A Novel Method for Detecting Outlying Subspaces in High-dimensional Databases Using Genetic Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detecting outlying subspaces is a relatively new research problem in outlier-ness analysis for high-dimensional data. An outlying subspace for a given data point p is the subspace in which p is an outlier. Outlying subspace detection can facilitate a better characterization process for the detected outliers. It can also enable outlier mining for highdimensional data to be performed more accurately and efficiently. In this paper, we proposed a new method using genetic algorithm paradigm for searching outlying subspaces efficiently. We developed a technique for efficiently computing the lower and upper bounds of the distance between a given point and its kth nearest neighbor in each possible subspace. These bounds are used to speed up the fitness evaluation of the designed genetic algorithm for outlying subspace detection. We also proposed a random sampling technique to further reduce the computation of the genetic algorithm. The optimal number of sampling data is specified to ensure the accuracy of the result. We show that the proposed method is efficient and effective in handling outlying subspace detection problem by a set of experiments conducted on both synthetic and real-life datasets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".