IAES International Journal of Artificial Intelligence (IJ-AI)

Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024, pp. 383~390

ISSN: 2252-8938, DOI: 10.11591/ijai.v13.i1.pp383-390  383

Anomaly detection using deep learning based model with

feature attention

Rikin J. Nayak, Jitendra P. Chaudhari

V.T. Patel Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Chandubhai S Patel Institute of Technology, Charotar University
of Science and Technology, Changa, India

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: Anomaly detection is a difficult problem with numerous industrial
applications, such as analyzing the quality of objects using images. Anomaly
Received Aug 25, 2022 detection is the process of identifying outliers in a given dataset. Recently,
Revised Jan 29, 2023 machine learning approaches to computer vision problems have outperformed
Accepted Mar 10, 2023 classical state-of-the-art approaches. Anomaly detection problems can be
solved using supervised approaches. However, labelled datasets are hard to
obtain. Thus, many researchers have taken an unsupervised approach to
Keywords: solving the problem of anomaly detection. In this study, we use an adversarial
auto encoder model as a base model and create a custom model to detect
Anomaly detection anomalies in images and videos. The model was trained exclusively on normal
Attention weights data. The modified national institute of standards and technology database
Auto encoder (MNIST) dataset achieved an area under curve (AUC) score of 0.872 for
Generative model anomaly detection, while the University of California San Diego (UCSD)
Vision automation anomaly dataset (Video dataset) achieved an AUC score of 0.74 for Ped1 and
0.87 for Ped2. To calculate the anomaly score, the concept of attention weights
is combined with the reconstruction loss, and the proposed method
outperformed other similar methods designed for the same problem. However,
the usefulness of the proposed model was demonstrated through the detection
of anomalies, and the model is still being improved for use in real-world
situations.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Rikin J. Nayak
V.T. Patel Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering
Chandubhai S Patel Institute of Technology, Charotar University of Science and Technology
Changa, Ta-Petlad, Anand, Gujarat 388421
Email: 16drec006@charusat.edu.in, rikinnayak@gmail.com

1. INTRODUCTION
Anomaly detection is the process of differentiating between abnormal and normal or known patterns.
An anomaly is defined here as a pattern/data/image that deviates from the natural order of things. Due to the
diversity of the dataset, the closeness of normal and abnormal data, and the presence of noise in the dataset,
abnormal object detection is a very difficult problem. Reconstruction-based methods are extremely popular
and widely used in this application because they are efficient with unlabelled datasets. The auto encoder
architecture is widely used in a variety of applications, including classification, compression, and target
recognition [1]. Model has two parts: encoder and decoder. Encoder compresses input and creates latent space.
Decoder uses latent space to recreate original data from latent vector. Auto encoders come in a number of
different forms, and they're widely used in a variety of applications [1]. Variational autoencoder [2] and
adversarial autoencoder [3] are two popular architectures from the same family. When data regeneration has
occurred, reconstruction is a critical part of the model. With these models, lossless regeneration is extremely

Journal homepage: http://ijai.iaescore.com

384  ISSN: 2252-8938

difficult to achieve, and research on the subject has received little attention [4]. It can regenerate the same using
random noise after training a generative model like the generative adversarial network (GAN) [5]. Game theory
inspires GAN, which challenges both the generator and the discriminator against each other [5], [6].
The detection of anomalies using autoencoder models and their various variants has been the focus of
this study. To represent data with sparse features, probabilistic models can transform sparse vectors into various
probability distributions. Using an adversarial autoencoder, it is possible to learn the probability distribution
of the latent vector z from the noise sample p (z), which is used as the base model as shown in Figure 1.
Adversarial auto encoder (AAE) architecture is depicted in Figure 1. With the addition of a second image
discriminator, designated as discriminator 2, the network must generate an image using feature-wise loss and
a simple autoencoder reconstruction loss that will attempt to fool discriminator 2. We looked at a variety of
loss functions in order to ensure that different classes of images come from different distributions while
regenerating the original images.
As a performance parameter, we also considered reconstruction error, and the resulting image has the
lowest error rate. We evaluated the model's ability to detect anomalies and found that it outperformed others.
In this manuscript, we addressed the detection of abnormalities in videos and images. The term "anomaly"
refers to an object that is not normal. By learning the feature representation of the normal class, we are able to
identify anomalies that are not from the known class. We used the University of California San Diego (UCSD)
dataset and the modified national institute of standards and technology (MNIST) handwritten characters dataset
for testing the algorithm. The paper's structure comprises related work, proposed architecture, experimental
results, and conclusion in sections 2 to 5, respectively.

