Distance Metrics in Machine Learning

DATA SCIENCE THEORY | DISTANCE METRICS | MACHINE LEARNING

Distance Metrics in Machine Learning

To read this article for free click here.

Distance metrics might sound like an abstract technical concept but they lie at the heart of many machine learning processes. They govern how an algorithm decides whether two pieces of data are close or far apart in terms of similarity. From detecting fraud in credit card transactions to grouping news articles by topic, distance metrics quietly power clustering, classification, and anomaly detection. Yet because they often operate behind the scenes, many people new to data analysis overlook just how important they are.

To understand what distance metrics really are, imagine you want to seat friends at a large dinner party in a way that sparks great conversation. You know which people share hobbies or interests, which ones prefer sports or music, and who loves to cook or paint. You then try to group them so that those with common ground end up at the same table. In essence, you are measuring how ‘far apart or ‘close’ two friends are, not by literal physical distance but by their personal attributes. In data science, that same idea unfolds when we measure how different two items are based on their features, whether those items are songs, images, transactions, or strings of text.

It might help to think about where distance metrics show up. In clustering (for example, k-means or DBSCAN), algorithms group similar data together, which means they need a systematic way to gauge similarity or difference. In classification approaches, particularly k-Nearest Neighbours, a new item’s label is predicted by checking which known items are nearest to it. Distance also helps in spotting outliers for fraud detection, where unusual transactions are quite literally far from normal behaviour.

Recommendation systems use distance metrics too. When you receive suggestions for books, films, or online courses, a system is measuring distance between the attributes of items you like and the attributes of other, untried items.

A helpful first step is to see that ‘distance’ in machine learning is broader than the everyday notion of how many steps you might walk from one place to another. Its probably better described as ‘difference’. This is because distance metrics measure differences in the values of data features, which might be purely numerical or might require more creative approaches if the data is made of text, sets, or complex structures.

Euclidean Distance

One of the most familiar distance measures is Euclidean distance. It is the straight-line distance between two points on a map or, more abstractly, in a multidimensional space. If an algorithm wants to see which data points cluster together, it can measure these direct lines. Imagine drawing a short ruler from one data point to another. If the line is short, the points are similar; if it is long, they are different. This is particularly common when you have numeric data that has been properly scaled, so no single feature overpowers the others. Euclidean distance typically shows up in algorithms like k-means clustering, where it is often used by default.

Manhattan Distance

Manhattan distance captures the idea that you can only travel in grid-like steps rather than a direct diagonal. Think of navigating a city centre laid out in blocks. Instead of measuring the straight line, you measure the route you would actually take if you could only move up or down and left or right. This can be handy in data settings where the notion of moving along separate axes is more meaningful. Some people prefer Manhattan distance in high-dimensional data because it sometimes copes better with the so-called curse of dimensionality, though results vary with the context.

Minkowski Distance

Minkowski distance is a more general framework that includes both Euclidean and Manhattan as special cases. By turning a dial, you can transform the measure from a Manhattan style to a Euclidean style or something in between. This is useful in research or experimentation, where you are uncertain which approach best suits your data. Although Minkowski is powerful, many practitioners either pick Euclidean or Manhattan directly, rather than adjusting that dial.

Cosine Similarity and Cosine Distance

Cosine similarity measures the angle between two vectors, ignoring their overall magnitude. It sees whether the vectors point in a similar direction. If they do, they are highly similar; if they are at right angles, they are dissimilar. Although it is technically a similarity measure rather than a distance measure, machine learning often treats these measures as flipsides of the same coin. Cosine similarity proves especially popular in text analysis. When two documents share many of the same words with similar frequencies, they point in nearly the same direction in a high-dimensional word space, resulting in a high cosine similarity. This idea extends beyond simple text. Music recommendations may rely on cosine similarity among acoustic parameters, and embedding-based systems often rely on cosine to see which entities or concepts cluster together in an abstract feature space.

Jaccard Distance

Data sometimes appears as sets rather than numbers. An online store might tag each product with labels like ‘casual’, ‘outdoor’, ‘waterproof’, or ‘sale’. Each product then becomes a set of tags, and you can measure how many tags the sets share. Jaccard distance is based on the proportion of overlap between those sets. If two sets share a lot of items, Jaccard distance is small (which implies high similarity); if they share none, Jaccard distance is large. This proves valuable for recommendation systems, where an algorithm can identify that one users preference set substantially overlaps with another users selections, leading to suggestions for comparable products they might appreciate.

Hamming Distance

Sometimes, you care only about the positions in which two strings differ, without worrying about insertions or deletions. That is where Hamming distance comes in. It is often used in coding theory and error detection, where data is transmitted as sequences of bits. If the bit strings differ at three positions, the Hamming distance is three. Each mismatch is counted as one difference, and strings must be the same length. This distance can crop up in simpler machine learning tasks or whenever short symbolic codes of identical length must be compared position by position.

Levenshtein (Edit) Distance

Levenshtein, or edit, distance measures how many single-character edits it takes to transform one string into another. An edit can be inserting, deleting, or substituting a character. While Hamming is rigid about string length, Levenshtein is flexible. If you have the string ‘CAT’ and want to transform it to ‘CART’ a single insertion does the job. If you need to correct ‘CAT’ to ‘CAR’ you do one substitution. This becomes crucial in everything from spell-checking to comparing genetic sequences, because DNA or RNA strings can differ by insertions, deletions, or substitutions of bases. It also matters in sanctions screening: banks and financial institutions need to detect that ‘Cate’ and ‘Kate’ could be variations of the same name. That might involve measuring how many edits are needed to match a name on a sanctions list. If it is small, the system flags a potential match.

