Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2503.02112

Building Machine Learning Challenges for Anomaly Detection in Science

Elizabeth G. Campolongo·Yuan-Tang Chou·Ekaterina Govorkova·Wahid Bhimji·Wei-Lun Chao·Chris Harris·Shih-Chieh Hsu·Hilmar Lapp·Mark S. Neubauer·Josephine Namayanja·Aneesh Subramanian·Philip Harris·Advaith Anand·David E. Carlyn·Subhankar Ghosh·Christopher Lawrence·Eric Moreno·Ryan Raikman·Jiaman Wu·Ziheng Zhang·Bayu Adhi·Mohammad Ahmadi Gharehtoragh·Saúl Alonso Monsalve·Marta Babicz·Furqan Baig·Namrata Banerji·William Bardon·Tyler Barna·Tanya Berger-Wolf·Adji Bousso Dieng·Micah Brachman·Quentin Buat·David C. Y. Hui·Phuong Cao·Franco Cerino·Yi-Chun Chang·Shivaji Chaulagain·An-Kai Chen·Deming Chen·Eric Chen·Chia-Jui Chou·Zih-Chen Ciou·Miles Cochran-Branson·Artur Cordeiro Oudot Choi·Michael Coughlin·Matteo Cremonesi·Maria Dadarlat·Peter Darch·Malina Desai·Daniel Diaz·Steven Dillmann·Javier Duarte·Isla Duporge·Urbas Ekka·Saba Entezari Heravi·Hao Fang·Rian Flynn·Geoffrey Fox·Emily Freed·Hang Gao·Jing Gao·Julia Gonski·Matthew Graham·Abolfazl Hashemi·Scott Hauck·James Hazelden·Joshua Henry Peterson·Duc Hoang·Wei Hu·Mirco Huennefeld·David Hyde·Vandana Janeja·Nattapon Jaroenchai·Haoyi Jia·Yunfan Kang·Maksim Kholiavchenko·Elham E. Khoda·Sangin Kim·Aditya Kumar·Bo-Cheng Lai·Trung Le·Chi-Wei Lee·JangHyeon Lee·Shaocheng Lee·Suzan van der Lee·Charles Lewis·Haitong Li·Haoyang Li·Henry Liao·Mia Liu·Xiaolin Liu·Xiulong Liu·Vladimir Loncar·Fangzheng Lyu·Ilya Makarov·Abhishikth Mallampalli·Chen-Yu Mao·Alexander Michels·Alexander Migala·Farouk Mokhtar
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Scientific discoveries are often made by finding a pattern or object that was not predicted by the known rules of science. Oftentimes, these anomalous events or objects that do not conform to the norms are an indication that the rules of science governing the data are incomplete, and something new needs to be present to explain these unexpected outliers. The challenge of finding anomalies can be confounding since it requires codifying a complete knowledge of the known scientific behaviors and then projecting these known behaviors on the data to look for deviations. When utilizing machine learning, this presents a particular challenge since we require that the model not only understands scientific data perfectly but also recognizes when the data is inconsistent and out of the scope of its trained behavior. In this paper, we present three datasets aimed at developing machine learning-based anomaly detection for disparate scientific domains covering astrophysics, genomics, and polar science. We present the different datasets along with a scheme to make machine learning challenges around the three datasets findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR). Furthermore, we present an approach that generalizes to future machine learning challenges, enabling the possibility of large, more compute-intensive challenges that can ultimately lead to scientific discovery.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGastro-ph.IM

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Elizabeth G. Campolongo, Yuan-Tang Chou, Ekaterina Govorkova, Wahid Bhimji, Wei-Lun Chao, Chris Harris, Shih-Chieh Hsu, Hilmar Lapp, Mark S. Neubauer, Josephine Namayanja, Aneesh Subramanian, Philip Harris, Advaith Anand, David E. Carlyn, Subhankar Ghosh, Christopher Lawrence, Eric Moreno, Ryan Raikman, Jiaman Wu, Ziheng Zhang, Bayu Adhi, Mohammad Ahmadi Gharehtoragh, Saúl Alonso Monsalve, Marta Babicz, Furqan Baig, Namrata Banerji, William Bardon, Tyler Barna, Tanya Berger-Wolf, Adji Bousso Dieng, Micah Brachman, Quentin Buat, David C. Y. Hui, Phuong Cao, Franco Cerino, Yi-Chun Chang, Shivaji Chaulagain, An-Kai Chen, Deming Chen, Eric Chen, Chia-Jui Chou, Zih-Chen Ciou, Miles Cochran-Branson, Artur Cordeiro Oudot Choi, Michael Coughlin, Matteo Cremonesi, Maria Dadarlat, Peter Darch, Malina Desai, Daniel Diaz, Steven Dillmann, Javier Duarte, Isla Duporge, Urbas Ekka, Saba Entezari Heravi, Hao Fang, Rian Flynn, Geoffrey Fox, Emily Freed, Hang Gao, Jing Gao, Julia Gonski, Matthew Graham, Abolfazl Hashemi, Scott Hauck, James Hazelden, Joshua Henry Peterson, Duc Hoang, Wei Hu, Mirco Huennefeld, David Hyde, Vandana Janeja, Nattapon Jaroenchai, Haoyi Jia, Yunfan Kang, Maksim Kholiavchenko, Elham E. Khoda, Sangin Kim, Aditya Kumar, Bo-Cheng Lai, Trung Le, Chi-Wei Lee, JangHyeon Lee, Shaocheng Lee, Suzan van der Lee, Charles Lewis, Haitong Li, Haoyang Li, Henry Liao, Mia Liu, Xiaolin Liu, Xiulong Liu, Vladimir Loncar, Fangzheng Lyu, Ilya Makarov, Abhishikth Mallampalli, Chen-Yu Mao, Alexander Michels, Alexander Migala, Farouk Mokhtar. 2025-03-03. Building Machine Learning Challenges for Anomaly Detection in Science. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.02112

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