Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Null Hypothesis Test for Anomaly Detection

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 2210.02226 v3 pith:JX4HSPTY submitted 2022-10-05 hep-ph cs.LGhep-ex

Null Hypothesis Test for Anomaly Detection

classification hep-ph cs.LGhep-ex
keywords anomalyhypothesisdatasetindependenceregionstestbackground-onlydetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We extend the use of Classification Without Labels for anomaly detection with a hypothesis test designed to exclude the background-only hypothesis. By testing for statistical independence of the two discriminating dataset regions, we are able to exclude the background-only hypothesis without relying on fixed anomaly score cuts or extrapolations of background estimates between regions. The method relies on the assumption of conditional independence of anomaly score features and dataset regions, which can be ensured using existing decorrelation techniques. As a benchmark example, we consider the LHC Olympics dataset where we show that mutual information represents a suitable test for statistical independence and our method exhibits excellent and robust performance at different signal fractions even in presence of realistic feature correlations.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Look everywhere effects in anomaly detection

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    Weakly supervised anomaly detectors that train and test on the same data produce badly miscalibrated p-values; independent test sets are calibrated but insensitive, while k-fold cross-validation is a workable middle ground.