Re: MDS distances (Pierre Divenyi )


Subject: Re: MDS distances
From:    Pierre Divenyi  <pdivenyi@xxxxxxxx>
Date:    Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:41:23 -0700

Jean-Francois, As to PCA (and factor analysis), interpreting the components (factors) runs into the same problem: any rotation will end up with a different set and a different story. One way out of the mess is to impose one particular rotation criterion (I used to use varimax), so at least you know how the loading matrix came to existence. But even that does not obviate the need for imagination. I used to say that without an artistic background, or bend, one should stay away from interpreting loading matrices. Pierre >One should not try to interpret the "meaning" of MDS dimensions, since >any rotation of an MDS solution is a completely equivalent solution. >Hence, looking at the vectors components of an MDS solution has no >sense unless you find a way to fix some dimensions in a meaningful >way. That's why different MDS algorithms can lead to different (valid) >solutions given the same initial similarity matrix. If your goal is to >find the "intrinsic" dimensions of sound data, my opinion is that it >would be preferable to use state-of-the-art dimensionality reduction >algorithms (Isomap, LLE, non-local techniques, or even PCA), on a set >of points obtained from MDS with no loss in higher dimension. > >-- >Jean-François Paiement >Research Assistant >IDIAP Research Institute >Martigny, Switzerland >paiement@xxxxxxxx


This message came from the mail archive
http://www.auditory.org/postings/2006/
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University