MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417090763 · doi:10.1109/icmla66185.2025.00041

Sliced-Wasserstein Distance-based Data Selection

2025· article· en· W4417090763 on OpenAlexafffund
Julien Pallage, Antoine Lesage‐Landry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Anomaly detectionSelection (genetic algorithm)ScalabilityData pointModel selectionFeature selectionEuclidean distanceData modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new unsupervised anomaly detection method based on the sliced-Wasserstein distance for training data selection in machine learning approaches. Our filtering technique is interesting for decision-making pipelines deploying machine learning models in critical sectors, e.g., electric power systems, as it offers a conservative data selection and an optimal transport interpretation. To ensure the scalability of our method, we provide two efficient approximations. The first approximation processes reduced-cardinality representations of the datasets concurrently. The second method utilizes a computationally lightweight Euclidian distance approximation. Additionally, we focus our analysis on virtual power plants as we open the first dataset showcasing localized critical peak rebate demand response of power systems in a northern climate. We present the filtering patterns of our method on synthetic datasets and numerically benchmark our method for training data selection. Finally, we employ our method as part of a first load forecasting benchmark for our open-source dataset.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207