4.5 Article

On the evaluation of unsupervised outlier detection: measures, datasets, and an empirical study

期刊

DATA MINING AND KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 891-927

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10618-015-0444-8

关键词

Unsupervised outlier detection; Evaluation; Measures; Datasets

资金

  1. FAPESP (Brazil) [2013/18698-4]
  2. CNPq (Brazil) [304137/2013-8, 400772/2014-0]
  3. NSERC (Canada)
  4. Danish Council for Independent Research-Technology and Production Sciences (FTP) (Denmark) [10-081972]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H02753, 25240036] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The evaluation of unsupervised outlier detection algorithms is a constant challenge in data mining research. Little is known regarding the strengths and weaknesses of different standard outlier detection models, and the impact of parameter choices for these algorithms. The scarcity of appropriate benchmark datasets with ground truth annotation is a significant impediment to the evaluation of outlier methods. Even when labeled datasets are available, their suitability for the outlier detection task is typically unknown. Furthermore, the biases of commonly-used evaluation measures are not fully understood. It is thus difficult to ascertain the extent to which newly-proposed outlier detection methods improve over established methods. In this paper, we perform an extensive experimental study on the performance of a representative set of standard k nearest neighborhood-based methods for unsupervised outlier detection, across a wide variety of datasets prepared for this purpose. Based on the overall performance of the outlier detection methods, we provide a characterization of the datasets themselves, and discuss their suitability as outlier detection benchmark sets. We also examine the most commonly-used measures for comparing the performance of different methods, and suggest adaptations that are more suitable for the evaluation of outlier detection results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据