Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Retrieval Augmented Anomaly Detection (RAAD): Nimble Model Adjustment Without Retraining

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.19534 v1 pith:4UW7AGDZ submitted 2025-02-26 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CR

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CR
keywords modelanomalydetectionaugmentedretrievaldatanoveladjustment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a novel mechanism for real-time (human-in-the-loop) feedback focused on false positive reduction to enhance anomaly detection models. It was designed for the lightweight deployment of a behavioral network anomaly detection model. This methodology is easily integrable to similar domains that require a premium on throughput while maintaining high precision. In this paper, we introduce Retrieval Augmented Anomaly Detection, a novel method taking inspiration from Retrieval Augmented Generation. Human annotated examples are sent to a vector store, which can modify model outputs on the very next processed batch for model inference. To demonstrate the generalization of this technique, we benchmarked several different model architectures and multiple data modalities, including images, text, and graph-based data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Seeing the Unseen: Towards Training-Free Inspection for Wind Turbine Blades Using Knowledge-Augmented Vision Language Models

    cs.CV 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A retrieval-augmented vision-language framework scored 30/30 on a four-class wind-turbine blade damage test, vs 28/30 for the same model without retrieval — a two-sample difference the paper's own confidence intervals...

Pith tools