Anomaly Detection via Autoencoder Composite Features and NCE
Authors: Yalin Liao, Austin J. Brockmeier
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware
Unsupervised anomaly detection is a challenging task. Autoencoders (AEs) or generative models are often employed to model the data distribution of normal inputs and subsequently identify anomalous, out-of-distribution inputs by high reconstruction error or low likelihood, respectively. However, AEs may generalize and achieve small reconstruction errors on abnormal inputs. We propose a decoupled training approach for anomaly detection that both an AE and a likelihood model trained with noise contrastive estimation (NCE). After training the AE, NCE estimates a probability density function, to serve as the anomaly score, on the joint space of the AE's latent representation combined with features of the reconstruction quality. To further reduce the false negative rate in NCE we systematically varying the reconstruction features to augment the training and optimize the contrastive Gaussian noise distribution. Experimental assessments on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed approach matches the performance of prevalent state-of-the-art anomaly detection algorithms.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of Proposition 1 with normal observations Y=(Y1,Y2)T , where Yi=X+ϵi,X∼U([0,1]) , and ϵi∼N(0,0.082) . Anomalies are generated by perturbing Y by 0.7vr along the residual direction vr=(−1,1)T/2 . The panels show the observations, latent representations, and reconstruction errors.
Figure 2: CANCE for AD.
Data
Error
LatNCE
CNCE
CANCE
Unimodal
MNIST
95.1
84.1
97.0
97.7
F-MNIST
90.4
89.6
92.2
92.5
CIFAR-10
54.1
65.1
65.3
65.4
Multimodal
MNIST
94.6
87.6
97.3
97.6
Table 1: AUROC for CANCE ablations
Method
Mean AUROC (%)
Best Count
DAGMM
65.05
1
DSVDD
67.89
0
DROCC
60.30
0
GOAD
68.82
3
DDPM
77.92
3
DTE-NP
81.59
19
Table 2: Performance comparison across 57 datasets in terms of average AUROC and best count. The best count indicates the number of datasets on which each method achieves the highest AUROC.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
MNIST
F-MNIST
CIFAR-10
MNIST-C
AE
Input channels
1
1
3
1
Hidden channels
8
8
32
8
Latent dimension
6
6
64
10
Activation
GELU
GELU
GELU
GELU
Learning rate
10−4
10−4
10−4
10−4
Appendix
Table 3: Training configurations for the ablation experiments.
Data
Error
LatNCE
CNCE
CANCE
MNIST
0
99.4(0.1)
85.0(3.5)
99.5(0.0)
99.6(0.0)
1
99.9(0.0)
98.4(0.3)
99.8(0.0)
99.8(0.0)
2
90.3(1.5)
81.9(6.5)
96.6(0.7)
97.1(0.5)
3
92.6(0.6)
81.2(1.2)
95.6(0.4)
96.7(0.3)
4
95.5(1.3)
75.0(3.8)
95.8(0.3)
96.9(0.4)
Appendix
Table 4: Ablation study on unimodal training dataset
Data
Error
LatNCE
CNCE
CANCE
MNIST
0,1
99.4(0.1)
93.8(1.1)
99.5(0.1)
99.6(0.1)
0,8
87.8(0.7)
79.8(1.3)
95.0(0.5)
95.5(0.4)
1,8
96.7(0.7)
89.3(2.3)
97.4(0.3)
97.8(0.2)
Avg
94.6
87.6
97.3
97.6
F-MNIST
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation study on the multimodal datasets
Data
Error
LatNCE
CNCE
CANCE
MNIST, ResNet-18|ResNet-50
0
98.1∣96.3
78.4(0.9)∣75.2(0.4)
96.7(0.6)∣95.8(0.4)
98.6(0.0)∣97.4(0.1)
1
99.8∣98.6
98.6(0.1)∣95.9(0.6)
99.6(0.0)∣98.5(0.1)
99.7(0.0)∣98.5(0.1)
2
88.3∣76.6
74.4(0.7)∣66.1(0.8)
83.8(1.4)∣80.2(1.0)
91.0(0.1)∣83.9(0.2)
3
95.1∣95.9
74.1(0.5)∣90.7(0.1)
92.5(0.3)∣94.8(0.1)
94.7(0.2)∣95.5(0.1)
4
97.3∣95.2
84.4(0.5)∣81.7(0.8)
96.3(0.3)∣94.1(0.1)
97.3(0.2)∣95.2(0.2)
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation study on features extracted by ResNet on MNIST, F-MNIST, and CIFAR-10
DAGMM
DSVDD
DROCC
GOAD
DDPM
DTE-NP
DTE-IG
DTE-C
CANCE
aloi
50.84(2.97)
50.89(2.05)
50.0(0.0)
48.01(0.92)
49.91(0.35)
51.19(0.46)
50.87(1.17)
50.44(0.19)
52.33(0.97)
amazon
50.47(2.01)
51.2(4.42)
50.0(0.0)
56.07(0.9)
55.09(0.1)
60.82(0.0)
51.93(3.5)
56.71(2.15)
61.49(0.79)
annthy- roid
72.23(15.13)
55.01(3.62)
88.9(2.31)
81.01(5.16)
88.82(1.34)
92.9(0.25)
87.6(4.46)
97.52(0.15)
88.19(1.58)
backdoor
54.36(19.91)
91.14(2.62)
94.25(0.73)
52.9(14.48)
80.93(0.56)
99.31(1.7)
94.02(1.46)
91.65(1.73)
91.85(0.63)
breastw
89.53(10.2)
96.96(0.92)
47.32(31.95)
98.86(0.33)
98.7(0.43)
99.28(0.12)
78.65(11.1)
92.78(1.75)
99.52(0.09)
campaign
61.47(2.73)
62.21(12.88)
50.0(0.0)
47.89(12.32)
74.51(0.42)
78.79(0.25)
74.81(1.69)
68.84(6.50)
68.84(6.50)
Appendix
Table 7: Average AUROC and standard deviations on ADBench dataset.
