Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

End-to-End Convolutional Activation Anomaly Analysis for Anomaly Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Jointly training a convolutional target autoencoder and an alarm network on a single combined loss outperforms the original A3 method and published baselines on both image and tabular anomaly-detection benchmarks.

desk verdict A plausible convolutional extension of A3 with strong claimed gains, but the image evaluation is supervised vs unsupervised baselines and the A3 normal-data premise is silently violated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14509 v1 pith:FBSOI7NJ submitted 2024-11-21 cs.LG

Aleksander Koz{l}owski , Daniel Ponikowski , Piotr Żukiewicz , Pawe{l} Twardowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords anomalydetectionconvolutionalautoencoderactivationanalysisend-to-endlearningsoft-orderingvariationalsupervisedAUC-ROC
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes E2E-CA3, a convolutional extension of the A3 anomaly-detection idea: a variational autoencoder reconstructs the input while an alarm network reads a stack of its layer activations and decides whether the sample is anomalous. The two networks are trained together on a single loss that adds the reconstruction error to a weighted classification loss, and for anomalous samples the reconstruction term is set to zero so the encoder can still adapt to the classification task. The authors claim this joint architecture is lightweight yet reaches or exceeds published baselines in AUC-ROC on image benchmarks (MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10) and on several tabular datasets (KDDcup99, Credit Card, CelebA, Census-Income, Bank Marketing, Thyroid). If the claim holds, one simple supervised architecture can serve anomaly detection across very different data types without problem-specific feature engineering.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the activation tensor stack: the target convolutional variational autoencoder's layer activations are concatenated along the channel dimension after being pooled to the smallest spatial size, forming a $k{+}1$-dimensional tensor that the alarm CNN classifies. The second load-bearing part is the joint loss of Eq. (2), which lets classification gradients flow back into the encoder while a hyperparameter $\gamma$ balances reconstruction fidelity against alarm accuracy. For tabular data, a learned soft-ordering linear layer (with ELU) reshapes the feature vector into a structured 2D tensor so the same 1D convolutions apply; the decoder learns the reverse transformation. These two mechanisms together let a single architecture handle images and tables and are what the experiments evaluate.

What would settle it

Reproduce the exact one-vs-all experiments of Table 1 with the same splits and the same $\gamma$ values; if MNIST mean AUC does not land near the reported 0.998-0.999 and CIFAR-10 near 0.917-0.919 with comparable variance, the claimed advantage does not replicate. The sharper test is to train a second version in which anomalous samples are withheld from the encoder entirely, the literal reading of Section 3.3, and compare: if performance drops, the reported results depend on exposing the encoder to anomalies rather than on activation-pattern analysis alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is empirical: jointly optimizing the target-network reconstruction and the alarm-network classification, with the reconstruction loss masked for anomalies, produces anomaly-detection scores that match or beat the original A3 and published baselines (MKD-AD, DSVDD, DASVDD, DevNet, MIX) on both images and tabular data. The architecture replaces the fully connected target and alarm networks of A3 with convolutional ones: the target is a convolutional variational autoencoder, and the alarm network is a CNN whose input is the channel-wise concatenation of the target's per-layer activations, pooled to a common spatial size. The combined objective is Eq. (2), $L(x,y,\hat{x},\hat{y}) = \mathrm{MSE}(x,\hat{x}) + \gamma \cdot \mathrm{BCE}(y,\hat{y})$, with $\gamma=1$ or $\gamma=10$ in the reported experiments. On MNIST the mean AUC reaches 0.9982-0.9986, on CIFAR-10 it reaches 0.917-0.919, and on the tabular KDDcup99 variants it reaches 0.999; the paper takes these results to show that a straightforward, parameter-sharing CNN pair is an effective and versatile anomaly detector.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a network trained only on normal samples produces activation patterns that are reliably different for anomalous inputs, and that this difference survives end-to-end training in which anomalous samples are passed through the encoder with their reconstruction loss set to zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported AUC-ROC values reproduce, a single convolutional architecture can replace separate pipelines for image and tabular anomaly detection, since the only data-type-specific part is the soft-ordering reshape.
  • Because the alarm reads pooled activations from all layers, the approach naturally extends to 3D data (video or volumetric images) by pooling 3D activation tensors, which the paper mentions as a possibility.
  • The $\gamma$ hyperparameter gives a direct trade-off: setting it higher biases the encoder toward features that help the alarm network, while lower values keep the target closer to a pure reconstruction model; the paper reports both $\gamma=1$ and $\gamma=10$ work similarly.
  • The low variance across 10 runs on most datasets suggests the method is stable under random initialization, which matters for deployment where retraining is frequent.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's Section 3.3 text says it avoids 'feeding the autoencoder with anomalous samples,' but the actual procedure feeds anomalies through the encoder and only zeroes their reconstruction loss; this discrepancy is never isolated, so the reader cannot tell from the paper whether anomaly exposure is essential to the reported gains.
  • Because the alarm network is supervised, the method needs labeled anomalous examples at training time; a direct comparison with unsupervised methods on the same benchmark would clarify how much of the advantage comes from this label access rather than from activation analysis.
  • A quick ablation experiment - train the same architecture with reconstruction loss active on anomalies, or with anomalies fully withheld from the encoder - would settle whether the joint loss or the masking choice drives performance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes E2E-ConvA3, an end-to-end convolutional extension of the A3 activation anomaly analysis method. The architecture combines a convolutional variational autoencoder as a target network and a CNN alarm network that classifies stacked convolutional activations; the total loss in Eq. (2) sums reconstruction MSE and binary cross-entropy weighted by gamma. For tabular data, a soft-ordering linear layer creates a pseudo-structure so that 1D convolutions can be applied. Experiments on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10 and several tabular datasets report AUC-ROC values that often exceed published baselines, with very high scores on image data. The authors argue that the joint end-to-end loss improves versatility and that the lightweight CNN design yields strong and consistent anomaly detection performance.

