
ANOMALY DETECTION IN MNIST DATASET USING ONE-CLASS SVM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69916/jkbti.v4i3.324Keywords:
one-class SVM, isolation forest, anomaly detection, MNIST, unsupervised learningAbstract
Anomaly detection has become an essential aspect of modern machine learning, particularly in scenarios where labeled data is scarce or unavailable. This study presents a comparative analysis between two widely used unsupervised algorithms: One-Class Support Vector Machine (OCSVM) and Isolation Forest. Using the MNIST dataset as a benchmark, the evaluation focuses on score distribution, training time, precision measured by ROC-AUC, and sensitivity to data variations. The results demonstrate distinct trade-offs between the two approaches. OCSVM produces a centralized score distribution (0.4–0.5) and achieves superior classification performance with a ROC-AUC of 0.92, which is statistically significant (p < 0.05 by DeLong’s test). This indicates that OCSVM is highly effective in identifying structural deviations, making it suitable for applications requiring strict data validation and reliability, such as fraud detection and critical quality control. However, this higher accuracy comes at the cost of computational efficiency, as OCSVM requires approximately 120 seconds for training. In contrast, Isolation Forest yields a more spread score distribution (0.3–0.7) and slightly lower precision (ROC-AUC 0.85), but it significantly reduces training time to just 60 seconds. Moreover, its high sensitivity to minor variations highlights its advantage in real-time anomaly detection and large-scale datasets where speed and adaptability are crucial. Overall, the findings emphasize that OCSVM excels in precision-driven applications, while Isolation Forest is more advantageous for scenarios that demand scalability and computational efficiency. These insights provide a practical guideline for selecting appropriate anomaly detection methods depending on application requirements.
Downloads
References
H. Hojjati and N. Armanfard, “DASVDD: Deep Autoencoding Support Vector Data Descriptor for Anomaly Detection,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 3739–3750, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2023.3328882.
N. Seliya, A. Abdollah Zadeh, and T. M. Khoshgoftaar, A literature review on one-class classification and its potential applications in big data, vol. 8, no. 1. Springer International Publishing, 2021. doi: 10.1186/s40537-021-00514-x.
J. Cai and J. Fan, “Perturbation learning based anomaly detection,” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, in NIPS ’22. Red Hook, NY, USA: Curran Associates Inc., 2022.
M. Salehi, N. Sadjadi, S. Baselizadeh, M. H. Rohban, and H. R. Rabiee, “Multiresolution Knowledge Distillation for Anomaly Detection,” in 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021, pp. 14897–14907. doi: 10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.01466.
H. Deng and X. Li, “Anomaly Detection via Reverse Distillation from One-Class Embedding,” in 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 9727–9736. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.00951.
Y. Zhang et al., “Adversarially learned one-class novelty detection with confidence estimation,” Inf. Sci. (Ny)., vol. 552, pp. 48–64, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.11.052.
G. Park, J. Huh, and D. K. Park, “Variational quantum one-class classifier OPEN ACCESS,” 2023.
M. Hossein Zadeh Bazargani, A. Pakrashi, and B. Mac Namee, “The Deep Radial Basis Function Data Descriptor (D-RBFDD) Network: A One-Class Neural Network for Anomaly Detection,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 70645–70661, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3187961.
T. Hayashi, D. Cimr, H. Fujita, and R. Cimler, “Critical Review for One-class Classification: recent advances and the reality behind them,” CoRR, vol. abs/2404.17931, 2024, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2404.17931.
M. E. Villa-Pérez, M. Á. Álvarez-Carmona, O. Loyola-González, M. A. Medina-Pérez, J. C. Velazco-Rossell, and K.-K. R. Choo, “Semi-supervised anomaly detection algorithms: A comparative summary and future research directions,” Knowledge-Based Syst., vol. 218, p. 106878, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106878.
N. Satheesh et al., “Flow-based anomaly intrusion detection using machine learning model with software defined networking for OpenFlow network,” Microprocess. Microsyst., vol. 79, p. 103285, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpro.2020.103285.
F. Zhao, C. Zhang, N. Dong, Z. You, and Z. Wu, “A Uniform Framework for Anomaly Detection in Deep Neural Networks,” Neural Process. Lett., vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 3467–3488, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11063-022-10776-y.
T. Abiodun and P. Olukanmi, “Performance Evaluation of Machine Learning Models for Anomaly Detection in Energy Usage Data,” in 2025 33rd Southern African Universities Power Engineering Conference (SAUPEC), 2025, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/SAUPEC65723.2025.10944339.
S. K. Ray and S. Susan, “Performance Analysis of Online Machine Learning Frameworks for Anomaly Detection in IoT Data Streams,” in 2024 15th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), 2024, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/ICCCNT61001.2024.10724326.
W. Hilal, S. A. Gadsden, and J. Yawney, “Financial Fraud: A Review of Anomaly Detection Techniques and Recent Advances,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 193, p. 116429, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116429.
Downloads
Published
Scite Metrics
Altmetric
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Barokah Saadah

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.