\relax 
\providecommand\hyper@newdestlabel[2]{}
\providecommand\HyperFirstAtBeginDocument{\AtBeginDocument}
\HyperFirstAtBeginDocument{\ifx\hyper@anchor\@undefined
\global\let\oldcontentsline\contentsline
\gdef\contentsline#1#2#3#4{\oldcontentsline{#1}{#2}{#3}}
\global\let\oldnewlabel\newlabel
\gdef\newlabel#1#2{\newlabelxx{#1}#2}
\gdef\newlabelxx#1#2#3#4#5#6{\oldnewlabel{#1}{{#2}{#3}}}
\AtEndDocument{\ifx\hyper@anchor\@undefined
\let\contentsline\oldcontentsline
\let\newlabel\oldnewlabel
\fi}
\fi}
\global\let\hyper@last\relax 
\gdef\HyperFirstAtBeginDocument#1{#1}
\providecommand\HyField@AuxAddToFields[1]{}
\providecommand\HyField@AuxAddToCoFields[2]{}
\providecommand\babel@aux[2]{}
\@nameuse{bbl@beforestart}
\bibstyle{plainnat}
\citation{anom-bio}
\citation{bregman2021array}
\citation{anom-cyber}
\citation{bishop1994novelty}
\citation{HBOS}
\citation{breunig2000lof}
\citation{jin2001mining,tang2002enhancing,jin2006ranking}
\citation{kriegel2009loop,constantinou2018pynomaly,rozner2023anomaly}
\citation{aizenbud2015pca,ramaswamy2000efficient,angiulli2002fast,ghoting2008fast}
\citation{chen2001one,ruff2018deep,perera2021one,deng2022anomaly}
\citation{aizenbud2021non,roweis2000LLE,peterfreund2020local}
\citation{Pearson1901PCA}
\citation{rumelhart1985learning,japkowicz1995novelty,lecun1989generalization}
\citation{lerman2018overview}
\citation{chen2017outlier,zhou2017anomaly}
\citation{zong2018deep,liu2019generative,du2019implicit,eduardo2020robust}
\citation{hendrycks2018deep,wang2019effective,goyal2020drocc,reiss2021panda,hojjati2021dasvdd}
\citation{hendrycks2019using,bergman2020classification}
\citation{deecke2021transfer}
\providecommand \oddpage@label [2]{}
\babel@aux{american}{}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1}Introduction}{1}{section.1}\protected@file@percent }
\citation{yamada2018feature,lindenbaum2020deep,lindenbaum2020differentiable}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}Method}{2}{section.2}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.1}Robust Autoencoder}{2}{subsection.2.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:sparse}{{2.1}{2}{Robust Autoencoder}{subsection.2.1}{}}
\newlabel{sec:sparse@cref}{{[subsection][1][2]2.1}{[1][2][]2}}
\newlabel{eq:det_opt}{{1}{2}{Robust Autoencoder}{equation.2.1}{}}
\newlabel{eq:det_opt@cref}{{[equation][1][]1}{[1][2][]2}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {2.2}Probabilistic Robust Autoencoder}{2}{subsection.2.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:method}{{2.2}{2}{Probabilistic Robust Autoencoder}{subsection.2.2}{}}
\newlabel{sec:method@cref}{{[subsection][2][2]2.2}{[1][2][]2}}
\newlabel{eq:stg}{{2}{2}{Probabilistic Robust Autoencoder}{equation.2.2}{}}
\newlabel{eq:stg@cref}{{[equation][2][]2}{[1][2][]2}}
\newlabel{eq:prob_opt_P}{{3}{2}{Probabilistic Robust Autoencoder}{equation.2.3}{}}
\newlabel{eq:prob_opt_P@cref}{{[equation][3][]3}{[1][2][]2}}
\citation{sakurada2014anomaly}
\citation{chen2017outlier}
\citation{zhou2017anomaly}
\citation{boyd2004convex}
\citation{ishii2020l0,ishii2022learning}
\citation{zhou2017anomaly}
\citation{zhou2017anomaly,ishii2020l0,ishii2022learning}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces A schematic of the Probabilistic Robust AutoEncoder (PRAE) framework. On the left, input samples denoted by ${\mbox  {\boldmath  $x$}}_i$s are multiplied by continuously relaxed Bernoulli gates. The model has an encoder, decoder, and ${\mbox  {\boldmath  $\mu $}}$, all represented in blue. The network computes a reconstruction loss (in the middle) for any choice of these components. The model learns the parameters of the Bernoulli variable to select samples that are "easier" to reconstruct (as per Eq. \textup  {\hbox {\mathsurround \z@ \normalfont  (\ignorespaces \ref  {eq:prob_opt_P}\unskip \@@italiccorr )}}). We optimize the "blue" variables (encoder, decoder, and ${\mbox  {\boldmath  $\mu $}}$) to achieve the best results. During training, outliers can be excluded, and the model learns useful mappings for detecting outliers. \relax }}{3}{figure.caption.1}\protected@file@percent }
