Detecting outlying properties of exceptional objects
Abstract
Assume you are given a data population characterized by a certain number of attributes. Assume, moreover, you are provided with the information that one of the individuals in this data population is abnormal, but no reason whatsoever is given to you as to why this particular individual is to be considered abnormal. In several cases, you will be indeed interested in discovering such reasons. This article is precisely concerned with this problem of discovering sets of attributes that account for the (a priori stated) abnormality of an individual within a given dataset. A criterion is presented to measure the abnormality of combinations of attribute values featured by the given abnormal individual with respect to the reference population. In this respect, each subset of attributes is intended to somehow represent a “property” of individuals. We distinguish between global and local properties. Global properties are subsets of attributes explaining the given abnormality with respect to the entire data population. With local ones, instead, two subsets of attributes are singled out, where the former one justifies the abnormality within the data subpopulation selected using the values taken by the exceptional individual on those attributes included in the latter one. The problem of individuating abnormal properties with associated explanations is formally stated and analyzed. Such a formal characterization is then exploited in order to devise efficient algorithms for detecting both global and local forms of most abnormal properties. The experimental evidence, which is accounted for in the article, shows that the algorithms are both able to mine meaningful information and to accomplish the computational task by examining a negligible fraction of the search space.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The method in [10] needs many anomalies.
“Needs many anomalies”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [10]
The method in [10] is generalisable.
“Generalisable”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [10]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 88
- Authors
- Angiulli, F., Fassetti, F., & Palopoli, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Calabria (IT)
- Institute for High Performance Computing and Networking (IT)
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Database Systems
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-62
- ISSN
- 0362-5915 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-4644
- OpenAlex
- W1991758224
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Database Systems (publishedVersion)
- Archive of Doctoral Theses and Digital Collections (University of Calabria) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Database Systems and Queries
- Keywords
- outlier detection, search space reduction, data mining algorithms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review