TABLE 4.
Approach | Advantages | Limitation | Feature Selection Techniques | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Filter | Datasets are easily scalable. Perform simple and fast computation. Independent of the prediction- outcome. Only one-time feature selection. | Ignores the interface with the classifier. Every feature is separately considered. Ignores feature dependencies. Poor classification performance compared to other feature selection techniques. | t-statistics (t-test) | Pan et al. (2002), Önskog et al. (2011) |
Chi-square | Dittman et al. (2010) | |||
ANOVA | Kumar et al. (2015) | |||
CFS | Al-Batah et al. (2019) | |||
FCFS | Yu and Liu (2003) | |||
WGCNA | Langfelder and Horvath (2008) | |||
PCA | Pochet et al. (2004) | |||
ICA | Zheng et al. (2006) | |||
LDA | Sharma et al. (2014) | |||
Wrapper | Interaction between selected features and learning model taken into account. Considers feature dependencies. | Higher risk of overfitting compared to filter approach. Computationally intensive. | SFS | Park et al. (2007) |
SBE | Dhote et al. (2015) | |||
RFE | Guyon et al. (2002) | |||
GA | Ram and Kuila (2019) | |||
ABC | Li et al. (2016) | |||
ACO | Alshamlan et al. (2016) | |||
PSO | Sahu and Mishra (2012) | |||
Embedded | Requires less computation than wrapper methods. | Very specific to learning technique. | k-means clustering | Aydadenta and Adiwijaya (2018) |
LASSO | Tibshiranit (1996) | |||
GLASSO | Meier et al. (2008) | |||
SGLASSO | Ma et al. (2007) | |||
AE | Danaee et al. (2017) | |||
RF | Díaz-Uriarte and Alvarez de Andrés (2006) | |||
Hybrid | Combines filter and wrapper methods. Reduces the risk of overfitting. Lower error rate. | Computationally expensive. Can be less accurate: the filter and the wrapper both being used in different steps. | SVM-RFE | Guyon et al. (2002) |
MIMAGA-Selection | Lu et al. (2017) | |||
Co-ABC | Alshamlan (2018) |