On the internal evaluation of unsupervised outlier detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is a large and growing literature that tackles the unsupervised outlier detection problem, the unsupervised evaluation of outlier detection results is still virtually untouched in the literature. The so-called internal evaluation, based solely on the data and the assessed solutions themselves, is required if one wants to statistically validate (in absolute terms) or just compare (in relative terms) the solutions provided by different algorithms or by different parameterizations of a given algorithm in the absence of labeled data. However, in contrast to unsupervised cluster analysis, where indexes for internal evaluation and validation of clustering solutions have been conceived and shown to be very useful, in the outlier detection domain this problem has been notably overlooked. Here we discuss this problem and provide a solution for the internal evaluation of top-n (binary) outlier detection results. Specifically, we propose an index called IREOS (Internal, Relative Evaluation of Outlier Solutions) that can evaluate and compare different candidate labelings of a collection of multivariate observations in terms of outliers and inliers. We also statistically adjust IREOS for chance and extensively evaluate it in several experiments involving different collections of synthetic and real data sets.
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 | 0.030 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".