Figure 1. Adversarial autoencoder architecture

2. RELATED WORK
Many researchers have done comprehensive surveys on anomaly detection. Ruff et al. discusses
anomaly detection in detail using machine learning and deep learning in [7]. In the manufacturing industry,
anomaly detection can be extended to defect detection. Saad et al. [8] described one such method to detect
defects using a grey level co-occurrence matrix for the beverage manufacturing industry. Anomaly
classification is the process of classifying and detecting abnormal patterns that deviate from the rest of the data
[9]. As unsupervised learning models for anomaly detection, generative models are widely used. The idea is to
train the network with known data that is normal, and then the network can classify unknown or unseen data
as anomalies because the model will not be able to regenerate them or the regeneration loss will be greater than
the loss for known data.
Because of its superiority over other traditional methods, deep learning is widely used for anomaly
detection [10], [11]. Sharipuddin et al. [12] used deep learning-based method to detect Intrusion for internet of
thing (IoT). In [13] anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks (AnoGAN), GAN is used to

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 383-390

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  385

calculate the anomaly of two losses: residual loss and discriminator loss. The authors improved their algorithm
in [14] by including an encoder that generates latent vectors for the input image. They've also replaced GAN
with Wasserstein GAN. However, [15] demonstrates that the discriminator is unsuitable for measuring
anomalies. The authors discarded the discriminator during testing [16] because it did not improve the anomaly
score. There is a lack of work on anomaly detection using multiple views [17]. In [18], the author detects facial
micro-expressions to detect anomalies in the dataset given in [19]. In [20] the author has proposed a rough set
method-based outlier detection for large scale dataset.
Autoencoder is widely used for anomaly detection of data. An autoencoder is a network whose goal
is to regenerate input data with the least amount of error possible. The first autoencoder was introduced by the
author in [21]. The input data is encoded and represented by a latent vector; the decoder decodes the vector
and regenerates the original data with minimal loss. This concept is used to detect anomalies by training the
model with known data, resulting in a very high loss for unknown/abnormal reconstruction. Auto encoders
such as variational auto encoders, adversarial auto encoders, and other types of auto encoders have been
proposed and used for a variety of applications. The author [22] used an auto-encoder for anomaly detection.
As with an auto encoder, an adversarial auto encoder trains the network by forcing the latent space, which is
the encoder's output, to have the same distribution as the prior.
Generative adversarial networks (GANs) are popular in computer vision [23], [24] and anomaly
detection [25] because they can generate data and handle complex data distributions effectively. GANs have a
lot of benefits, but they're hard to train [26]. In contrast to an encoder, GAN generates images by considering
feature-wise errors rather than element-wise errors. Variational autoencoder - generative adversarial networks
(VAE-GAN) is a hybrid network proposed by [27] that combines a variational autoencoder with a generative
adversarial network. Different models have different features that can be used to solve specific problems. One
such problem for which the proposed model provides an accurate solution is anomaly detection. Two
conditions define the best network: models must be able to generate data effectively, and data must be classified
using specific Euclidian distances between classes. For a few examples, networks may generate data/patterns
even if they haven't been trained to do so, making anomaly classification more difficult. This happens when
data from different classes with similar structures merges. Different loss functions, in addition to simple
reconstruction loss, could be considered in such cases. The proposed model employs mean squared error (MSE)
and Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence as loss functions. In the present article, we propose a custom model
with a loss function to improve the performance of the generative model for anomaly detection applications.
The proposed model for anomaly detection is described in the following section.

3. PROPOSED MODEL
The general architecture of the proposed model is as in Figure 2. It includes two networks. Adversarial
auto-encoder and discriminator. In the case of a variational autoencoder, the distribution of latent vector would
be normal because of the KL divergence term in the loss function. In (1) shows the loss function of variational
auto-encoder (VAE).

