Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Graph Evidential Learning for Anomaly Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that scoring graph nodes by reconstruction uncertainty, derived from evidential distributions, beats scoring them by reconstruction error alone.

desk verdict GEL is a clean evidential-learning adaptation for graph anomaly detection with a solid experimental package, but the paper's central claim—that uncertainty, not reconstruction error, drives the gains—is not actually tested by its ablations. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00594 v1 pith:OVCB2EM5 submitted 2025-05-31 cs.LG cs.AI

Chunyu Wei , Wenji Hu , Xingjia Hao , Yunhai Wang , Yueguo Chen , Bing Bai , Fei Wang This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords graphanomalydetectionevidentiallearninguncertaintyquantificationautoencoderneuralnetworksNormalInverse-GammadistributionBetareconstructionerror
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

This paper claims that unsupervised graph anomaly detection should stop scoring nodes by how badly they reconstruct and instead score them by how uncertain the reconstruction is. It proposes Graph Evidential Learning (GEL), which wraps the feature and topology decoders of a graph autoencoder in higher-order evidential distributions—a Normal Inverse-Gamma for continuous features and a Beta for discrete edges—so that every reconstruction carries two uncertainties: graph uncertainty from conflicting evidence and reconstruction uncertainty from lack of evidence. On five public graphs and the million-node DGraphFin graph, GEL reports state-of-the-art AUC and Recall@K and degrades more slowly than baselines when features are nosified or edges are dropped. The payoff, if true, is that anomaly detectors become less brittle to noise and less prone to overfitting anomalies into normal reconstructions.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the higher-order evidential distribution used as a decoder. For node features, a Normal Inverse-Gamma (NIG) distribution places a Gaussian prior on the mean and an Inverse-Gamma prior on the variance, yielding reconstruction uncertainty $U_{reconst}^f = \frac{\beta}{\nu(\alpha-1)}$ and graph uncertainty $U_{graph}^f = \frac{\beta}{\alpha-1}$. For topology, a Beta distribution over edge probability with strength $S_{ij} = \varepsilon_{ij} + \bar{\varepsilon}_{ij}$ yields reconstruction uncertainty $U_{reconst}^t = 1/S_{ij}$ and a graph uncertainty based on the balance of supporting and opposing belief masses. The anomaly score defined in Section 4.4 combines these four uncertainty terms with feature and topology reconstruction error, so the same learned evidence drives both the reconstruction and the uncertainty attached to it.

What would settle it

Keep the GEL reconstruction backbone fixed and set the uncertainty weights in the Section 4.4 anomaly score to zero, scoring purely by reconstruction error; if AUC on the five datasets stays essentially unchanged, the claim that uncertainty adds signal is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that shifting graph anomaly detection from reconstruction error to uncertainty modeling improves both accuracy and robustness. GEL models the reconstruction of node features and topology as the expected values of two higher-order evidential distributions, a Normal Inverse-Gamma for features and a Beta for edges, trained by a multi-task loss that maximizes reconstruction fit while suppressing evidence where the model errs. Anomaly scores combine reconstruction error with four evidential terms: feature and topology reconstruction uncertainty plus feature and topology graph uncertainty. Experiments report state-of-the-art results on four of the five datasets and on DGraphFin, and the Section 4.5 Cora analysis shows that anomalous classes receive higher normalized uncertainty than normal classes, in contrast to the GCNAE baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the evidential uncertainty terms reveal anomalies that reconstruction error misses, rather than simply re-encoding the same information that the reconstruction error already contains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Uncertainty-based scoring beats reconstruction-error scoring on attributed graphs with low anomaly rates, where GEL reports its largest gains (Reddit and Books).
  • GEL's performance degrades more gently than GAE baselines as feature noise and edge dropout increase, so evidential uncertainty is claimed to be the source of that robustness.
  • The framework scales to a 3.7-million-node graph with about 17% more training time than GAD-NR, making the uncertainty machinery cheap enough for large-scale deployment.
  • Because the Cora experiment shows anomalous classes getting higher normalized uncertainty than normal classes, the uncertainty terms themselves carry anomaly signal, not just the reconstruction error.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A sharper ablation than the paper's modality removal would keep the same reconstruction backbone and zero out only the four uncertainty terms in the anomaly score; if accuracy holds, the conceptual claim would be weakened to 'a better graph autoencoder,' and that test is not reported in the paper.
  • Since the optimal balance between graph and reconstruction uncertainty varies by dataset, an adaptive or learned weighting of the four terms could extend GEL without new labeled data.
  • The topology graph-uncertainty term measures conflict between supporting and opposing edge evidence, so it might stand alone as a structural anomaly score and connect to local evidence-conflict measures in other graph tasks.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Graph Evidential Learning (GEL), an unsupervised graph anomaly detection method. GEL replaces the point-estimate decoders of a graph autoencoder with evidential heads: a Normal-Inverse-Gamma (NIG) head for continuous node features and a Beta head for binary topology. The learned hyperparameters yield two uncertainty measures per modality (graph uncertainty and reconstruction uncertainty), and the anomaly score in Section 4.4 is a weighted sum of the four uncertainty terms plus feature and topology reconstruction errors. The authors report state-of-the-art AUC and Recall@K on four of five benchmark datasets, a robustness study under feature noise and edge dropout, and a large-scale DGraphFin experiment.