\providecommand*\caption@xref[2]{\@setref\relax\@undefined{#1}}
\newlabel{fig:alg_description}{{1}{3}{A schematic of the Probabilistic Robust AutoEncoder (PRAE) framework. On the left, input samples denoted by $\myvec {x}_i$s are multiplied by continuously relaxed Bernoulli gates. The model has an encoder, decoder, and $\myvec {\mu }$, all represented in blue. The network computes a reconstruction loss (in the middle) for any choice of these components. The model learns the parameters of the Bernoulli variable to select samples that are "easier" to reconstruct (as per Eq. \eqref {eq:prob_opt_P}). We optimize the "blue" variables (encoder, decoder, and $\myvec {\mu }$) to achieve the best results. During training, outliers can be excluded, and the model learns useful mappings for detecting outliers. \relax }{figure.caption.1}{}}
\newlabel{fig:alg_description@cref}{{[figure][1][]1}{[1][2][]3}}
\newlabel{eq:prob_opt_E}{{4}{3}{Probabilistic Robust Autoencoder}{equation.2.4}{}}
\newlabel{eq:prob_opt_E@cref}{{[equation][4][]4}{[1][2][]3}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}Related Work}{3}{section.3}\protected@file@percent }
\citation{huber1987place,mitra2010robust,yangrobust}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}Analysis}{4}{section.4}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:analysis}{{4}{4}{Analysis}{section.4}{}}
\newlabel{sec:analysis@cref}{{[section][4][]4}{[1][4][]4}}
\newlabel{eq:defM}{{5}{4}{Analysis}{equation.4.5}{}}
\newlabel{eq:defM@cref}{{[equation][5][]5}{[1][4][]4}}
\newlabel{eq:S_d_gap}{{6}{4}{}{equation.4.6}{}}
\newlabel{eq:S_d_gap@cref}{{[equation][6][]6}{[1][4][]4}}
\newlabel{eq:lambda_diff}{{7}{4}{Analysis}{equation.4.7}{}}
\newlabel{eq:lambda_diff@cref}{{[equation][7][]7}{[1][4][]4}}
\newlabel{eq:approx_diff}{{8}{4}{Analysis}{equation.4.8}{}}
\newlabel{eq:approx_diff@cref}{{[equation][8][]8}{[1][4][]4}}
\citation{lerman2018overview}
\citation{lerman2018overview}
\citation{lerman2018overview}
\citation{lerman2018fast}
\citation{zhang2016robust}
\citation{lerman2015robust}
\citation{lin2010augmented}
\citation{maunu2019well}
\newlabel{eq:assume_contredict}{{9}{5}{Analysis}{equation.4.9}{}}
\newlabel{eq:assume_contredict@cref}{{[equation][9][]9}{[1][4][]5}}
\newlabel{eq:dist_Sp_Sd_minimal}{{10}{5}{Analysis}{equation.4.10}{}}
\newlabel{eq:dist_Sp_Sd_minimal@cref}{{[equation][10][]10}{[1][5][]5}}
\newlabel{eq:dist_b_d_b_mu}{{11}{5}{Analysis}{equation.4.11}{}}
\newlabel{eq:dist_b_d_b_mu@cref}{{[equation][11][]11}{[1][5][]5}}
\newlabel{eq:dist_Sb_Sbp_minimal}{{12}{5}{Analysis}{equation.4.12}{}}
\newlabel{eq:dist_Sb_Sbp_minimal@cref}{{[equation][12][]12}{[1][5][]5}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Comparing PRAE to several Robust Subspace Recovery (RSR) algorithms. The $y$-axis represents the different algorithms, and the $x$-axis represents different percentiles of outliers. Each box is colored according to the mean over $10$ runs of the $\bf  {\qopname  \relax o{log}}()$ of the angle between the recovered subspace and the ground truth. Lower values (darker red) indicate that the subspace recovery is more accurate. The proposed PRAE can accurately recover the low dimensional subspace even in the presence of a high percentage of outliers.\relax }}{5}{figure.caption.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:RSR_comparison}{{2}{5}{Comparing PRAE to several Robust Subspace Recovery (RSR) algorithms. The $y$-axis represents the different algorithms, and the $x$-axis represents different percentiles of outliers. Each box is colored according to the mean over $10$ runs of the $\bf {\log }()$ of the angle between the recovered subspace and the ground truth. Lower values (darker red) indicate that the subspace recovery is more accurate. The proposed PRAE can accurately recover the low dimensional subspace even in the presence of a high percentage of outliers.\relax }{figure.caption.2}{}}
\newlabel{fig:RSR_comparison@cref}{{[figure][2][]2}{[1][5][]5}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Experiments}{5}{section.5}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:results}{{5}{5}{Experiments}{section.5}{}}
