1
$\begingroup$

I have a fundamental question regarding the applications of the results of PCA:

If we have already performed a successful PCA on a dataset of, say, real estate prices of a certain region over the last 20 years, then we've figured out the Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors that maximize the explanatory power of a mathematically descriptive system, while simultaneously lowering its complexity.

If we're now 2 years into the future and possess new real estate prices, how can we judge if certain real estate is under- or overvalued with these PCA results from the initial dataset?

Do we have to apply a new PCA on a dataset that contains the initial 20 years as well as the 2 future years of data in order to make such an assessment?

This is the initial dataset:

enter image description here

Here are the eigenvectors and values:

enter image description here

Here's the result that I get when I înclude all 22 years of data, plot the first column of the PC matrix and compare it against the standardized price of a real estate A:

enter image description here

I've generated eigenvector and eigenvalue tables with the scikit tools and then I calculated the dot product between the standardized price matrix and the eigenvector matrix to get a principal components matrix. The blue line reprsents the first column of this PC matrix and the orange line is the standardized Real Estate A price.

Is this how it's supposed to be used? You always need to include the latest data so as to see the most accurate discrepancies between modeled PCA value and the real current real estate value?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Do you only have 4 predictors to start with? That seems to be the case from the data sample and the number of eigenvalues/vectors. If so, there probably isn't much advantage to PCA/PCR. Also, as these are time series data, there's a danger in finding spurious correlations when you model this way. It might just be that your PC1 and prices are both driven by some other factor, with no true association between them. I know just enough about time series to avoid trying to answer questions on them. $\endgroup$
    – EdM
    Commented Jan 31, 2022 at 22:36
  • $\begingroup$ It's just a dataset that I'm using to understand the main concepts behind PCA within a time series context. And yes, the list only has these 4 real estate items in it, but is my application correct when it comes to identifying discrepancies between the modeled PCA and real values? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 31, 2022 at 22:52
  • $\begingroup$ I'd recommend adding the time-series tag to your question, to get the attention of those more knowledgeable than I in applications to time series. In your example, essentially all of the variance in the predictors is captured in the first principal component, meaning that all 4 predictors are highly correlated among each other. Spurious correlation would seem to be a big danger. $\endgroup$
    – EdM
    Commented Jan 31, 2022 at 23:00
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your suggestions! I added the time-series tag just now. I'll read up on spurious correlations and cointegration. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 31, 2022 at 23:07

2 Answers 2

0
$\begingroup$

There's one thing you haven't mentioned, which is how you will use the PCA results to judge if something is undervalued. Like you said, PCA reduces dimensionality, and will tell you the directions in which the data has most variance. However, in order to use this to judge new properties, you need some classifier. Reducing dimensions is not enough.

But to answer your question, assuming you have a classifier, you seem to be asking if the PCA results on the first 20 years will be similar to the PCA results on the entire 22 years. This really depends on the data. One thing you can do to empirically check this is to just run both of these PCA's and compare them. I would expect that the initial PCA will generalize well to the next two years, but that's just a guess. It would be much better to get your answers from the data.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've included further information in my original post to demonstrate how I'm using PCA currently. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 31, 2022 at 19:54
0
$\begingroup$

we've figured out the Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors that maximize the explanatory power of a mathematically descriptive system, while simultaneously lowering its complexity

You might have reduced dimensionality with PCA/PCR, but you probably haven't reduced the complexity in terms of the original predictor variables. Each principal component might include contributions from all of those original predictors.

For predictions on new data, it's best to move from the retained principal components back to corresponding regression coefficients expressed in terms of the original predictors. That's done, for example, by the R pls package; see Section 8 of the vignette. Those coefficients won't be the same as what you would have gotten with ordinary regression, as they only contain predictor contributions included in the retained principal components.

Moving back to the predictor space from principal components removes potential problems in mapping between principal components of your original and your new data sets. In terms of the original predictor variables, whether to continue with the first model or update isn't any different for PCA/PCR than it is for other modeling approaches.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I've included further information in my original post to demonstrate how I'm using PCA currently. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 31, 2022 at 19:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.