Significance. If the uncertainty terms indeed carry anomaly signal beyond reconstruction error, GEL would be a practical contribution: it obtains uncertainty in a single forward pass, adds negligible overhead to a standard GAE, and its code is released. The robustness experiments (Figure 6) and the DGraphFin result are useful evidence of scalability. However, the central conceptual claim, that shifting from reconstruction error to uncertainty drives the gains, is not isolated by any experiment. The uncertainty terms are functions of the same evidence parameters that define the reconstruction, and all ablations remove whole modalities or change the model, so the added value of the uncertainty terms remains unverified. The significance of the paper therefore hinges on a fixed-backbone uncertainty on/off ablation that is currently missing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3 and Section 4.5] The experiments do not isolate the uncertainty terms. The ablation variants 'w/o feature' and 'w/o topology' remove the entire modality, dropping that modality's reconstruction-error term from the anomaly score along with its uncertainty terms; the performance drop could therefore be due to loss of reconstruction signal alone. The 'hypothesis' experiment in Section 4.5 compares GEL with GCNAE, which differs in architecture, loss, and training perturbations, so it cannot attribute the improvement to uncertainty. The central claim that uncertainty, not reconstruction error, drives GEL's performance and robustness requires a fixed-backbone ablation: train the GEL evidential model once, then score anomalies with (a) reconstruction error only (lambda_g=lambda_r=0), (b) uncertainty terms only (dropping the reconstruction-error terms), and (c) the full GEL score, and report AUC/Recall@K and the robustness curves.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eq. (8), and the anomaly score in Section 4.4] The uncertainty terms are deterministic functions of the same evidence parameters that define the reconstruction. For topology, using S=epsilon+epsilon_bar, A_hat=epsilon/S, b=(epsilon-1)/S, b_bar=(epsilon_bar-1)/S, Eq. (8) reduces to U_t_graph = 1 - 2/S - |2*A_hat - 1|, and U_t_reconst = 1/S; both are functions of A_hat (the edge reconstruction probability) and total evidence S. For features, U_f_graph = beta/(alpha-1) and U_f_reconst = beta/(nu*(alpha-1)) are extra scalars produced by the same head that outputs gamma = X_hat. Thus the only information the uncertainty terms carry beyond the reconstruction predictions is a small set of evidence-strength scalars. Because the anomaly score in Section 4.4 always sums these terms with reconstruction error, the paper does not demonstrate that these scalars contain anomaly signal. Please add a statistical comparison (e.g., correlation with anomaly labels) or an ablation that replaces the uncertainty terms with constants or shuffled values while keeping reconstruction error fixed, to show they contribute beyond reconstruction error.
  3. [Section 5.2, Table 1] The reported 'average AUC improvement of 4.64%' over the best baseline cannot be reproduced from Table 1. In Table 1, GEL is below the best baseline on Weibo (G3AD 95.1 vs. GEL 89.3); on Reddit, Disney, Books, and Enron the margins over the best baseline are approximately 0.7, 1.5, 5.1, and 1.5 AUC points, respectively, which average to about 2.2 points (or about 1.7 if Weibo is counted as a negative margin). Please state the exact baseline and computation underlying the 4.64% figure, or correct the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.4] The anomaly score equation is not numbered, although the discussion in Section 4.5 refers to the score in a way that suggests an equation number; please number it consistently and update any cross-references.
  2. [Figure 5] The caption of Figure 5 appears garbled ('Impact of removing Different Modality.'); please rewrite it to clearly describe the ablation variants and the plotted metric.
  3. [Appendix D] The appendix title contains a typo: 'Netowrk Implemetation' should be 'Network Implementation'.
