2020
DOI: 10.1609/aaai.v34i01.5409
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multi-Scale Anomaly Detection on Attributed Networks

Abstract: Many social and economic systems can be represented as attributed networks encoding the relations between entities who are themselves described by different node attributes. Finding anomalies in these systems is crucial for detecting abuses such as credit card frauds, web spams or network intrusions. Intuitively, anomalous nodes are defined as nodes whose attributes differ starkly from the attributes of a certain set of nodes of reference, called the context of the anomaly. While some methods have proposed to … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…ROC-AUC for networks with ground-truth labels are shown in Table 4. We observe from these results the following: (Breunig et al 2000) 0.300 0.220 0.180 0.183 Radar (Li et al 2017) 0.660 0.670 0.550 0.416 ANOMALOUS (Peng et al 2018) 0.640 0.650 0.515 0.417 DOMINANT (Ding et al 2019a) 0 (Breunig et al 2000) 0.060 0.060 0.045 0.037 Radar (Li et al 2017) 0.560 0.580 0.520 0.430 ANOMALOUS (Peng et al 2018) 0.600 0.570 0.510 0.410 DOMINANT (Ding et al 2019a) 0.620 0.590 0.540 0.497 MADAN (Gutiérrez-Gómez et al 2019) The experimental results w.r.t. Precision@K and Recall@K for networks without groundtruth labels are shown in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…ROC-AUC for networks with ground-truth labels are shown in Table 4. We observe from these results the following: (Breunig et al 2000) 0.300 0.220 0.180 0.183 Radar (Li et al 2017) 0.660 0.670 0.550 0.416 ANOMALOUS (Peng et al 2018) 0.640 0.650 0.515 0.417 DOMINANT (Ding et al 2019a) 0 (Breunig et al 2000) 0.060 0.060 0.045 0.037 Radar (Li et al 2017) 0.560 0.580 0.520 0.430 ANOMALOUS (Peng et al 2018) 0.600 0.570 0.510 0.410 DOMINANT (Ding et al 2019a) 0.620 0.590 0.540 0.497 MADAN (Gutiérrez-Gómez et al 2019) The experimental results w.r.t. Precision@K and Recall@K for networks without groundtruth labels are shown in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed method, we conduct experiments on two types of real-world attributed networks: data with and without ground-truth anomaly labels. All networks have been widely used in previous studies (Li et al, 2017;Peng et al, 2018;Ding et al, 2019a;Gutiérrez-Gómez et al, 2019):…”
Section: Datasetsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations