Detection and Classification of Anomalies in Large Datasets on the Basis of Information Granules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anomaly (outlier) detection is one of the most important problems of modern data analysis. The sources of anomalies are varying. They can be the results of database users’ mistakes, operational errors, or just missing values. The problem is very important because of the fast growth of large datasets. Therefore, in this article, we present detailed results of work on the concept of granular computing-based approach to anomaly detection, classification, and gradation. The aim of the study is to introduce an innovative solution that allows the use of information granules to identify and classify anomalies. The novelty of the proposed solution consists in the use of fuzzy semantics implied by the statistical properties of the data considered. Moreover, instead of the classic approach to detecting anomalies in the data, it is proposed to determine the degree of anomaly for the data transformed to the new resulting state space. Thanks to the use of an innovative approach using the universal descriptor space, it is possible to determine the degree of anomaly, and by using various aggregation methods one can also specify its type.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".