REVIEW
PUPAE: Intuitive and Actionable Explanations for Time Series Anomalies
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
In recent years there has been significant progress in time series anomaly detection. However, after detecting an (perhaps tentative) anomaly, can we explain it? Such explanations would be useful to triage anomalies. For example, in an oil refinery, should we respond to an anomaly by dispatching a hydraulic engineer, or an intern to replace the battery on a sensor? There have been some parallel efforts to explain anomalies, however many proposed techniques produce explanations that are indirect, and often seem more complex than the anomaly they seek to explain. Our review of the literature/checklists/user-manuals used by frontline practitioners in various domains reveals an interesting near-universal commonality. Most practitioners discuss, explain and report anomalies in the following format: The anomaly would be like normal data A, if not for the corruption B. The reader will appreciate that is a type of counterfactual explanation. In this work we introduce a domain agnostic counterfactual explanation technique to produce explanations for time series anomalies. As we will show, our method can produce both visual and text-based explanations that are objectively correct, intuitive and in many circumstances, directly actionable.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.