\newlabel{sec:results@cref}{{[section][5][]5}{[1][5][]5}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.1}Robust Subspace Recovery Problem}{5}{subsection.5.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:lin}{{5.1}{5}{Robust Subspace Recovery Problem}{subsection.5.1}{}}
\newlabel{sec:lin@cref}{{[subsection][1][5]5.1}{[1][5][]5}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.2}Unsupervised Schemes for Tuning the Regularization Parameter}{5}{subsection.5.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:hyper}{{5.2}{5}{Unsupervised Schemes for Tuning the Regularization Parameter}{subsection.5.2}{}}
\newlabel{sec:hyper@cref}{{[subsection][2][5]5.2}{[1][5][]5}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Phase transition of PRAE. As we increase $\lambda $ above a certain threshold, PRAE starts to include outliers, resulting in a lower F1-score (left panel) and larger reconstruction error (MSE) on unseen samples (right panel). The dashed line indicates our (unsupervised) estimation of the value of $\lambda $ in which the proposed scheme transitions from removal to the inclusion of outliers. \relax }}{6}{figure.caption.3}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:phase}{{3}{6}{Phase transition of PRAE. As we increase $\lambda $ above a certain threshold, PRAE starts to include outliers, resulting in a lower F1-score (left panel) and larger reconstruction error (MSE) on unseen samples (right panel). The dashed line indicates our (unsupervised) estimation of the value of $\lambda $ in which the proposed scheme transitions from removal to the inclusion of outliers. \relax }{figure.caption.3}{}}
\newlabel{fig:phase@cref}{{[figure][3][]3}{[1][5][]6}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Performance comparison on a synthetic dataset. Each value corresponds to the median AUC of the ROC curve of a different algorithm (column) under several anomaly variances (row). Blue and bold indicate first and second-ranked methods, respectively.\relax }}{6}{table.caption.4}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:non_lin_synth}{{1}{6}{Performance comparison on a synthetic dataset. Each value corresponds to the median AUC of the ROC curve of a different algorithm (column) under several anomaly variances (row). Blue and bold indicate first and second-ranked methods, respectively.\relax }{table.caption.4}{}}
\newlabel{tab:non_lin_synth@cref}{{[table][1][]1}{[1][5][]6}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Examples of the synthetic narrow Swiss roll (blue) with Gaussian outliers (yellow), generated using different values of $\sigma ^2\in {0.1,1,10}$.\relax }}{6}{figure.caption.5}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:swiss}{{4}{6}{Examples of the synthetic narrow Swiss roll (blue) with Gaussian outliers (yellow), generated using different values of $\sigma ^2\in {0.1,1,10}$.\relax }{figure.caption.5}{}}
\newlabel{fig:swiss@cref}{{[figure][4][]4}{[1][5][]6}}
\citation{lai2019robust}
\citation{chen2017outlier,ishii2019low}
\citation{zhao2019pyod}
\citation{angiulli2002fast}
\citation{Iforest}
\citation{HBOS}
\citation{li2020copod}
\citation{ecod}
\citation{zhou2017anomaly}
\citation{lai2019robust}
\citation{qiu2021neural}
\citation{bergman2020classification}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Outlier Detection with Synthetic Data }{7}{section.6}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appendix:swiss}{{6}{7}{Outlier Detection with Synthetic Data }{section.6}{}}
\newlabel{appendix:swiss@cref}{{[section][6][]6}{[1][7][]7}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {6.1}Outlier Detection on Real Data}{7}{subsection.6.1}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {5}{\ignorespaces Outlier detection benchmark using 41 real tabular datasets. We present the box plots comparing the median AUC results of each method when applying 10 random splits of each dataset. Black lines indicate medians while red lines are the mean. Left panel: results for the inductive learning setting. Right panel: results for the transductive learning setting. The proposed PRAE outperforms all baselines in both settings. We only present here PRAE-$\ell _1$ since the $\ell _0$ led to similar results (see complete tables in the Appendix).