arXiv Machine Learning By Kevin Wilkinghoff, Zheng-Hua Tan

Can We Predict Anomaly Detection Performance from Embedding-Space Geometry?

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 7

GLASS: Graph-Language Alignment with Spherical Scoring for Transferable Graph-Level Anomaly Detection

GLASS is a graph‑level anomaly detection framework that aligns graph and language representations on a unit hypersphere to achieve cross‑domain transferability. It constructs a Graph Descriptor Prompt to encode local, global, and semantic graph properties, and uses a multi‑slice soft cosine objective to unify graph and text embeddings. Anomaly scoring is performed via spherical density estimation with von Mises‑Fisher kernels, enabling zero‑shot detection and few‑shot adaptation across twelve benchmarks and three meta‑domains, outperforming recent GLAD baselines.

By Xudong Wang, Chris Ding, Tongxin Li, Jicong Fan
arXiv AI
Jun 12

ASTER: Latent Pseudo-Anomaly Generation for Unsupervised Time-Series Anomaly Detection

arXiv:2604. 13924v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Time-series anomaly detection (TSAD) is critical in domains such as industrial monitoring, healthcare, and cybersecurity, but it remains challenging due to rare and heterogeneous anomalies and the scarcity of labelled data.

By Romain Hermary, Samet Hicsonmez, Dan Pineau, Abd El Rahman Shabayek, Djamila Aouada
arXiv AI
Sep 4

Differentiable Interval Bottlenecks for Interpretable Anomaly Detection in Numerical Data

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
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 3

Differentiable Interval Bottlenecks for Interpretable Anomaly Detection in Numerical Data

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."