Explaining Outliers by Subspace Separability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outliers are extraordinary objects in a data collection. Depending on the domain, they may represent errors, fraudulent activities or rare events that are subject of our interest. Existing approaches focus on detection of outliers or degrees of outlierness (ranking), but do not provide a possible explanation of how these objects deviate from the rest of the data. Such explanations would help user to interpret or validate the detected outliers. The problem addressed in this paper is as follows: given an outlier detected by an existing algorithm, we propose a method that determines possible explanations for the outlier. These explanations are expressed in the form of subspaces in which the given outlier shows separability from the inliers. In this manner, our proposed method complements existing outlier detection algorithms by providing additional information about the outliers. Our method is designed to work with any existing outlier detection algorithm and it also includes a heuristic that gives a substantial speedup over the baseline strategy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it