\relax }}{8}{figure.caption.6}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:box_plots}{{5}{8}{Outlier detection benchmark using 41 real tabular datasets. We present the box plots comparing the median AUC results of each method when applying 10 random splits of each dataset. Black lines indicate medians while red lines are the mean. Left panel: results for the inductive learning setting. Right panel: results for the transductive learning setting. The proposed PRAE outperforms all baselines in both settings. We only present here PRAE-$\ell _1$ since the $\ell _0$ led to similar results (see complete tables in the Appendix).\relax }{figure.caption.6}{}}
\newlabel{fig:box_plots@cref}{{[figure][5][]5}{[1][7][]8}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}Sensitivity to Hyperparameters}{8}{section.7}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appendix:hyper_sensative}{{7}{8}{Sensitivity to Hyperparameters}{section.7}{}}
\newlabel{appendix:hyper_sensative@cref}{{[section][7][]7}{[1][8][]8}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {6}{\ignorespaces Heatmap presenting the AUC of the proposed approach on for several values of $\lambda $ and the learning rate using the `Musk' data.\relax }}{8}{figure.caption.7}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:sensitiv}{{6}{8}{Heatmap presenting the AUC of the proposed approach on for several values of $\lambda $ and the learning rate using the `Musk' data.\relax }{figure.caption.7}{}}
\newlabel{fig:sensitiv@cref}{{[figure][6][]6}{[1][8][]8}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {8}Ablation Study}{8}{section.8}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appendix:Ablation}{{8}{8}{Ablation Study}{section.8}{}}
\newlabel{appendix:Ablation@cref}{{[section][8][]8}{[1][8][]8}}
\citation{tishby2015deep,ronen2019convergence}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Ablation study. Comparing the proposed schemes PRAE-$\ell _0$, and PRAE-$\ell _1$, to three other variants. We use the same architecture and optimizer, and compare to AE, DRAE-$\ell _1$ and PRAE $(\lambda =0)$ all explained above. \relax }}{9}{table.caption.8}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:ablation}{{2}{9}{Ablation study. Comparing the proposed schemes PRAE-$\ell _0$, and PRAE-$\ell _1$, to three other variants. We use the same architecture and optimizer, and compare to AE, DRAE-$\ell _1$ and PRAE $(\lambda =0)$ all explained above. \relax }{table.caption.8}{}}
\newlabel{tab:ablation@cref}{{[table][2][]2}{[1][9][]9}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {9}Stability}{9}{section.9}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {10}Strengths and Limitations}{9}{section.10}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec:strength_limitations}{{10}{9}{Strengths and Limitations}{section.10}{}}
\newlabel{sec:strength_limitations@cref}{{[section][10][]10}{[1][9][]9}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {7}{\ignorespaces Box plots are presented that demonstrate the AUC of the proposed approach on real datasets. The left panel shows the variability for different random initializations of the PRAE model, whereas the right panel evaluates the variability that stems from random data splits. The color indicates the standard deviation of the AUC values.\relax }}{9}{figure.caption.9}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:box_plots_stability}{{7}{9}{Box plots are presented that demonstrate the AUC of the proposed approach on real datasets. The left panel shows the variability for different random initializations of the PRAE model, whereas the right panel evaluates the variability that stems from random data splits. The color indicates the standard deviation of the AUC values.\relax }{figure.caption.9}{}}
\newlabel{fig:box_plots_stability@cref}{{[figure][7][]7}{[1][9][]9}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {11}Conclusion}{9}{section.11}\protected@file@percent }
\bibdata{references}
\bibcite{aizenbud2021non}{{1}{2021}{{Aizenbud and Sober}}{{}}}
\bibcite{aizenbud2015pca}{{2}{2015}{{Aizenbud et~al.}}{{Aizenbud, Bermanis, and Averbuch}}}
\bibcite{angiulli2002fast}{{3}{2002}{{Angiulli and Pizzuti}}{{}}}
\bibcite{bergman2020classification}{{4}{2020}{{Bergman and Hoshen}}{{}}}
\bibcite{bishop1994novelty}{{5}{1994}{{Bishop}}{{}}}
\bibcite{boyd2004convex}{{6}{2004}{{Boyd et~al.}}{{Boyd, Boyd, and Vandenberghe}}}
\bibcite{bregman2021array}{{7}{2021}{{Bregman et~al.}}{{Bregman, Lindenbaum, and Rabin}}}
\bibcite{breunig2000lof}{{8}{2000}{{Breunig et~al.}}{{Breunig, Kriegel, Ng, and Sander}}}
\bibcite{anom-cyber}{{9}{2019}{{Chawla et~al.}}{{Chawla, Jacob, Lee, and Fallon}}}
\bibcite{chen2017outlier}{{10}{2017}{{Chen et~al.}}{{Chen, Sathe, Aggarwal, and Turaga}}}
\bibcite{chen2001one}{{11}{2001}{{Chen et~al.}}{{Chen, Zhou, and Huang}}}
\bibcite{constantinou2018pynomaly}{{12}{2018}{{Constantinou}}{{}}}
\bibcite{deecke2021transfer}{{13}{2021}{{Deecke et~al.}}{{Deecke, Ruff, Vandermeulen, and Bilen}}}
\bibcite{deng2022anomaly}{{14}{2022}{{Deng and Li}}{{}}}
\bibcite{du2019implicit}{{15}{2019}{{Du and Mordatch}}{{}}}
\bibcite{eduardo2020robust}{{16}{2020}{{Eduardo et~al.}}{{Eduardo, Naz{\'a}bal, Williams, and Sutton}}}
\bibcite{ghoting2008fast}{{17}{2008}{{Ghoting et~al.}}{{Ghoting, Parthasarathy, and Otey}}}
\bibcite{HBOS}{{18}{2012}{{Goldstein and Dengel}}{{}}}
\bibcite{goyal2020drocc}{{19}{2020}{{Goyal et~al.}}{{Goyal, Raghunathan, Jain, Simhadri, and Jain}}}
\bibcite{cblof}{{20}{2003}{{He et~al.}}{{He, Xu, and Deng}}}
\bibcite{hendrycks2018deep}{{21}{2018}{{Hendrycks et~al.}}{{Hendrycks, Mazeika, and Dietterich}}}
\bibcite{hendrycks2019using}{{22}{2019}{{Hendrycks et~al.}}{{Hendrycks, Mazeika, Kadavath, and Song}}}
\bibcite{hojjati2021dasvdd}{{23}{2021}{{Hojjati and Armanfard}}{{}}}
\bibcite{huber1987place}{{24}{1987}{{Huber}}{{}}}
\bibcite{ishii2019low}{{25}{2019}{{Ishii and Takanashi}}{{}}}
\bibcite{ishii2020l0}{{26}{2020}{{Ishii et~al.}}{{Ishii, Koide, and Hayakawa}}}
\bibcite{ishii2022learning}{{27}{2022}{{Ishii et~al.}}{{Ishii, Koide, and Hayakawa}}}
\bibcite{japkowicz1995novelty}{{28}{1995}{{Japkowicz et~al.}}{{Japkowicz, Myers, Gluck, et~al.}}}
\bibcite{jin2001mining}{{29}{2001}{{Jin et~al.}}{{Jin, Tung, and Han}}}
\bibcite{jin2006ranking}{{30}{2006}{{Jin et~al.}}{{Jin, Tung, Han, and Wang}}}
\bibcite{abod}{{31}{2008}{{Kriegel et~al.}}{{Kriegel, Schubert, and Zimek}}}
\bibcite{SOD}{{32}{2009{a}}{{Kriegel et~al.}}{{Kriegel, Kr{\"o}ger, Schubert, and Zimek}}}
\bibcite{kriegel2009loop}{{33}{2009{b}}{{Kriegel et~al.}}{{Kriegel, Kr{\"o}ger, Schubert, and Zimek}}}
\bibcite{lai2019robust}{{34}{2019}{{Lai et~al.}}{{Lai, Zou, and Lerman}}}
\bibcite{lecun1989generalization}{{35}{1989}{{LeCun et~al.}}{{}}}
\bibcite{anom-bio}{{36}{2018}{{Lenning et~al.}}{{Lenning, Fortunato, Le, Clark, Sherpa, Yi, Hofsteen, Thamilarasu, Yang, Xu, et~al.}}}
\bibcite{lerman2018fast}{{37}{2018{a}}{{Lerman and Maunu}}{{}}}
\bibcite{lerman2018overview}{{38}{2018{b}}{{Lerman and Maunu}}{{}}}
\bibcite{lerman2015robust}{{39}{2015}{{Lerman et~al.}}{{Lerman, McCoy, Tropp, and Zhang}}}
\bibcite{li2020copod}{{40}{2020}{{Li et~al.}}{{Li, Zhao, Botta, Ionescu, and Hu}}}
\bibcite{ecod}{{41}{2022}{{Li et~al.}}{{Li, Zhao, Hu, Botta, Ionescu, and Chen}}}
\bibcite{lin2010augmented}{{42}{2010}{{Lin et~al.}}{{Lin, Chen, and Ma}}}
\bibcite{lindenbaum2020deep}{{43}{2021{a}}{{Lindenbaum et~al.}}{{Lindenbaum, Salhov, Averbuch, and Kluger}}}
\bibcite{lindenbaum2020differentiable}{{44}{2021{b}}{{Lindenbaum et~al.}}{{Lindenbaum, Shaham, Svirsky, Peterfreund, and Kluger}}}
\bibcite{Iforest}{{45}{2008}{{Liu et~al.}}{{Liu, Ting, and Zhou}}}
\bibcite{liu2019generative}{{46}{2019}{{Liu et~al.}}{{Liu, Li, Zhou, Jiang, Sun, Wang, and He}}}
\bibcite{maunu2019well}{{47}{2019}{{Maunu et~al.}}{{Maunu, Zhang, and Lerman}}}
\bibcite{mitra2010robust}{{48}{2010}{{Mitra et~al.}}{{Mitra, Veeraraghavan, and Chellappa}}}
\bibcite{Pearson1901PCA}{{49}{1901}{{Pearson}}{{}}}
\bibcite{perera2021one}{{50}{2021}{{Perera et~al.}}{{Perera, Oza, and Patel}}}
\bibcite{peterfreund2020local}{{51}{2020}{{Peterfreund et~al.}}{{Peterfreund, Lindenbaum, Dietrich, Bertalan, Gavish, Kevrekidis, and Coifman}}}