Significance. If the reported results held under a fair comparison, the paper would offer a simple, lightweight supervised anomaly detection architecture that works across image and tabular data, extending the A3 line of work. The use of convolutional activations with channel-wise concatenation and soft-ordering for tabular data is a sensible engineering contribution, and the paper is clearly written in its architectural description. However, the significance is conditional on resolving a serious evaluation issue: the method uses anomaly labels during training through the BCE term, while the main image baselines are unsupervised, and the target encoder is not actually trained only on normal data despite the stated A3 assumption. Because the empirical superiority claim depends on this comparison, the present evidence does not yet support the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (2)] The claim that the autoencoder is not fed anomalous samples is inaccurate as stated. Setting the reconstruction loss to zero for anomalous observations removes only the reconstruction gradient, but the BCE term depends on the alarm network's output, which is computed from encoder activations; therefore BCE gradients flow into the encoder for both normal and anomalous samples. The following sentence in Section 3.3 explicitly says the encoder can 'readjust its weights with regard to the classification task.' This means the target encoder is not trained only on normal data, so the A3 activation-anomaly assumption is violated during end-to-end training. Since Table 1 reports near-perfect image AUCs against unsupervised baselines, the gains may be driven by supervised label information reaching the encoder rather than by preserved activation patterns. The authors should isolate this path, for example by freezing the encoder after normal-only pretraining and training only the alarm network, or by blocking BCE gradients from reaching the encoder, and report both variants.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 4.2.1] The comparison on image datasets is not apples-to-apples. The baselines DSVDD, MKD-AD, and DASVDD are unsupervised one-class methods trained only on normal data, whereas E2E-ConvA3 uses anomaly labels during training through the BCE loss in Eq. (2). The large AUC differences, for example 0.998 vs. 0.948 mean on MNIST and 0.917 vs. 0.648 mean on CIFAR-10, may simply reflect access to labels rather than a better activation-anomaly mechanism. The paper should compare against supervised or semi-supervised anomaly detection baselines that also receive anomaly labels, or explicitly reposition the contribution as a supervised anomaly detection method and adjust the claims accordingly.
  3. [Section 5 and Tables 1-2] The claim of a 'best of both worlds' improvement from combining reconstruction loss and alarm classification loss is not supported by any ablation. The experiments only report gamma = 1 and gamma = 10; there is no gamma = 0 (alarm network only), no reconstruction-only variant, and no A3-style two-phase training with the same convolutional architecture. Without these conditions, the reader cannot tell whether the joint loss, the convolutional architecture, or simply the use of labels drives the reported results. Adding ablations and reporting the gamma sensitivity would directly test the paper's central architectural claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1.2 and Table 2] The soft-ordering split factor k and the full architectural hyperparameters (number of layers, kernel sizes, strides, latent dimension) are not specified, which makes reproduction difficult without code.
  2. [Table 2] For the tabular baselines, only point estimates are given for several methods (NN classifier, Isolation Forest, A3), while E2E-ConvA3 is reported with standard deviations; adding variance or confidence information for all methods would make the comparisons more informative.
  3. [Section 4.1.1] The text says CIFAR-10 contains 50,000 training images, but the standard split is 50,000 training and 10,000 test; the notation 'CIF AR-10' also contains a typo.
  4. [Section 3.3] The description of the gamma hyperparameter as 'the amount of information allowed to flow through one of the components relative to the other' is vague; a more precise statement that gamma trades reconstruction error against classification loss would be clearer.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including 'auxilliary', 'T able', 'perofrmance', and inconsistent use of 'CIFAR-10' vs. 'CIF AR-10'; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the proposed loss and evaluation are empirical and self-contained; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

This is an empirical engineering paper rather than a derivation. The central objective, Eq. (2), is an explicit weighted sum of MSE reconstruction loss and BCE classification loss, with gamma as a hyperparameter. The reported AUC values are measured on held-out test splits after training on separate train and validation splits; gamma is evaluated at two fixed values (1 and 10), not fitted to the test labels. The A3 activation-anomaly premise is inherited from Sperl, Schulze and Böttinger [1], which is external prior work by different authors, so there is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no uniqueness claim imported from the present authors' own prior work. The one notable issue is internal consistency rather than circularity: Section 3.3 states that zeroing the reconstruction loss on anomalies avoids feeding the autoencoder anomalous samples, but BCE gradients still flow into the encoder through the alarm network, so the target network is not trained solely on normal data. This is a validity threat to the claimed source of the image-domain gains, but it does not make any prediction reduce by construction to a fitted input, and therefore it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on (i) the A3 activation-distinguishability hypothesis inherited from [1], (ii) a heuristic that learned soft-ordering makes tabular data convolutional, and (iii) a joint training scheme whose stated alignment with A3 is questionable because anomalous samples are in fact passed through the encoder with classification gradients. All architecture and training details are undisclosed, so the reported numbers cannot be attributed to a specific model configuration.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma (loss weight) = 1 and 10
    Weights the classification loss relative to reconstruction loss in Equation (2); both values are reported, no tuning procedure described, and no validation-based selection is shown.
  • soft-ordering split factor k = not reported
    Number of parts the transformed tabular vector is split into before stacking into a 2D tensor for convolution (Section 3.2.2); never specified.
  • architecture hyperparameters = not reported
    Layer counts, filter sizes, channels, latent dimension, pooling choices for activation concatenation, optimizer, learning rate, epochs, batch size; all omitted, so the reported results depend on unspecified choices.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Activations of a model trained on normal data exhibit distinguishable patterns for anomalous examples (the A3 hypothesis).
    Adopted from [1] in Section 3.1; the method does not independently verify this premise and it underpins the entire alarm network concept.
  • ad hoc to paper Soft-ordering via a learned linear transformation creates a spatial structure in tabular data that makes 1D convolutions meaningful.
    Introduced in Section 3.2.2 using the trick from [37]; there is no theoretical or empirical justification that the learned ordering is semantically meaningful for convolution.
  • ad hoc to paper Joint end-to-end training with a combined loss is beneficial and does not break the A3 assumption of a normal-only target network.
    Section 3.3: reconstruction loss is set to zero for anomalous samples, but classification gradients still update the encoder, so the target network is effectively trained on anomalous data; the paper asserts alignment with A3 without supporting evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of End-to-End Convolutional Activation Anomaly Analysis for Anomaly Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FBSOI7NJ

@misc{pith2026241114509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: End-to-End Convolutional Activation Anomaly Analysis for Anomaly Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FBSOI7NJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14509}
}
abstract

