Cited by 2,442Statistical Methods and InferenceFace and Expression RecognitionText and Document Classification Technologies

Feature Selection: A Data Perspective

Open access
Li, Jundong, Cheng, Kewei, Wang, Suhang, Morstatter, Fred, Trevino, Robert P., Tang, Jiliang, Liu, Huan·2018·ACM Computing Surveys

Abstract

Feature selection, as a data preprocessing strategy, has been proven to be effective and efficient in preparing data (especially high-dimensional data) for various data-mining and machine-learning problems. The objectives of feature selection include building simpler and more comprehensible models, improving data-mining performance, and preparing clean, understandable data. The recent proliferation of big data has presented some substantial challenges and opportunities to feature selection. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive and structured overview of recent advances in feature selection research. Motivated by current challenges and opportunities in the era of big data, we revisit feature selection research from a data perspective and review representative feature selection algorithms for conventional data, structured data, heterogeneous data and streaming data. Methodologically, to emphasize the differences and similarities of most existing feature selection algorithms for conventional data, we categorize them into four main groups: similarity-based, information-theoretical-based, sparse-learning-based, and statistical-based methods. To facilitate and promote the research in this community, we also present an open source feature selection repository that consists of most of the popular feature selection algorithms (http://featureselection.asu.edu/). Also, we use it as an example to show how to evaluate feature selection algorithms. At the end of the survey, we present a discussion about some open problems and challenges that require more attention in future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3136625

Cites

116 of 116 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There are needs of designing tools for ML applications, such as tools for non-expert ML designers, visualization tools for understanding the relationships between data and the behavior of algorithms, tools for ensuring interoperability with other tools, and domain-specific language (DSL) support.

    “-Tools: Needs of designing tools for ML applications, such as tools for non-expert ML designers, visualization tools for understanding the relationships between data and the behavior of algorithms, tools for ensuring interoperability with other tools, and domain-specific language (DSL) support [16,25,42,66].”
  • Challenges on the software structure of ML applications include complex software modules of ML algorithms, anti-patterns in ML applications, and various design issues in ML models (model selection, customization and reuse).

    “-Software Structure: Challenges on the software structure of ML applications.This category includes the complex software modules of ML algorithms [14], anti-patterns in ML applications [17], and various design issues in ML models (model selection, customization and reuse) [16,34,58,59].”
  • In a real-world ML application project for a company, the development, deployment and operation may be severely affected by the effort of complying with the privacy policy of the organization and the legal framework, imposing challenges from both technical and management perspectives.

    “-Corporate Compliance: In a real-world ML application project for a company, the development, deployment and operation may be severely affected by the effort of complying with the privacy policy of the organization and the legal framework.These demands impose challenges from both technical and management perspectives [16,34,60,107].”
  • Developing the skill set for ML applications is the major challenge related to the software engineering professional practice knowledge area.

