Papers › A Large-scale Study on Unsupervised Outlier Model Selection: Do Internal Strategies Suffice?

A Large-scale Study on Unsupervised Outlier Model Selection: Do Internal Strategies Suffice?

3 Apr 2021arXiv:2104.01422archive 2025-07-28

Martin Q. Ma, Yue Zhao, Xiaorong Zhang, Leman Akoglu

Given an unsupervised outlier detection task, how should one select a detection algorithm as well as its hyperparameters (jointly called a model)? Unsupervised model selection is notoriously difficult, in the absence of hold-out validation data with ground-truth labels. Therefore, the problem is vastly understudied. In this work, we study the feasibility of employing internal model evaluation strategies for selecting a model for outlier detection. These so-called internal strategies solely rely on the input data (without labels) and the output (outlier scores) of the candidate models. We setup (and open-source) a large testbed with 39 detection tasks and 297 candidate models comprised of 8 detectors and various hyperparameter configurations. We evaluate 7 different strategies on their ability to discriminate between models w.r.t. detection performance, without using any labels. Our study reveals room for progress -- we find that none would be practically useful, as they select models only comparable to a state-of-the-art detector (with random configuration).

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

yzhao062/yzhao062 mentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Model SelectionOutlier Detection

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections