Anomaly Detection Techniques Based on Kappa-Pruned Ensembles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensemble-based anomaly detection systems (ADSs), using Boolean combination, have been shown to reduce the false alarm rate over that of a single detector. However, the existing Boolean combination methods rely on an exponential number of combinations making them impractical, even for a small number of detectors. In this paper, we propose weighted pruning-based Boolean combination, an efficient approach for selecting and combining accurate and diverse anomaly detectors. It works in three phases. The first phase selects a subset of the available base diverse soft detectors by pruning all the redundant soft detectors based on a weighted version of Cohen's kappa measure of agreement. The second phase selects a subset of diverse and accurate crisp detectors from the base soft detectors (selected in Phase1) based on the unweighted kappa measure. The selected complementary crisp detectors are then combined in the final phase using Boolean combinations. The results on two large scale datasets show that the proposed weighted pruning approach is able to maintain and even improve the accuracy of existing Boolean combination techniques, while significantly reducing the combination time and the number of detectors selected for combination.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it