Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 2, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Anomaly detectors rank unfamiliar examples for expert confirmation, and the confirmed examples teach a classifier to recognise a new class. Across five benchmarks from physics, medicine and computer vision, the members flagged by the detector are those the classifier learns first. In three systems, confirming the highest-ranked members of a new class gives lower recognition than confirming the same number of random members. Handing subsequent selection to the promoted classifier recovers part of this loss in two systems. A paired intervention further shows that replacing nearby known classes with distant ones sharply reduces the confirmations needed for recognition. These results distinguish finding a new class from selecting examples that teach its extent: within the tested classes, concentrating confirmations at the top of the anomaly ranking makes learning less efficient.