𝑥 𝑧
𝐿𝑂𝑆𝑆 = 𝐸𝑞𝜃 (𝑧 ) [𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑃𝜑 ( 𝑧 ) − 𝐾𝐿 (𝑞𝜃 (𝑥 ) | | 𝑝(𝑧)) (1)
𝑥

In an adversarial autoencoder, regardless of reconstruction loss, the latent space can come from any
distribution, and it is dependent on the noise vector p (z), as shown in Figure 1. In AAE, it uses an adversarial
concept, and the latent vector q (z) has an adjustable distribution compared to VAE, i.e., the encoder itself
works as a generator. We took this advantage into account when selecting an AAE as the base model for the
proposed network. The second network in our model is the discriminator, which discriminates the input image
and the generated image from AAE, because of which network will be jointly trained by two models, which
results in better reconstruction.
The proposed model has four components. First, the encoder encodes the input image and generates
the latent vector, which is a compressed representation of the input data. Second, the decoder takes the input
from this latent vector and regenerates the input data by minimizing reconstruction loss between the generated
image and the original image. The third component is discriminator 1, which takes two inputs, one from a
vector with a known distribution P and one from a latent vector Q, and this discriminator forces latent vector
Q to have its data distribution close to the known distribution P. This allows a user to generate any desired
distribution from Q. Fourth, Discriminator 2 is another network which discriminates the input image from the
generated image and works as a generative network which jointly trains the encoder-decoder part to regenerate
the input data by ensuring better reconstruction, which will be proved by the simulation results in the next part
of the paper. In the proposed network discriminator 2, consider feature-wise error over element-wise error,
which adds GAN’s advantage over the auto encoder in the proposed model.
Anomaly detection using deep learning based model with feature attention (Rikin J. Nayak)
386  ISSN: 2252-8938

Loss function for encoder-decoder in proposed model is given in (2).

𝐿𝑒𝑛−𝑑𝑒 = |𝑋 − 𝑋 ′ |2 + 𝐷𝐾𝐿 (𝑋, 𝐷(𝐸(𝑋 ))) (2)

Here, the KL divergence term will force the network to generate a sample having a distribution as
close as the input image. The Discriminator I network will function as an AAE, generating the same latent
space distribution as the prior distribution. Using this layer, we can select the required distribution for the
output vector (attention weights) of the encoder. The Discriminator II network will work as a generative
adversarial network and will try to generate images to fool the discriminator while the discriminator will
classify the original as true and the generated as fake. The function of this network is similar to that of GAN.
Loss function for this network is,

𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐿𝑂𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑆2 = 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝐸𝑥~𝑝𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 | 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝐷2(𝑋)| +

𝐸𝑥~𝑝𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 |𝑙𝑜𝑔( 1 − 𝐷2 (𝐷(𝐸(𝑋))) | (3)

this loss function is the loss function of GAN [5], but here both the inputs are images. Here, D2: Discriminator
2, D: Decoder, E: Encoder. One input of Discriminator 2 is from the original image, and the second input is
from the generated image from the decoder. The network is trained as the same as GAN, in that the
discriminator will try to increase the loss function while the decoder will try to reduce the loss function by
generating an image that is as close to the original as possible.

Figure 2. Proposed model

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section discusses the description of experiments performed on image and video data. We have
divided our results related discussion into two parts. In the first section image-based anomaly detection is
discussed. In the second part the video dataset is used for abnormality detection.

4.1. MNIST dataset

There are ten classes in the MNIST handwritten dataset. Each image is 28×28 in size. We follow the
same method as given in different literature. First, we combined the training and test data. Each time, one digit
is considered an outlier and is removed from the training dataset. 80% of all normal datasets are kept in training,
while 20% are kept in testing [28]. As an additional experiment, we used the MNIST fashion dataset also. The
Experimental setup is similar to [28], [29], with training data containing 80% normal data and testing data
containing the remaining normal data and all abnormal data. The image has been normalized between 0 and 1.
In order to detect anomalies in images, we used the following loss function for the auto encoder: The loss
function looks at how likely it is that an image will be like the one that was generated, as well as how far the
original image's distribution is from the one that was generated. Because the network will be trained to generate
the most likely sample for a given prior input, maximizing likelihood is equivalent to minimizing log-
likelihood. Figure 3 depicts reconstruction loss comparisons for normal and abnormal/unknown class images.