  4. [Section 4.3.4] There is a typo in 'the total loss defined as::' (double colon); please correct it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GEL's anomaly scores are constructed from unsupervised reconstructions and are evaluated on external labels; the uncertainty terms are internal model outputs, not fitted to the target labels.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the model is trained with reconstruction losses (Eqs. 12–16) without using anomaly labels, and the anomaly score (Eq. 17) is a fixed combination of reconstruction errors and uncertainty terms computed from the same evidential heads. No step derives the final prediction from labels or from a self-cited result. The reviewer's concern about the Section 5.3 ablation (w/o feature, w/o topology removes whole modalities, so the incremental value of the uncertainty terms is not isolated) is a real experimental limitation, and Eq. 8 indeed reduces to 1−2/S−|2Â−1| so the topology uncertainties are deterministic functions of the fitted Beta parameters; however, this is an internal dependency, not a circular reduction of the claimed prediction to its inputs. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the evidential-learning references [2, 3, 59] are standard prior work by other authors. Therefore no circular step is exhibited, and the honest finding is score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model relies on standard evidential-learning machinery from prior work, on distributional assumptions about features and edges, and on several hand-tuned weights. The central claimed benefit depends on the assumption that the uncertainty scores add information beyond reconstruction error, which is not directly tested.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_f, lambda_t (modality weights) = Weibo: 0.8/0.2; Reddit: 0.6/0.4; not stated for Disney/Books/Enron
    Weights in the anomaly score (Eq 17). Tuned per dataset in Section 5.4.3; the main results may use dataset-specific values, but the full configuration is not reported.
  • lambda_g, lambda_r (uncertainty-type weights) = Weibo: 0.3/0.7; Reddit: 0.5/0.5; not stated for other datasets
    Weights balancing graph vs reconstruction uncertainty in Eq 17. Selected by grid search in Section 5.4.2.
  • lambda_1, lambda_3 (training loss weights) = Weibo optimal 0.7/0.3, with lambda_2=1-lambda_1 and lambda_4=1-lambda_3
    Weights in the multi-task loss Eq 16; tuned on Weibo and applied to other datasets without a stated per-dataset configuration.
  • feature noise sigma = not reported
    Gaussian noise added to node features in Section 4.3.1; the magnitude is omitted.
  • edge dropout rate p = not reported
    Dropout probability for adjacency matrix perturbation in Section 4.3.1; omitted.
  • latent dimension d' = not reported per dataset
    Studied in Section 5.4.1; no final default value is given for the five benchmark datasets.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Node features are Gaussian distributed with unknown mean and variance, with a Normal-Inverse-Gamma conjugate prior placed on these parameters.
    Section 4.1.1; this is a modeling assumption about the data-generating process of features.
  • domain assumption The posterior over (mu, sigma^2) factorizes as q(mu) q(sigma^2) to allow tractable NIG inference.
    Section 4.1.1, citing Parisi and Shankar; this factorization is an approximation and could bias uncertainty estimates.
  • domain assumption Edge existence is Bernoulli distributed and the unknown edge probability follows a Beta prior parameterized by evidence.
    Section 4.1.2; the subjective logic construction assumes Beta-distributed edge probabilities.
  • domain assumption Anomalies are nodes with high reconstruction error or high uncertainty; normal nodes are well reconstructed and have low uncertainty.
    The central hypothesis of reconstruction-based GAD, restated in Eq 17. If anomalies can be reconstructed well, the scoring premise fails.
  • ad hoc to paper The graph uncertainty formula Eq 8 accurately captures inherent structural ambiguity for anomaly detection.
    U_t_graph is hand-defined as a balance of belief masses; no derivation from evidential theory or external validation is provided.
invented entities (3)
  • Graph uncertainty (feature modality)
    purpose: Scores nodes by beta/(alpha-1), intended to capture inherent randomness in node features.
    A constructed scalar derived from NIG parameters; no independent falsifiable handle beyond its use in the anomaly score.
  • Graph uncertainty (topology modality)
    purpose: Scores nodes by the balance of evidence for and against incident edges, Eq 8.
    A hand-crafted measure; the paper does not show it corresponds to any externally measurable quantity.
  • Reconstruction uncertainty
    purpose: Represents model confidence in reconstruction, defined as beta/(nu(alpha-1)) for features and 1/S for edges.
    Derived from the same fitted evidence parameters; not an independent measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph Evidential Learning for Anomaly Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OVCB2EM5

