Top scoring pairs for feature selection in machine learning and applications to cancer outcome prediction

<b>Background</b> The widely used k top scoring pair (k-TSP) algorithm is a simple yet powerful parameter-free classifier. It owes its success in many cancer microarray datasets to an effective feature selection algorithm that is based on relative expression ordering of gene pairs. However, its general robustness does not extend to some difficult datasets, such as those involving cancer outcome prediction, which may be due to the relatively simple voting scheme used by the classifier. We believe that the performance can be enhanced by separating its effective feature selection component and combining it with a powerful classifier such as the support vector machine (SVM). More generally the top scoring pairs generated by the k-TSP ranking algorithm can be used as a dimensionally reduced subspace for other machine learning classifiers.<p></p> <b>Results</b> We developed an approach integrating the k-TSP ranking algorithm (TSP) with other machine learning methods, allowing combination of the computationally efficient, multivariate feature ranking of k-TSP with multivariate classifiers such as SVM. We evaluated this hybrid scheme (k-TSP+SVM) in a range of simulated datasets with known data structures. As compared with other feature selection methods, such as a univariate method similar to Fisher's discriminant criterion (Fisher), or a recursive feature elimination embedded in SVM (RFE), TSP is increasingly more effective than the other two methods as the informative genes become progressively more correlated, which is demonstrated both in terms of the classification performance and the ability to recover true informative genes. We also applied this hybrid scheme to four cancer prognosis datasets, in which k-TSP+SVM outperforms k-TSP classifier in all datasets, and achieves either comparable or superior performance to that using SVM alone. In concurrence with what is observed in simulation, TSP appears to be a better feature selector than Fisher and RFE in some of the cancer datasets.<p></p> <b>Conclusions</b> The k-TSP ranking algorithm can be used as a computationally efficient, multivariate filter method for feature selection in machine learning. SVM in combination with k-TSP ranking algorithm outperforms k-TSP and SVM alone in simulated datasets and in some cancer prognosis datasets. Simulation studies suggest that as a feature selector, it is better tuned to certain data characteristics, i.e. correlations among informative genes, which is potentially interesting as an alternative feature ranking method in pathway analysis

Breast Cancer Classification by Gene Expression Analysis using Hybrid Feature Selection and Hyper-heuristic Adaptive Universum Support Vector Machine

Comprehensive assessments of the molecular characteristics of breast cancer from gene expression patterns can aid in the early identification and treatment of tumor patients. The enormous scale of gene expression data obtained through microarray sequencing increases the difficulty of training the classifier due to large-scale features. Selecting pivotal gene features can minimize high dimensionality and the classifier complexity with improved breast cancer detection accuracy. However, traditional filter and wrapper-based selection methods have scalability and adaptability issues in handling complex gene features. This paper presents a hybrid feature selection method of Mutual Information Maximization - Improved Moth Flame Optimization (MIM-IMFO) for gene selection along with an advanced Hyper-heuristic Adaptive Universum Support classification model Vector Machine (HH-AUSVM) to improve cancer detection rates. The hybrid gene selection method is developed by performing filter-based selection using MIM in the first stage followed by the wrapper method in the second stage, to obtain the pivotal features and remove the inappropriate ones. This method improves standard MFO by a hybrid exploration/exploitation phase to accomplish a better trade-off between exploration and exploitation phases. The classifier HH-AUSVM is formulated by integrating the Adaptive Universum learning approach to the hyper- heuristics-based parameter optimized SVM to tackle the class samples imbalance problem. Evaluated on breast cancer gene expression datasets from Mendeley Data Repository, this proposed MIM-IMFO gene selection-based HH-AUSVM classification approach provided better breast cancer detection with high accuracies of 95.67%, 96.52%, 97.97% and 95.5% and less processing time of 4.28, 3.17, 9.45 and 6.31 seconds, respectively

Machine Learning Approaches for Biomarker Discovery Using Gene Expression Data

Biomarkers are of great importance in many fields, such as cancer research, toxicology, diagnosis and treatment of diseases, and to better understand biological response mechanisms to internal or external intervention. High-throughput gene expression profiling technologies, such as DNA microarrays and RNA sequencing, provide large gene expression data sets which enable data-driven biomarker discovery. Traditional statistical tests have been the mainstream for identifying differentially expressed genes as biomarkers. In recent years, machine learning techniques such as feature selection have gained more popularity. Given many options, picking the most appropriate method for a particular data becomes essential. Different evaluation metrics have therefore been proposed. Being evaluated on different aspects, a method’s varied performance across different datasets leads to the idea of integrating multiple methods. Many integration strategies are proposed and have shown great potential. This chapter gives an overview of the current research advances and existing issues in biomarker discovery using machine learning approaches on gene expression data.publishedVersio

Bayesian nonparametric clusterings in relational and high-dimensional settings with applications in bioinformatics.

