least squarespcasvd
I know how to calculate PCA and SVD mathematically, and I know that both can be applied to Linear Least Squares regression.
The main advantage of SVD mathematically seems to be that it can be applied to non-square matrices.
Both focus on the decomposition of the $X^\top X$ matrix. Other than the advantage of SVD mentioned, are there any additional advantages or insights provided by using SVD over PCA?
I'm really looking for the intuition rather than any mathematical differences.
Here are my 2ct on the topic
The chemometrics lecture where I first learned PCA used solution (2), but it was not numerically oriented, and my numerics lecture was only an introduction and didn't discuss SVD as far as I recall.
If I understand Holmes: Fast SVD for Large-Scale Matrices correctly, your idea has been used to get a computationally fast SVD of long matrices.
That would mean that a good SVD implementation may internally follow (2) if it encounters suitable matrices (I don't know whether there are still better possibilities). This would mean that for a high-level implementation it is better to use the SVD (1) and leave it to the BLAS to take care of which algorithm to use internally.
Quick practical check: OpenBLAS's svd doesn't seem to make this distinction, on a matrix of 5e4 x 100, svd (X, nu = 0) takes on median 3.5 s, while svd (crossprod (X), nu = 0) takes 54 ms (called from R with microbenchmark).
The squaring of the eigenvalues of course is fast, and up to that the results of both calls are equvalent.
timing <- microbenchmark (svd (X, nu = 0), svd (crossprod (X), nu = 0), times = 10)
timing
# Unit: milliseconds
# expr min lq median uq max neval
# svd(X, nu = 0) 3383.77710 3422.68455 3507.2597 3542.91083 3724.24130 10
# svd(crossprod(X), nu = 0) 48.49297 50.16464 53.6881 56.28776 59.21218 10
This paper discusses numerical and computational properties of 4 different algorithms for PCA: SVD, eigen decomposition (EVD), NIPALS and POWER.
They are related as follows:
computes on extract all PCs at once sequential extraction
X SVD NIPALS
X'X EVD POWER
The context of the paper are wide $\mathbf X^{(30 \times 500)}$, and they work on $\mathbf{XX'}$ (kernel PCA) - this is just the opposite situation as the one you ask about. So to answer your question about long matrix behaviour, you need to exchange the meaning of "kernel" and "classical".
Not surprisingly, EVD and SVD change places depending on whether the classical or kernel algorithms are used. In the context of this question this means that one or the other may be better depending on the shape of the matrix.
But from their discussion of "classical" SVD and EVD it is clear that the decomposition of $\mathbf{X'X}$ is a very usual way to calculate the PCA. However, they do not specify which SVD algorithm is used other than that they use Matlab's svd () function.
> sessionInfo ()
R version 3.0.2 (2013-09-25)
Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (64-bit)
locale:
[1] LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_NUMERIC=C LC_TIME=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_MONETARY=de_DE.UTF-8
[6] LC_MESSAGES=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_PAPER=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_NAME=C LC_ADDRESS=C LC_TELEPHONE=C
[11] LC_MEASUREMENT=de_DE.UTF-8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=C
attached base packages:
[1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
other attached packages:
[1] microbenchmark_1.3-0
loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
[1] tools_3.0.2
$ dpkg --list libopenblas*
[...]
ii libopenblas-base 0.1alpha2.2-3 Optimized BLAS (linear algebra) library based on GotoBLAS2
ii libopenblas-dev 0.1alpha2.2-3 Optimized BLAS (linear algebra) library based on GotoBLAS2
Best Answer
As @ttnphns and @nick-cox said, SVD is a numerical method and PCA is an analysis approach (like least squares). You can do PCA using SVD, or you can do PCA doing the eigen-decomposition of $X^T X$ (or $X X^T$), or you can do PCA using many other methods, just like you can solve least squares with a dozen different algorithms like Newton's method or gradient descent or SVD etc.
So there is no "advantage" to SVD over PCA because it's like asking whether Newton's method is better than least squares: the two aren't comparable.