MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unsupervised Parameter-free Outlier Detection using HDBSCAN* Outlier Profiles

2024· article· en· W4406461799 on OpenAlexaff
Kushankur Ghosh, Murilo Coelho Naldi, Jörg Sander, Euijin Choo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnomaly detectionOutlierComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 min<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">pts</inf> parameter that influences density estimation. With limited knowledge about the data, choosing an appropriate min<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">pts</inf> value beforehand is challenging as one or some min<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">pts</inf> values 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" min<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">pts</inf> value, leveraging the range of GLOSH scores across min<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">pts</inf> values 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 min<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">pts</inf> value 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207