Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 2, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Feature selection for imbalanced classification tasks such as credit card fraud and consumer default detection requires balancing predictive relevance, inter-feature redundancy, and computational feasibility. We benchmark three computing paradigms, classical branch-and-bound optimization (Gurobi), photonic entropy computing (QCI Dirac-3), and simulated photonic boson sampling (Piquasso), across thirteen feature-selection methods on two datasets: ULB Credit Card Fraud (30 features) and AmEx consumer default (159 features). Each method is routed to the solver matched to its mathematical structure. On ULB, Dirac-3 MI-Spearman matches the all-features model using 13 of 30 features (mean F1 0.873 +/- 0.023 over five runs, best run 0.896), and Piquasso is the best method at k=5. On AmEx, performance rises steadily with the feature budget and every paradigm approaches F1 = 0.80 only near the full feature set. Most differences between Gurobi and Dirac-3 on identical methods fall within run-to-run variation; the large gaps occur where the certified optimum generalizes poorly, most sharply for distance correlation on AmEx at k=25 (Gurobi F1 = 0.422 vs. a Dirac-3 mean of 0.746). At matched budgets, F1 varies about ten times more across methods on ULB than on AmEx, which we trace to how concentrated the predictive signal is in each feature space.