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 383-390

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  387

𝐿𝑒𝑛−𝑑𝑒 = 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙(𝑋 ′ ) + 𝐷𝐾𝐿 (𝑋, 𝐷(𝐸(𝑋 ))) (4)

4.1.1. Attention mechanism

The encoder section generates a 16-dimensional vector that serves as the attention weights for each
class. We used attention weights for the input image and attention weights for the regenerated image using the
same network for the same input image to calculate loss. For known images on which the network has been
trained, each image will have an identical vector, whereas for unknown images, the distance between the
vectors will be greater. As a result, this can be considered for the discovery of unknown/abnormal images.
Figure 4 shows the attention feature for a specific input class image.
To calculate the loss, the input image is encoded and the latent vector W is generated. In the same
way, the regenerated image from the network was passed through the encoder again, and a new latent vector,
W1, was generated. Loss is calculated using the following formula based on both latent vectors,

𝐿𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 = |𝑊 − 𝑊1|2 (5)

In this section, we compared our results to [28]. We are evaluating the receiver operating characteristic
(ROC) curve at various thresholds. The results of the AUC score using image reconstruction and attention
features are shown in Table 1. We calculated the final anomaly score in Table 2 by averaging them. We used
the results from [28] to compare with other algorithms. We also ran our model on the MNIST fashion dataset.
There are ten classes in the MNIST fashion dataset, and each class is considered an anomaly. Table 3 displays
the results for the fashion dataset.

Figure 3. Comparison of reconstruction and KL Div loss for normal and abnormal classes

Figure 4. Attention features from encoder

Anomaly detection using deep learning based model with feature attention (Rikin J. Nayak)
388  ISSN: 2252-8938

Table 1. AUC score to detect each MNIST class as abnormal

Class AUC Score (Image reconstruction) AUC Score (Attention feature)
0 0.989 0.9539
1 0.33 0.7609
2 0.972 0.9573
3 0.9749 0.8787
4 0.9187 0.8814
5 0.9754 0.8134
6 0.9105 0.9047
7 0.8066 0.8825
8 0.9803 0.8844
9 0.7909 0.8589

Table 2 Comparison of AUC Score to detect each MNIST class as abnormal

Model class 0 class 1 class 2 class 3 class 4 class 5 class 6 class 7 class 8 class 9 Avg.
AnoGAN 0.61 0.3 0.535 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.475 0.355 0.4 0.335 0.43
EGBAD 0.775 0.29 0.67 0.52 0.45 0.43 0.57 0.4 0.545 0.345 0.5
GANomaly 0.88 0.65 0.94 0.78 0.87 0.84 0.83 0.66 0.83 0.52 0.78
IGMM-GAN 0.955 0.9 0.93 0.82 0.83 0.9 0.93 0.9 0.78 0.57 0.852
ADAE 0.951 0.821 0.948 0.889 0.819 0.906 0.889 0.803 0.925 0.631 0.858
Proposed 0.968 0.588 0.963 0.917 0.896 0.878 0.907 0.852 0.922 0.831 0.872

Table 3 AUC score for each MNIST fashion data

Model class 0 class 1 class 2 class 3 class 4 class 5 class 6 class 7 class 8 class 9 Avg.
Proposed 0.595 0.780 0.554 0.608 0.575 0.839 0.500 0.651 0.940 0.792 0.683

4.2. UCSD dataset

The UCSD anomaly detection dataset contains a variety of videos captured by stationary cameras.
The dataset includes training and testing videos, as well as ground truth about anomalies found in the videos.
There are 34 training samples and 36 testing samples. Table 4 displays the recoded results using the proposed
model. To measure the performance, we have used area under the curve (AUC) and equal error rate (EER).
Figures 5 and 6 depicts the regularity score for testing videos. The results show that the model can detect
anomalies with greater precision. The error rate for abnormal frames is high, so the regularity score is lower
than for normal frames.

