Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 80 references

TSINR: Capturing Temporal Continuity via Implicit Neural Representations for Time Series Anomaly Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read TSINR turns implicit neural representations' spectral bias into a time-series anomaly detector, reporting best average F1 on eight benchmarks.

desk verdict Strong empirical paper on INR-based time series anomaly detection, but the central spectral-bias mechanism is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11641 v3 pith:DLSY4LYI submitted 2024-11-18 cs.LG cs.AI

Mengxuan Li , Ke Liu , Hongyang Chen , Jiajun Bu , Hongwei Wang , Haishuai Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords timeseriesanomalydetectionimplicitneuralrepresentationsspectralbiasreconstruction-basedtransformermultivariatelargelanguagemodelencoderunsupervisedlearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

TSINR tries to establish that the spectral-bias property of implicit neural representations (INRs) can be put to work for time-series anomaly detection: a continuous function fitted to a signal learns smooth, low-frequency content first and fits high-frequency details poorly. The paper builds a reconstruction model in which a transformer predicts the INR parameters of each input window in a single forward pass, and the reconstruction error at each timestamp is the anomaly score. Because normal time-series points are relatively smooth, the model reconstructs them accurately while discontinuous anomalies stand out as large errors. The reported experiments on seven multivariate and one univariate benchmark give TSINR an average F1 of 78.45, the best among the compared reconstruction-based methods, with especially large gains on datasets dominated by point anomalies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the spectral bias of implicit neural representations, the well-documented tendency of coordinate networks trained by gradient descent to fit low-frequency components before high-frequency ones. TSINR's specific machinery is a transformer that predicts the parameters of an INR continuous function in one forward pass, together with an INR of the form $f(t) = f_{\mathrm{tr}}(t) + f_{\mathrm{s}}(t) + f_{\mathrm{r}}(t)$, where $f_{\mathrm{tr}}$ is a polynomial trend, $f_{\mathrm{s}}$ is a Fourier seasonal series, and $f_{\mathrm{r}}$ is a residual network with global layers for inter-channel information and group layers for intra-channel information. The point-wise squared reconstruction error averaged over channels is the anomaly score.

