Why Ranking Anomaly Detection Algorithms Isn't as Reliable as You May Think
Authors: Simon Klüttermann, Jérôme Rutinowski, Frederik Polachowski, Alice Kirchheim
Organizations: Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA · TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany · Lamarr Institute for Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, Germany · iits Consulting GmbH, Dortmund, Germany · Fraunhofer Institute for Material Flow and Logistics IML, Dortmund, Germany
Anomaly detection is a safety-critical machine learning problem with applications ranging from fraud detection to network intrusion prevention and industrial monitoring. Despite the large number of proposed anomaly detection algorithms, many novel methods claim state-of-the-art performance. However, many authors do so under benchmark settings that are not aligned with one another. This lack of comparability raises concerns regarding the reproducibility and reliability of anomaly detection benchmarks. In this work, we study the impact of common benchmarking choices on the stability of algorithm rankings. Using seven representative anomaly detection algorithms and 690 datasets from the OddBench benchmark suite, we analyze how rankings change under varying dataset selections, evaluation metrics, hyperparameter configurations, and random seeds. To quantify this effect, we introduce a rank instability metric measuring the variability of algorithm rankings across benchmark settings. Our results show that algorithm rankings in anomaly detection are highly unstable. In many cases, almost every competitive algorithm can appear as the best-performing method under some benchmark configuration. Among the studied factors, dataset selection and hyperparameter choice contribute most strongly to ranking uncertainty, while random seeds and evaluation metrics have a comparatively limited impact. We also observe that reliable benchmarking requires substantially larger and more diverse dataset collections than the ones commonly used in prior work.
Anomaly detection is inherently characterised by severe class imbalance, making the interpretation of evaluation metrics challenging. Although metrics such as AUROC, AUPR, F1-score, and MCC are widely used, their values convey different meanings depending on the anomaly ratio. In this work, we analyse the behaviour of those four common anomaly detection metrics under varying levels of imbalance. We focus on the study of metric landscapes, visualisations that relate metric values to true positive and true negative rates, providing an intuitive view of metric preferences and stability. Our analysis offers practical guidance for interpreting and comparing anomaly detection results across datasets with different imbalance ratios.
Anomaly detection systems are often trained using normal data alone, while model selection and evaluation typically require labeled anomalies. We study whether anomaly detection performance can be predicted without access to anomalous data. For kNN-based detectors, we derive a lower bound on the area under the ROC curve (AUC) that relates detection performance to the separation between inlier and outlier scores and to their respective variances. Under a local scaling model, we use this bound to characterize how density variation, intrinsic-dimensional heterogeneity, and cross-domain mismatch contribute to score variability. We then investigate anomaly-free model selection and show that inlier score variance alone does not reliably predict performance across different representations. To address this limitation, we introduce simple pseudo-anomaly probes that provide a reference for estimating relative score separation. Experiments on the DCASE 2022-2025 benchmarks, spanning four embedding models and 208 candidate systems, show that pseudo-anomaly-based estimators substantially improve anomaly-free model selection. In particular, diverse pseudo-anomalies enable anomaly-free model selection to outperform conventional development-set selection under domain shift. These results show that embedding-space geometry contains predictive information about anomaly detection performance while also highlighting the representation-dependent nature of inlier-only performance estimates.
Automated "suspicious behavior" flagging is a headline promise of AI surveillance, and the field reports high frame-level ROC-AUC on standard video anomaly detection benchmarks. Those numbers are measured by training and testing on the same camera and scene. We audit what happens when that assumption is dropped. We build an unsupervised normality model from the all-normal training frames of one dataset, using frozen off-the-shelf embeddings (CLIP, DINOv2, ResNet-50, EfficientNet-B0) and a nearest-neighbour distance, and score the test frames of the same and of other datasets. Across 4 real datasets (UCSD Ped1, UCSD Ped2, CUHK Avenue, ShanghaiTech) and 4 backbones, same-dataset AUC averages 0.704 but cross-dataset AUC averages 0.499, which is chance: a detector calibrated on one scene is no better than a coin flip on another, and in several pairs it is below chance. The strongest backbone makes this worse, not better: DINOv2 has the best same-dataset AUC (up to 0.901 on Ped2) and the largest cross-dataset drop. The collapse is not an artefact of the scoring rule: replacing the nearest-neighbour detector with a PaDiM-style Mahalanobis detector reproduces it almost exactly (cross-dataset gap 0.202 versus 0.208). Even at a favourable operating point the false-alarm rate is on the order of 31,931 per hour. We conclude that the benchmark numbers quoted for surveillance anomaly detection describe a calibrated laboratory setting and overstate deployable reliability by a wide margin, and we release the code that reproduces every number.