← Back to all news
arXiv Machine Learning By Petr Somol, Ji\v{r}\'{\i} Grim

Stochastic Sequential Search in Very-High-Dimensional Feature Selection

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2608. 01502v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sequential subset search -- forward selection with floating backtracking and its descendants -- remains the quality reference in feature selection, but every member of the family sweeps the full pool of remaining candidate features at each step, which excludes it from very-high-dimensional problems; there, only individual-feature ranking remains practical, and it models feature interplay weakly or not at all.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

Related stories

arXiv AI
Aug 20

Pairwise Ranking Outperforms Single-Action RL for Offline Explanation Selection: A Practical Lesson

The paper presents a cost‑effective approach for industrial explainable‑recommendation systems by decoupling explanation generation from selection. Candidate explanations are pre‑generated using six prompt styles and two commodity LLMs, then a lightweight CPU‑resident selector (e.g., LambdaRank) chooses the best one at request time, achieving sub‑100 ms latency without GPUs. Experiments on a 2,958‑pair Google Local subset and a 300‑pair MovieLens‑1M split show that pairwise ranking methods outperform single‑action RL baselines, while KG‑path selectors achieve near‑perfect user satisfaction scores.

By Tanay Chowdhury, Saeideh Shahrokh Esfahani
llmsreinforcement-learningefficiencybenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 28

Keeping the Index Open: The Recommendation-Side Cost of Shared Search and Recommendation

The paper investigates the trade‑off of using a shared search‑and‑recommendation index that scores new items purely from features, thereby keeping the index open to unseen items. Experiments on public logs show that a feature‑based tower can match warm‑item performance (Recall@20 0.9595 vs 0.9510) and a lexical baseline, while a full‑catalog check is inconclusive. The study also quantifies the cost of this openness on recommendation quality across several baselines, revealing that exact full‑softmax training improves recall but is impractical at catalog scale.

By Theodore Rogers, Joe Standerfer, Dmitrii Timoshenko, Haoxue Li, Zuhaib Akhtar, Soyoung Yang
More like this →