Toward Faithful Explanations in Acoustic Anomaly Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Interpretability is essential for user trust in real-world anomaly detection applications. However, deep learning models, despite their strong performance, often lack transparency. In this work, we study the interpretability of autoencoder-based models for audio anomaly detection, by comparing a standard autoencoder (AE) with a mask autoencoder (MAE) in terms of detection performance and interpretability. We applied several attribution methods, including error maps, saliency maps, SmoothGrad, Integrated Gradients, GradSHAP, and Grad-CAM. Although MAE shows a slightly lower detection, it consistently provides more faithful and temporally precise explanations, suggesting a better alignment with true anomalies. To assess the relevance of the regions highlighted by the explanation method, we propose a perturbation-based faithfulness metric that replaces them with their reconstructions to simulate normal input. Our findings, based on experiments in a real industrial scenario, highlight the importance of incorporating interpretability into anomaly detection pipelines and show that masked training improves explanation quality without compromising performance.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jan 2026.
Builds on
25 of 31 references.
References · 25
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2021Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learnerscited by 7,403
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2016SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restartscited by 5,045
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,371
- 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,109
- 2020Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlationcited by 425
- 2019Unmasking Clever Hans Predictors and Assessing What Machines Really Learncited by 365
- 2019Unsupervised Anomaly Localization using Variational Auto-Encoderscited by 73
- 2020Description and Discussion on DCASE2020 Challenge Task2: Unsupervised Anomalous Sound Detection for Machine Condition Monitoringcited by 43
13 more
- 2022Self-Supervised Masking for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection and Localizationcited by 43
- 2022A Comparative Study of Faithfulness Metrics for Model Interpretability Methodscited by 39
- 2022A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detectioncited by 39
- 2023Understanding Masked Autoencoders via Hierarchical Latent Variable Modelscited by 39
- 2019Explaining Anomalies Detected by Autoencoders Using SHAPcited by 27
- 2021Utilizing XAI technique to improve autoencoder based model for computer network anomaly detection with shapley additive explanation(SHAP)cited by 15
- 2023Explainable Time Series Anomaly Detection using Masked Latent Generative Modelingcited by 15
- 2023Masked Autoencoders for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in Medical Imagescited by 9
- 2025Autoencoders for Anomaly Detection are Unreliablecited by 9
- 2023Robust Explainer Recommendation for Time Series Classificationcited by 7
- 2023Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection: Fancy Algorithms and Flawed Evaluation Methodologycited by 6
- 2022Autoencoder based Anomaly Detection and Explained Fault Localization in Industrial Cooling Systemscited by 3
- 2025Planing It by Ear: Convolutional Neural Networks for Acoustic Anomaly Detection in Industrial Wood Planerscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.