Abstract
Forward Selection Component Analysis (FSCA) provides a pragmatic solution to the NP-hard unsupervised variable selection problem, but is not guaranteed to be optimal due to the multi-modal nature of the mean squared error (MSE) selection metric used. Frame potential (FP) is a metric that has recently been shown to yield near-optimal greedy sensor selection performance for linear inverse problems. This paper explores if FP offers similar benefits in the unsupervised variable selection context. In addition, the backward elimination counterpart of FSCA is introduced for the first time (BECA) and compared with forward and backward FP based variable selection on a number of simulated and real world datasets. It is concluded that FP does not improve on FSCA and that while BECA yields comparable results to FSCA it is not a competitive alternative due to its much higher computational complexity.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Prakash, P., et al.: Optimal wafer site selection using forward selection component analysis. In: 2012 23rd Annual SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference (ASMC), pp. 91–96. IEEE (2012)
McCabe, G.P.: Principal variables. Technometrics 26(2), 137–144 (1984)
Puggini, L., McLoone, S.: Forward selection component analysis: algorithms and applications. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2017). doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2017.2648792
Jolliffe, I.T., et al.: A modified principal component technique based on the lasso. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 12(3), 531–547 (2003)
d’Aspremont, A., et al.: A direct formulation for sparse PCA using semidefinite programming. SIAM Rev. 49(3), 434–448 (2007)
Zou, H., et al.: Sparse principal component analysis. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 15(2), 265–286 (2006)
Masaeli, M., et al.: Convex principal feature selection. In: SDM. SIAM, pp. 619–628 (2010)
Ranieri, J., et al.: Near-optimal sensor placement for linear inverse problems. IEEE Trans. Sig. Process. 62(5), 1135–1146 (2014)
Das, A., Kempe, D.: Algorithms for subset selection in linear regression. In: Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) (2009)
Das, A., Kempe, D.: Submodular meets spectral: greedy algorithms for subset selection, sparse approximation and dictionary selection. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (2011)
Nemhauser, G., et al.: An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions-I. Math. Prog. 14, 265–294 (1978)
Waldron, S.: Generalised welch bound equality sequences are tight frames. Department of Mathematics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, Technical report (2003)
Vergara, A., et al.: Chemical gas sensor drift compensation using classifier ensembles. Sens. Actuators B: Chem. 166, 320–329 (2012)
Rodriguez-Lujan, I., et al.: On the calibration of sensor arrays for pattern recognition using the minimal number of experiments. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 130, 123–134 (2014)
Acknowledgments
The first author gratefully acknowledges Irish Manufacturing Research (IMR) for its financial support of his PhD.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Zocco, F., McLoone, S. (2017). Mean Squared Error vs. Frame Potential for Unsupervised Variable Selection. In: Yue, D., Peng, C., Du, D., Zhang, T., Zheng, M., Han, Q. (eds) Intelligent Computing, Networked Control, and Their Engineering Applications. ICSEE LSMS 2017 2017. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 762. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6373-2_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6373-2_36
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6372-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6373-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)