ArticleStat2022
Controlling costs: Feature selection on a budget.
Article in Stat, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The traditional framework for feature selection treats all features as costing the same amount. However, in reality, a scientist often has considerable discretion regarding which variables to measure, and the decision involves a tradeoff between model accuracy and cost (where cost can refer to money, time, difficulty or intrusiveness). In particular, unnecessarily including an expensive feature in a model is worse than unnecessarily including a cheap feature. We propose a procedure, which we call cheap knockoffs, for performing feature selection in a cost-conscious manner. The key idea behind our method is to force higher cost features to compete with more knockoffs than cheaper features. We derive an upper bound on the weighted false discovery proportion associated with this procedure, which corresponds to the fraction of the feature cost that is wasted on unimportant features. We prove that this bound holds simultaneously with high probability over a path of selected variable sets of increasing size. A user may thus select a set of features based, for example, on the overall budget, while knowing that no more than a particular fraction of feature cost is wasted. We investigate, through simulation and a biomedical application, the practical importance of incorporating cost considerations into the feature selection process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.