@misc{pith2026250600594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph Evidential Learning for Anomaly Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OVCB2EM5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00594}
}
read the original abstract

Graph anomaly detection faces significant challenges due to the scarcity of reliable anomaly-labeled datasets, driving the development of unsupervised methods. Graph autoencoders (GAEs) have emerged as a dominant approach by reconstructing graph structures and node features while deriving anomaly scores from reconstruction errors. However, relying solely on reconstruction error for anomaly detection has limitations, as it increases the sensitivity to noise and overfitting. To address these issues, we propose Graph Evidential Learning (GEL), a probabilistic framework that redefines the reconstruction process through evidential learning. By modeling node features and graph topology using evidential distributions, GEL quantifies two types of uncertainty: graph uncertainty and reconstruction uncertainty, incorporating them into the anomaly scoring mechanism. Extensive experiments demonstrate that GEL achieves state-of-the-art performance while maintaining high robustness against noise and structural perturbations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00594 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Introducing Uncertainty for anomaly detection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of the GEL framework. GEL models high-order evidential distribution to calculate feature uncertainty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heatmaps of average normalized anomaly scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of hidden layer dimension. Enron Books Disney Reddit Weibo 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 AUC (%) w/o topology w/o feature GEL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Impact of removing Different Modality. structural information in graph data. By quantifying uncertainty in graph reconstruction, GEL uncovers hidden anomalous pat￾terns and achieves robust anomaly detection. • GEL shows substantial improvements on the Reddit and Books …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Changes of AUC and Recall@K as the level of data disturbance increases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impacts of weights on diverse uncertainty. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zemel, and John P

    Taiga Abe, Estefany Kelly Buchanan, Geoff Pleiss, Richard S. Zemel, and John P. Cunningham. 2022. Deep Ensembles Work, But Are They Necessary?. InAd- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, No- vember 28 - December 9, 2022, Sanmi Koyejo, S. Moh...

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Eduardo Aguilar, Bogdan Raducanu, Petia Radeva, and Joost van de Weijer

    work page

  3. [3]

    Alexander Amini, Wilko Schwarting, Ava Soleimany, and Daniela Rus. 2020. Deep evidential regression.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 14927–14937

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Lokesh, and M

    Sambaran Bandyopadhyay, N. Lokesh, and M. Narasimha Murty. 2019. Outlier Aware Network Embedding for Attributed Networks. InThe Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Appli- cations of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019, The Ninth AAAI Symposium KDD ’25, August 3–7, 2025, Toronto, ON, Can...

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Narasimha Murty

    Sambaran Bandyopadhyay, Lokesh N, Saley Vishal Vivek, and M. Narasimha Murty. 2020. Outlier Resistant Unsupervised Deep Architectures for Attributed Network Embedding. InWSDM ’20: The Thirteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Houston, TX, USA, February 3-7, 2020, James Caverlee, Xia (Ben) Hu, Mounia Lalmas, and Wei Wang (Eds.)...

