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.
By Lamine Diop, Marc Plantevit
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."
arXiv:2608. 12441v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deep learning detectors for anomalies in dynamic graphs have reached strong accuracy, yet they remain opaque: when an edge is flagged, the analyst receives a score but no reason.
By Iyad Assaad Nekka, Hamida Seba, Khaled Walid Hidouci, Karima Amrouche
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.
By Behnam Asadi
arXiv:2606. 13780v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Machine-learned anomaly detection is reshaping searches for new physics, but it has outrun the statistics used to interpret it.
By Jack Y. Araz, Michael Spannowsky
arXiv:2606. 28970v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Unsupervised tabular anomaly detection requires methods that are accurate, robust across heterogeneous datasets, and computationally efficient.
By Quanling Zhao, Jiaying Yang, Ye Tian, Josh Victoria, Zhijun Wang, Pietro Mercati, Onat Gungor, Tajana Rosing
arXiv:2608. 05685v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Most public benchmarks for machine-condition monitoring come from test rigs, where faults are induced on purpose and every event is known.
By Gospel Bassey, Vincent Fakiyesi
arXiv:2608.28375v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Global goodness-of-fit and discrepancy statistics can establish that a sample departs from a reference distribution without identifying which observa...
By Tommaso dorigo
The paper identifies a problem in multi‑view anomaly detection called cross‑view information leakage, where fusing multiple inspection views can cause normal features to mask anomalies during reconstruction. To address this, the authors propose GLAD, a framework that uses a Global‑Local Attention Driven approach, combining vision foundation model features with two fusion modules: Multi‑view Merging Attention for local, weighted fusion and Object‑Guided Attention for global context aggregation. Experiments on Real‑IAD and MANTA‑Tiny demonstrate that GLAD outperforms existing methods across various metrics, underscoring the importance of restricting information flow to preserve the reconstruction gap.
By Shang-Fu Chen, Kuan-Chuan Peng, Jhih-Ciang Wu, Wen-Huang Cheng, Kai-Lung Hua
arXiv:2606. 13486v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Anomaly detection in multivariate time series is challenged by four structurally distinct anomaly types -- point (isolated spikes), distributional (level shifts), temporal (rhythm changes), and collective (inter-sensor correlation breakdowns) -- each requiring different feature representations.
By William Smits
arXiv:2608. 15559v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Anomaly detection in dynamic graphs underpins financial fraud analysis, intrusion detection, and platform integrity, where automated decisions require human-interpretable justifications.
By Iyad Assaad Nekka, Hamida Seba, Walid Khaled Hidouci, Karima Amrouche
arXiv:2604. 17388v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Time series anomaly detectors have grown steadily more complex, incorporating attention mechanisms, adversarial training, and stochastic latent variables.
By Kadir-Kaan \"Ozer, Ren\'e Ebeling, Markus Enzweiler