Subsampling for efficient and effective unsupervised outlier detection ensembles
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
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.
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