Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Anomaly Detection in the Presence of Missing Values

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1809.01605 v1 pith:ZIWCWUJQ submitted 2018-09-05 cs.LG stat.ML

Anomaly Detection in the Presence of Missing Values

classification cs.LG stat.ML
keywords anomalyimputationdetectionmarginalizationdatadistributionegmmmethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Standard methods for anomaly detection assume that all features are observed at both learning time and prediction time. Such methods cannot process data containing missing values. This paper studies five strategies for handling missing values in test queries: (a) mean imputation, (b) MAP imputation, (c) reduction (reduced-dimension anomaly detectors via feature bagging), (d) marginalization (for density estimators only), and (e) proportional distribution (for tree-based methods only). Our analysis suggests that MAP imputation and proportional distribution should give better results than mean imputation, reduction, and marginalization. These hypotheses are largely confirmed by experimental studies on synthetic data and on anomaly detection benchmark data sets using the Isolation Forest (IF), LODA, and EGMM anomaly detection algorithms. However, marginalization worked surprisingly well for EGMM, and there are exceptions where reduction works well on some benchmark problems. We recommend proportional distribution for IF, MAP imputation for LODA, and marginalization for EGMM.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.