CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Anomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFault Detection and Control SystemsImbalanced Data Classification Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Random Subspace Mixture Models for Interpretable Anomaly Detection

Open access
Savkli, Cetin, Schwartz, Catherine·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2108.06283arXiv 2108.06283
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present a new subspace-based method to construct probabilistic models for high-dimensional data and highlight its use in anomaly detection. The approach is based on a statistical estimation of probability density using densities of random subspaces combined with geometric averaging. In selecting random subspaces, equal representation of each attribute is used to ensure correct statistical limits. Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) are used to create the probability densities for each subspace with techniques included to mitigate singularities allowing for the ability to handle both numerical and categorial attributes. The number of components for each GMM is determined automatically through Bayesian information criterion to prevent overfitting. The proposed algorithm attains competitive AUC scores compared with prominent algorithms against benchmark anomaly detection datasets with the added benefits of being simple, scalable, and interpretable.

Overview

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.2108.06283

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. [1]1. G. Mclachlan, K. Basford, Mixture Models: Inference and Applications to Clustering, Vol. 38, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1988. doi:10.2307/2348072. · DOI
  2. [2]2. C. Savkli, J. Lin, P. Graff, M. Kinsey, Galileo: A generalized low-entropy mixture model, Proceedings of the 2017 Int'l. Conf. on Data Mining (2017).
  3. [3]3. C. Chow, C. Liu, Approximating discrete probability distributions with dependence trees, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 14 (3) (1968).
  4. [4]4. D. Koller, N. Friedman, Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Techniques, Adaptive computation and machine learning, MIT Press, 2009.URL https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7dzpHCHzNQ4C
  5. [5]5. C. Savkli, J. R. Carr, P. Graff, L. Kennell, Bayesian learning of clique tree structure, in: Proceedings of the Int'l. Conf. on Data Mining, The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer , 2016.
  6. [6]6. J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1988.
  7. [7]7. A. Lazarevic, V. Kumar, Feature bagging for outlier detection, in: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM SIGKDD Int'l. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining, KDD 05, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2005, p. 157166. doi: 10.1145/1081870.1081891. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/1081870.1081891 · DOI
  8. [9]9. A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, D. B. Rubin, Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the em algorithm, Journal Of The Royel Statistical Society, Series B 39 (1) (1977).
  9. [10]10. H. Akaike, Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle, in: Selected Papers of Hirotugu Akaike, Springer, 1998.
  10. [12]12. V. Chandola, A. Banerjee, V. Kumar, Anomaly detection: A survey, ACM computing surveys 41 (3) (2009).
  11. [13]13. A. Zimek, P. Filzmoser, There and back again: Outlier detection between statistical reasoning and data mining algorithms, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 8 (6) (2018) e1280.
  12. [15]15. M. Riveiro, G. Pallotta, M. Vespe, Maritime anomaly detection: A review, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 8 (5) (2018) e1266.
  13. [16]16. A. Ukil, S. Bandyoapdhyay, C. Puri, A. Pal, Iot healthcare analytics: The importance of anomaly detection, in: 2016 IEEE 30th Int'l. Conf. on advanced information networking and applications (AINA), IEEE, 2016.
  14. [17]17. Q. Wei, Y. Ren, R. Hou, B. Shi, J. Y. Lo, L. Carin, Anomaly detection for medical images based on a one-class classi cation, in: Medical Imaging 2018: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, Vol. 10575, Int'l. Society for Optics and Photonics, 2018.
  15. [18]18. J. Sipple, Interpretable, multidimensional, multimodal anomaly detection with negative sampling for detection of device failure, in: Proceedings of the 37th Int'l. Conf. on Machine Learning, 2020.
