A new interpretable unsupervised anomaly detection method based on residual explanation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Despite the superior performance in modeling complex patterns to address challenging problems, the black-box nature of Deep Learning (DL) methods impose limitations to their application in real-world critical domains. The lack of a smooth manner for enabling human reasoning about the black-box decisions hinder any preventive action to unexpected events, in which may lead to catastrophic consequences. To tackle the unclearness from black-box models, interpretability became a fundamental requirement in DL-based systems, leveraging trust and knowledge by providing ways to understand the model's behavior. Although a current hot topic, further advances are still needed to overcome the existing limitations of the current interpretability methods in unsupervised DL-based models for Anomaly Detection (AD). Autoencoders (AE) are the core of unsupervised DL-based for AD applications, achieving best-in-class performance. However, due to their hybrid aspect to obtain the results (by requiring additional calculations out of network), only agnostic interpretable methods can be applied to AE-based AD. These agnostic methods are computationally expensive to process a large number of parameters. In this paper we present the RXP (Residual eXPlainer), a new interpretability method to deal with the limitations for AE-based AD in large-scale systems. It stands out for its implementation simplicity, low computational cost and deterministic behavior, in which explanations are obtained through the deviation analysis of reconstructed input features. In an experiment using data from a real heavy-haul railway line, the proposed method achieved superior performance compared to SHAP, demonstrating its potential to support decision making in large scale critical systems.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Mar 2021.
Builds on
15 of 40 references.
References · 15
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
- 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
- 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 716
- 2018Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 508
- 2019Deep Learning for Anomaly Detection: A Surveycited by 357
- 2019Interpretable machine learning: definitions, methods, and applicationscited by 303
- 2019ALIME: Autoencoder Based Approach for Local Interpretabilitycited by 41
- 2019GEE: A Gradient-based Explainable Variational Autoencoder for Network Anomaly Detectioncited by 36
- 2016Gradients of Counterfactualscited by 31
- 2019Explaining Anomalies Detected by Autoencoders Using SHAPcited by 27
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 1.
4 papers.
- 2023Large Scale Foundation Models for Intelligent Manufacturing Applications: A Surveycited by 6
- 2023Enhancing Interpretability and Generalizability in Extended Isolation Forestscited by 4
- 2023Towards Meaningful Anomaly Detection: The Effect of Counterfactual Explanations on the Investigation of Anomalies in Multivariate Time Seriescited by 0
- 2024Can I trust my anomaly detection system? A case study based on explainable AIcited by 0
- 2024Can I trust my anomaly detection system? A case study based on explainable AI29 Jul 2024
- 2023Large Scale Foundation Models for Intelligent Manufacturing Applications: A Survey11 Dec 2023
- 2023Enhancing Interpretability and Generalizability in Extended Isolation Forests9 Oct 2023
- 2023Towards Meaningful Anomaly Detection: The Effect of Counterfactual Explanations on the Investigation of Anomalies in Multivariate Time Series7 Feb 2023