EPS
← All batches·2605.21561

Objective-Induced Bias and Search Dynamics in Multiobjective Unsupervised Feature Selection

topic: current_projecttop score: 100released: 2026-05-23first surfaced: 2026-05-23arXivPDFthreats2026-05-23

Authors: Mathieu Cherpitel, Thomas B"ack, Martijn R. Tannemaat et al.

arXiv · PDF

Summary

arXiv:2605. 21561v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Unsupervised feature selection is commonly formulated as a multiobjective optimisation problem that jointly optimises subset quality and subset size.

Relevance

Read next because Objective-Induced Bias and Search Dynamics in Multiobjective Unsupervised Feature Selection overlaps with clean result "LoRA persona trained on alone emits at 23.5% when a co-trained partner learns ..., vs 0% control on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Leakage rate is a usable signal for recovering trigger-shaped phrases on Gaperon-1125-1B without knowing the hidden trigger itself (MODERATE confidence)", clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)". Matching terms: strong, rect, eval, rate, compare, control, factor, test. Source: arxiv cs.LG (Machine Learning).

Threat model

Potential threat/caveat for clean result "LoRA persona trained on alone emits at 23.5% when a co-trained partner learns ..., vs 0% control on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (MODERATE confidence)": this item discusses bias, evaluation.

Abstract

arXiv:2605.21561v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.