arXiv:2608. 14186v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tabular anomaly detection is dominated by classical density-proxy methods (Isolation Forest, OCSVM, LOF), reconstruction-based detectors (Autoencoders, VAEs), and modern non-parametric scorers (COPOD, ECOD, Deep SVDD), all of which approximate the inlier distribution only indirectly; explicit energy-based models are largely absent.
arXiv:2606. 28970v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Unsupervised tabular anomaly detection requires methods that are accurate, robust across heterogeneous datasets, and computationally efficient.
DIFFINT is a reconstruction‑based anomaly detector that replaces the opaque latent bottleneck of a standard autoencoder with a set of soft, axis‑aligned interval memberships learned directly from raw numerical data. Each latent unit represents a human‑readable hyper‑rectangle, and an instance’s anomaly score is its reconstruction error weighted by how strongly it falls inside these intervals. The method provides a certified lower bound on reconstruction error for points outside all active intervals, a graded suppression mechanism for sparse anomalies, and a closed‑form, label‑free importance ranking for each (unit, feature) pair, achieving top performance on 48 ADBench benchmarks against 22 baselines. whyItMatters":"DIFFINT offers the first interpretable anomaly detector that maintains competitive performance while revealing which feature ranges drive each anomaly score, enabling practitioners to audit and understand model decisions without requiring anomaly labels."
DIFFINT is a reconstruction‑based anomaly detector that uses a differentiable autoencoder with a latent bottleneck composed of soft, axis‑aligned interval memberships. Each latent unit represents a human‑readable hyper‑rectangle in feature space, allowing the model to encode how strongly an instance falls inside each interval and to compute reconstruction error as the anomaly score. The method provides a certified lower bound on reconstruction error for points outside all active intervals, a suppression mechanism for sparse abnormalities, and a closed‑form, label‑free importance ranking for each (unit, feature) pair, achieving top performance on 48 ADBench benchmarks against 22 baselines.
arXiv:2608. 01793v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Unified anomaly detection requires modeling highly heterogeneous normal data without access to anomalous samples.
arXiv:2606. 13754v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Anomaly detection is a fundamental component of intelligent systems with applications in healthcare, cybersecurity, smart grids, and IoT environments.
arXiv:2608. 13652v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generic event-level anomaly detection for collider physics has two recurring problems: anomaly scores are hard to interpret, and they correlate strongly with energy scale and object multiplicity.
arXiv:2608. 19801v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Financial anomaly detection often relies on large unlabeled transaction logs, where anomalous samples may already be present during training.
arXiv:2606. 09874v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reconstruction-based methods are widely used for time series anomaly detection, where models are trained to reconstruct subsequences, and anomalies are identified through reconstruction errors.
arXiv:2603. 26842v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Time series anomaly detection (TSAD) is essential for maintaining the reliability and security of IoT-enabled service systems.
arXiv:2607. 16811v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We revisit Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs) as a lightweight, interpretable tool for anomaly detection and, in particular, for detecting distributional drift in data streams.
arXiv:2607. 20530v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Semi-supervised anomaly detection plays a key role in diverse fields such as process monitoring, healthcare, and finance.
The paper investigates whether the performance of anomaly detection systems can be predicted without labeled anomalies. For kNN-based detectors, it derives a lower bound on AUC that links detection performance to the separation and variance of inlier and outlier scores, and uses this to analyze how density variation, intrinsic dimensionality, and domain mismatch affect score variability. The authors introduce pseudo‑anomaly probes that provide a reference for estimating relative score separation, and demonstrate through experiments on DCASE benchmarks that these probes enable anomaly‑free model selection to outperform conventional development‑set selection, especially under domain shift.