    “Developing the skill set for ML applications is the major challenge related to this KA [15,16,27,32,39,40,59].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Edoardo M. Airoldi, David M. Blei, Stephen E. Fienberg, and Eric P. Xing. 2009. Mixed membership stochastic blockmodels. In NIPS. 33-40.
  2. Salem Alelyani, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu. 2013. Feature selection for clustering: A review. Data Clustering: Algorithms and Applications 29 (2013).
  3. Francis R. Bach. 2008. Consistency of the group lasso and multiple kernel learning. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9 (2008), 1179-1225.
  4. Mustafa Bilgic, Lilyana Mihalkova, and Lise Getoor. 2010. Active learning for networked data. In ICML. 79-86.
  5. Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. 2004. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Xiao Cai, Feiping Nie, and Heng Huang. 2013. Exact top-k feature selection via ℓ 2, 0 -norm constraint. In IJCAI. 1240-1246.
  7. Chen Chen, Hanghang Tong, Lei Xie, Lei Ying, and Qing He. 2016. FASCINATE: Fast cross-layer dependency inference on multi-layered networks. In KDD. 765-774.
  8. John C. Davis and Robert J. Sampson. 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. Vol. 646. Wiley. New York.
  9. Chris Ding, Ding Zhou, Xiaofeng He, and Hongyuan Zha. 2006. R 1-PCA: Rotational invariant ℓ 1 -norm principal component analysis for robust subspace factorization. In ICML. 281-288.
  10. Richard O. Duda, Peter E. Hart, and David G. Stork. 2012. Pattern Classification. John Wiley & Sons.
  11. Christiane Fellbaum. 1998. WordNet. Wiley Online Library.
  12. Shuyang Gao, Greg Ver Steeg, and Aram Galstyan. 2016. Variational information maximization for feature selection. In NIPS. 487-495.
  13. Quanquan Gu, Marina Danilevsky, Zhenhui Li, and Jiawei Han. 2012. Locality preserving feature learning. In AISTATS. 477-485.
  14. Quanquan Gu, Zhenhui Li, and Jiawei Han. 2011b. Generalized fisher score for feature selection. In UAI. 266-273.
  15. Quanquan Gu, Zhenhui Li, and Jiawei Han. 2011c. Joint feature selection and subspace learning. In IJCAI. 1294-1299.
  16. Xiaofei He, Deng Cai, and Partha Niyogi. 2005. Laplacian score for feature selection. In NIPS. 507-514.
  17. Chenping Hou, Feiping Nie, Dongyun Yi, and Yi Wu. 2011. Feature selection via joint embedding learning and sparse regression. In IJCAI. 1324-1329.
  18. Aleks Jakulin. 2005. Machine Learning Based on Attribute Interactions. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univerza v Ljubljani.
  19. Rodolphe Jenatton, Julien Mairal, Francis R. Bach, and Guillaume R. Obozinski. 2010. Proximal methods for sparse hierar- chical dictionary learning. In ICML. 487-494.
  20. Ling Jian, Jundong Li, Kai Shu, and Huan Liu. 2016. Multi-label informed feature selection. In IJCAI. 1627-1633.
  21. Yi Jiang and Jiangtao Ren. 2011. Eigenvalue sensitive feature selection. In ICML. 89-96.
  22. Seyoung Kim and Eric P Xing. 2009. Statistical estimation of correlated genome associations to a quantitative trait network. PLoS Genet. 5, 8 (2009).
  23. Seyoung Kim and Eric P Xing. 2010. Tree-guided group lasso for multi-task regression with structured sparsity. In ICML. 543-550.
  24. Kenji Kira and Larry A. Rendell. 1992. A practical approach to feature selection. In ICML Workshop. 249-256.
  25. Daphne Koller and Mehran Sahami. 1995. Toward optimal feature selection. In ICML. 284-292.
  26. Gert R. G. Lanckriet, Nello Cristianini, Peter Bartlett, Laurent El Ghaoui, and Michael I. Jordan. 2004. Learning the kernel matrix with semidefinite programming. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 5 (2004), 27-72.
  27. Jundong Li, Harsh Dani, Xia Hu, and Huan Liu. 2017. Radar: Residual analysis for anomaly detection in attributed networks. In IJCAI. 2152-2158.
  28. Zechao Li, Yi Yang, Jing Liu, Xiaofang Zhou, and Hanqing Lu. 2012. Unsupervised feature selection using nonnegative spectral analysis. In AAAI. 1026-1032.
  29. Hongfu Liu, Ming Shao, and Yun Fu. 2016b. Consensus guided unsupervised feature selection. In AAAI. 1874-1880.
  30. Jun Liu, Shuiwang Ji, and Jieping Ye. 2009a. Multi-task feature learning via efficient ℓ 2, 1 -norm minimization. In UAI. 339- 348.
  31. Jun Liu and Jieping Ye. 2010. Moreau-Yosida regularization for grouped tree structure learning. In NIPS. 1459-1467.
  32. Crystal Maung and Haim Schweitzer. 2013. Pass-efficient unsupervised feature selection. In NIPS. 1628-1636.
  33. Feiping Nie, Heng Huang, Xiao Cai, and Chris H Ding. 2010. Efficient and robust feature selection via joint ℓ 2, 1 -norms minimization. In NIPS. 1813-1821.
