Bias in Filter Feature Selection Evaluation: A Meta-Analysis of Datasets, Baselines, and Experimental Design Choices

Background: Since 1990 many feature selection methods have been proposed across heterogeneous applications. To validate the usefulness of a new method, it needs to be compared against at least one baseline method from the existing literature on a feature selection task using at least one dataset. Recent developments in tabular Deep Learning (DL) and data valuation in Machine Learning (ML) suggest that the evaluation of new methods, algorithms, and models may be consciously or unconsciously biased. We hypothesise that a similar trend exists in feature selection (FS), particularly in filter feature selection (FFS). The aim of this study is therefore to examine FFS studies to identify factors that influence the evaluation and that might consist entry point for biases in order to recommend stronger principles for FFS evaluation. Methods: We analyse a sample of 28 high profile FFS studies published between 1994 and 2025. The analysis provides reflections on how to examine FFS studies, highlights lessons learned throughout the process, and gives five evidence-based recommendations for future FFS evaluation. Results: Multivariate Linear Regression analysis achieved a score of $R^2=0.33$. It means that 33% of the variance in the performance of new methods against chosen baselines (win rate) is explained by the number of datasets (#Datasets), the number of baselines (#Baselines), and the number of new methods (#NewMethods). Discussion: $R^2=0.33$ is considered medium explanation; which is promising given that this is the first such study. The medium explanation result is due to the fact that win rate is influenced by additional factors such as the maturity of the feature selection domain, the type of datasets and baselines, and the simplicity of the regression model used to explain the relationship.

KGroups: A Versatile Univariate Max-Relevance Min-Redundancy Feature Selection Algorithm for High-dimensional Biological Data

This paper proposes a new univariate filter feature selection (FFS) algorithm called KGroups. The majority of work in the literature focuses on investigating the relevance or redundancy estimations of feature selection (FS) methods. This has shown promising results and a real improvement of FFS methods' predictive performance. However, limited efforts have been made to investigate alternative FFS algorithms. This raises the following question: how much of the FFS methods' predictive performance depends on the selection algorithm rather than the relevance or the redundancy estimations? The majority of FFS methods fall into two categories: relevance maximisation (Max-Rel, also known as KBest) or simultaneous relevance maximisation and redundancy minimisation (mRMR). KBest is a univariate FFS algorithm that employs sorting (descending) for selection. mRMR is a multivariate FFS algorithm that employs an incremental search algorithm for selection. In this paper, we propose a new univariate mRMR called KGroups that employs clustering for selection. Extensive experiments on 14 high-dimensional biological benchmark datasets showed that KGroups achieves similar predictive performance compared to multivariate mRMR while being up to 821 times faster. KGroups is parameterisable, which leaves room for further predictive performance improvement through hyperparameter finetuning, unlike mRMR and KBest. KGroups outperforms KBest.

Personalization of Dataset Retrieval Results using a Metadata-based Data Valuation Method

In this paper, we propose a novel data valuation method for a Dataset Retrieval (DR) use case in Ireland's National mapping agency. To the best of our knowledge, data valuation has not yet been applied to Dataset Retrieval. By leveraging metadata and a user's preferences, we estimate the personal value of each dataset to facilitate dataset retrieval and filtering. We then validated the data value-based ranking against the stakeholders' ranking of the datasets. The proposed data valuation method and use case demonstrated that data valuation is promising for dataset retrieval. For instance, the outperforming dataset retrieval based on our approach obtained 0.8207 in terms of NDCG@5 (the truncated Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain at 5). This study is unique in its exploration of a data valuation-based approach to dataset retrieval and stands out because, unlike most existing methods, our approach is validated using the stakeholders ranking of the datasets.