Unsupervised Parameter-free Outlier Detection using HDBSCAN* Outlier Profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In machine learning and data mining, outliers are data points that significantly differ from the dataset and often introduce irrelevant information that can induce bias in its statistics and models. Therefore, unsupervised methods are crucial to detect outliers if there is limited or no information about them. Global-Local Outlier Scores based on Hierarchies (GLOSH) is an unsupervised outlier detection method within HDBSCAN*, a state-of-the-art hierarchical clustering method. GLOSH estimates outlier scores for each data point by comparing its density to the highest density of the region they reside in the HDBSCAN* hierarchy. GLOSH may be sensitive to HDBSCAN*’s minptsparameter that influences density estimation. With limited knowledge about the data, choosing an appropriate minptsvalue beforehand is challenging as one or some minptsvalues may better represent the underlying cluster structure than others. Additionally, in the process of searching for "potential outliers", one has to define the number of outliers n a dataset has, which may be impractical and is often unknown. In this paper, we propose an unsupervised strategy to find the "best" minptsvalue, leveraging the range of GLOSH scores across minptsvalues to identify the value for which GLOSH scores can best identify outliers from the rest of the dataset. Moreover, we propose an unsupervised strategy to estimate a threshold for classifying points into inliers and (potential) outliers without the need to pre-define any value. Our experiments show that our strategies can automatically find the minptsvalue and threshold that yield the best or near best outlier detection results using GLOSH.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".