\bibcite{qiu2021neural}{{52}{2021}{{Qiu et~al.}}{{Qiu, Pfrommer, Kloft, Mandt, and Rudolph}}}
\bibcite{ramaswamy2000efficient}{{53}{2000}{{Ramaswamy et~al.}}{{Ramaswamy, Rastogi, and Shim}}}
\bibcite{reiss2021panda}{{54}{2021}{{Reiss et~al.}}{{Reiss, Cohen, Bergman, and Hoshen}}}
\bibcite{ronen2019convergence}{{55}{2019}{{Ronen et~al.}}{{Ronen, Jacobs, Kasten, and Kritchman}}}
\bibcite{roweis2000LLE}{{56}{2000}{{Roweis and Saul}}{{}}}
\bibcite{rozner2023anomaly}{{57}{2024}{{Rozner et~al.}}{{Rozner, Battash, Li, Wolf, and Lindenbaum}}}
\bibcite{ruff2018deep}{{58}{2018}{{Ruff et~al.}}{{Ruff, Vandermeulen, Goernitz, Deecke, Siddiqui, Binder, M{\"u}ller, and Kloft}}}
\bibcite{rumelhart1985learning}{{59}{1985}{{Rumelhart et~al.}}{{Rumelhart, Hinton, and Williams}}}
\bibcite{sakurada2014anomaly}{{60}{2014}{{Sakurada and Yairi}}{{}}}
\bibcite{scholkopf2001estimating}{{61}{2001}{{Sch{\"o}lkopf et~al.}}{{Sch{\"o}lkopf, Platt, Shawe-Taylor, Smola, and Williamson}}}
\bibcite{shenkar2022anomaly}{{62}{2022}{{Shenkar and Wolf}}{{}}}
\bibcite{COF}{{63}{2002{a}}{{Tang et~al.}}{{Tang, Chen, Fu, and Cheung}}}
\bibcite{tang2002enhancing}{{64}{2002{b}}{{Tang et~al.}}{{Tang, Chen, Fu, and Cheung}}}
\bibcite{tishby2015deep}{{65}{2015}{{Tishby and Zaslavsky}}{{}}}
\bibcite{wang2019effective}{{66}{2019}{{Wang et~al.}}{{Wang, Zeng, Liu, Zhu, Yin, Xu, and Kloft}}}
\bibcite{yamada2018feature}{{67}{2020}{{Yamada et~al.}}{{Yamada, Lindenbaum, Negahban, and Kluger}}}
\bibcite{yangrobust}{{68}{2018}{{Yang et~al.}}{{Yang, Lozano, and Aravkin}}}
\bibcite{zhang2016robust}{{69}{2016}{{Zhang}}{{}}}
\bibcite{lscp}{{70}{2019{a}}{{Zhao et~al.}}{{Zhao, Nasrullah, Hryniewicki, and Li}}}
\bibcite{zhao2019pyod}{{71}{2019{b}}{{Zhao et~al.}}{{Zhao, Nasrullah, and Li}}}
\bibcite{zheng2017massively}{{72}{2017}{{Zheng et~al.}}{{Zheng, Terry, Belgrader, Ryvkin, Bent, Wilson, Ziraldo, Wheeler, McDermott, Zhu, et~al.}}}
\bibcite{zhou2017anomaly}{{73}{2017}{{Zhou and Paffenroth}}{{}}}
\bibcite{zong2018deep}{{74}{2018}{{Zong et~al.}}{{Zong, Song, Min, Cheng, Lumezanu, Cho, and Chen}}}
\citation{zheng2017massively}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {A}Robust Subspace Recovery Experiment Details}{14}{appendix.A}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appendix:lin_experiment}{{A}{14}{Robust Subspace Recovery Experiment Details}{appendix.A}{}}
\newlabel{appendix:lin_experiment@cref}{{[appendix][1][2147483647]A}{[1][14][]14}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {8}{\ignorespaces Heatmap presenting the AUC of the proposed approach on for several values of $\lambda $ and the learning rate using the `Yeast' data.\relax }}{14}{figure.caption.12}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:sensitiv2}{{8}{14}{Heatmap presenting the AUC of the proposed approach on for several values of $\lambda $ and the learning rate using the `Yeast' data.\relax }{figure.caption.12}{}}
\newlabel{fig:sensitiv2@cref}{{[figure][8][2147483647]8}{[1][14][]14}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {B}Additional Experimental Details}{14}{appendix.B}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appendix:additional_exper}{{B}{14}{Additional Experimental Details}{appendix.B}{}}
\newlabel{appendix:additional_exper@cref}{{[appendix][2][2147483647]B}{[1][14][]14}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {C}Datastes}{14}{appendix.C}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appendix:datasets}{{C}{14}{Datastes}{appendix.C}{}}
\newlabel{appendix:datasets@cref}{{[appendix][3][2147483647]C}{[1][14][]14}}
\citation{Iforest}
\citation{HBOS}
\citation{ruff2018deep}
\citation{zhou2017anomaly}
\citation{chen2017outlier}
\citation{li2020copod}
\citation{ecod}
\citation{bergman2020classification}
\citation{shenkar2022anomaly}