Mahalanobis Distance

Sometimes, simple distances like Euclidean or Manhattan can be misleading if your data has highly correlated features. Mahalanobis distance accounts for those correlations. You can think of it as measuring how many standard deviations a point is from the mean, but in a space that might be tilted or stretched, reflecting the correlations between features. If two numeric variables often rise together, Mahalanobis distance tries to capture that in its notion of closeness. This is common in financial or scientific contexts where multiple variables interact in complex ways, and it is frequently used in outlier detection.

How to Choose the Right Distance Metric

The choice of distance metric can make or break your model’s performance and interpretability. A key step is checking what kind of data you have. If it is numeric and well-scaled, Euclidean might work fine. If you have text documents turned into vectors of word counts, cosine is often the go-to. If you are dealing with sets, Jaccard stands out as the most intuitive option. When you need to account for tiny edits in strings, Levenshtein is your best friend.

Beyond your data format, always consider whether features have wildly different scales. If you are mixing user age (somewhere between 0 and 100) with transaction amounts (which can be in the thousands), Euclidean distance might get skewed by the high transaction values. Normalising or standardising features often corrects this. Another question is whether your features show strong correlation. If that matters, a method like Mahalanobis or some form of data transformation (like PCA) could improve your results.

Common Pitfalls

People often rely on defaults. Many libraries automatically use Euclidean distance for clustering or nearest neighbour searches. That is fine if you are dealing with numeric data that has been cleaned up, but it can be problematic if your data is mostly categorical or set-based. Failing to normalise is another classic pitfall. When one variable’s range dwarfs another’s, it can overshadow everything else in a Euclidean-based approach. Another trap is ignoring the curse of dimensionality. In spaces with very many features, distance metrics start to lose meaning because points can end up appearing equally distant from each other.

Large Language Models (LLMs)

Distance metrics extend well beyond conventional machine learning algorithms into the realm of modern AI. LLMs and transformer architectures, which power systems like ChatGPT, fundamentally rely on the concept of similarity in their operation. These sophisticated models transform text into rich contextual embeddings where distance calculations play a crucial role.

In transformer models, self-attention mechanisms essentially compute similarity scores between different words or tokens in a sequence. When a transformer processes the sentence ‘The cat sat on the mat’, it calculates how relevant each word is to every other word, which is fundamentally a similarity measurement in disguise. This allows the model to understand that ‘cat’ and ‘sat’ are closely related in this context.

The remarkable capabilities of LLMs to understand language stem partly from how they organise concepts in a high-dimensional semantic space. When you ask an LLM to complete a sentence or answer a question, it navigates this space using distance calculations to find the most appropriate next tokens. Similar concepts cluster together in this space ‘— ‘hospital’ ‘doctor’ and ‘nurse’ would ordinarily be near neighbours, while ‘hospital’ and ‘bicycle’ would be distant (unless we were talking about clinicians cycling to work!).

Even the fine-tuning process for these models involves distance metrics. When developers align an LLM with human preferences using techniques like RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) they are essentially adjusting the models internal representations to reduce the distance between the models outputs and preferred human responses.

Throughout these advanced AI systems, the fundamental principle remains remarkably consistent: whether we’re clustering customer data or building sophisticated language models, we rely on measuring similarity and difference to help machines make sense of the world.

Final Reflections

Distance metrics might be among the most fundamental concepts in data science and machine learning, yet they are rarely talked about in everyday terms. Stripping away the maths, it is simply about how we measure closeness or difference. The wide range of metrics: Euclidean, Manhattan, Minkowski, Cosine, Jaccard, Hamming, Levenshtein, and Mahalanobis arises because data can come in many forms, from sets and text to numeric arrays of correlated variables.

Choosing the right metric often yields a dramatic boost in performance and interpretability. If your algorithm is giving strange results, it might be that the default distance measure is unsuited to your data. Switching to an edit distance for name matching, or adopting cosine for text vectors, can solve the puzzle. Normalising data and considering whether features are correlated further refines your model’s results. Meanwhile, tasks like sanctions screening or genetic comparison would be nearly impossible without something like Levenshtein, which captures subtle edits in sequences.

Regardless of whether you are a beginner or an advanced ML researcher, take the time to reflect on how you are measuring similarity in your data. The right choice can make clustering more meaningful, recommendation systems more relevant, anomaly detection more precise, and classification more accurate. Distance metrics are a powerful versatile lens through which machines perceive and compare data. By choosing or adjusting them carefully, you equip your models to see the patterns that truly matter, and that can be the difference between a lacklustre project and a machine learning success story.

Check out my Distance Metrics Demo App here.

Jamie is founder at Bloch.ai, Visiting Fellow in Enterprise AI at Manchester Metropolitan University and teaches AI programming with Python on the MSc AI Apprenticeship programme with QA & Northumbria University. He prefers cheese toasties.

Follow Jamie here and on LinkedIn: Jamie Crossman-Smith | LinkedIn