We Need to Rethink Benchmarking in Anomaly Detection

Philipp Röchner, Simon Klüttermann, Franz Rothlauf, Daniel Schlör
7/21/2025
cs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 1 possible match can be shown below.

Abstract

Despite the continuous proposal of new anomaly detection algorithms and extensive benchmarking efforts, progress seems to stagnate, with only minor performance differences between established baselines and new algorithms. In this position paper, we argue that this stagnation is due to limitations in how we evaluate anomaly detection algorithms. Current benchmarking does not, for example, sufficiently reflect the diversity of anomalies in applications ranging from predictive maintenance to scientific discovery. Consequently, we need to rethink benchmarking in anomaly detection. In our opinion, anomaly detection should be studied using scenarios that capture the relevant characteristics of different applications. We identify three key areas for improvement: First, we need to identify anomaly detection scenarios based on a common taxonomy. Second, anomaly detection pipelines should be analyzed end-to-end and by component. Third, evaluating anomaly detection algorithms should be meaningful regarding the scenario's objectives.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 1 weaker match is hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{rchner2025need,
  title  = {We Need to Rethink Benchmarking in Anomaly Detection},
  author = {Philipp Röchner and Simon Klüttermann and Franz Rothlauf and Daniel Schlör},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2507.15584},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15584v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2507.15584.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2507.15584)

Discussion