What would settle it

Run TSINR on a held-out set and compute the Fourier spectrum of reconstruction errors for normal and anomalous segments; if the error is not systematically larger at high frequencies for anomalies, the spectral-bias mechanism is not driving detection. Alternatively, inject low-frequency anomalies, such as slow drifts, into a benchmark and check whether the anomaly score separates them; the method's own logic predicts weakness there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that spectral bias is an anomaly-detection asset rather than a limitation. An INR trained to reconstruct a time-series window will fit the smooth normal pattern and underfit discontinuous deviations, so the residual between input and reconstruction separates normal from abnormal timestamps. TSINR makes this operational with a transformer that outputs the INR weights directly, avoiding per-sequence gradient-descent fitting at inference time, and with an INR function decomposed into trend, seasonal, and residual components to capture the structure of time series. The paper further shows that a frozen pre-trained LLM encoder amplifies anomaly fluctuations in both time and channel dimensions on multivariate data. The evidence is the reported average F1 of 78.45 across eight benchmarks, exceeding the compared methods and supporting the claim that capturing temporal continuity through INR improves anomaly detection.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an INR whose weights are generated in one forward pass by a transformer retains the spectral-bias behavior of gradient-descent-trained INRs, so normal low-frequency points are reconstructed more accurately than anomalous high-frequency points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The model should be particularly sensitive to point anomalies and other discontinuous deviations, because these live in the high-frequency content that INR fits last; the paper points to the large SMAP improvement as evidence.
  • A transformer-predicted INR detects anomalies on unseen test windows with a single forward pass, so the method avoids the per-sample training cost of earlier INR-based anomaly detectors.
  • The trend and seasonal components let the reconstruction capture slowly varying and periodic normal structure, which the paper shows helps detect non-spike anomalies with subtle deviations.
  • The frozen LLM encoder contributes on multivariate benchmarks by amplifying anomaly fluctuations across time and channels, but the paper reports it hurts on the univariate UCR benchmark, so this component is not universally beneficial.
  • With the reported average F1 of 78.45 across eight benchmarks, the paper claims superior overall performance compared with the eleven reconstruction-based baselines in its study.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the paper does not directly measure whether the transformer-predicted INR inherits spectral bias; a frequency-domain analysis of reconstruction errors would test this and could sharpen the method's design.
  • Editorial inference: the decomposition into trend, seasonal, and residual gives a natural attribution of each anomaly score to a component, which could make detected anomalies easier to explain in monitoring applications.
  • Editorial inference: the UCR result suggests a conditional rule for using the LLM encoder: apply it when training data may contain anomalies and multiple channels exist, and skip it for clean univariate data.
  • Editorial inference: the same 'fit the smooth part, score the residual' recipe could transfer to other time-series tasks such as imputation and forecasting, where the paper itself points as future work but does not test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TSINR, a reconstruction-based time series anomaly detection method built around implicit neural representations (INRs). A transformer-based architecture predicts the weights of an INR in a single forward pass; the INR function decomposes the signal into trend, seasonal, and residual components, with a group-based residual module for multivariate data, and a frozen pre-trained LLM encoder is used to amplify anomaly fluctuations. The anomaly score is the standard point-wise reconstruction error. Experiments on seven multivariate benchmarks and one univariate benchmark (UCR) report an average F1 of 78.45 against 74.00 for the best baseline, with additional threshold-free AUC/VUS results in the appendix.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is validated, TSINR would be a practical and fast INR-based anomaly detector: it requires only a single forward pass at inference, avoids per-window gradient fitting, and the reported empirical gains are substantial (average F1 improvement of approximately 4.5 points over the compared baselines, and AUC wins on all datasets in the appendix). The paper also provides useful ablations, threshold-free metrics, visual analyses, and a code link, which strengthen the reproducibility of the empirical contribution. The central risk is that the stated spectral-bias mechanism is currently unsupported by direct evidence, and there are inconsistencies in how the model variants are defined across the main and ablation results.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3)–(6), Figure 1b] The central claim that spectral bias makes TSINR prioritize normal low-frequency signals is not established for this architecture. Spectral bias in the cited literature (Rahaman et al., 2019) is a property of gradient-descent training of neural networks, but TSINR predicts INR weights with a transformer in a single forward pass, so the mechanism does not automatically transfer. The INR itself has high-frequency capacity through the Fourier terms in Eq. (3) (up to floor(T/2)-1) and the ReLU residual MLP. The paper provides no frequency-domain analysis of reconstructed signals, no comparison of reconstruction-error spectra on normal versus anomalous segments, and no control isolating the INR mechanism from the LLM/transformer contributions. Please add direct evidence, such as power spectral density comparisons of original and reconstructed signals on normal and anomaly windows, or an ablation replacing the INR with a standard MLP decoder, or revise the claim so that the reported gains are not attributed to spectral bias.
  2. [§4.2 vs. Table 4] The main results for UCR appear to use a different method variant than the one described in the methodology. Table 4 reports that removing the pre-trained LLM encoder raises UCR F1 from 60.41 to 62.46, and Table 1 lists the TSINR UCR F1 as 62.46. Thus the UCR row in Table 1 corresponds to the no-LLM variant, while Section 4.2 defines TSINR as including the GPT2 encoder for all datasets. This inconsistency affects the headline claim of 'superior overall performance on both multivariate and univariate benchmarks' because the univariate result is not produced by the model as defined. Please state explicitly which components are used for UCR, report the results consistently, and either present a single method definition or a clearly conditional configuration.
  3. [§2.1, §4.2, Table 1] The comparison set is not sufficient to support the claim of superiority over 'state-of-the-art reconstruction-based methods.' The Related Work section names TranAD, OmniAnomaly, LSTM-VAE, and BeatGAN as reconstruction-based detectors, but none of them appear in Table 1. Instead, most baselines are general time-series forecasting or representation models (Informer, ETSformer, etc.) that are not designed for anomaly detection and are evaluated here with reconstruction error, which is not their intended training objective. Please add the standard reconstruction-based anomaly detection baselines, or explicitly justify their omission and restrict the claim of superiority to the compared methods.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§4.2] The anomaly proportion γ is stated as '0.5 for SMD dataset, 0.1 for UCR dataset, 10 for SKAB dataset, and 1 for others.' The value 10 for SKAB is not a proportion and is inconsistent with the definition in §3.5 and with the range 0.5–1.0 used in Table 6; it is likely a typo for 0.1. Please also clarify whether γ is a fraction or a percentage.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (3)] The notation '⌊𝑇/2−1⌋' should be written as '⌊𝑇/2⌋−1' to avoid ambiguity about the floor operation.
  3. [§3.3] The polynomial degree p for the trend component is said to be 'small' but is never given a value; please state the default value used in the experiments.
  4. [§3.4] The paper does not describe how the frozen GPT2 encoder consumes the time series (patching strategy, tokenization, embedding dimensions, or normalization) beyond citing FPT. Please provide these details for reproducibility.
  5. [Appendix A] The sentence 'The results in Table demonstrate...' lacks a table number; it should refer to Table 5.
  6. [§4.3] The claim of 'superior overall performance' is based on average F1 differences, but no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. Given that some per-dataset differences are small (e.g., PSM AUC 0.722 vs. 0.721 in Table 5), please add statistical assessment or at least error bars across runs.
  7. [Appendix D, Table 8] The group number used for each dataset in the main results should be stated in Section 4.2 rather than only appearing in the appendix ablation. The main results for MSL in Table 1 (F1=84.47) correspond to Group Num=9 in Table 8, while the default setting described in Section 4.2 does not specify k; please make the per-dataset configuration explicit.
  8. [Figure 1] The captions for panels (a) and (b) appear nearly identical, making the intended contrast between the INR diagram and the spectral-bias illustration unclear. Please revise the captions to describe the content of each panel.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the anomaly score is the reconstruction objective (standard), and the spectral-bias mechanism is an untested premise rather than a fitted or definitionally forced result.

