Table 2 Comparison of AD methods applied to the test set of CAESAR BCF model
Approach | IN AD | Q 2 | OUTSIDE AD |
|---|---|---|---|
All samples inside (no AD approach) | 95 | 0.797 | None |
Proposed approach (Euclidean dist., k = 15) | 91 | 0.803 | 33 61 82 83 |
Bounding box | 95 | 0.797 | None |
PCA bounding box | 93 | 0.804 | 33 40 |
Convex hull | 73 | 0.789 | 3 7 9 13 18 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 43 51 56 61 72 79 91 92 94 |
Euclidean dist (95 percentile) | 88 | 0.802 | 3 33 36 37 40 42 61 |
Mahalanobis dist (95 percentile) | 89 | 0.791 | 18 43 54 61 83 91 |
Classical kNN (Euclidean dist., k = 5) | 87 | 0.797 | 3 33 34 40 61 82 83 94 |
Fixed Gaussian kernel | 85 | 0.794 | 3 24 33 34 40 61 82 83 91 94 |
Optimized Gaussian kernel | 66 | 0.831 | 3 912 22 24 33 34 38 40 45 47 51 53 54 56 61 68 69 75 76 80 82 83 87 89 91 93 94 95 |
Variable Gaussian kernel (k = 15) | 81 | 0.790 | 3 24 33 34 40 43 61 80 82 83 89 91 94 95 |
Adaptive Gaussian kernel | 88 | 0.801 | 3 33 43 61 82 83 91 |
Fixed Epanechnikov kernel | 87 | 0.799 | 3 33 40 43 61 83 91 94 |
Nearest neighbour density estimator (k = 15) | 91 | 0.806 | 3 33 61 91 |