Learning to Select Features with Manifold Deep Unfolding PCA
Authors: Jingjing Liu, Pei Tai, Xianchao Xiu, Wanquan Liu
Organizations: Shanghai Key Laboratory of Automobile Intelligent Network Interaction Chip and System, School of Microelectronics, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China · School of Mechatronic Engineering and Automation, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China · School of Intelligent Systems Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
Unsupervised feature selection (UFS) is of great significance in image processing and pattern recognition. Nevertheless, existing model-based methods often rely on manually tuned hyperparameters, while deep learning-based methods generally require massive training data. To address these issues, this paper proposes an efficient manifold deep unfolding feature selection network (MDUFS-Net). Technically, we first incorporate the ℓ2,0-norm into the classic principal component analysis (PCA) framework, then unfold the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM)-based iterative algorithm into an end-to-end trainable network, thereby enabling automatic parameter learning. Moreover, a manifold optimization strategy is developed to improve the numerical robustness. On this basis, we further extend MDUFS-Net into an enhanced variant called MDUFS-Net+ by introducing the ℓ0-norm for more discriminative feature representations. Extensive experiments validate that our proposed MDUFS-Net and MDUFS-Net+ outperform state-of-the-art methods in the UFS task, with promising performance in clustering. Our code is available at https://github.com/xianchaoxiu/MDUFS.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Performance-efficiency comparison of different methods based on average accuracy (ACC) and runtime (s) across eight real-world datasets.
Fig. 2: Illustration of our proposed MDUFS-Net and MDUFS-Net+.
Xk+1=MGradNet(Xk,Yk,Λk,G,αk,ηk)
Algorithm 1 Deep unfolding for MDUFS-Net
Xk+1=MGradNet+(Xk,Yk,Zk,Λk,Πk,G,αk,βk,ηk)
Algorithm 2 Deep unfolding for MDUFS-Net+
Types
Datasets
Features
Samples
Classes
Synthetic
Dartboard1
9
1000
4
Diamond9
9
3000
9
Real-world
COIL20
1024
1440
20
ISOLET
617
1560
26
USPS
256
1000
10
PIE
1024
1166
53
TABLE I: Statistical information of selected datasets.
Fig. 3: Visual comparisons on the Dartboard1 dataset, where (a)–(j) are the feature selection results.
Fig. 4: Visual comparisons on the Diamond9 dataset, where (a)–(j) are the feature selection results.
Fig. 5: Visual comparisons of the ACC metric under different real-world datasets with different numbers of selected features.
Fig. 6: Visual comparisons of the NMI metric under different real-world datasets with different numbers of selected features.
Methods
COIL20
ISOLET
USPS
PIE
LUNG
MSTAR
MNIST
HAR
Average
ALLfea
64.73 ± 7.63
59.87 ± 2.78
59.82 ± 1.29
27.43 ± 0.96
72.57 ± 7.63
90.29 ± 3.94
47.69 ± 2.78
53.79 ± 0.99
59.52 ± 3.50
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
LapScore
55.36 ± 1.58
54.07 ± 1.80
52.31 ± 2.68
33.90 ± 0.97
58.40 ± 0.75
68.67 ± 3.32
48.62 ± 0.15
61.59 ± 0.09
54.12 ± 1.42
(90)
(100)
(100)
(30)
(100)
(100)
(80)
(100)
SOGFS
43.32 ± 2.96
43.43 ± 1.84
45.23 ± 1.31
24.73 ± 0.94
54.02 ± 3.19
64.65 ± 2.66
41.26 ± 1.15
46.05 ± 0.38
45.34 ± 1.80
(100)
(30)
(100)
(100)
(100)
(60)
(80)
(100)
TABLE II: Average ACC (mean % ± std %) and number of selected features (in brackets) of k -means clustering, where the best results are marked in bold.
Methods
COIL20
ISOLET
USPS
PIE
LUNG
MSTAR
MNIST
HAR
Average
ALLfea
77.43 ± 1.10
74.57 ± 1.40
56.73 ± 1.10
52.42 ± 0.92
60.04 ± 3.59
87.39 ± 1.10
50.65 ± 0.26
55.63 ± 1.67
64.36 ± 1.39
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
LapScore
69.47 ± 0.85
69.92 ± 0.83
50.10 ± 1.54
58.74 ± 0.63
44.62 ± 0.99
71.60 ± 0.46
50.67 ± 0.22
64.95 ± 0.09
60.01 ± 0.70
(80)
(100)
(100)
(30)
(100)
(100)
(80)
(100)
SOGFS
60.42 ± 1.40
59.18 ± 1.04
39.67 ± 1.41
50.31 ± 0.88
43.50 ± 3.32
66.78 ± 0.65
40.49 ± 1.15
48.22 ± 0.01
51.07 ± 1.23
(100)
(30)
(100)
(100)
(100)
(100)
(100)
(30)
TABLE III: Average NMI (mean % ± std %) and number of selected features (in brackets) of k -means clustering, where best results are marked in bold.
