4.6 Review

Relief-based feature selection: Introduction and review

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS
卷 85, 期 -, 页码 189-203

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2018.07.014

关键词

Feature selection; Feature interaction; Feature weighting; Filter; ReliefF; Epistasis

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [AI116794, DK112217, ES013508, EY022300, HL134015, LM009012, LM010098, LM011360, TR001263]
  2. Warren Center for Network and Data Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Feature selection plays a critical role in biomedical data mining, driven by increasing feature dimensionality in target problems and growing interest in advanced but computationally expensive methodologies able to model complex associations. Specifically, there is a need for feature selection methods that are computationally efficient, yet sensitive to complex patterns of association, e.g. interactions, so that informative features are not mistakenly eliminated prior to downstream modeling. This paper focuses on Relief-based algorithms (RBAs), a unique family of filter-style feature selection algorithms that have gained appeal by striking an effective balance between these objectives while flexibly adapting to various data characteristics, e.g. classification vs. regression. First, this work broadly examines types of feature selection and defines RBAs within that context. Next, we introduce the original Relief algorithm and associated concepts, emphasizing the intuition behind how it works, how feature weights generated by the algorithm can be interpreted, and why it is sensitive to feature interactions without evaluating combinations of features. Lastly, we include an expansive review of RBA methodological research beyond Relief and its popular descendant, ReliefF. In particular, we characterize branches of RBA research, and provide comparative summaries of RBA algorithms including contributions, strategies, functionality, time complexity, adaptation to key data characteristics, and software availability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据