Minimum redundancy feature selection
Open-knowledge reference entry
Minimum redundancy feature selection is an algorithm frequently used in a method to accurately identify characteristics of genes and phenotypes and narrow down their relevance and is usually described in its pairing with relevant feature selection as Minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance (mRMR). This method was first proposed in 2003 by Hanchuan Peng and Chris Ding, followed by a theoretical formulation based on mutual information, along with the first definition of multivariate mutual information, published in IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence in 2005.
Feature selection, one of the basic problems in pattern recognition and machine learning, identifies subsets of data that are relevant to the parameters used and is normally called Maximum Relevance. These subsets often contain material which is relevant but redundant and mRMR attempts to address this problem by removing those redundant subsets. mRMR has a variety of applications in many areas such as cancer diagnosis and speech recognition.
Features can be selected in many different ways. One scheme is to select features that correlate strongest to the classification variable. This has been called maximum-relevance selection. Many heuristic algorithms can be used, such as the sequential forward, backward, or floating selections.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Minimum redundancy feature selection” is open-knowledge reference entry. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Minimum, redundancy and feature, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “open-knowledge reference entry” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 1, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q17138905. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2003 and 2005.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Minimum redundancy feature selection”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Minimum redundancy feature selection primary sources, Minimum redundancy feature selection archive and Minimum research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Minimum redundancy feature selection”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Minimum redundancy feature selection” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.