  34. Feiping Nie, Shiming Xiang, Yangqing Jia, Changshui Zhang, and Shuicheng Yan. 2008. Trace ratio criterion for feature selection. In AAAI. 671-676.
  35. Feiping Nie, Wei Zhu, Xuelong Li, and others. 2016. Unsupervised feature selection with structured graph optimization. In AAAI. 1302-1308.
  36. Hanyang Peng and Yong Fan. 2016. Direct sparsity optimization based feature selection for multi-class classification. In IJCAI. 1918-1924.
  37. Simon Perkins and James Theiler. 2003. Online feature selection using grafting. In ICML. 592-599.
  38. Mingjie Qian and Chengxiang Zhai. 2013. Robust unsupervised feature selection. In IJCAI. 1621-1627.
  39. Ted Sandler, John Blitzer, Partha P. Talukdar, and Lyle H. Ungar. 2009. Regularized learning with networks of features. In NIPS. 1401-1408.
  40. Qiang Shen, Ren Diao, and Pan Su. 2012. Feature selection ensemble. Turing-100 10 (2012), 289-306.
  41. Alexander Shishkin, Anastasia Bezzubtseva, Alexey Drutsa, Ilia Shishkov, Ekaterina Gladkikh, Gleb Gusev, and Pavel Serdyukov. 2016. Efficient high-order interaction-aware feature selection based on conditional mutual information. In NIPS. 4637-4645.
  42. William T. Vetterling, Saul A. Teukolsky, and William H. Press. 1992. Numerical Recipes: Example Book (C). Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
  43. Hua Wang, Feiping Nie, and Heng Huang. 2013. Multi-view clustering and feature learning via structured sparsity. In ICML. 352-360.
  44. Jie Wang and Jieping Ye. 2015. Multi-layer feature reduction for tree structured group lasso via hierarchical projection. In NIPS. 1279-1287.
  45. Qian Wang, Jiaxing Zhang, Sen Song, and Zheng Zhang. 2014a. Attentional neural network: Feature selection using cog- nitive feedback. In NIPS. 2033-2041.
  46. Xiaokai Wei, Bokai Cao, and Philip S. Yu. 2016b. Unsupervised feature selection on networks: A generative view. In AAAI. 2215-2221.
  47. Xiaokai Wei and Philip S. Yu. 2016. Unsupervised feature selection by preserving stochastic neighbors. In AISTATS. 995- 1003.
  48. Xindong Wu, Kui Yu, Hao Wang, and Wei Ding. 2010. Online streaming feature selection. In ICML. 1159-1166.
  49. Howard Hua Yang and John E. Moody. 1999. Data visualization and feature selection: New algorithms for nongaussian data. In NIPS. 687-693.
  50. Yi Yang, Heng Tao Shen, Zhigang Ma, Zi Huang, and Xiaofang Zhou. 2011. ℓ 2, 1 -norm regularized discriminative feature selection for unsupervised learning. In IJCAI. 1589-1594.
  51. Lei Yu and Huan Liu. 2003. Feature selection for high-dimensional data: A fast correlation-based filter solution. In ICML. 856-863.
  52. Stella X. Yu and Jianbo Shi. 2003. Multiclass spectral clustering. In ICCV. 313-319.
  53. Lei Yuan, Jun Liu, and Jieping Ye. 2011. Efficient methods for overlapping group lasso. In NIPS. 352-360.
  54. Sepehr Abbasi Zadeh, Mehrdad Ghadiri, Vahab S. Mirrokni, and Morteza Zadimoghaddam. 2017. Scalable feature selection via distributed diversity maximization. In AAAI. 2876-2883.
  55. Peng Zhao, Guilherme Rocha, and Bin Yu. 2009. The composite absolute penalties family for grouped and hierarchical variable selection. The Annals of Statistics (2009), 3468-3497.
  56. Ji Zhu, Saharon Rosset, Robert Tibshirani, and Trevor J. Hastie. 2004. 1-norm support vector machines. In NIPS. 49-56.
  57. Pengfei Zhu, Qinghua Hu, Changqing Zhang, and Wangmeng Zuo. 2016. Coupled dictionary learning for unsupervised feature selection. In AAAI. 2422-2428.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, J., Cheng, K., Wang, S., Morstatter, F., Trevino, R. P., Tang, J., & Liu, H.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
  • Michigan State University (US)
Venue
ACM Computing Surveys
Published
2017-12-06
Volume
50
Issue
6
Pages
1-45
ISSN
  • 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7341
OpenAlex
W4289236186
Cited by
2,442
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 256 · 2025: 472 · 2024: 442 · 2023: 372 · 2022: 305 · 2021: 239 · 2020: 175 · 2019: 130 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 2
FWCI
67.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM Computing Surveys (publishedVersion)
Funders
NSF (1217466 and 1614576)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Face and Expression Recognition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
Keywords
feature selection, high-dimensional data, big data, similarity-based methods, sparse learning, statistical feature selection, structured data, data heterogeneity, data streams, feature selection algorithms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review