Conditional Inference Trees and Forests for Feature Selection

Feature rankings are widely used in supervised feature selection because they are simple, scalable and easy to interpret. Variables are first ranked by a relevance score, and a subset is then obtained by retaining the top-ranked variables. Although the first stage has been extensively studied, the second is often governed by an arbitrary cardinality, an empirical threshold or cross-validation, without a direct interpretation. This raises a basic question: given a feature ranking, when is there enough accumulated class-separation evidence to stop selecting features? This paper develops a distributional framework for transforming supervised feature rankings into class-independent subsets through an explicit risk-calibrated stopping rule. For each variable and each pair of classes, marginal separation is measured by the Bhattacharyya coefficient between the corresponding class-conditional distributions. The proposed method selects a single global subset shared by all classes by retaining the shortest prefix of a ranking whose residual product overlap falls below a prescribed threshold for every relevant class contrast. We derive binary and multiclass Bayes-risk bounds for the labelled product marginal problem, and obtain prior-dependent and prior-free calibrations of the residual-overlap threshold from a target all-pairs risk level. An empirical comparison on high-dimensional genomic datasets illustrates that the rule can reduce tens of thousands of variables to a few dozen while maintaining predictive performance statistically comparable to the all-features baseline. As the stopping rule only requires one-dimensional marginal overlap estimates and scans a precomputed ranking, it is well suited to very high-dimensional settings where exhaustive subset search is infeasible and interpretable truncation of feature rankings is essential.

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.

Selective inference (SI) provides statistically valid $p$-values for hypotheses selected by applying an algorithm to the data, correcting for the bias that arises when the same data are used both to select and to test a hypothesis. Developing an SI procedure for a new algorithm, however, has required an expert to derive, and then implement, the selection event, i.e., the conditions under which the hypothesis is selected. Repeating this specialized effort for every new algorithm is why exact SI has so far been available for only a narrow class. We propose AutoSI, a framework that removes this barrier in two ways. First, AutoSI constructs the selection event automatically from the algorithm's individual operations, so the user only writes the algorithm as ordinary NumPy-like code and derives nothing by hand. Second, AutoSI broadens the class of selection events SI can handle: existing exact methods are limited to selection events characterized by linear or quadratic inequalities in the data, whereas AutoSI covers any algorithm expressible through rational functions of the data (ratios of polynomials). We prove that the $p$-values computed by AutoSI are exactly valid in finite samples. We demonstrate AutoSI on three feature-selection methods, each written in a few dozen lines of code. One of these methods, the lasso with its tuning parameter selected by cross-validated $R^2$, cannot be handled within existing exact SI frameworks and is made possible by AutoSI. Experiments on synthetic and real datasets show that the resulting $p$-values control the type I error rate (i.e., the false positive rate) at the nominal level while retaining high power.