MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394766409 · doi:10.1145/3657286

A Systematic Literature Review of Novelty Detection in Data Streams: Challenges and Opportunities

2024· review· en· W4394766409 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Stream Mining Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNoveltyData stream miningNovelty detectionData scienceField (mathematics)Taxonomy (biology)Key (lock)STREAMSArtificial intelligenceTask (project management)Systematic reviewMachine learningData miningSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novelty detection in data streams is the task of detecting concepts that were not known prior, in streams of data. Many machine learning algorithms have been proposed to detect these novelties, as well as integrate them. This study provides a systematic literature review of the state of novelty detection in data streams, including its advancement in recent years, its main challenges and solutions, an updated taxonomy for the classification of the proposed frameworks, and a comparative analysis of different key algorithms in this field. Additionally, we highlight ongoing challenges and future research directions that could be tackled moving forward.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.224
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.158 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it