Bagged Subspaces for Unsupervised Outlier Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many domains, important events are not represented as the common scenario, but as deviations from the rule. The importance and impact associated with these particular, outnumbered, deviant, and sometimes even previously unseen events is directly related to the application domain (e.g., breast cancer detection, satellite image classification, etc.). The detection of these rare events or outliers has recently been gaining popularity as evidenced by the wide variety of algorithms currently available. These algorithms are based on different assumptions about what constitutes an outlier, a characteristic pointing toward their integration in an ensemble to improve their individual detection rate. However, there are two factors that limit the use of current ensemble outlier detection approaches: first, in most cases, outliers are not detectable in full dimensionality, but instead are located in specific subspaces of data; and second, despite the expected improvement on detection rate achieved using an ensemble of detectors, the computational efficiency of the ensemble will increase linearly as the number of components increases. In this article, we propose an ensemble approach that identifies outliers based on different subsets of features and subsamples of data, providing more robust results while improving the computational efficiency of similar ensemble outlier detection approaches.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".