We propose an End-to-end Convolutional Activation Anomaly Analysis (E2E-CA$^3$), which is a significant extension of A$^3$ anomaly detection approach proposed by Sperl, Schulze and B\"ottinger, both in terms of architecture and scope of application. In contrast to the original idea, we utilize a convolutional autoencoder as a target network, which allows for natural application of the method both to image and tabular data. The alarm network is also designed as a CNN, where the activations of convolutional layers from CAE are stacked together into $k+1-$dimensional tensor. Moreover, we combine the classification loss of the alarm network with the reconstruction error of the target CAE, as a "best of both worlds" approach, which greatly increases the versatility of the network. The evaluation shows that despite generally straightforward and lightweight architecture, it has a very promising anomaly detection performance on common datasets such as MNIST, CIFAR-10 and KDDcup99.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14509 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture diagram activations of the model trained solely on the data without anomalies will showcase distinguishable patterns when presented with an anomalous example - one which was not seen during the training phase. The patterns can be then understood by a secondary binary model trained to separate the observations based on the activa￾tions. To achieve this, we construct a network that comprises of two convol… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sperl, J.P

    P. Sperl, J.P. Schulze, K. Böttinger, Activation Anomaly Analysis,In: Hutter, F., Kersting, K., Lijffijt, J., Valera, I. (eds) Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. ECML PKDD 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science12458 (2021), Springer, Cham

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Chalapathy, S

    R. Chalapathy, S. Chawla, Deep Learning for Anomaly Detection: A Survey, arXiv:1901.03407 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    De Albuquerque Filho, L.C.P

    J.E. De Albuquerque Filho, L.C.P. Brandão, B.J. Torres Fernandes, A.M.A. Maciel, A Review of Neural Networks for Anomaly Detection, IEEE Access 10 (2022), 112342–112367, DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3216007

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    LeCun, C

    Y. LeCun, C. Cortes, MNIST handwritten digit database, http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/ (2010), accessed 2023-10-20

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Alex Krizhevsky, Learning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images, University of Toronto (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    H. Xiao, K. Rasul, R. Vollgraf, Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithms (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Credit Card Fraud Detection dataset, https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/mlg- ulb/creditcardfraud

    work page

  8. [8]

    Hettich, S.D

    S. Hettich, S.D. Bay, The UCI KDD Archive, http://kdd.ics.uci.edu (1999), Irvine, CA: Uni- versity of California, Department of Information and Computer Science

    work page 1999

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Liu, P. Luo, X. Wang, Xiaogang, X. Tang, Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wild,In: Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)(2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Census-Income (KDD), UCI Machine Learning Repository (2000), DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5N30T

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    S. Moro, P. Rita, P. Cortez, Bank Marketing,UCI Machine Learning Repository(2012), DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5K306. 8 A. KOZŁOWSKI, D. PONIKOWSKI, P. ŻUKIEWICZ, P. TW ARDOWSKI

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Ross Quinlan, Thyroid Disease, UCI Machine Learning Repository (1987), DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5D010

    1987 doi

  5. [13]

    Andrews, E

    J. Andrews, E. Morton, L. Griffin, Detecting anomalous data using auto-encoders,Interna- tional Journal of Machine Learning and Computing6 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Chakraborty, V

    D. Chakraborty, V. Narayanan, A. Ghosh, Integration of Deep Feature Extraction and Ensemble Learning for Outlier Detection, Pattern Recognition 89 (2019), DOI: 10.1016/j.patcog.2019.01.002

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Haozhen, J

    D. Haozhen, J. Cao, T. Wang, M. Deng, Z.-X. Yang, Multilayer one-class extreme learning machine, Neural Networks 115 (2019), DOI: 10.1016/j.neunet.2019.03.004

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    M.Sakurada, T.Yairi, AnomalyDetectionUsingAutoencoderswithNonlinearDimensionality Reduction (2014), DOI: 10.1145/2689746.2689747

    2014

  9. [17]

    C. Zhou, R. Paffenroth, Anomaly Detection with Robust Deep Autoencoders (2017), DOI: 10.1145/3097983.3098052

    2017

  10. [18]

    Yousefi-Azar, V

    M. Yousefi-Azar, V. Varadharajan, L. Hamey, U. Tupalula, Autoencoder-based feature learn- ing for cyber security applications (2017), DOI: 10.1109/IJCNN.2017.7966342

    2017

  11. [19]

    O. Aama, H. Tamukoh, Training Autoencoder using Three Different Reversed Color Models for Anomaly Detection, Journal of Robotics, Networking and Artificial Life7 (2020), DOI: 10.2991/jrnal.k.200512.008

