Towards Truly Unsupervised Evaluation of Feature Selection -- Extended Version

Many novel unsupervised feature selection methods are proposed each year, yet their empirical evaluation is limited to supervised and unsupervised evaluation metrics computed on selected datasets, along with comparisons to existing methods. However, in the absence of an established evaluation baseline, it is difficult to determine the value added to the existing literature by each of these methods, and how effective their underlying approaches are. We propose using random feature selection as a baseline for evaluating the unsupervised feature selection methods. We empirically show that many of the state-of-the-art methods in unsupervised feature selection are outperformed by random feature selection in both performance and efficiency. Accordingly, we emphasize on the strict requirement of considering random feature selection as a baseline in the development process of novel unsupervised feature selection methods to ensure a consistent improvement over random feature selection.

Feature selection is a fundamental machine learning and data mining task, involved with discriminating redundant features from informative ones. It is an attempt to address the curse of dimensionality by removing the redundant features, while unlike dimensionality reduction methods, preserving explainability. Feature selection is conducted in both supervised and unsupervised settings, with different evaluation metrics employed to determine which feature selection algorithm is the best. In this paper, we propose FSEVAL, a feature selection evaluation toolbox accompanied with a visualization dashboard, with the goal to make it easy to comprehensively evaluate feature selection algorithms. FSEVAL aims to provide a standardized, unified, evaluation and visualization toolbox to help the researchers working in the field, conduct extensive and comprehensive evaluation of feature selection algorithms with ease.

Unsupervised feature selection is commonly formulated as a multiobjective optimisation problem that jointly optimises subset quality and subset size. Yet the behaviour of this formulation depends critically on the choice of evaluation objective, the direction of subset-size regularisation, and the initialisation strategy. We study these factors in a controlled setting using a synthetic dataset with known informative, redundant, and irrelevant feature types. Six formulations are compared by combining three evaluation objectives: accuracy, silhouette score, and PCA reconstruction loss with subset-size minimisation or maximisation. The results show that formulation strongly affects both search dynamics and the quality of the resulting Pareto front. Silhouette-based formulations exhibit a strong bias toward trivial low-cardinality solutions and remain weak proxies for predictive performance. In contrast, the proposed PCA loss objective produces compact subsets with test accuracy comparable to subsets obtained by directly optimising supervised accuracy. Overall, the study shows that objective design is central to effective multiobjective unsupervised feature selection.