CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 185Anomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Explainable Deep One-Class Classification

Open access
Liznerski, Philipp, Ruff, Lukas, Vandermeulen, Robert A., Franks, Billy Joe, Kloft, Marius, Müller, Klaus-Robert·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2007.01760arXiv 2007.01760
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Deep one-class classification variants for anomaly detection learn a mapping that concentrates nominal samples in feature space causing anomalies to be mapped away. Because this transformation is highly non-linear, finding interpretations poses a significant challenge. In this paper we present an explainable deep one-class classification method, Fully Convolutional Data Description (FCDD), where the mapped samples are themselves also an explanation heatmap. FCDD yields competitive detection performance and provides reasonable explanations on common anomaly detection benchmarks with CIFAR-10 and ImageNet. On MVTec-AD, a recent manufacturing dataset offering ground-truth anomaly maps, FCDD sets a new state of the art in the unsupervised setting. Our method can incorporate ground-truth anomaly maps during training and using even a few of these (~5) improves performance significantly. Finally, using FCDD's explanations we demonstrate the vulnerability of deep one-class classification models to spurious image features such as image watermarks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2007.01760

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Existing unsupervised anomaly detection methods train separate models for different object classes.

    “Despite the rapid advance of unsupervised anomaly detection, existing methods require to train separate models for different objects.”

    From A Unified Model for Multi-Class Anomaly Detection (2022) · cites this paper as [28]

    Section 4.1 (p. 5) describes a common one-vs-rest anomaly-detection benchmark that treats each class in turn as nominal, consistent with training class-specific models. It does not establish that existing unsupervised anomaly-detection methods generally require a separate model for every object class. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The concept of FCDD is transferable to other OCC methods.

    “This concept is transferable to other OCC methods.”

