Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Deep Graph Anomaly Detection: A Survey and New Perspectives

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.09957 v2 pith:7NJFGVYI submitted 2024-09-16 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords graphdeepanomalyexistingmethodsperspectivesapproacheschallenges
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Graph anomaly detection (GAD), which aims to identify unusual graph instances (nodes, edges, subgraphs, or graphs), has attracted increasing attention in recent years due to its significance in a wide range of applications. Deep learning approaches, graph neural networks (GNNs) in particular, have been emerging as a promising paradigm for GAD, owing to its strong capability in capturing complex structure and/or node attributes in graph data. Considering the large number of methods proposed for GNN-based GAD, it is of paramount importance to summarize the methodologies and findings in the existing GAD studies, so that we can pinpoint effective model designs for tackling open GAD problems. To this end, in this work we aim to present a comprehensive review of deep learning approaches for GAD. Existing GAD surveys are focused on task-specific discussions, making it difficult to understand the technical insights of existing methods and their limitations in addressing some unique challenges in GAD. To fill this gap, we first discuss the problem complexities and their resulting challenges in GAD, and then provide a systematic review of current deep GAD methods from three novel perspectives of methodology, including GNN backbone design, proxy task design for GAD, and graph anomaly measures. To deepen the discussions, we further propose a taxonomy of 13 fine-grained method categories under these three perspectives to provide more in-depth insights into the model designs and their capabilities. To facilitate the experiments and validation, we also summarize a collection of widely-used GAD datasets and empirical comparison. We further discuss multiple open problems to inspire more future high-quality research. A continuously updated repository for datasets, links to the codes of algorithms, and empirical comparison is available at https://github.com/mala-lab/Awesome-Deep-Graph-Anomaly-Detection.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Learnable Kernel Density Estimation for Graphs and Its Application to Graph-Level Anomaly Detection

    cs.LG 2025-05 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    LGKDE learns a maximum mean discrepancy based graph metric and fits a multi-scale kernel density estimator, using perturbed graphs as contrastive targets for graph-level anomaly detection.

  2. Partition-wise Graph Filtering: A Unified Perspective Through the Lens of Graph Coarsening

    cs.LG 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A partition-wise graph filtering method, CPF, unifies graph-wise and node-wise filtering and achieves state-of-the-art node classification on 13 benchmark graphs and anomaly detection on 3 datasets.

  3. AnomalyGFM: Graph Foundation Model for Zero/Few-shot Anomaly Detection

    cs.LG 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AnomalyGFM aligns learned normal and abnormal prototypes with node-neighbor residual features, enabling zero-shot and few-shot graph anomaly detection across datasets.

  4. Synergizing LLMs with Global Label Propagation for Multimodal Fake News Detection

    cs.CL 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A fake-news detector that spreads LLM-generated pseudo labels over a similarity graph reports state-of-the-art accuracy, but the evaluation is weakened by test-set tuning and self-label leakage at inference.

Pith tools