FSEVAL: Feature Selection Evaluation Toolbox and Dashboard

Feature selection is one of the most important and fundamental tasks in data mining, tackled by a family of methods with an established set of evaluation techniques to measure the quality of a specific method. Most of the methods commonly used for the unsupervised evaluation of feature selection algorithms suffer from critical design flaws which question their unsupervised nature. In this paper, we provide a critical discussion on the established allegedly unsupervised evaluation techniques, and shed light on the reasons why they are not truly unsupervised but, at best, supervised evaluation under an unsupervised downstream task. We also propose a novel, truly unsupervised evaluation framework to measure the quality of the feature selection algorithms without any form of information about the labels. The proposed framework utilizes unsupervised Principal Component Analysis, and optimal transport to measure the quality of the feature selection methods in a truly unsupervised manner.

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.

Feature selection aims to identify the most informative and relevant features for a given dataset, either in terms of capturing the underlying data structure and distribution better, or with respect to the performance on a downstream task. Existing research in this area has largely focused on developing novel algorithms (in both supervised and unsupervised settings), proposing new evaluation metrics and frameworks, or benchmarking the performance of existing methods. In this work, we examine feature selection through an algorithmic design perspective. Conventional feature selection algorithms typically compute feature importance scores globally across the entire feature set and then select the top-ranked features in a single step. However, this approach raises a critical question: Can the presence of less informative (or noisy) features mask or obscure the true importance of other, more relevant features? In other words, would a recursive strategy, where features are removed one by one while re-evaluating importance at each step, yield different and potentially better results than the standard global ranking approach? To answer this question, we conduct an extensive empirical study using five diverse feature selection algorithms. We implement each algorithm under both the conventional global selection design and the greedy recursive elimination design. We then analyze the impact of this algorithmic choice, both individually for each method and collectively across all methods, on a range of standard feature selection evaluation metrics. The empirical evaluation results show that the greedy approach improves the overall feature selection quality almost consistently, albeit on the expense of higher computational cost, supporting our initial expectation that the curse of dimensionality also obscures the ways of mitigating it.