Cited by 19Anomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsMachine Learning and Data Classification

Isolation-based feature Selection for Unsupervised Outlier Detection

Open access
Yang, Qibo, Singh, Jaskaran, Lee, Jay·2019·Annual Conference of the PHM Society

Abstract

For high-dimensional datasets, bad features and complex interactions between features can cause high computational costs and make outlier detection algorithms inefficient. Most feature selection methods are designed for supervised classification and regression, and limited works are specifically for unsupervised outlier detection. This paper proposes a novel isolation-based feature selection (IBFS) method for unsupervised outlier detection. It is based on the training process of isolation forest. When a point of a feature is used to split the data, the imbalanced distribution of split data is measured and used to quantify how strong this feature can detect outliers. We also compare the proposed method with variance, Laplacian score and kurtosis. These methods are benchmarked on simulated data to show their characteristics. Then we evaluate the performance using one-class support vector machine, isolation forest and local outlier factor on several real-word datasets. The evaluation results show that the proposed method can improve the performance of isolation forest, and its results are similar to and sometimes better than another useful outlier indicator: kurtosis, which demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. We also notice that sometimes variance and Laplacian score has similar performance on the datasets.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.36001/phmconf.2019.v11i1.824

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Liu, F. T., Ting, K. M., & Zhou, Z. H. (2008, December). Isolation forest. In 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (pp. 413-422). IEEE.
  2. Westfall, P. H. (2014). Kurtosis as peakedness, 1905-2014. RIP. The American Statistician, 68(3), 191-195.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, Q., Singh, J., & Lee, J.
Affiliations
University of Cincinnati (US)
Venue
Annual Conference of the PHM Society
Publisher
PHM Society
Published
2019-09-22
Volume
11
Issue
1
ISSN
2325-0178 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2975945901
Cited by
19
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.67
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Annual Conference of the PHM Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
unsupervised anomaly detection, Isolation Forest, feature selection, high-dimensional data, kurtosis, Laplacian score, variance, one-class support vector machine, local outlier factor

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