\citation{qiu2021neural}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Inductive learning: performance comparison with several leading baselines. We present the median AUC over $10$ runs. Blue and bold indicate the best and second-best methods, respectively. Additional metrics appear in the Appendix. \relax }}{15}{table.caption.10}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:realresults_oos}{{3}{15}{Inductive learning: performance comparison with several leading baselines. We present the median AUC over $10$ runs. Blue and bold indicate the best and second-best methods, respectively. Additional metrics appear in the Appendix. \relax }{table.caption.10}{}}
\newlabel{tab:realresults_oos@cref}{{[table][3][2147483647]3}{[1][14][]15}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {D}Baselines and Hyperparameters}{15}{appendix.D}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appendix:baseline_hyperparameters}{{D}{15}{Baselines and Hyperparameters}{appendix.D}{}}
\newlabel{appendix:baseline_hyperparameters@cref}{{[appendix][4][2147483647]D}{[1][15][]15}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Transductive learning: performance comparison with several leading anomaly detection baselines in the ``out-of-sample'' setting. We present the median AUC over $10$ runs. Additional metrics appear in the Appendix. \relax }}{16}{table.caption.11}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:realresults}{{4}{16}{Transductive learning: performance comparison with several leading anomaly detection baselines in the ``out-of-sample'' setting. We present the median AUC over $10$ runs. Additional metrics appear in the Appendix. \relax }{table.caption.11}{}}
\newlabel{tab:realresults@cref}{{[table][4][2147483647]4}{[1][14][]16}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {5}{\ignorespaces Transductive learning: performance comparison with several leading baselines. We present the median average precision (AP) over $10$ runs. Blue and bold indicate the best and second-best methods, respectively. \relax }}{17}{table.caption.13}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:realresults_ap2}{{5}{17}{Transductive learning: performance comparison with several leading baselines. We present the median average precision (AP) over $10$ runs. Blue and bold indicate the best and second-best methods, respectively. \relax }{table.caption.13}{}}
\newlabel{tab:realresults_ap2@cref}{{[table][5][2147483647]5}{[1][14][]17}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {E}Running Time and Platform Details}{17}{appendix.E}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appendix:running_time}{{E}{17}{Running Time and Platform Details}{appendix.E}{}}
\newlabel{appendix:running_time@cref}{{[appendix][5][2147483647]E}{[1][17][]17}}
\citation{cblof}
\citation{abod}
\citation{COF}
\citation{SOD}
\citation{lscp}
\citation{scholkopf2001estimating}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {6}{\ignorespaces Inductive learning: performance comparison with several leading baselines. We present the median average precision (AP) over $10$ runs. Blue and bold indicate the best and second-best methods, respectively. \relax }}{18}{table.caption.14}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{tab:realresults_f1}{{6}{18}{Inductive learning: performance comparison with several leading baselines. We present the median average precision (AP) over $10$ runs. Blue and bold indicate the best and second-best methods, respectively. \relax }{table.caption.14}{}}
\newlabel{tab:realresults_f1@cref}{{[table][6][2147483647]6}{[1][14][]18}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {F}MNISTv1 and Fashion MNIST}{18}{appendix.F}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appendix:mnist}{{F}{18}{MNISTv1 and Fashion MNIST}{appendix.F}{}}
\newlabel{appendix:mnist@cref}{{[appendix][6][2147483647]F}{[1][18][]18}}
\citation{zhou2017anomaly}
\citation{zhou2017anomaly}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {9}{\ignorespaces Box plots comparing the performance of PRAE for different latent dimension. In the right box plot we evaluate the dynamic procedure proposed for tuning $\lambda $ based on the MSE on unseen samples (see Section \ref  {sec:hyper}).\relax }}{19}{figure.caption.15}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:latent}{{9}{19}{Box plots comparing the performance of PRAE for different latent dimension. In the right box plot we evaluate the dynamic procedure proposed for tuning $\lambda $ based on the MSE on unseen samples (see Section \ref {sec:hyper}).\relax }{figure.caption.15}{}}
