Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

How to Evaluate the Quality of Unsupervised Anomaly Detection Algorithms?

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 1607.01152 v1 pith:NFPAZ4A7 submitted 2016-07-05 stat.ML cs.LG

classification stat.MLcs.LG
keywords criteriaalgorithmscurvesdataanomalydetectionlabeledaccurately
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

When sufficient labeled data are available, classical criteria based on Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) or Precision-Recall (PR) curves can be used to compare the performance of un-supervised anomaly detection algorithms. However , in many situations, few or no data are labeled. This calls for alternative criteria one can compute on non-labeled data. In this paper, two criteria that do not require labels are empirically shown to discriminate accurately (w.r.t. ROC or PR based criteria) between algorithms. These criteria are based on existing Excess-Mass (EM) and Mass-Volume (MV) curves, which generally cannot be well estimated in large dimension. A methodology based on feature sub-sampling and aggregating is also described and tested, extending the use of these criteria to high-dimensional datasets and solving major drawbacks inherent to standard EM and MV curves.

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. Analyzing Shapley Additive Explanations to Understand Anomaly Detection Algorithm Behaviors and Their Complementarity

    cs.LG 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    SHAP attribution profiles can identify complementary anomaly detectors whose divergence in explanations predicts non-overlapping detections, enabling stronger ensembles when high individual performance is maintained.

  2. Automatic Unsupervised Ensemble Outlier Model Selection--Extended Version

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    MetaEns trains on meta-datasets to predict marginal gains from adding models and uses a submodular-inspired objective with diversity discounting and risk regularization for greedy unsupervised ensemble selection, outp...

  3. Self-Adaptive Anomaly Detection with Reinforcement Learning and Human Feedback in Connected Vehicles

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Attention-augmented factorized DQN detector selection plus conjunctive drift alarms and 60/40 replay recovers F1 from 0.52 to 0.65 after real concept drift without catastrophic forgetting on a seven-service valet-park...

  4. Leveraging the Christoffel Function for Outlier Detection in Data Streams

    cs.LG 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Two Christoffel-function methods, DyCF and DyCG, detect outliers in low-dimensional data streams with one hyperparameter or none.

Pith tools