Table 4. AUC score for UCSD dataset anomaly detection

AUC score EER Error
Ped1 0.748797 0.2752
Ped2 0.756223 0.2232

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Regularity score for testing video sequence, (a) UCSDPed2 Test004 frames and
(b) UCSDPed 1 Test001 frames

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 383-390

Int J Artif Intell ISSN: 2252-8938  389

Figure 6. Regularity score for test video from Ped 2 (UCSD dataset)

5. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we combined GAN with an adversarial auto encoder to improve reconstruction
performance. According to the results it can be observed that the applicability of hybrid model is confirmed
qualitatively. Because the model is intended to detect anomalies, we devised an anomaly score function that
combines the distance between attention features and the reconstruction error between the original and
reconstructed images. This score function gives better results for image-based anomaly detection and
outperformed other such models. The performance of the proposed model is considerably good with AUC
score of 0.872 for MNIST dataset. We have extended the same model for video-based anomaly detection using
UCSD dataset. Recoded results shows that the proposed model can detect anomaly in videos with AUC score
of 0.75 and EER score of 0.25. In summary the applicability of hybrid model in anomaly detection was
experimentally proven and can be further explored for better results. Here following major contributions were
accomplished in this study first, proposed model for anomaly detection was successfully demonstrated. Second,
Unsupervised model could be useful even when labeled data is not available and proposed model gives
satisfactory results for both image and videos.

REFERENCES
[1] G. Dong, G. Liao, H. Liu, and G. Kuang, “A review of the autoencoder and its variants: A comparative perspective from target
recognition in synthetic-aperture radar images,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 44–68, 2018,
doi: 10.1109/MGRS.2018.2853555.
[2] D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations,
ICLR 2014 - Conference Track Proceedings, 2014.
[3] A. Makhzani, J. Shlens, N. Jaitly, I. Goodfellow, and B. Frey, “Adversarial autoencoders,” Nov. 2015, doi:
10.48550/ARXIV.1511.05644.
[4] H. Li and M. Trocan, “Generative adversarial networks -based reconstruction of low dimensional autoencoder representations,”
ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp. 50–54, 2019, doi: 10.1145/3349341.3349367.
[5] I. J. Goodfellow et al., “Generative adversarial networks,” Jun. 2014, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1406.2661.
[6] Z. Pan, W. Yu, X. Yi, A. Khan, F. Yuan, and Y. Zheng, “Recent progress on generative adversarial networks (GANs): A survey,”
IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 36322–36333, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2905015.
[7] L. Ruff et al., “A unifying review of deep and shallow anomaly detection,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 756–795,
2021, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2021.3052449.
[8] N. M. Saad, A. R. Abdullah, W. H. W. Hasan, N. N. S. A. Rahman, N. H. Ali, and I. N. Abdullah, “Automated vision based defect
detection using gray level co-occurrence matrix for beverage manufacturing industry,” IAES International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 818–829, 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijai.v10.i4.pp818-829.
[9] S. Thudumu, P. Branch, J. Jin, and J. (Jack) Singh, “A comprehensive survey of anomaly detection techniques for high dimensional
big data,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 7, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s40537-020-00320-x.
[10] R. Chalapathy and S. Chawla, “Deep learning for anomaly detection: A survey,” Jan. 2019, doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1901.03407.
[11] G. Pang, C. Shen, L. Cao, and A. Van Den Hengel, “Deep learning for anomaly detection: A review,” ACM Computing Surveys,
vol. 54, no. 2, 2021, doi: 10.1145/3439950.
[12] Sharipuddin et al., “Intrusion detection with deep learning on internet of things heterogeneous network,” IAES International Journal
of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 735–742, 2021, doi: 10.11591/ijai.v10.i3.pp735-742.
[13] T. Schlegl, P. Seeböck, S. M. Waldstein, U. Schmidt-Erfurth, and G. Langs, “Unsupervised anomaly detection with generative
adversarial networks to guide marker discovery,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 10265 LNCS, pp. 146–147, 2017, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-59050-9_12.
[14] T. Schlegl, P. Seeböck, S. M. Waldstein, G. Langs, and U. Schmidt-Erfurth, “f-AnoGAN: Fast unsupervised anomaly detection
with generative adversarial networks,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 54, pp. 30–44, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.media.2019.01.010.

