MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125777947 · doi:10.21428/594757db.06794ffe

Unsupervised Feature Selection Using Orthogonally Constrained Matrix Factorization with Hessian Regularization and Non-Convex Sparsity

2025· article· en· W7125777947 on OpenAlexaff
Zubeka Dang, Anna Jazayeri, Ran Arino, Anna Briskina, Amir Moslemi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace and Expression Recognition
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreSunnybrook HospitalSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHessian matrixRegularization (linguistics)Feature selectionPattern recognition (psychology)Cluster analysisFeature (linguistics)Matrix decompositionNon-negative matrix factorizationNoise (video)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unsupervised feature selection plays a crucial role in handling high-dimensional data, especially in scenarios where labels are unavailable. This study introduces a novel feature selection method that integrates orthogonally constrained matrix factorization, Hessian regularization, and non-convex sparsity -- l_(2,1-2)-norm regularization. The proposed method captures the local geometrical of the data while keeping it easy to interpret and sparse. Using the l_(2,1-2)-norm, it highlights important features, removes unnecessary information, and makes the model more resistant to noise and outliers. The use of Hessian regularization preserves the intrinsic manifold structure, and orthogonal constraints promote independence among latent components. Experimental results on multiple datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, achieving competitive performance in clustering accuracy and normalized mutual information (NMI), even with significantly reduced feature dimensions. This study emphasizes the potential of the proposed framework for unsupervised learning tasks involving high-dimensional, unlabeled data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFace and Expression RecognitionFrench-language works237,207