    From Deep Industrial Image Anomaly Detection: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Conclusion (p. 9) says FCDD is adaptable to different detection tasks, not that its concept transfers to other one-class classification methods. The method description (pp. 3–4) explains FCDD’s relationship to a hypersphere classifier but does not address transfer to other methods; searches for that extension found no passage stating it. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. C. J. Anders, P. Pasliev, A.-K. Dombrowski, K.-R. M¨ uller, and P. Kessel. Fairwashing explanations with off-manifold detergent. In ICML , pages 6757-6766, 2020.
  2. V. Barnett and T. Lewis. Outliers in Statistical Data . Wiley, 3rd edition, 1994.
  3. L. Bergman and Y. Hoshen. Classification-based anomaly detection for general data. In ICLR , 2020.
  4. P. Bergmann, M. Fauser, D. Sattlegger, and C. Steger. MVTec AD-A comprehensive real-world dataset for unsupervised anomaly detection. In CVPR , pages 9592-9600, 2019.
  5. F. Berkenkamp, M. Turchetta, A. Schoellig, and A. Krause. Safe model-based reinforcement learning with stability guarantees. In NeurIPS , pages 908-918, 2017.
  6. L. Bottou. Large-scale machine learning with stochastic gradient descent. In Proceedings of COMPSTAT'2010 , pages 177-186. Springer, 2010.
  7. R. Chalapathy, A. K. Menon, and S. Chawla. Anomaly detection using one-class neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06360 , 2018. · arXiv
  8. V. Chandola, A. Banerjee, and V. Kumar. Anomaly detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys , 41(3):1-58, 2009.
  9. G. Cohen, S. Afshar, J. Tapson, and A. Van Schaik. EMNIST: Extending MNIST to handwritten letters. In IJCNN , pages 2921-2926, 2017.
  10. D. Dehaene, O. Frigo, S. Combrexelle, and P. Eline. Iterative energy-based projection on a normal data manifold for anomaly localization. In ICLR , 2020.
  11. J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In CVPR , pages 248-255, 2009.
  12. F. Y. Edgeworth. On discordant observations. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science , 23(5):364-375, 1887.
  13. M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. Williams, J. Winn, and A. Zisserman. The pascal visual object classes (VOC) challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision , 88(2):303-338, 2010.
  14. I. Golan and R. El-Yaniv. Deep anomaly detection using geometric transformations. In NeurIPS , pages 9758-9769, 2018.
  15. S. Goyal, A. Raghunathan, M. Jain, H. V. Simhadri, and P. Jain. DROCC: Deep robust one-class classification. In ICML , pages 11335-11345, 2020.
  16. A. Gupta, J. Johnson, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, and A. Alahi. Social GAN: Socially acceptable trajectories with generative adversarial networks. In CVPR , pages 2255-2264, 2018.
  17. S. Hawkins, H. He, G. Williams, and R. Baxter. Outlier Detection Using Replicator Neural Networks. In DaWaK , volume 2454, pages 170-180, 2002.
  18. D. Hendrycks, M. Mazeika, and T. G. Dietterich. Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure. In ICLR , 2019a.
  19. D. Hendrycks, M. Mazeika, S. Kadavath, and D. Song. Using self-supervised learning can improve model robustness and uncertainty. In NeurIPS , pages 15637-15648, 2019b.
  20. P. J. Huber et al. Robust estimation of a location parameter. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 35(1): 73-101, 1964.
  21. M. H. Jarrahi. Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons , 61(4):577-586, 2018.
  22. D. P. Kingma and J. Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In ICLR , 2015.
  23. S. Lapuschkin, A. Binder, G. Montavon, K.-R. Muller, and W. Samek. Analyzing classifiers: Fisher vectors and deep neural networks. In CVPR , pages 2912-2920, 2016.
  24. Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE , 86(11):2278-2324, 1998.
  25. Z. Li, N. Li, K. Jiang, Z. Ma, X. Wei, X. Hong, and Y. Gong. Superpixel masking and inpainting for selfsupervised anomaly detection. In BMVC , 2020.
  26. W. Liu, R. Li, M. Zheng, S. Karanam, Z. Wu, B. Bhanu, R. J. Radke, and O. Camps. Towards visually explaining variational autoencoders. In CVPR , pages 8642-8651, 2020.
  27. J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In CVPR , pages 3431-3440, 2015.
  28. M. M. Moya, M. W. Koch, and L. D. Hostetler. One-class classifier networks for target recognition applications. In World Congress on Neural Networks , pages 797-801, 1993.
  29. P. Napoletano, F. Piccoli, and R. Schettini. Anomaly detection in nanofibrous materials by CNN-based selfsimilarity. Sensors , 18(1):209, 2018.
  30. H. Noh, S. Hong, and B. Han. Learning deconvolution network for semantic segmentation. In ICCV , pages 1520-1528, 2015.
  31. G. Quellec, M. Lamard, M. Cozic, G. Coatrieux, and G. Cazuguel. Multiple-instance learning for anomaly detection in digital mammography. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , 35(7):1604-1614, 2016.
  32. M. T. Ribeiro, S. Singh, and C. Guestrin. 'Why should i trust you?' Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In KDD , pages 1135-1144, 2016.
  33. L. Ruff, R. A. Vandermeulen, N. G¨ ornitz, L. Deecke, S. A. Siddiqui, A. Binder, E. M¨ uller, and M. Kloft. Deep one-class classification. In ICML , volume 80, pages 4390-4399, 2018.
  34. L. Ruff, Y. Zemlyanskiy, R. Vandermeulen, T. Schnake, and M. Kloft. Self-attentive, multi-context one-class classification for unsupervised anomaly detection on text. In ACL , pages 4061-4071, 2019.
  35. L. Ruff, R. A. Vandermeulen, B. J. Franks, K.-R. M¨ uller, and M. Kloft. Rethinking assumptions in deep anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00339 , 2020a. · arXiv
  36. L. Ruff, R. A. Vandermeulen, N. G¨ ornitz, A. Binder, E. M¨ uller, K.-R. M¨ uller, and M. Kloft. Deep semi-supervised anomaly detection. In ICLR , 2020b.
  37. L. Ruff, J. R. Kauffmann, R. A. Vandermeulen, G. Montavon, W. Samek, M. Kloft, T. G. Dietterich, and K.-R. M¨ uller. A unifying review of deep and shallow anomaly detection. Proceedings of the IEEE , 2021. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2021.3052449. · DOI
  38. M. Sakurada and T. Yairi. Anomaly detection using autoencoders with nonlinear dimensionality reduction. In Proceedings of the MLSDA 2014 2nd Workshop on Machine Learning for Sensory Data Analysis , pages 4-11, 2014.
  39. W. Samek, G. Montavon, S. Lapuschkin, C. J. Anders, and K.-R. M¨ uller. Toward interpretable machine learning: Transparent deep neural networks and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.07631 , 2020. · arXiv
  40. T. Schlegl, P. Seeb¨ ock, S. M. Waldstein, U. Schmidt-Erfurth, and G. Langs. Unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks to guide marker discovery. In International conference on information processing in medical imaging , pages 146-157. Springer, 2017.
  41. K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In ICLR , 2015.
  42. K. A. Spackman. Signal detection theory: Valuable tools for evaluating inductive learning. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Machine Learning , pages 160-163, 1989.
  43. M. Sundararajan, A. Taly, and Q. Yan. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In ICML , pages 3319-3328, 2017.
  44. I. Sutskever, J. Martens, G. Dahl, and G. Hinton. On the importance of initialization and momentum in deep learning. In ICML , pages 1139-1147, 2013.
  45. D. M. J. Tax. One-class classification . PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2001.
  46. D. M. J. Tax and R. P. W. Duin. Support Vector Data Description. Machine Learning , 54(1):45-66, 2004.
  47. A. Torralba, R. Fergus, and W. T. Freeman. 80 million tiny images: A large data set for nonparametric object and scene recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 30(11):1958-1970, 2008.
  48. S. Venkataramanan, K.-C. Peng, R. V. Singh, and A. Mahalanobis. Attention guided anomaly detection and localization in images. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.08616 , 2019. · arXiv
  49. H. Xiao, K. Rasul, and R. Vollgraf. Fashion-MNIST: A novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747 , 2017. · arXiv
  50. Y. Zhao, B. Deng, C. Shen, Y. Liu, H. Lu, and X.-S. Hua. Spatio-temporal autoencoder for video anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 1933-1941, 2017.
  51. C. Zhou and R. C. Paffenroth. Anomaly detection with robust deep autoencoders. In KDD , pages 665-674, 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liznerski, P., Ruff, L., Vandermeulen, R. A., Franks, B. J., Kloft, M., & Müller, K.-R.
Affiliations
  • University of Kaiserslautern (DE)
  • Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2007.01760
arXiv
2007.01760
OpenAlex
W3040536599
Cited by
185
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KL 2698/2-1, EXC-2046, 01GQ0850, EXC‐2046/1, 01GQ1115, 390685689)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01 IS 14013 A, 01IS18051A, EXC-2046/1, 01IS14013A-E, 031B0770E, 01IS18037A-I, 01GQ0850, 01IS18037A, 01GQ1115, 01IS18025A, 01IS18049B, 01MK20014U, 031L0207A)
  • Institute for Information and Communications Technology Promotion (2017-0-00451, 2019–0–00079)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
explainable AI, one-class classification, anomaly detection, unsupervised anomaly detection, MVTec AD, spurious features, image classification

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