Anomaly detection using deep learning based model with feature attention (Rikin J. Nayak)
390  ISSN: 2252-8938

[15] L. Deecke, R. Vandermeulen, L. Ruff, S. Mandt, and M. Kloft, “Image anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks,”
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Bioinformatics), vol. 11051 LNAI, pp. 3–17, 2019, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-10925-7_1.
[16] A. Berg, J. Ahlberg, and M. Felsberg, “Unsupervised learning of anomaly detection from contaminated image data using
simultaneous encoder training,” 2019, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.11034.
[17] P. Jakob, M. Madan, T. Schmid-Schirling, and A. Valada, “Multi-perspective anomaly detection,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 16, 2021,
doi: 10.3390/s21165311.
[18] X. R. Sheng, D. C. Zhan, S. Lu, and Y. Jiang, “Multi-View anomaly detection: Neighborhood in locality matters,” 33rd AAAI
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, 31st Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019 and
the 9th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019, pp. 4894–4901, 2019, doi:
10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33014894.
[19] W. J. Yan, Q. Wu, Y. J. Liu, S. J. Wang, and X. Fu, “CASME database: A dataset of spontaneous micro-expressions collected from
neutralized faces,” 2013 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition, FG
2013, 2013, doi: 10.1109/FG.2013.6553799.
[20] F. Maciá-Pérez, J. V. Berna-Martinez, A. Fernández Oliva, and M. A. Abreu Ortega, “Algorithm for the detection of outliers based
on the theory of rough sets,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 75, pp. 63–75, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2015.05.002.
[21] D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, “Learning internal representations by error propagation,” Readings in Cognitive
Science: A Perspective from Psychology and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 399–421, 2013, doi: 10.1016/B978-1-4832-
1446-7.50035-2.
[22] A. Borghesi, A. Bartolini, M. Lombardi, M. Milano, and L. Benini, “Anomaly detection using autoencoders in high performance
computing systems,” 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2019, 31st Innovative Applications of Artificial
Intelligence Conference, IAAI 2019 and the 9th AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2019,
pp. 9428–9433, 2019, doi: 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33019428.
[23] I. Goodfellow, “NIPS 2016 tutorial: Generative adversarial networks,” 2016, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00160.
[24] Z. Wang, Q. She, and T. E. Ward, “Generative adversarial networks in computer vision: A survey and taxonomy,” ACM Computing
Surveys, vol. 54, no. 2, 2021, doi: 10.1145/3439723.
[25] K. J. Liang, C. Li, G. Wang, and L. Carin, “Generative adversarial network training is a continual learning problem,” 2018, [Online].
Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11083.
[26] L. Mescheder, A. Geiger, and S. Nowozin, “Which training methods for GANs do actually converge?,” 35th International
Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, vol. 8, pp. 5589–5626, 2018.
[27] A. B. L. Larsen, S. K. Sønderby, H. Larochelle, and O. Winther, “Autoencoding beyond pixels using a learned similarity metric,”
33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2016, vol. 4, pp. 2341–2349, 2016.
[28] H. S. Vu, D. Ueta, K. Hashimoto, K. Maeno, S. Pranata, and S. M. Shen, “Anomaly detection with adversarial dual autoencoders,”
2019, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.06924.
[29] H. Zenati, C. S. Foo, B. Lecouat, G. Manek, and V. R. Chandrasekhar, “Efficient GAN-based anomaly detection,” 2018, [Online].
Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.06222.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Rikin J. Nayak received M. Tech in Communication System Engineering from

Charotar University of Science and Technology, Changa. Currenlty He is persuing his PHD at
Charotar University of Science and Technology, Changa, Anand, V.T. Patel Department of
Electronics and Communication Engineering, Chandubhai S Patel Instituteof Technology. He
is puruing his PhD in the area for computer vision and Deep learning. His area of interest is
Computer Vision and Deep Learning. He can be contacted at email: rikinnayak@gmail.com or
16drec006@charusat.edu.in.

Jitendra P. Chaudhari received Ph.D. in Electronics and Communication

Engineering from Charotar University of Science and Technology, Changa. Currently, he is
working as an Associate Professor at Charusat Space Research and Technology Center, V.T.
Patel Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Chandubhai S Patel Institute
of Technology Charotar University of Science and Technology, Changa, Anand, Gujarat, India.
His area of interest is Image Processing and Power Electronics. He can be contacted at email:
jitendrachaudhari.ec@charusat.ac.in.

Int J Artif Intell, Vol. 13, No. 1, March 2024: 383-390