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Yuanchen Bei, Sheng Zhou, Jinke Shi, Yao Ma, Haishuai Wang, and Jiajun Bu. 2024. Guarding Graph Neural Networks for Unsupervised Graph Anomaly Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16366(2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Txus Blasco, J Salvador Sánchez, and Vicente García. 2024. A survey on un- certainty quantification in deep learning for financial time series prediction. Neurocomputing576 (2024), 127339

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Charles Blundell, Julien Cornebise, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Daan Wierstra. 2015. Weight uncertainty in neural network. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1613–1622

    work page 2015

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Breunig, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Raymond T

    Markus M. Breunig, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Raymond T. Ng, and Jörg Sander. 2000. LOF: Identifying Density-Based Local Outliers. InProceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, May 16-18, 2000, Dallas, Texas, USA, Weidong Chen, Jeffrey F. Naught...

    2000

  2. [10]

    Varun Chandola, Arindam Banerjee, and Vipin Kumar. 2009. Anomaly detection: A survey.ACM Comput. Surv.41, 3 (2009), 15:1–15:58

    2009

  3. [11]

    Bertrand Charpentier, Daniel Zügner, and Stephan Günnemann. 2020. Posterior network: Uncertainty estimation without ood samples via density-based pseudo- counts.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 1356–1367

    2020

  4. [12]

    Tsourakakis

    Tianyi Chen and Charalampos E. Tsourakakis. 2022. AntiBenford Subgraphs: Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in Financial Networks. InKDD ’22: The 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA, August 14 - 18, 2022, Aidong Zhang and Huzefa R...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Zhenxing Chen, Bo Liu, Meiqing Wang, Peng Dai, Jun Lv, and Liefeng Bo. 2020. Generative Adversarial Attributed Network Anomaly Detection. InCIKM ’20: The 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Virtual Event, Ireland, October 19-23, 2020, Mat...

    2020

  6. [14]

    Peng Cui and Jinjia Wang. 2022. Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection based on deep learning: A review.Electronics11, 21 (2022), 3500

    2022

  7. [15]

    Dempster

    Arthur P. Dempster. 2008. A Generalization of Bayesian Inference. InClassic Works of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions, Ronald R. Yager and Liping Liu (Eds.). Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Vol. 219. Springer, 73–104

    2008

  8. [16]

    Ping Deng and Yong Huang. 2025. Edge-featured multi-hop attention graph neural network for intrusion detection system.Comput. Secur.148 (2025), 104132

    2025

  9. [17]

    Persi Diaconis and Donald Ylvisaker. 1979. Conjugate priors for exponential families.The Annals of statistics(1979), 269–281

    1979

  10. [18]

    Kaize Ding, Jundong Li, Rohit Bhanushali, and Huan Liu. 2019. Deep Anomaly Detection on Attributed Networks. InProceedings of the 2019 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, SDM 2019, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 2-4, 2019, Tanya Y. Berger-Wolf and Nitesh V. Chawla (Ed...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Kaize Ding, Jundong Li, Rohit Bhanushali, and Huan Liu. 2019. Deep anomaly detection on attributed networks. InProceedings of the 2019 SIAM international conference on data mining. SIAM, 594–602

    2019

  12. [20]

    Zhiguo Ding and Minrui Fei. 2013. An anomaly detection approach based on iso- lation forest algorithm for streaming data using sliding window.IFAC Proceedings Volumes46, 20 (2013), 12–17

    2013

  13. [21]

    Haoyi Fan, Fengbin Zhang, and Zuoyong Li. 2020. Anomalydae: Dual Autoen- coder for Anomaly Detection on Attributed Networks. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, ICASSP 2020, Barcelona, Spain, May 4-8, 2020. IEEE, 5685–5689

    2020

  14. [22]

    Vincent Fortuin, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, Mark van der Wilk, and Laurence Aitchi- son. 2021. BNNpriors: A library for Bayesian neural network inference with different prior distributions.Software Impacts9 (2021), 100079

    2021

  15. [23]

    Yarin Gal and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2015. Dropout as a Bayesian approximation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02157(2015)

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Grekov, Aleksey A

    Aleksandr N. Grekov, Aleksey A. Kabanov, Elena V. Vyshkvarkova, and Valeriy V. Trusevich. 2023. Anomaly Detection in Biological Early Warning Systems Using Unsupervised Machine Learning.Sensors23, 5 (2023), 2687

    2023

  17. [25]

    Aditya Grover and Jure Leskovec. 2016. node2vec: Scalable Feature Learning for Networks. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA, August 13-17, 2016, Balaji Krishnapuram, Mohak Shah, Alexander...