Recent advances in high throughput methodologies offer researchers the ability to understand complex systems via high dimensional and multi-relational data. One example is the realm of molecular biology where disparate data (such as gene sequence, gene expression, and interaction information) are available for various snapshots of biological systems. This type of high dimensional and multirelational data allows for unprecedented detailed analysis, but also presents challenges in accounting for all the variability. High dimensional data often has a multitude of underlying relationships, each represented by a separate clustering structure, where the number of structures is typically unknown a priori. To address the challenges faced by traditional clustering methods on high dimensional and multirelational data, we developed three feature selection and cross-clustering methods: 1) infinite relational model with feature selection (FIRM) which incorporates the rich information of multirelational data; 2) Bayesian Hierarchical Cross-Clustering (BHCC), a deterministic approximation to Cross Dirichlet Process mixture (CDPM) and to cross-clustering; and 3) randomized approximation (RBHCC), based on a truncated hierarchy. An extension of BHCC, Bayesian Congruence Measuring (BCM), is proposed to measure incongruence between genes and to identify sets of congruent loci with identical evolutionary histories. We adapt our BHCC algorithm to the inference of BCM, where the intended structure of each view (congruent loci) represents consistent evolutionary processes. We consider an application of FIRM on categorizing mRNA and microRNA. The model uses latent structures to encode the expression pattern and the gene ontology annotations. We also apply FIRM to recover the categories of ligands and proteins, and to predict unknown drug-target interactions, where latent categorization structure encodes drug-target interaction, chemical compound similarity, and amino acid sequence similarity. BHCC and RBHCC are shown to have improved predictive performance (both in terms of cluster membership and missing value prediction) compared to traditional clustering methods. Our results suggest that these novel approaches to integrating multi-relational information have a promising future in the biological sciences where incorporating data related to varying features is often regarded as a daunting task

State-of-the-art methods for exposure-health studies: Results from the exposome data challenge event

The exposome recognizes that individuals are exposed simultaneously to a multitude of different environmental factors and takes a holistic approach to the discovery of etiological factors for disease. However, challenges arise when trying to quantify the health effects of complex exposure mixtures. Analytical challenges include dealing with high dimensionality, studying the combined effects of these exposures and their interactions, integrating causal pathways, and integrating high-throughput omics layers. To tackle these challenges, the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal) held a data challenge event open to researchers from all over the world and from all expertises. Analysts had a chance to compete and apply state-of-the-art methods on a common partially simulated exposome dataset (based on real case data from the HELIX project) with multiple correlated exposure variables (P > 100 exposure variables) arising from general and personal environments at different time points, biological molecular data (multi-omics: DNA methylation, gene expression, proteins, metabolomics) and multiple clinical phenotypes in 1301 mother–child pairs. Most of the methods presented included feature selection or feature reduction to deal with the high dimensionality of the exposome dataset. Several approaches explicitly searched for combined effects of exposures and/or their interactions using linear index models or response surface methods, including Bayesian methods. Other methods dealt with the multi-omics dataset in mediation analyses using multiple-step approaches. Here we discuss features of the statistical models used and provide the data and codes used, so that analysts have examples of implementation and can learn how to use these methods. Overall, the exposome data challenge presented a unique opportunity for researchers from different disciplines to create and share state-of-the-art analytical methods, setting a new standard for open science in the exposome and environmental health field

Machine Learning and Integrative Analysis of Biomedical Big Data.

Recent developments in high-throughput technologies have accelerated the accumulation of massive amounts of omics data from multiple sources: genome, epigenome, transcriptome, proteome, metabolome, etc. Traditionally, data from each source (e.g., genome) is analyzed in isolation using statistical and machine learning (ML) methods. Integrative analysis of multi-omics and clinical data is key to new biomedical discoveries and advancements in precision medicine. However, data integration poses new computational challenges as well as exacerbates the ones associated with single-omics studies. Specialized computational approaches are required to effectively and efficiently perform integrative analysis of biomedical data acquired from diverse modalities. In this review, we discuss state-of-the-art ML-based approaches for tackling five specific computational challenges associated with integrative analysis: curse of dimensionality, data heterogeneity, missing data, class imbalance and scalability issues