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Albahar, M

    M. Albahar, M. Binsawad, Deep Autoencoders and Feedforward Networks Based on a New Regularization for Anomaly Detection, Security and Communication Networks (2020), 1–9, DOI: 10.1155/2020/7086367

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Chatterjee et al., Unsupervised reconstruction based anomaly detection using a Variational Auto Encoder (2021)

    S. Chatterjee et al., Unsupervised reconstruction based anomaly detection using a Variational Auto Encoder (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Krajsic, B

    P. Krajsic, B. Franczyk, Variational Autoencoder for Anomaly Detection in Event Data in Online Process Mining (2021), DOI: 10.5220/0010375905670574

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Z. Chunkai, et al., VESC: a new variational autoencoder based model for anomaly de- tection, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics14 (2022), 1–14, DOI: 10.1007/s13042-022-01657-w

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    X. Wang, S. Yiu, A multi-task learning model for malware classification with useful file access pattern from API call sequence (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    G. Pang, C. Shen, A. Hengel, Deep Anomaly Detection with Deviation Networks (2019), ISBN: 978-1-4503-6201-6, DOI: 10.1145/3292500.3330871

    2019

  18. [26]

    Salehi, N

    M. Salehi, N. Sadjadi, S. Baselizadeh, M.H. Rohban, H. Rabiee, Multiresolution Knowledge Distillation for Anomaly Detection (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Akcay, A

    S. Akcay, A. Atapour, T. Breckon, GANomaly: Semi-supervised Anomaly Detection via Ad- versarial Training (2019), ISBN: 978-3-030-20892-9, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-20893-6-39

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Schlegl, P

    T. Schlegl, P. Seeböck, S. Waldstein, U. Schmidt-Erfurth, G. Langs, Unsupervised Anomaly Detection with Generative Adversarial Networks to Guide Marker Discovery (2017), ISBN: 978-3-319-59049-3, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-59050-9-12

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Schlegl, P

    T. Schlegl, P. Seeböck, S. Waldstein, G. Langs, U. Schmidt-Erfurth, f-AnoGAN: Fast Unsu- pervised Anomaly Detection with Generative Adversarial Networks,Medical Image Analysis 54 (2019), DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2019.01.010

    2019 doi

  22. [31]

    Schulze, P

    J.P. Schulze, P. Sperl, A. Rădut,oiu, C. Sagebiel, K. Böttinger, R2-AD2: Detecting Anomalies by Analysing the Raw Gradient (2023), ISBN: 978-3-031-26386-6, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031- 26387-3-13

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    Schulze, P

    J.P. Schulze, P. Sperl, K. Böttinger, DA3G: Detecting Adversarial Attacks by Analysing Gradients (2021), ISBN: 978-3-030-88417-8, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-88418-5-27

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    Schulze, P

    J.P. Schulze, P. Sperl, K. Böttinger, Anomaly Detection by Recombining Gated Unsupervised Experts (2022), DOI: 10.1109/IJCNN55064.2022.9892807

    2022

  25. [34]

    H. Xu, Yi. Wang, Yo. Wang, Z. Wu, MIX: A Joint Learning Framework for Detecting Both Clustered and Scattered Outliers in Mixed-Type Data (2019), DOI: 10.1109/ICDM.2019.00182. END-TO-END CONVOLUTIONAL ACTIV ATION ANOMALY ANALYSIS 9

    2019

  26. [35]

    L. Ruff, R. Vandermeulen, N. Goernitz, L. Deecke, S.A. Siddiqui, A. Binder, E. Müller, M. Kloft, Deep One-Class Classification,In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning80 (2018), 4393–4402, PMLR

    2018

  27. [36]

    Hojjati, N

    H. Hojjati, N. Armanfard, DASVDD: Deep Autoencoding Support Vector Data Descriptor for Anomaly Detection,IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering(2023), ISSN: 2326-3865, DOI: 10.1109/tkde.2023.3328882, IEEE

    2023

  28. [37]

    Shwartz-Ziv, A

    R. Shwartz-Ziv, A. Armon, Tabular data: Deep learning is not all you need,Information Fusion 81 (2022), 84–90, ISSN: 1566-2535, DOI: 10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.011. * Corresponding author: p.twardowski.7@gmail.com

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.