An improved outlier delection algorithm K-LOF based on density
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
The local outlier factor (LOF) algorithm is one of the representative algorithms based on the density outlier detection algorithm. But the algorithm has the problem of high time complexity, not suitable for large data sets and high dimensional data set. Therefore, this paper proposes a new outlier detection algorithm, clustering the data sets determines the data center of data space through the K-means clustering algorithm, building data set primary model by setting the distance threshold of the data set object to the data center, and optimizing the screening process combined the neighbor distribution of data objects. Although the use of clustering algorithm for abnormal data set screening will increase the computational complexity of the algorithm, but the data center space once identified will no longer need to repeat the calculation, so with the increase of data, the advantages of the algorithm will become more and more obvious. After testing, the algorithm can effectively improve the detection accuracy of anomaly factors, and reduce the computational complexity of the algorithm, and can complete the local outlier detection.<br />
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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