It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Autoencoders have been proposed as a powerful tool for model-independent anomaly detection in high-energy physics. The operating principle is that events which do not belong to the space of training data will be reconstructed poorly, thus flagging them as anomalies. We point out that in a variety of examples of interest, the connection between large reconstruction error and anomalies is not so clear. In particular, for data sets with nontrivial topology, there will always be points that erroneously seem anomalous due to global issues. Conversely, neural networks typically have an inductive bias or prior to locally interpolate such that undersampled or rare events may be reconstructed with small error, despite actually being the desired anomalies. Taken together, these facts are in tension with the simple picture of the autoencoder as an anomaly detector. Using a series of illustrative low-dimensional examples, we show explicitly how the intrinsic and extrinsic topology of the dataset affects the behavior of an autoencoder and how this topology is manifested in the latent space representation during training. We ground this analysis in the discussion of a mock “bump hunt” in which the autoencoder fails to identify an anomalous “signal” for reasons tied to the intrinsic topology of n-particle phase space.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 The Public Health Company, Goleta, USA
2 New York University Shanghai, Department of Business and Finance, Shanghai, China (GRID:grid.449457.f)
3 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Physics, Urbana, USA (GRID:grid.35403.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9991); University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for Artificial Intelligence Innovation, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, Urbana, USA (GRID:grid.35403.31) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9991)
4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Theoretical Physics and Department of Physics, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.116068.8) (ISNI:0000 0001 2341 2786); The NSF AI Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Interactions, Cambridge, USA (GRID:grid.510603.1); Salesforce, San Francisco, USA (GRID:grid.431504.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 4904 6413)