Neural Processing Letters

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 155–175 | Cite as

Constraint Score Evaluation for Spectral Feature Selection

  • Mariam KalakechEmail author
  • Philippe Biela
  • Denis Hamad
  • Ludovic Macaire


Semi-supervised context characterized by the presence of a few pairs of constraints between learning samples is abundant in many real applications. Analysing these instance constraints by recent spectral scores has shown good performances for semi-supervised feature selection. The performance evaluation of these scores is generally based on classification accuracy and is performed in a ground truth context. However, this supervised context used by the evaluation step is inconsistent with the semi-supervised context in which the feature selection operates. In this paper, we propose a semi-supervised performance evaluation procedure, so that both feature selection and clustering steps take into account the constraints given by the user. In this way, the selection and the evaluation steps are performed in the same context which is close to real life applications. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets are carried out in the last section. These experiments are performed using a supervised classical evaluation and the semi-supervised proposed one. They demonstrate the effectiveness of feature selection based on constraint analysis that uses both pairwise constraints and the information brought by the unlabeled data.


Feature selection Spectral constraint scores Pairwise constraints Semi-supervised evaluation 


  1. 1.
    Kudo M, Sklansky J (2000) Comparison of algorithms that select features for pattern classifiers. Pattern Recognit 33(1):25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu H, Motoda H (1998) Feature extraction: construction and selection a data mining perspective, 1st edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhao Z, Liu H (2007) Semi-supervised feature selection via spectral analysis. In: Proceedings of the SIAM international conference on data mining ‘ICDM 07’, Omaha, Oct 2007Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhao J, Lu K, He X (2008) Locality sensitive semi-supervised feature selection. Neurocomputing 71 (10–12):1842–1849Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang D, Chen S, Zhou ZH (2008) Constraint score: a new filter method for feature selection with pairwise constraints. Pattern Recognit 41:1440–1451MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lu Z, Leen T (2007) Semi-supervised clustering with pairwise constraints : a discriminative approach. J Mach Learn Res 2:299–306Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalakech M, Biela P, Macaire L, Hamad D (2011) Constraint scores for semi-supervised feature selection: a comparative study. Pattern Recognit Lett 32(5):656–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    He X, Cai D, Niyogi P (2005) Laplacian score for feature selection. In: Proceedings of the advances in neural information processing systems ‘NIPS 05’, Vancouver, pp 507–514Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalakech M, Porebski A, Biela P, Hamad D, Macaire L (2010) Constraint score for semi-supervised selection of color texture features. In: Proceedings of the third IEEE international conference on machine vision ‘ICMV 2010’, Dec 2010, Hong Kong, pp 275–279Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wagstaff K, Cardie C, Rogers S, Schroedl S (2001) Constrained K-means clustering with background knowledge. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on machine learning ‘ICML 01’, Williamstown, pp 577–584Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carpaneto G, Toth P (1980) Algorithm 548: solution of the assignment problem. ACM Trans Math Softw 6:104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blake C, Keogh E, Merz CJ (1998) UCI repository of machine learning databases.
  13. 13.
    Samaria FS, Hartert AC (1994) Parameterisation of a stochastic model for human face identification. In: Proceedings of the second IEEE workshop on applications of computer vision ‘ACV 94’, Sarasota, pp 138–142Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alon U, Barkai N, Notterman D, Gishdagger K, Ybarradagger S, Mackdagger D, Levine AJ (1999) Broad patterns of gene expression revealed by clustering analysis of tumor and normal colon tissues probed by oligonucleotide arrays. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96(12):6745–6750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Golub TR, Slonim DK, Tamayo P, Huard C, Gaasenbeek M, Mesirov JP, Coller H, Loh ML, Downing JR, Caligiuri MA, Bloomfield CD (1999) Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 286:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun D, Zhang D (2010) Bagging constraint score for feature selection with pairwise constraints. Pattern Recognit 43:2106–2118CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Basu S, Davidson I, Wagstaff K (2008) Constrained clustering: advances in algorithms, theory, and applications. Chapman & Hall/CRC data mining and knowledge discovery series. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariam Kalakech
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philippe Biela
    • 2
  • Denis Hamad
    • 3
  • Ludovic Macaire
    • 4
  1. 1.Université LibanaiseHadathLebanon
  2. 2.HEILilleFrance
  3. 3.LISIC, ULCOCalaisFrance
  4. 4.LAGIS UMR CNRS 8219, Université Lille 1Villeneuve d’AscqFrance

Personalised recommendations