  16. [22]22. N. Kumar, D. Venugopal, L. Qiu, S. Kumar, Detecting anomalous online reviewers: an unsupervised approach using mixture models, Journal of Management Information Systems 36 (4) (2019).
  17. [25]25. K. Aho, D. Derryberry, T. Peterson, Model selection for ecologists: the worldviews of aic and bic, Ecology 95 (3) (2014) 631-636. doi:10.1890/13-1452.1. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/13-1452.1 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [27]27. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, E. Duchesnay, Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011).
  19. [28]28. L. Buitinck, G. Louppe, M. Blondel, F. Pedregosa, A. Mueller, O. Grisel, V. Niculae, P. Prettenhofer, A. Gramfort, J. Grobler, R. Layton, J. VanderPlas, A. Joly, B. Holt, G. Varoquaux, API design for machine learning software: experiences from the scikitlearn project, in: ECML PKDD Workshop: Languages for Data Mining and Machine Learning, 2013.
  20. [29]29. Y. Zhao, Z. Nasrullah, Z. Li, Pyod: A python toolbox for scalable outlier detection, Journal of Machine Learning Research 20 (96) (2019) 1-7. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v20/19-011.html
  21. [31]31. M. A. Pimentel, D. A. Clifton, L. Clifton, L. Tarassenko, A review of novelty detection, Signal Processing 99 (2014).
  22. [32]32. R. Laxhammar, Anomaly detection for sea surveillance, in: 2008 11th Int'l. Conf. on information fusion, IEEE, 2008.
  23. [33]33. R. Laxhammar, G. Falkman, E. Sviestins, Anomaly detection in sea traffic-a comparison of the gaussian mixture model and the kernel density estimator, in: 2009 12th Int'l. Conf. on Information Fusion, IEEE, 2009.
  24. [34]34. D. Wang, Q. Liu, Nonlinear stein variational gradient descent for learning diversified mixture models, in: Int'l. Conf. on Machine Learning, 2019.
  25. [35]35. C. C. Aggarwal, Outlier ensembles: position paper, ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 14 (2) (2013).
  26. [36]36. M. M. Breunig, H.-P. Kriegel, R. T. Ng, J. Sander, Lof: identifying density-based local outliers, in: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD Int'l. Conf. on Management of data, 2000.
  27. [37]37. T. Seidl, E. Muller, I. Assent, U. Steinhausen, Outlier detection and ranking based on subspace clustering, in: Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fur Informatik, 2009.
  28. [38]38. F. Keller, E. Muller, K. Bohm, Hics: High contrast subspaces for density-based outlier ranking, in: 2012 IEEE 28th Int'l. Conf. on data engineering, IEEE, 2012.
  29. [39]39. Y. Zhao, M. K. Hryniewicki, Dcso: dynamic combination of detector scores for outlier ensembles, ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Outlier Detection Deconstructed.
  30. [40]40. E. Muller, I. Assent, P. Iglesias, Y. Mulle, K. Bohm, Outlier ranking via subspace analysis in multiple views of the data, in: 2012 IEEE 12th Int'l. Conf. on data mining, IEEE, 2012.
  31. [41]41. H. V. Nguyen, H. H. Ang, V. Gopalkrishnan, Mining outliers with ensemble of heterogeneous detectors on random subspaces, in: Int'l. Conf. on Database Systems for Advanced Applications, Springer, 2010.
  32. [42]42. E. Muller, M. Schiffer, T. Seidl, Statistical selection of relevant subspace projections for outlier ranking, in: 2011 IEEE 27th Int'l. Conf. on data engineering, IEEE, 2011.
  33. [43]43. H.-P. Kriegel, P. Kroger, E. Schubert, A. Zimek, Interpreting and unifying outlier scores, in: Proceedings of the 2011 SIAM Int'l. Conf. on Data Mining, SIAM, 2011.
  34. [44]44. J. Gao, P.-N. Tan, Converting output scores from outlier detection algorithms into probability estimates, in: Sixth Int'l. Conf. on Data Mining (ICDM'06), IEEE, 2006.
  35. [46]46. M. Carletti, M. Terzi, G. A. Susto, Interpretable anomaly detection: Depth-based feature importance for the isolation forest, arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.11117. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 2

Metadata

Authors
Savkli, C., & Schwartz, C.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2108.06283
arXiv
2108.06283
OpenAlex
W3194927537
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Keywords
anomaly detection, interpretable anomaly detection, random subspace, geometric averaging, Gaussian mixture model, categorical variables, Bayesian information criterion, high-dimensional data, overfitting

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Random Subspace Mixture Models for Interpretable Anomaly Detection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2108.06283
The paper
Savkli, C., & Schwartz, C. (2021). Random Subspace Mixture Models for Interpretable Anomaly Detection. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2108.06283