Subsampling for efficient and effective unsupervised outlier detection ensembles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outlier detection and ensemble learning are well established research directions in data mining yet the application of ensemble techniques to outlier detection has been rarely studied. Here, we propose and study subsampling as a technique to induce diversity among individual outlier detectors. We show analytically and experimentally that an outlier detector based on a subsample per se, besides inducing diversity, can, under certain conditions, already improve upon the results of the same outlier detector on the complete dataset. Building an ensemble on top of several subsamples is further improving the results. While in the literature so far the intuition that ensembles improve over single outlier detectors has just been transferred from the classification literature, here we also justify analytically why ensembles are also expected to work in the unsupervised area of outlier detection. As a side effect, running an ensemble of several outlier detectors on subsamples of the dataset is more efficient than ensembles based on other means of introducing diversity and, depending on the sample rate and the size of the ensemble, can be even more efficient than just the single outlier detector on the complete data.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".