Data
KDE
VAE
PC
LSA
DAGMM
CANCE
MNIST
0
88.5
99.8
53.1
99.3
53.6
99.6(0.0)
1
99.6
99.9
99.5
99.9
51.5
99.8(0.0)
2
71.0
96.2
47.6
95.9
53.5
97.1(0.5)
3
69.3
94.7
51.7
96.6
49.7
96.7(0.3)
4
84.4
96.5
73.9
95.6
52.7
96.9(0.4)
Appendix
Table 8: AUCROC [%] for baseline methods, Pix-CNN (PC) and DAGMM, compared to CANCE mean and std. value across 5 independent runs.
Method
Precision
Recall
F1
DAGMM-0
93.0
94.4
93.7
DAGMM-1
97.7(0.3)
96.9(0.6)
97.3(0.5)
DAGMM-CANCE
97.6(0.3)
96.9(0.6)
97.3(0.5)
Appendix
Table 9: AD results on contaminated training data from KDDCUP99
Data
DAGMM
DSVDD
NN
DROCC
DPAD
CANCE
CANCE18
CANCE50
F-MNIST
0
42.1
79.1
91.2∣100
88.1
93.7(0.2)
90.6(0.4)
89.7(0.3)
91.3(0.3)
1
55.1
94.0
98.6∣100
97.7
98.7(0.0)
98.4(0.1)
98.5(0.1)
98.7(0.0)
2
50.4
83.0
88.5∣100
87.6
90.3(0.0)
89.0(0.4)
91.0(0.2)
92.6(0.1)
3
57.0
82.9
93.6∣100
87.7
94.7(0.3)
91.8(0.6)
85.7(0.2)
90.1(0.5)
4
26.9
87.0
89.4∣100
87.2
92.2(0.1)
90.7(0.2)
92.3(0.2)
91.7(0.1)
Appendix
Table 10: AUROC[%] CANCE vs DPAD on F-MNIST and CIFAR-10. NN (nearest neighbor, use raw | ResNet-18 feature), CANCE (AE), CANCE18 (ResNet-18), CANCE50 (ResNet-50)
Variational autoencoders are widely used for unsupervised anomaly detection. Model selection however remains an open-question: to remain fully unsupervised, hyperparameters are often chosen to minimize the reconstruction error on normal samples. In this paper, we reveal a trade-off between reconstruction quality and anomaly detection among β-VAE models. Models with constrained latent space reach higher detection metrics but lower reconstruction quality. We also assess the performance variability across random seeds and show it is linked to the distance between normal and abnormal latent distributions. From this analysis, we justify and investigate two methods to mitigate the reconstructiondetection tradeoff: beta-scheduling and the Sparse VAE. The latter especially shows an improvement in detection while maintaining high reconstruction quality.
Reconstruction-based anomaly detectors are accurate but opaque: a deep autoencoder flags a sample without telling a practitioner which feature ranges made it anomalous. We propose DIFFINT, an autoencoder whose latent bottleneck is structured as a set of soft, axis-aligned interval memberships learned end-to-end directly from raw numerical data, without any discretization or binarization. Each latent unit corresponds to a human-readable hyper-rectangle in feature space; an instance is encoded by how strongly it falls inside each interval relative to the other units, and its reconstruction error is the anomaly score. This keeps the power of differentiable representation learning while exposing an inspectable internal structure. We make the inductive bias precise: a certified reconstruction-error lower bound for points that fall outside every active coordinate of the learned support (with a Lipschitz-enforced decoder), and a graded, empirically verified suppression mechanism for the usual case in which only a few features are abnormal; and we provide a closed-form, label-free importance that ranks each (unit, feature) pair from quantities the model already maintains, turning trained intervals into auditable candidate constraints without ever seeing an anomaly label. On 48 ADBench benchmarks against 22 baselines under a common [-1, 1]-normalized protocol, DIFFINT attains the best mean rank overall on both metrics (4.10 on ROC-AUC, 4.16 on AUPR); among inlier-only detectors it leads its regime clearly, and it is competitive with the strongest contaminated-data detectors (see the stratified and complete-case analyses). It is the only interpretable detector in the statistically-tied leading cluster of seven methods.
Lamine Diop, Marc Plantevit
EPITA, Laboratoire de Recherche de l’EPITA (LRE) · Le Kremlin-Bicˆetre, France
As Operational Technology increasingly integrates with Information Technology, the need for Intrusion Detection Systems becomes more important. This paper explores an unsupervised approach to anomaly detection in network traffic using β-Variational Autoencoders on the NSL-KDD dataset. We investigate two methods: leveraging the latent space structure by measuring distances from test samples to the training data projections, and using the reconstruction error as a conventional anomaly detection metric. By comparing these approaches, we provide insights into their respective advantages and limitations in an unsupervised setting. Experimental results highlight the effectiveness of latent space exploitation for classification tasks.