Application of mutual information-based sequential feature selection to ISBSG mixed data

[EN] There is still little research work focused on feature selection (FS) techniques including both categorical and continuous features in Software Development Effort Estimation (SDEE) literature. This paper addresses the problem of selecting the most relevant features from ISBSG (International Software Benchmarking Standards Group) dataset to be used in SDEE. The aim is to show the usefulness of splitting the ranked list of features provided by a mutual information-based sequential FS approach in two, regarding categorical and continuous features. These lists are later recombined according to the accuracy of a case-based reasoning model. Thus, four FS algorithms are compared using a complete dataset with 621 projects and 12 features from ISBSG. On the one hand, two algorithms just consider the relevance, while the remaining two follow the criterion of maximizing relevance and also minimizing redundancy between any independent feature and the already selected features. On the other hand, the algorithms that do not discriminate between continuous and categorical features consider just one list, whereas those that differentiate them use two lists that are later combined. As a result, the algorithms that use two lists present better performance than those algorithms that use one list. Thus, it is meaningful to consider two different lists of features so that the categorical features may be selected more frequently. We also suggest promoting the usage of Application Group, Project Elapsed Time, and First Data Base System features with preference over the more frequently used Development Type, Language Type, and Development Platform.Fernández-Diego, M.; González-Ladrón-De-Guevara, F. (2018). Application of mutual information-based sequential feature selection to ISBSG mixed data. Software Quality Journal. 26(4):1299-1325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-017-9391-5S12991325264Angelis, L., & Stamelos, I. (2000). A simulation tool for efficient analogy based cost estimation. Empirical Software Engineering, 5(1), 35–68. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009897800559 .Auer, M., Trendowicz, A., Graser, B., Haunschmid, E., & Biffl, S. (2006). Optimal project feature weights in analogy-based cost estimation: improvement and limitations. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 32(2), 83–92.Awada, W., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Dittman, D., Wald, R., Napolitano, A. (2012). A review of the stability of feature selection techniques for bioinformatics data. In 2012 I.E. 13th International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI) (pp. 356–363). Presented at the 2012 I.E. 13th International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IRI). https://doi.org/10.1109/IRI.2012.6303031 .Battiti, R. (1994). Using mutual information for selecting features in supervised neural net learning. Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions, 5(4), 537–550.Bennasar, M., Hicks, Y., & Setchi, R. (2015). Feature selection using joint mutual information maximisation. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(22), 8520–8532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.007 .Bibi, S., Tsoumakas, G., Stamelos, I., & Vlahavas, I. (2008). Regression via classification applied on software defect estimation. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(3), 2091–2101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.02.012 .Chandrashekar, G., & Sahin, F. (2014). A survey on feature selection methods. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 40(1), 16–28.Chatzipetrou, P., Papatheocharous, E., Angelis, L., Andreou, A. S. (2012). An investigation of software effort phase distribution using compositional data analysis. In 2012 38th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) (pp. 367–375). Presented at the 2012 38th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA). https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2012.50 .Chen, Z., Menzies, T., Port, D., & Boehm, B. (2005). Feature subset selection can improve software cost estimation accuracy. In Proceedings of the 2005 workshop on predictor models in software engineering (pp. 1–6). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1082983.1083171 .Chiu, N.-H., & Huang, S.-J. (2007). The adjusted analogy-based software effort estimation based on similarity distances. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4), 628–640.Dash, M., & Liu, H. (2003). Consistency-based search in feature selection. Artificial Intelligence, 151(1), 155–176.Dejaeger, K., Verbeke, W., Martens, D., & Baesens, B. (2012). Data mining techniques for software effort estimation: a comparative study. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 38(2), 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2011.55 .Deng, K., & MacDonell, S. G. (2008). Maximising data retention from the ISBSG repository. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (pp. 21–30). Swinton: British Computer Society http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2227115.2227118 . Accessed 21 Jan 2014.Doquire, G., & Verleysen, M. (2011). An hybrid approach to feature selection for mixed categorical and continuous data. In International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval. http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/90765 . Accessed 2 Nov 2015.Dudani, S. A. (1976). The distance-weighted k-nearest-neighbor rule. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC, 6(4), 325–327. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1976.5408784 .Estévez, P. A., Tesmer, M., Perez, C. A., & Zurada, J. M. (2009). Normalized mutual information feature selection. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 20(2), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNN.2008.2005601 .Fayyad, U.M., & Irani, K.B. (1993). Multi-Interval Discretization of Continuous-Valued Attributes for Classification Learning. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Uncertainty in AI (pp. 1022–1027). Presented at the International Joint Conference on Uncertainty in AI. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220815890_Multi-Interval_Discretization_of_Continuous-Valued_Attributes_for_Classification_Learning . Accessed 22 June 2016.Fernández-Diego, M., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2014). Potential and limitations of the ISBSG dataset in enhancing software engineering research: a mapping review. Information and Software Technology, 56(6), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.01.003 .Ferreira, A., & Figueiredo, M. (2011). Unsupervised joint feature discretization and selection. In J. Vitrià, J. M. Sanches, & M. Hernández (Eds.), Pattern recognition and image analysis (Vol. 6669, pp. 200–207). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-21257-4_25 . Accessed 4 Mar 2016.Fleuret, F. (2004). Fast binary feature selection with conditional mutual information. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5, 1531–1555.González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F., Fernández-Diego, M., & Lokan, C. (2016). The usage of ISBSG data fields in software effort estimation: a systematic mapping study. Journal of Systems and Software, 113, 188–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.11.040 .Gupta, P., Jain, S., & Jain, A. (2014). A review of fast clustering-based feature subset selection algorithm. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 3(11), 86–91.Guyon, I., & Elisseeff, A. (2003). An introduction to variable and feature selection. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 1157–1182.Hall, M. A., & Holmes, G. (2003). Benchmarking attribute selection techniques for discrete class data mining. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 15(6), 1437–1447. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2003.1245283 .Hausser, J., & Strimmer, K. (2009). Entropy inference and the James-Stein estimator, with application to nonlinear gene association networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10(Jul), 1469–1484.Hill, P. (2010). Practical software project estimation: a toolkit for estimating software development effort & duration. McGraw Hill Professional.Hsu, H.-H., Hsieh, C.-W., & Lu, M.-D. (2011). Hybrid feature selection by combining filters and wrappers. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(7), 8144–8150.Huang, S.-J., & Chiu, N.-H. (2006). Optimization of analogy weights by genetic algorithm for software effort estimation. Information and Software Technology, 48(11), 1034–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2005.12.020 .Huang, S.-J., Chiu, N.-H., & Liu, Y.-J. (2008). A comparative evaluation on the accuracies of software effort estimates from clustered data. Information and Software Technology, 50(9–10), 879–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.02.005 .Huang, J., Li, Y.-F., & Xie, M. (2015). An empirical analysis of data preprocessing for machine learning-based software cost estimation. Information and Software Technology, 67, 108–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.07.004 .ISBSG. (2013a). ISBSG Dataset Release 12. ISBSG. http://isbsg.org/ . Accessed 1 Mar 2016.ISBSG. (2013b). ISBSG Guidelines Release 12.ISBSG. (2013c). ISBSG Data Demographics Release 12.Jeffery, R., Ruhe, M., Wieczorek, I. (2001). Using public domain metrics to estimate software development effort. In Software Metrics Symposium, 2001. METRICS 2001. Proceedings. Seventh International (pp. 16–27). https://doi.org/10.1109/METRIC.2001.915512 .Jiang, Z., & Comstock, C. (2007). The factors significant to software development productivity. In C. Ardil (Ed.), Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol 19 (Vol. 19, pp. 160–164). Presented at the Conference of the World-Academy-of-Science-Engineering-and-Technology, Bangkok: World Acad Sci, Eng & Tech-Waset.Jørgensen, M., Indahl, U., & Sjøberg, D. (2003). Software effort estimation by analogy and ‘regression toward the mean’. Journal of Systems and Software, 68(3), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-1212(03)00066-9 .Kabir, M. M., Shahjahan, M., & Murase, K. (2011). A new local search based hybrid genetic algorithm for feature selection. Neurocomputing, 74(17), 2914–2928.Kadoda, G., Cartwright, M., Chen, L., Shepperd, M. (2000). Experiences using case-based reasoning to predict software project effort. In EASE 2000 (pp. 2–3). Presented at the EASE 2000, Staffordshire, UK.Keung, J., Kocaguneli, E., & Menzies, T. (2012). Finding conclusion stability for selecting the best effort predictor in software effort estimation. Automated Software Engineering, 20(4), 543–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10515-012-0108-5 .Kirsopp, C., Shepperd, M. J., Hart, J. (2002). Search heuristics, case-based reasoning and software project effort prediction. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (pp. 9–13). New York, USA. http://v-scheiner.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/1554 . Accessed 27 Jan 2016.Kohavi, R., & John, G. H. (1997). Wrappers for feature subset selection. Artificial Intelligence, 97(1–2), 273–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00043-X .Kwak, N., & Choi, C.-H. (2002). Input feature selection for classification problems. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 13(1), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1109/72.977291 .Langdon, W. B., Dolado, J., Sarro, F., & Harman, M. (2016). Exact mean absolute error of baseline predictor, MARP0. Information and Software Technology, 73, 16–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.003 .Li, Y. F., Xie, M., & Goh, T. N. (2009). A study of mutual information based feature selection for case based reasoning in software cost estimation. