arXiv:2608.14186cs.LGstat.ML2026-08中稿 · the 33rd Internati…

用能量模型提升表格异常检测,和重建方法互补效果更好

Revisiting Energy-based Tabular Anomaly Detection: Energy and Reconstruction are Complementary

论文配图:Revisiting Energy-based Tabular Anomaly Detection: Energy and Reconstruction are Complementary
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 用深度玻尔兹曼机建能量模型,结合重建得分
  • 在两个数据集上优于所有基线,融合后性能显著提升
  • 适合想提升异常检测鲁棒性的从业者

表格异常检测长期依赖密度代理方法(如孤立森林、OCSVM、LOF)、基于重构的模型(如自编码器、变分自编码器)以及现代非参数评分器(如COPOD、ECOD、Deep SVDD),这些方法均间接逼近正常数据分布;而显式能量模型应用极少。受深度学习中能量模型复兴(如能量基础变压器、JEPA)启发,本文重新考察经典深度玻尔兹曼机(DBM)在该任务中的表现,假设其平均场能量与重建得分具有更强互补性。我们在涵盖不同领域的两个基准数据集(UCI Bank Marketing 和 NSL-KDD)上,对两层隐藏结构的DBM进行评估,对比八种经典与现代基线,共20次随机种子实验。结果表明,DBM平均场能量在Bank Marketing上达到最强基线(自编码器)水平,在NSL-KDD上统计显著超越;在两个数据集上均显著优于其余七种方法。通过秩融合与自编码器结合后,性能在两个数据集上均有统计显著提升(Bank Marketing:AUROC +0.014,p<0.01;NSL-KDD:+0.002,p<0.001);而所有非DBM来源的基线模型反而导致性能下降或无改善。结论是,经典能量模型(如DBM)应作为表格异常检测工具箱中的非冗余补充,与主流重构得分形成有效互补。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Tabular anomaly detection is dominated by classical density-proxy methods (Isolation Forest, OCSVM, LOF), reconstruction-based detectors (Autoencoders, VAEs), and modern non-parametric scorers (COPOD, ECOD, Deep SVDD), all of which approximate the inlier distribution only indirectly; explicit energy-based models are largely absent. Motivated by the recent revival of EBMs in deep learning (e.g., Energy-Based Transformers, JEPA), we revisit the classical Deep Boltzmann Machine (DBM) for this task and hypothesize that its mean-field energy combines more effectively with a reconstruction-based score than same-lineage pairs do. We evaluate a two-hidden-layer DBM on two tabular benchmarks spanning distinct domains (UCI Bank Marketing and NSL-KDD) against eight classical and modern baselines across twenty random seeds. The DBM mean-field energy matches the strongest baseline (the Autoencoder) on Bank Marketing and statistically beats it on NSL-KDD, while significantly outperforming the remaining seven on both datasets. When fused with the Autoencoder via rank fusion, the DBM energy yields a statistically significant improvement on both datasets (AUROC=+0.014, p<0.01 on Bank Marketing; +0.002, p<0.001 on NSL-KDD); every non-DBM-derived base model instead fails to improve or significantly degrades the AE-paired ensemble. Our position is that classical EBMs, exemplified by the DBM, deserve a place in the tabular anomaly detection toolbox as a non-redundant complementary view to the reconstruction-based scores that dominate current practice.

异常检测能量模型表格式数据深度学习

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。