    2016

  18. [26]

    Andrew Gadsden, and John Yawney

    Waleed Hilal, S. Andrew Gadsden, and John Yawney. 2022. Financial Fraud: A Review of Anomaly Detection Techniques and Recent Advances.Expert Syst. Appl.193 (2022), 116429

    2022

  19. [27]

    Weiming Hu, Jun Gao, Bing Li, Ou Wu, Junping Du, and Stephen J. Maybank. 2020. Anomaly Detection Using Local Kernel Density Estimation and Context-Based Regression.IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.32, 2 (2020), 218–233

    2020

  20. [28]

    Chao Huang, Chengliang Liu, Zheng Zhang, Zhihao Wu, Jie Wen, Qiuping Jiang, and Yong Xu. 2022. Pixel-Level Anomaly Detection via Uncertainty-aware Pro- totypical Transformer. InMM ’22: The 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Lisboa, Portugal, October 10 - 14, 2022...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Ling Huang, XuanLong Nguyen, Minos Garofalakis, Michael Jordan, Anthony Joseph, and Nina Taft. 2006. In-network PCA and anomaly detection.Advances in neural information processing systems19 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    2016.Subjective Logic - A Formalism for Reasoning Under Uncer- tainty

    Audun Jøsang. 2016.Subjective Logic - A Formalism for Reasoning Under Uncer- tainty. Springer

    2016

  23. [31]

    Hwan Kim, Byung Suk Lee, Won-Yong Shin, and Sungsu Lim. 2022. Graph anomaly detection with graph neural networks: Current status and challenges. IEEE Access10 (2022), 111820–111829

    2022

  24. [32]

    Sunwoo Kim, Soo Yong Lee, Fanchen Bu, Shinhwan Kang, Kyungho Kim, Jaemin Yoo, and Kijung Shin. 2024. Rethinking reconstruction-based graph-level anomaly detection: Limitations and a simple remedy.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (2024), 95931–95962

    2024

  25. [34]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Variational graph auto-encoders.arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07308(2016)

    2016 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net

    2017

  27. [36]

    Atsutoshi Kumagai, Tomoharu Iwata, and Yasuhiro Fujiwara. 2021. Semi- supervised anomaly detection on attributed graphs. In2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 1–8

    2021

  28. [37]

    Srijan Kumar, Xikun Zhang, and Jure Leskovec. 2019. Predicting Dynamic Em- bedding Trajectory in Temporal Interaction Networks. InProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD 2019, Anchorage, AK, USA, August 4-8, 2019, A...

    2019

  29. [38]

    Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. 2017. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles.Advances in neural information processing systems30 (2017)

    2017

  30. [39]

    Jundong Li, Harsh Dani, Xia Hu, and Huan Liu. 2017. Radar: Residual Analysis for Anomaly Detection in Attributed Networks. InProceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017, Melbourne, Australia, August 19-25, 2017, Carles ...

    2017

  31. [40]

    Longyuan Li, Junchi Yan, Haiyang Wang, and Yaohui Jin. 2020. Anomaly detection of time series with smoothness-inducing sequential variational auto-encoder. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems32, 3 (2020), 1177–1191

    2020

  32. [41]

    Yang Li, Binxing Fang, Li Guo, and You Chen. 2007. Network anomaly detection based on TCM-KNN algorithm. InProceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, ASIACCS 2007, Singapore, March 20-22, 2007, Feng Bao and Steven Miller (Eds.)....

    2007

  33. [42]

    Chen, Zhihao Jia, and Philip S

    Kay Liu, Yingtong Dou, Yue Zhao, Xueying Ding, Xiyang Hu, Ruitong Zhang, Kaize Ding, Canyu Chen, Hao Peng, Kai Shu, Lichao Sun, Jundong Li, George H. Chen, Zhihao Jia, and Philip S. Yu. 2022. BOND: Benchmarking Unsupervised Outlier Node Detection on Static Attributed Graphs. I...

