Understanding the Effect of Bias in Deep Anomaly Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Anomaly detection presents a unique challenge in machine learning, due to the scarcity of labeled anomaly data. Recent work attempts to mitigate such problems by augmenting training of deep anomaly detection models with additional labeled anomaly samples. However, the labeled data often does not align with the target distribution and introduces harmful bias to the trained model. In this paper, we aim to understand the effect of a biased anomaly set on anomaly detection. Concretely, we view anomaly detection as a supervised learning task where the objective is to optimize the recall at a given false positive rate. We formally study the relative scoring bias of an anomaly detector, defined as the difference in performance with respect to a baseline anomaly detector. We establish the first finite sample rates for estimating the relative scoring bias for deep anomaly detection, and empirically validate our theoretical results on both synthetic and real-world datasets. We also provide an extensive empirical study on how a biased training anomaly set affects the anomaly score function and therefore the detection performance on different anomaly classes. Our study demonstrates scenarios in which the biased anomaly set can be useful or problematic, and provides a solid benchmark for future research.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 May 2021.
Builds on
11 of 36 references.
References · 11
- 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,283
- 2019Using Self-Supervised Learning Can Improve Model Robustness and Uncertaintycited by 511
- 2017Training Confidence-calibrated Classifiers for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samplescited by 389
- 2019Deep Learning for Anomaly Detection: A Surveycited by 357
- 2019Deep Semi-Supervised Anomaly Detectioncited by 290
- 2018Deep Anomaly Detection Using Geometric Transformationscited by 269
- 2019Deep Anomaly Detection with Deviation Networkscited by 152
- 2020DROCC: Deep Robust One-Class Classificationcited by 121
- 2020Rethinking Assumptions in Deep Anomaly Detectioncited by 45
- 2018Open Category Detection with PAC Guaranteescited by 35
- 2019Autoencoding Binary Classifiers for Supervised Anomaly Detectioncited by 17
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 2; 2023: 3.
7 papers.
- 2021A Unified Survey on Anomaly, Novelty, Open-Set, and Out-of-Distribution Detection: Solutions and Future Challengescited by 154
- 2022Data Augmentation is a Hyperparameter: Cherry-picked Self-Supervision for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection is Creating the Illusion of Successcited by 11
- 2021Transfer Learning Gaussian Anomaly Detection by Fine-tuning Representationscited by 10
- 2023DSV: An Alignment Validation Loss for Self-supervised Outlier Model Selectioncited by 6
- 2022R2-AD2: Detecting Anomalies by Analysing the Raw Gradientcited by 2
- 2023Self-Supervision for Tackling Unsupervised Anomaly Detection: Pitfalls and Opportunitiescited by 2
- 2023CA2: Class-Agnostic Adaptive Feature Adaptation for One-class Classificationcited by 0
- 2023CA2: Class-Agnostic Adaptive Feature Adaptation for One-class Classification4 Sep 2023
- 2023Self-Supervision for Tackling Unsupervised Anomaly Detection: Pitfalls and Opportunities28 Aug 2023
- 2023DSV: An Alignment Validation Loss for Self-supervised Outlier Model Selection13 Jul 2023
- 2022Data Augmentation is a Hyperparameter: Cherry-picked Self-Supervision for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection is Creating the Illusion of Success16 Aug 2022
- 2022R2-AD2: Detecting Anomalies by Analysing the Raw Gradient21 Jun 2022
- 2021A Unified Survey on Anomaly, Novelty, Open-Set, and Out-of-Distribution Detection: Solutions and Future Challenges26 Oct 2021
- 2021Transfer Learning Gaussian Anomaly Detection by Fine-tuning Representations9 Aug 2021