variable) standard deviation, before performing correlation based PCA, how can it still make sense to look for directions of maximum variance for combinations of the variables, which is what PCA is all about? I know that that correlation based PCA is very convenient (standardized variables are dimensionless, so their linear combinations can be added; other advantages are also based on pragmatism), but is it correct?
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 23:04










  • It seems to me that covariance based PCA is the only truly correct one (even when the variances of the variables differ greatly) and that, whenever this version cannot be used, correlation based PCA should not be used either.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 23:04


















  • Correction to my part (4): "both cases" is incorrect; standardized variables are used in correlation-based PCA, not in covariance-based. But the issue and question still stands for the former.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:23










  • Thanks Michael. Yes, this is the message/advice I am getting from literature too, but in case where the data are physically dimensionless, you still have a choice of two. It is not clear which one should be chosen on a more positive, fundamental basis.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 13:29










  • My issue with scaling is that it seems to destroy the problem you are trying to solve. If you standardize each variable X by its own (= across different observations for the same variable) standard deviation, before performing correlation based PCA, how can it still make sense to look for directions of maximum variance for combinations of the variables, which is what PCA is all about? I know that that correlation based PCA is very convenient (standardized variables are dimensionless, so their linear combinations can be added; other advantages are also based on pragmatism), but is it correct?
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 23:04










  • It seems to me that covariance based PCA is the only truly correct one (even when the variances of the variables differ greatly) and that, whenever this version cannot be used, correlation based PCA should not be used either.
    – Lucozade
    Jun 26 '13 at 23:04
















Correction to my part (4): "both cases" is incorrect; standardized variables are used in correlation-based PCA, not in covariance-based. But the issue and question still stands for the former.
– Lucozade
Jun 26 '13 at 13:23




Correction to my part (4): "both cases" is incorrect; standardized variables are used in correlation-based PCA, not in covariance-based. But the issue and question still stands for the former.
– Lucozade
Jun 26 '13 at 13:23












Thanks Michael. Yes, this is the message/advice I am getting from literature too, but in case where the data are physically dimensionless, you still have a choice of two. It is not clear which one should be chosen on a more positive, fundamental basis.
– Lucozade
Jun 26 '13 at 13:29




Thanks Michael. Yes, this is the message/advice I am getting from literature too, but in case where the data are physically dimensionless, you still have a choice of two. It is not clear which one should be chosen on a more positive, fundamental basis.
– Lucozade
Jun 26 '13 at 13:29












My issue with scaling is that it seems to destroy the problem you are trying to solve. If you standardize each variable X by its own (= across different observations for the same variable) standard deviation, before performing correlation based PCA, how can it still make sense to look for directions of maximum variance for combinations of the variables, which is what PCA is all about? I know that that correlation based PCA is very convenient (standardized variables are dimensionless, so their linear combinations can be added; other advantages are also based on pragmatism), but is it correct?
– Lucozade
Jun 26 '13 at 23:04




My issue with scaling is that it seems to destroy the problem you are trying to solve. If you standardize each variable X by its own (= across different observations for the same variable) standard deviation, before performing correlation based PCA, how can it still make sense to look for directions of maximum variance for combinations of the variables, which is what PCA is all about? I know that that correlation based PCA is very convenient (standardized variables are dimensionless, so their linear combinations can be added; other advantages are also based on pragmatism), but is it correct?
– Lucozade
Jun 26 '13 at 23:04












It seems to me that covariance based PCA is the only truly correct one (even when the variances of the variables differ greatly) and that, whenever this version cannot be used, correlation based PCA should not be used either.
– Lucozade
Jun 26 '13 at 23:04




It seems to me that covariance based PCA is the only truly correct one (even when the variances of the variables differ greatly) and that, whenever this version cannot be used, correlation based PCA should not be used either.
– Lucozade
Jun 26 '13 at 23:04


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f429962%2fcovariance-v-correlation-matrix-based-pca%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Image
Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l...
Read more

Puebla de Zaragoza

Image
Para otros usos de este término, véase Puebla (desambiguación). Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localidad De arriba a abajo de izquierda a derecha: Estrella de Puebla, Volcán Popocatépetl, Catedral de Puebla, Monumento a Ignacio Zaragoza, Estadio Cuauhtémoc, Angelópolis y Vista panorámica de la ciudad. Escudo Otros nombres: El relicario de América/ La ciudad de los Ángeles/ La Angelópolis Lema: Muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en México Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en Puebla Mapa interactivo Coordenadas 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Coordenadas: 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Idioma oficial Español Entidad Localidad  • País   México  • Estado Puebla  • Municipio Puebla Presidente municipal Claudia Rivera Vivanc...
Read more

Musa

Image
Para el género de plantas, véase Musa (planta). Apolo y la Nueve Musas En la mitología griega, las musas (en griego antiguo μοῦσαι « mousai» ) son, según los escritores más antiguos, las divinidades inspiradoras de las Artes: cada una de ellas está relacionada con ramas artísticas y del conocimiento. Son hijas de Zeus y de Mnemósine, compañeras del séquito de Apolo, dios olímpico de la música y patrón de las bellas artes, quien tuvo romances con cada una de ellas, dejando descendientes. Bajaban a la tierra a susurrar ideas e inspirar a aquellos mortales que las invocaran. En la época más arcaica eran las ninfas inspiradoras de las fuentes, en las cuales eran adoradas. Finalmente, alrededor de los siglos VIII-VII a. C. [ 1 ] ​ prevaleció en todo el territorio de la Hélade la adoración de las nueve Musas, que son Calíope, Clío, Erato, Euterpe, Melpómene, Polimnia, Talía, Terpsícore y Urania. El culto a las musas era originalmente de Tracia y Beocia, y fueron de vital impo...
Read more