full rationale

TSINR's derivation chain is not circular. The anomaly score in Eq. (8) is the reconstruction error, which is also the training objective; using reconstruction error as an anomaly score is a standard unsupervised convention and is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The threshold delta is tuned via the anomaly proportion gamma, but the paper also reports threshold-free AUC and VUS scores (Table 5), so the main comparison does not reduce to the fitted hyperparameter. The spectral-bias argument is imported from Rahaman et al. [36] and from the authors' earlier INR work [22]; it is an empirical premise about gradient-descent INR training, and the paper's one-shot transformer-predicted weights may not inherit it. However, that is an unverified assumption or correctness risk, not a circular reduction: no equation in the paper defines the prediction in terms of the conclusion, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a result. The self-citations [22, 64] support background claims (spectral bias, feed-forward INR generation) but are not load-bearing for the benchmark comparisons, which are evaluated against external baselines. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the architectural choices and the untested spectral-bias transfer assumption; the threshold gamma is fitted per dataset for F1 but AUC/VUS results are threshold-free.

free parameters (3)
  • anomaly proportion gamma = 0.5 for SMD, 0.1 for UCR, 10 for SKAB (likely typo), 1 for others
    Determines the threshold delta for F1 calculation; set per dataset based on prior work (Section 4.2).
  • number of groups
    Not stated for main experiments; Appendix D shows optimal varies per dataset (SMD 6, PSM 5, MSL 9).
  • window size = 100
    Fixed window size for all datasets; may not be optimal per dataset but is applied uniformly to all methods.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Anomalies are high-frequency or discontinuous, while normal time series are low-frequency and smooth.
    Used to justify that spectral bias helps detection (Section 1, Figure 1b).
  • domain assumption The INR trained or generated with a transformer still exhibits spectral bias toward low frequencies.
    Central mechanism; not directly measured (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption Reconstruction error is a valid anomaly score.
    Standard for reconstruction-based methods; used in Section 3.5.
  • domain assumption The frozen GPT-2 encoder amplifies anomaly fluctuations in time and channel domains.
    Supported by visualizations but not by quantitative metrics; and it fails on UCR (Section 4.4.2).
  • standard math Fourier series and polynomial decomposition can represent seasonal and trend components.
    Used in Section 3.3 to construct the INR continuous function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TSINR: Capturing Temporal Continuity via Implicit Neural Representations for Time Series Anomaly Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLSY4LYI