    2022

  34. [43]

    Yuanye Liu, Zheyao Gao, Nannan Shi, Fuping Wu, Yuxin Shi, Qingchao Chen, and Xiahai Zhuang. 2024. MERIT: Multi-view Evidential learning for Reliable and Interpretable liver fibrosis sTaging.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02918(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Zhiyuan Liu, Chunjie Cao, and Jingzhang Sun. 2022. Mul-gad: a semi-supervised graph anomaly detection framework via aggregating multi-view information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05478(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Xiaoxiao Ma, Jia Wu, Shan Xue, Jian Yang, Chuan Zhou, Quan Z Sheng, Hui Xiong, and Leman Akoglu. 2021. A comprehensive survey on graph anomaly detection with deep learning.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering35, 12 (2021), 12012–12038

    2021

  37. [46]

    Milad Memarzadeh, Bryan Matthews, and Ilya Avrekh. 2020. Unsupervised anomaly detection in flight data using convolutional variational auto-encoder. Aerospace7, 8 (2020), 115

    2020

  38. [47]

    Rhiannon Michelmore, Marta Kwiatkowska, and Yarin Gal. 2018. Evaluating uncertainty quantification in end-to-end autonomous driving control.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.06817(2018)

    2018 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Emmanuel Müller, Patricia Iglesias Sánchez, Yvonne Mülle, and Klemens Böhm

  40. [49]

    Anvardh Nanduri and Lance Sherry. 2016. Anomaly detection in aircraft data using Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN). In2016 Integrated Communications Navigation and Surveillance (ICNS). Ieee, 5C2–1

    2016

  41. [50]

    Venkat Nemani, Luca Biggio, Xun Huan, Zhen Hu, Olga Fink, Anh Tran, Yan Wang, Xiaoge Zhang, and Chao Hu. 2023. Uncertainty quantification in machine learning for engineering design and health prognostics: A tutorial.Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing205 (2023), 110796

    2023

  42. [51]

    Guansong Pang, Chunhua Shen, Longbing Cao, and Anton Van Den Hengel. 2021. Deep learning for anomaly detection: A review.ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 54, 2 (2021), 1–38

    2021

  43. [52]

    Giorgio Parisi and Ramamurti Shankar. 1988. Statistical field theory. (1988)

    1988

  44. [53]

    Zhen Peng, Minnan Luo, Jundong Li, Huan Liu, and Qinghua Zheng. 2018. ANOMALOUS: A Joint Modeling Approach for Anomaly Detection on Attributed Networks. InProceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2018, July 13-19, 2018,...

    2018

  45. [54]

    Yu Rong, Wenbing Huang, Tingyang Xu, and Junzhou Huang. 2020. DropEdge: Towards Deep Graph Convolutional Networks on Node Classification. In8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net

    2020

  46. [55]

    Amit Roy, Juan Shu, Jia Li, Carl Yang, Olivier Elshocht, Jeroen Smeets, and Pan Li. 2024. GAD-NR: Graph Anomaly Detection via Neighborhood Reconstruction. InProceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM 2024, Merida, Mexico, March 4-8...

    2024

  47. [56]

    Mayu Sakurada and Takehisa Yairi. 2014. Anomaly Detection Using Autoencoders with Nonlinear Dimensionality Reduction. InProceedings of the MLSDA 2014 2nd Workshop on Machine Learning for Sensory Data Analysis, Gold Coast, Australia, QLD, Australia, December 2, 2014, Ashfaqur R...

    2014

  48. [57]

    Patricia Iglesias Sánchez, Emmanuel Müller, Fabian Laforet, Fabian Keller, and Klemens Böhm. 2013. Statistical Selection of Congruent Subspaces for Mining Attributed Graphs. In2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Data Mining, Dallas, TX, USA, December 7-10, 2013, Hui Xio...