ℓ2,0 -norm
ℓ0 -norm
Metrics
COIL20
ISOLET
USPS
PIE
LUNG
MSTAR
MNIST
HAR
×
×
ACC
44.42
40.20
61.62
45.46
63.09
81.46
42.22
45.16
NMI
63.16
52.00
53.52
66.37
58.51
79.76
41.99
54.13
×
✓
ACC
45.34
40.31
59.21
44.52
60.43
81.48
41.83
50.93
NMI
62.88
51.79
52.91
65.87
57.64
79.66
42.06
54.14
✓
×
ACC
63.79
62.84
66.58
44.76
65.18
87.05
56.10
50.60
NMI
77.27
75.38
57.29
66.52
59.40
81.26
49.66
62.24
TABLE IV: Ablation studies of sparsity regularization terms, where the best results are marked in bold.
Projection
Retraction
Metrics
COIL20
ISOLET
USPS
PIE
LUNG
MSTAR
MNIST
HAR
×
×
ACC
56.23
21.57
44.30
20.49
49.67
52.15
42.39
37.77
NMI
66.51
36.13
39.23
41.77
38.52
55.68
41.55
47.47
×
✓
ACC
54.02
49.91
49.85
32.77
50.81
72.55
43.54
53.53
NMI
68.86
61.94
46.18
59.33
41.23
73.08
45.22
52.64
✓
×
ACC
59.48
49.71
60.04
32.31
58.39
78.83
49.80
49.99
NMI
72.21
62.53
54.23
56.35
49.49
74.52
47.02
49.03
TABLE V: Ablation studies of manifold optimization, where the best results are marked in bold.
Network
Metrics
COIL20
ISOLET
PIE
LUNG
MNIST
×
ACC
60.81
55.70
40.02
58.83
49.91
NMI
74.77
70.27
64.81
49.78
48.96
✓
ACC
65.23
64.16
46.82
69.46
56.75
NMI
78.96
75.36
68.00
60.84
50.86
TABLE VI: Ablation studies of the network, where the best results are marked in bold.
Strategy
Metrics
COIL20
ISOLET
PIE
LUNG
MNIST
×
ACC
61.26
53.68
43.14
61.27
51.77
NMI
74.56
68.35
66.08
55.14
47.44
✓
ACC
65.23
64.16
46.82
69.46
56.75
NMI
78.96
75.36
68.00
60.84
50.86
TABLE VII: Ablation studies of parameter learning, where the best results are marked in bold.
Fig. 7: Model stability comparisons of all compared methods on eight real-world datasets.
Fig. 8: Unfolding sensitivity of stages K on eight real-world datasets.
Fig. 9: Runtime comparisons among different methods on eight real-world datasets.
Unsupervised feature selection seeks a compact subset of informative features without access to class labels, making feature utility difficult to define. Existing UFS methods therefore rely on indirect structural criteria, such as similarity preservation, locality, sparsity, cluster geometry, or reconstruction quality. In this paper, we instead study UFS through representation consistency and propose Inverted Contrastive Learning for Unsupervised Feature Selection (ICLFS), a feature-wise contrastive framework that reformulates UFS as a representation learning problem over features rather than samples. ICLFS first inverts the data matrix so that each feature is represented by its sample-profile vector, then constructs multiple masked positive views together with a shuffled negative view, and learns projector-space representations that remain consistent across these structured perturbations under an InfoNCE-based objective. Motivated by recent findings that cosine-based and InfoNCE-based training affect embedding norms, we use projector-space embedding magnitude as the saliency signal for ranking features. The resulting norm-based ranking is subsequently refined through Laplacian-Gated Ranking Correction, which suppresses locally redundant candidates while preserving salient ones. Extensive experiments on 12 benchmark datasets show that ICLFS achieves the best clustering accuracy on 10 datasets against both classical and neural baselines under the standard clustering-based UFS evaluation protocol, while remaining competitive on the other two. These results show that feature-wise contrastive representation consistency provides a strong and effective alternative to neighborhood, cluster, and reconstruction-based UFS formulations.
Utsab Ghosh, Roshni Chakraborty
ABV-Indian Institute of Information Technology and Management, Gwalior, India.
Unsupervised learning of high-dimensional data is challenging due to irrelevant or noisy features obscuring underlying structures. It's common that only a few features, called the influential features, meaningfully define the clusters. Recovering these influential features is helpful in data interpretation and clustering. We propose i-IF-Learn, an iterative unsupervised framework that jointly performs feature selection and clustering. Our core innovation is an adaptive feature selection statistic that effectively combines pseudo-label supervision with unsupervised signals, dynamically adjusting based on intermediate label reliability to mitigate error propagation common in iterative frameworks. Leveraging low-dimensional embeddings (PCA or Laplacian eigenmaps) followed by k-means, i-IF-Learn simultaneously outputs influential feature subset and clustering labels. Numerical experiments on gene microarray and single-cell RNA-seq datasets show that i-IF-Learn significantly surpasses classical and deep clustering baselines. Furthermore, using our selected influential features as preprocessing substantially enhances downstream deep models such as DeepCluster, UMAP, and VAE, highlighting the importance and effectiveness of targeted feature selection. Code is available at: [https://github.com/mc25800852/i_if_learn].
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.
Hafiz Saud Arshad, Muhammad Rajabinasab, Arthur Zimek