Accumulated Relative Density Outlier Detection For Large Scale Traffic Data
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
Outlier detection (OD) has been popularly developed in many fields such as medical diagnosis, network intrusion detection, fraud detection and military surveillance. This paper presents an accumulated relative density (ARD) OD method to identify outliers which possess relatively low or high local density. Previously, many density-based OD methods, such as local outlier factor (LOF) and Local Correlation Integral (LOCI), are applied to detect outliers which have low relative density in the data set. Relative local density (RLD) is measured and then compared with each other by statistics to label abnormities. In the proposed ARD method, a big circle centered at every data point is formed first. This big circle covers some data points with its radius. Then, for each encapsulated point inside this big circle, a small circle centered at itself is defined. Afterward, the ratio of number of covered data points inside the small circle of that particular point to the average number of data points in all small circles is defined as the RLD. After RLDs of all data points are calculated, a point whose RLD deviates greatly from the mean of all RLDs will be labeled as an outlier, otherwise as inliers. This ARD method was evaluated by a real world traffic data set which was originally represented as spatial-temporal (ST) traffic flow signals. The ST signals were processed by a principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce its dimension into two-dimensional 2D data points. An average 95% detection success rate (DSR) of OD can be achieved by this method.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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