A proposal for statistical outlier detection in relational structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper extends unsupervised statistical outlier detection to the case of relational data. For nonrelational data, where each individual is characterized by a feature vector, a common approach starts with learning a generative statistical model for the population. The model assigns a likelihood measure for the feature vector that characterizes the individual; the lower the feature vector likelihood, the more anomalous the individual. A difference between relational and nonrelational data is that an individual is characterized not only by a list of attributes, but also by its links and by attributes of the individuals linked to it. We refer to a relational structure that specifies this information for a specific individual as the individual’s database. Our proposal is to use the likelihood assigned by a generative model to the individual’s database as the anomaly score for the individual; the lower the model likelihood, the more anomalous the individual. As a novel validation method, we compare the model likelihood with metrics of individual success. An empirical evaluation reveals a surprising finding in soccer and movie data: We observe in the data a strong correlation between the likelihood and success metrics.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".