\newlabel{fig:latent@cref}{{[figure][9][2147483647]9}{[1][15][]19}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {7}{\ignorespaces Run time comparison between different baselines. The left part of thetable indicates training time, and our inference time is indicated in the right most column. \relax }}{19}{table.caption.16}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{table:runtime}{{7}{19}{Run time comparison between different baselines. The left part of thetable indicates training time, and our inference time is indicated in the right most column. \relax }{table.caption.16}{}}
\newlabel{table:runtime@cref}{{[table][7][2147483647]7}{[1][18][]19}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {F.1}Small MNIST Dataset (MNISTv1) }{19}{subsection.F.1}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {10}{\ignorespaces $25$ most inlaying/outlying (left/center) MNISTv1 images as identified by PRAE. Right- precision vs. recall curves for leading baselines on the MNISTv1 data. \relax }}{20}{figure.caption.17}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:mnist}{{10}{20}{$25$ most inlaying/outlying (left/center) MNISTv1 images as identified by PRAE. Right- precision vs. recall curves for leading baselines on the MNISTv1 data. \relax }{figure.caption.17}{}}
\newlabel{fig:mnist@cref}{{[figure][10][2147483647]10}{[1][19][]20}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {8}{\ignorespaces Performance comparison with two leading baselines (IForest and OC-SVM) on the MNISTv1 and Fashion MNIST datasets. The top ten rows correspond to different classes in MNIST; each row indicates the class label used to define the normal samples. The bottom ten rows correspond to different classes in Fashion MNIST. \relax }}{20}{table.caption.18}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{table:mist_all}{{8}{20}{Performance comparison with two leading baselines (IForest and OC-SVM) on the MNISTv1 and Fashion MNIST datasets. The top ten rows correspond to different classes in MNIST; each row indicates the class label used to define the normal samples. The bottom ten rows correspond to different classes in Fashion MNIST. \relax }{table.caption.18}{}}
\newlabel{table:mist_all@cref}{{[table][8][2147483647]8}{[1][20][]20}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {F.2}Fashion MNIST}{20}{subsection.F.2}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {11}{\ignorespaces $25$ most inlaying/outlying (left/right) MNISTv1 images as identified by different baseline algorithms. \relax }}{21}{figure.caption.19}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:mnist-baselines1}{{11}{21}{$25$ most inlaying/outlying (left/right) MNISTv1 images as identified by different baseline algorithms. \relax }{figure.caption.19}{}}
\newlabel{fig:mnist-baselines1@cref}{{[figure][11][2147483647]11}{[1][20][]21}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {12}{\ignorespaces $25$ most inlaying/outlying (left/right) MNISTv1 images as identified by different baselines\relax }}{22}{figure.caption.20}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:mnist-baselines2}{{12}{22}{$25$ most inlaying/outlying (left/right) MNISTv1 images as identified by different baselines\relax }{figure.caption.20}{}}
\newlabel{fig:mnist-baselines2@cref}{{[figure][12][2147483647]12}{[1][20][]22}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {13}{\ignorespaces $25$ most inlaying/outlying (left/right) MNISTv1 images as identified by different baselines\relax }}{23}{figure.caption.21}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig:mnist-baselines3}{{13}{23}{$25$ most inlaying/outlying (left/right) MNISTv1 images as identified by different baselines\relax }{figure.caption.21}{}}
\newlabel{fig:mnist-baselines3@cref}{{[figure][13][2147483647]13}{[1][20][]23}}
\newlabel{LastPage}{{}{23}{}{page.23}{}}
\xdef\lastpage@lastpage{23}
\xdef\lastpage@lastpageHy{23}
\gdef \@abspage@last{23}