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5921–5931.Liu, H., & Motoda, H. (2012). Feature selection for knowledge discovery and data mining (Vol. 454). Springer Science & Business Media. https://books.google.es/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aaDbBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP10&dq=Feature+selection+for+knowledge+discovery+and+data+mining&ots=iuMhcWZGcf&sig=KlmNEIcsBdDVs-m1HUuICfpYZiM . Accessed 25 Jan 2016.Liu, H., & Yu, L. (2005). Toward integrating feature selection algorithms for classification and clustering. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 17(4), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2005.66 .Liu, H., Wei, R., & Jiang, G. (2013). A hybrid feature selection scheme for mixed attributes data. Computational and Applied Mathematics, 32(1), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-013-0019-5 .Liu, Q., Wang, J., Xiao, J., Zhu, H. (2014). Mutual information based feature selection for symbolic interval data. In International Conference on Software Intelligence Technologies and Applications International Conference on Frontiers of Internet of Things 2014 (pp. 62–69). Presented at the International Conference on Software Intelligence Technologies and Applications International Conference on Frontiers of Internet of Things 2014. https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2014.1537 .Lokan, C. (2005). What should you optimize when building an estimation model? In Software Metrics, 2005. 11th IEEE International Symposium (pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1109/METRICS.2005.55 .Lokan, C., & Mendes, E. (2009a). Investigating the use of chronological split for software effort estimation. Software, IET, 3(5), 422–434. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-sen.2008.0107 .Lokan, C., & Mendes, E. (2009b). Applying moving windows to software effort estimation. In Proceedings of the 2009 3rd international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (pp. 111–122). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2009.5316019 .Lokan, C., & Mendes, E. (2012). Investigating the use of duration-based moving windows to improve software effort prediction. In Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), 2012 19th Asia-Pacific (Vol. 1, pp. 818–827). Presented at the Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), 2012 19th Asia-Pacific. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2012.74 .Lustgarten, J.L., Visweswaran, S., Grover, H., Gopalakrishnan, V. (2008). An evaluation of discretization methods for learning rules from biomedical datasets. In BIOCOMP (pp. 527–532).Mandal, M., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2013). An improved minimum redundancy maximum relevance approach for feature selection in gene expression data. Procedia Technology, 10, 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.332 .Mendes, E., Watson, I., Triggs, C., Mosley, N., & Counsell, S. (2003). A comparative study of cost estimation models for web hypermedia applications. Empirical Software Engineering, 8(2), 163–196.Mendes, E., Lokan, C., Harrison, R., Triggs, C. (2005). A replicated comparison of cross-company and within-company effort estimation models using the ISBSG database. In Software Metrics, 2005. 11th IEEE International Symposium (pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1109/METRICS.2005.4 .Moses, J., Farrow, M., Parrington, N., & Smith, P. (2006). A productivity benchmarking case study using Bayesian credible intervals. Software Quality Journal, 14(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-006-6000-4 .Núñez, H., Sànchez-Marrè, M., Cortés, U., Comas, J., Martínez, M., Rodríguez-Roda, I., & Poch, M. (2004). A comparative study on the use of similarity measures in case-based reasoning to improve the classification of environmental system situations. Environmental Modelling & Software, 19(9), 809–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.03.003 .Oh, I.-S., Lee, J.-S., & Moon, B.-R. (2004). Hybrid genetic algorithms for feature selection. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 26(11), 1424–1437.Peng, H., Long, F., & Ding, C. (2005). Feature selection based on mutual information criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 27(8), 1226–1238. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2005.159 .R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing https://www.R-project.org/ .Romanski, P., & Kotthoff, L. (2014). FSelector: Selecting attributes. R package version 0.20. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=FSelector .Shannon, C. E. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Shepperd, M., & MacDonell, S. (2012). Evaluating prediction systems in software project estimation. Information and Software Technology, 54(8), 820–827.Shepperd, M., & Schofield, C. (1997). Estimating software project effort using analogies. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 23(11), 736–743.Somol, P., Pudil, P., & Kittler, J. (2004). Fast branch & bound algorithms for optimal feature selection. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 26(7), 900–912.Song, Q., & Shepperd, M. (2007). A new imputation method for small software project data sets. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(1), 51–62.Top, O. O., Ozkan, B., Nabi, M., Demirors, O. (2011). Internal and External Software Benchmark Repository Utilization for Effort Estimation. In Software Measurement, 2011 Joint Conference of the 21st Int’l Workshop on and 6th Int’l Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement (IWSM-MENSURA) (pp. 302–307). https://doi.org/10.1109/IWSM-MENSURA.2011.41 .Vinh, L.T., Thang, N.D., Lee, Y.-K. (2010). An improved maximum relevance and minimum redundancy feature selection algorithm based on normalized mutual information. In 2010 10th IEEE/IPSJ International Symposium on Applications and the Internet (SAINT) (pp. 395–398). Presented at the 2010 10th IEEE/IPSJ International Symposium on Applications and the Internet (SAINT). https://doi.org/10.1109/SAINT.2010.50 .Witten, I.H., Frank, E., Hall, M.A., Pal, C.J. (2011). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann

