SPINEX-anomaly: similarity-based predictions with explainable neighbors exploration for anomaly and outlier detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents a novel anomaly and outlier detection algorithm from the SPINEX (Similarity-based Predictions with Explainable Neighbors Exploration) family. This algorithm leverages the concept of similarity and higher-order interactions across multiple subspaces to identify outliers. A comprehensive set of experiments was conducted to evaluate the performance of SPINEX. This algorithm was examined against 21 commonly used anomaly detection algorithms, and across 39 synthetic and real datasets from various domains and of a variety of dimensions and complexities. Furthermore, a complexity analysis was carried out to examine the complexity of the proposed algorithm. Our results demonstrate that SPINEX achieves superior performance, outperforms commonly used anomaly detection algorithms, and has moderate complexity (e.g., O(n log n × d)). More specifically, SPINEX was found to rank at the top of algorithms on the synthetic datasets and the 7th on the real datasets. Finally, a demonstration of the explainability capabilities of SPINEX, along with future research needs, is presented.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".