PreprintCited by 334Anomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSoftware System Performance and Reliability

Deep Structured Energy Based Models for Anomaly Detection

Open access
Zhai, Shuangfei, Cheng, Yu, Lu, Weining, Zhang, Zhongfei·2016·arXiv

Abstract

In this paper, we attack the anomaly detection problem by directly modeling the data distribution with deep architectures. We propose deep structured energy based models (DSEBMs), where the energy function is the output of a deterministic deep neural network with structure. We develop novel model architectures to integrate EBMs with different types of data such as static data, sequential data, and spatial data, and apply appropriate model architectures to adapt to the data structure. Our training algorithm is built upon the recent development of score matching \cite{sm}, which connects an EBM with a regularized autoencoder, eliminating the need for complicated sampling method. Statistically sound decision criterion can be derived for anomaly detection purpose from the perspective of the energy landscape of the data distribution. We investigate two decision criteria for performing anomaly detection: the energy score and the reconstruction error. Extensive empirical studies on benchmark tasks demonstrate that our proposed model consistently matches or outperforms all the competing methods.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1605.07717

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PatchCore-100% with IVFPQ has inference times still higher than PatchCore-1%.

    “We find a performance drop, especially for image-level anomaly detection, while inference times are still higher than PatchCore -1% .”

    From Towards Total Recall in Industrial Anomaly Detection (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

  • Even with performance reduction, approximate nearest neighbour search on PatchCore-100% still outperforms other methods.

    “Though even with performance reduction, approximate nearest neighbour search on PatchCore -100% still outperforms other methods.”

    From Towards Total Recall in Industrial Anomaly Detection (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

  • PatchCore-100% with approximate nearest neighbour search (IVFPQ) shows a performance drop, especially for image-level anomaly detection.

    “We find a performance drop, especially for image-level anomaly detection, while inference times are still higher than PatchCore -1% .”

    From Towards Total Recall in Industrial Anomaly Detection (2022) · cites this paper as [27]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhai, S., Cheng, Y., Lu, W., & Zhang, Z.
Affiliations
  • Binghamton University (US)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2398119937
Cited by
334
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 9 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
Keywords
anomaly detection, energy-based models, score matching, energy landscape, reconstruction error, decision criteria, sequential data, geospatial data, static data

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review