A Method for Avoiding Bias from Feature Selection with Application to Naive Bayes Classification Models

For many classification and regression problems, a large number of features are available for possible use - this is typical of DNA microarray data on gene expression, for example. Often, for computational or other reasons, only a small subset of these features are selected for use in a model, based on some simple measure such as correlation with the response variable. This procedure may introduce an optimistic bias, however, in which the response variable appears to be more predictable than it actually is, because the high correlation of the selected features with the response may be partly or wholely due to chance. We show how this bias can be avoided when using a Bayesian model for the joint distribution of features and response. The crucial insight is that even if we forget the exact values of the unselected features, we should retain, and condition on, the knowledge that their correlation with the response was too small for them to be selected. In this paper we describe how this idea can be implemented for ``naive Bayes'' models of binary data. Experiments with simulated data confirm that this method avoids bias due to feature selection. We also apply the naive Bayes model to subsets of data relating gene expression to colon cancer, and find that correcting for bias from feature selection does improve predictive performance

Stacked Penalized Logistic Regression for Selecting Views in Multi-View Learning

In biomedical research, many different types of patient data can be collected, such as various types of omics data and medical imaging modalities. Applying multi-view learning to these different sources of information can increase the accuracy of medical classification models compared with single-view procedures. However, collecting biomedical data can be expensive and/or burdening for patients, so that it is important to reduce the amount of required data collection. It is therefore necessary to develop multi-view learning methods which can accurately identify those views that are most important for prediction. In recent years, several biomedical studies have used an approach known as multi-view stacking (MVS), where a model is trained on each view separately and the resulting predictions are combined through stacking. In these studies, MVS has been shown to increase classification accuracy. However, the MVS framework can also be used for selecting a subset of important views. To study the view selection potential of MVS, we develop a special case called stacked penalized logistic regression (StaPLR). Compared with existing view-selection methods, StaPLR can make use of faster optimization algorithms and is easily parallelized. We show that nonnegativity constraints on the parameters of the function which combines the views play an important role in preventing unimportant views from entering the model. We investigate the performance of StaPLR through simulations, and consider two real data examples. We compare the performance of StaPLR with an existing view selection method called the group lasso and observe that, in terms of view selection, StaPLR is often more conservative and has a consistently lower false positive rate.Comment: 26 pages, 9 figures. Accepted manuscrip

EFSIS: Ensemble Feature Selection Integrating Stability

Ensemble learning that can be used to combine the predictions from multiple learners has been widely applied in pattern recognition, and has been reported to be more robust and accurate than the individual learners. This ensemble logic has recently also been more applied in feature selection. There are basically two strategies for ensemble feature selection, namely data perturbation and function perturbation. Data perturbation performs feature selection on data subsets sampled from the original dataset and then selects the features consistently ranked highly across those data subsets. This has been found to improve both the stability of the selector and the prediction accuracy for a classifier. Function perturbation frees the user from having to decide on the most appropriate selector for any given situation and works by aggregating multiple selectors. This has been found to maintain or improve classification performance. Here we propose a framework, EFSIS, combining these two strategies. Empirical results indicate that EFSIS gives both high prediction accuracy and stability.Comment: 20 pages, 3 figure