All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
All comments are addressed and it can be accepted now.
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
The authors have addressed all my comments and I think it is ready for publication.
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
Both reviewers are positive to your work, please carefully revise your article according to the raised comments.
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
In this paper, the author proposed an algorithm named as RedremovingMRLR to select features for nominal data. My main concerns include:
(1) I think the novelty of this algorithm is the improvement of traditional NMIFS. Please highlight your unique contributions.
(2) In experiments, the computational time of the algorithms should also be compared. The author should analyze the computational complexity at least.
(3) There are some typos in this paper. For example Ref. [16]. Besides, there are also some related works should be cited. For example, for feature extraction, “Stable local dimensionality reduction approaches” and “Multiple view semi supervised dimensionality reduction” are two important literatures. For feature selection, I suggest the author to refer “Joint embedding learning and sparse regression: A framework for unsupervised feature selection”
No Comments.
No Comments.
No Comments.
This paper proposes a nominal-data feature selection method based on mutual information . The writting of the paper is very clear. The paper is well organized, and is very easy to follow. The idea in the paper is nice, and it could be accepted with minor revision.
Minor comments:
1. The definition of || in Eq.1 and Eq.4 should be clarified and the * in Eq.2 should be deleted.
2 The font size of data set in table 1should be the same.
3 The size of ...(Y_1, Y_2, ... Y_9) used in Experiment 1.
4 Fig. 1a, 1b shows the classification results .... should be Fig. 1a, and Fig. 1b. show (page 11).
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.