    2013

  49. [58]

    David Savage, Xiuzhen Zhang, Xinghuo Yu, Pauline Lienhua Chou, and Qingmai Wang. 2016. Anomaly detection in online social networks.CoRRabs/1608.00301 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Murat Sensoy, Lance Kaplan, and Melih Kandemir. 2018. Evidential deep learning to quantify classification uncertainty.Advances in neural information processing systems31 (2018)

    2018

  51. [60]

    Cengiz Togay, Ahmet Kasif, Cagatay Catal, and Bedir Tekinerdogan. 2022. A Firewall Policy Anomaly Detection Framework for Reliable Network Security. IEEE Trans. Reliab.71, 1 (2022), 339–347

    2022

  52. [61]

    Xiaowei Xu, Nurcan Yuruk, Zhidan Feng, and Thomas A. J. Schweiger. 2007. SCAN: a structural clustering algorithm for networks. InProceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Jose, California, USA, August 12-15, 2007, P...

    2007

  53. [62]

    Zhiming Xu, Xiao Huang, Yue Zhao, Yushun Dong, and Jundong Li. 2022. Con- trastive Attributed Network Anomaly Detection with Data Augmentation. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining - 26th Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2022, Chengdu, China, May 16-19, 2022, Proce...

    2022

  54. [63]

    Bang Xiang Yong and Alexandra Brintrup. 2022. Bayesian autoencoders with uncertainty quantification: Towards trustworthy anomaly detection.Expert Syst. Appl.209 (2022), 118196

    2022

  55. [64]

    Xu Yuan, Na Zhou, Shuo Yu, Huafei Huang, Zhikui Chen, and Feng Xia. 2021. Higher-order Structure Based Anomaly Detection on Attributed Networks. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Orlando, FL, USA, December 15-18, 2021, Yixin Chen, Heiko Ludwig, Yich...

    2021

  56. [65]

    Zirui Yuan, Minglai Shao, and Qiben Yan. 2023. Motif-Level Anomaly Detection in Dynamic Graphs.IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur.18 (2023), 2870–2882

    2023

  57. [66]

    Qingfeng Zeng, Li Lin, Rui Jiang, Weiyu Huang, and Dijia Lin. 2025. NNEnsLeG: A novel approach for e-commerce payment fraud detection using ensemble learning and neural networks.Inf. Process. Manag.62, 1 (2025), 103916

    2025

  58. [67]

    Lingxiao Zhao and Leman Akoglu. 2023. On using classification datasets to evaluate graph outlier detection: Peculiar observations and new insights.Big Data11, 3 (2023), 151–180

    2023

  59. [68]

    Tong Zhao, Chuchen Deng, Kaifeng Yu, Tianwen Jiang, Daheng Wang, and Meng Jiang. 2020. Error-Bounded Graph Anomaly Loss for GNNs. InCIKM ’20: The 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Virtual Event, Ireland, October 19-23, 2020, Mathieu d’A...

    2020

  60. [69]

    Birge, Yifang Zhang, and Jingrui He

    Lecheng Zheng, John R. Birge, Yifang Zhang, and Jingrui He. 2024. Towards Multi- view Graph Anomaly Detection with Similarity-Guided Contrastive Clustering. CoRRabs/2409.09770 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Li Zheng, Zhenpeng Li, Jian Li, Zhao Li, and Jun Gao. 2019. AddGraph: Anomaly Detection in Dynamic Graph Using Attention-based Temporal GCN.. InIJCAI, Vol. 3. 7

    2019

  62. [71]

    √︂ 1 2𝜋𝜎 2 exp −(X𝑖ℎ−𝜇) 2 2𝜎2 #

    Panpan Zheng, Shuhan Yuan, Xintao Wu, Jun Li, and Aidong Lu. 2019. One-Class Adversarial Nets for Fraud Detection. InThe Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, The Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artifi- cial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2...

    2019

  63. [2013]

    Ranking outlier nodes in subspaces of attributed graphs. InWorkshops Proceedings of the 29th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2013, Brisbane, Australia, April 8-12, 2013, Chee Yong Chan, Jiaheng Lu, Kjetil Graph Evidential Learning for Anomaly Detection ...

    2013

  64. [2023]

    In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023 - Workshops, Paris, France, October 2-6, 2023

    Continual Evidential Deep Learning for Out-of-Distribution Detection. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023 - Workshops, Paris, France, October 2-6, 2023. IEEE, 3436–3446

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.