Fixing Bias in Reconstruction-Based Anomaly Detection with Lipschitz Discriminators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anomaly detection is of great interest in fields where abnormalities need to be identified and corrected (e.g., medicine and finance). Deep learning methods for this task often rely on autoencoder reconstruction error, sometimes in conjunction with other errors. We show that this approach exhibits intrinsic biases that lead to undesirable results. Reconstruction-based methods are sensitive to training-data outliers and simple-to-reconstruct points. Instead, we introduce a new unsupervised Lipschitz anomaly discriminator that does not suffer from these biases. Our anomaly discriminator is trained, similar to the ones used in GANs, to detect the difference between the training data and corruptions of the training data. We show that this procedure successfully detects unseen anomalies with guarantees on those that have a certain Wasserstein distance from the data or corrupted training set. These additions allow us to show improved performance on MNIST, CIFAR10, and health record data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".