PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

ImAD: An End-to-End Method for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in the Presence of Missing Values

Feng Xiao, Jicong Fan

self/semi-supervised learningAnomaly DetectionMissing Values
54.00100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.28)
57.90100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.39)
44.90100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Common anomaly detection methods require fully observed data for model training and inference and cannot handle data containing missing values. The missing data problem is pervasive in various real-world scenarios but the study of anomaly detection with missing data is quite limited. In this work, we first construct and evaluate a straightforward strategy, "impute-then-detect", which combines state-of-the-art data imputation methods with unsupervised anomaly detection methods, where the training data are only composed of normal samples. We observe that such two-stage methods often yield imputation bias for normal data, namely, the imputation methods are inclined to make incomplete samples "normal". The fundamental reason is that the imputation models are learned from normal data and cannot be generalized to abnormal data. To solve the challenging problem, we propose an end-to-end method called ImAD for unsupervised anomaly detection in the presence of missing values. ImAD integrates data imputation with anomaly detection into a unified optimization problem and introduces well-designed pseudo-abnormal samples to ensure the discrimination ability of the imputation process. Experiments in the settings of three different missing mechanisms, including MCAR, MAR, and MNAR, show that the proposed ImAD alleviates the imputation bias and achieves much better detection performance on balanced and skewed data, in comparison to the baselines.

Author context

Most prolific author: 8 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)