Deep Learning Advancements in Anomaly Detection: A Comprehensive Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid expansion of data from diverse sources has made anomaly detection (AD) increasingly essential for identifying unexpected observations that may signal system failures, security breaches, or fraud. As datasets become more complex and high-dimensional, traditional detection methods struggle to effectively capture intricate patterns. Advances in deep learning have made AD methods more powerful and adaptable, improving their ability to handle high-dimensional and unstructured data. This survey provides a comprehensive review of over 190 recent studies, focusing on deep learning-based AD techniques. We categorize and analyze these methods into reconstruction-based and prediction-based approaches, highlighting their effectiveness in modeling complex data distributions. Additionally, we explore the integration of traditional and deep learning methods, highlighting how hybrid approaches combine the interpretability of traditional techniques with the flexibility of deep learning to enhance detection accuracy and model transparency. Finally, we identify open issues and propose future research directions to advance the field of AD. This review bridges gaps in existing literature and serves as a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners seeking to enhance AD techniques using deep learning.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it