Mining top-n local outliers in large databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outlier detection is an important task in data mining with numerous applications, including credit card fraud detection, video surveillance, etc. A recent work on outlier detection has introduced a novel notion of local outlier in which the degree to which an object is outlying is dependent on the density of its local neighborhood, and each object can be assigned a Local Outlier Factor (LOF) which represents the likelihood of that object being an outlier. Although the concept of local outliers is a useful one, the computation of LOF values for every data objects requires a large number of κ-nearest neighbors searches and can be computationally expensive. Since most objects are usually not outliers, it is useful to provide users with the option of finding only n most outstanding local outliers, i.e., the top-n data objects which are most likely to be local outliers according to their LOFs. However, if the pruning is not done carefully, finding top-n outliers could result in the same amount of computation as finding LOF for all objects. In this paper, we propose a novel method to efficiently find the top-n local outliers in large databases. The concept of "micro-cluster" is introduced to compress the data. An efficient micro-cluster-based local outlier mining algorithm is designed based on this concept. As our algorithm can be adversely affected by the overlapping in the micro-clusters, we proposed a meaningful cut-plane solution for overlapping data. The formal analysis and experiments show that this method can achieve good performance in finding the most outstanding local outliers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".