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:2606. 03305v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmark contamination, where evaluation examples appear in a model's training data, threatens the validity of LLM assessment.
By Wojciech Zarzecki, Jan Dubi\'nski, Sebastian Cygert
arXiv:2605. 26068v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Weakly supervised anomaly detection (WSAD) has developed in three primary directions: incomplete, inexact, and inaccurate supervision.
By Xu Yao, Siyuan Zhou, Zhenbo Wu, Chaochuan Hou, Shuang Liang, Shiping Wang, Hailiang Huang, Songqiao Han, Minqi Jiang
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
The paper introduces a training‑free, human‑in‑the‑loop anomaly detection framework that allows a domain expert to correct a PatchCore detector by editing its memory bank, without retraining or using gradients. Using only ten golden samples, operator corrections close a median 66% of the performance gap to a fully trained bank, improving 12 of 15 MVTec AD categories while harming none. The approach is evaluated with a rigorous held‑out protocol and shows that passive and active querying yield statistically indistinguishable gains, with a defect‑memory extension failing decisively.
By Ayusha Abbas, Saram Abbas, Kabita Adhikari
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.
By Kevin Wilkinghoff, Zheng-Hua Tan
arXiv:2608. 20290v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Whether a language model has improved itself is increasingly judged not by mean accuracy but by which individual problems it gains and loses.
By Cheng Xu, Nan Yan, Liming Chen, M-Tahar Kechadi
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:2607. 19266v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Fraud detection systems must scale with rising transaction volume while remaining explainable and reviewable.
By Rahil Sharma
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: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