@misc{pith2026241111641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TSINR: Capturing Temporal Continuity via Implicit Neural Representations for Time Series Anomaly Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLSY4LYI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11641}
}
read the original abstract

Time series anomaly detection aims to identify unusual patterns in data or deviations from systems' expected behavior. The reconstruction-based methods are the mainstream in this task, which learn point-wise representation via unsupervised learning. However, the unlabeled anomaly points in training data may cause these reconstruction-based methods to learn and reconstruct anomalous data, resulting in the challenge of capturing normal patterns. In this paper, we propose a time series anomaly detection method based on implicit neural representation (INR) reconstruction, named TSINR, to address this challenge. Due to the property of spectral bias, TSINR enables prioritizing low-frequency signals and exhibiting poorer performance on high-frequency abnormal data. Specifically, we adopt INR to parameterize time series data as a continuous function and employ a transformer-based architecture to predict the INR of given data. As a result, the proposed TSINR method achieves the advantage of capturing the temporal continuity and thus is more sensitive to discontinuous anomaly data. In addition, we further design a novel form of INR continuous function to learn inter- and intra-channel information, and leverage a pre-trained large language model to amplify the intense fluctuations in anomalies. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TSINR achieves superior overall performance on both univariate and multivariate time series anomaly detection benchmarks compared to other state-of-the-art reconstruction-based methods. Our codes are available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11641 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The diagram of INR for time series data. (b) The spectral bias property of INR to prioritize the low-frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall workflow of the proposed TSINR method. The INR tokens predicted by the transformer encoder are the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A sample of the proposed group-based architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The visual analysis of the decomposition compo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The visualization of the original data and the corresponding features obtained from the frozen pre-trained LLM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The visualization of the UCR original data and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The visualization of the original data, the TSINR reconstructed data, and the corresponding anomaly score. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The visualization of the ground-truth anomalies and anomaly scores of TSINR for different types of anomalies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ahmed Abdulaal, Zhuanghua Liu, and Tomer Lancewicki. 2021. Practical ap- proach to asynchronous multivariate time series anomaly detection and localiza- tion. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 2485–2494

    2021

  2. [2]

    Markus M Breunig, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Raymond T Ng, and Jörg Sander. 2000. LOF: identifying density-based local outliers. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data . 93–104

    2000

  3. [3]

    Yinbo Chen and Xiaolong Wang. 2022. Transformers as meta-learners for implicit neural representations. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 170–187

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Zeyuan Chen, Yinbo Chen, Jingwen Liu, Xingqian Xu, Vidit Goel, Zhangyang Wang, Humphrey Shi, and Xiaolong Wang. 2022. Videoinr: Learning video implicit neural representation for continuous space-time super-resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2047–2057

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Robert B Cleveland, William S Cleveland, Jean E McRae, and Irma Terpenning

  6. [6]

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xi- aohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Elizabeth Fons, Alejandro Sztrajman, Yousef El-Laham, Alexandros Iosifidis, and Svitlana Vyetrenko. 2022. HyperTime: Implicit Neural Representations for Time Series Generation. (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Haoyu Guo, Sida Peng, Haotong Lin, Qianqian Wang, Guofeng Zhang, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. 2022. Neural 3d scene reconstruction with the manhattan- world assumption. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 5511–5520

    work page 2022

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Kyle Hundman, Valentino Constantinou, Christopher Laporte, Ian Colwell, and Tom Soderstrom. 2018. Detecting spacecraft anomalies using lstms and nonpara- metric dynamic thresholding. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD interna- tional conference on knowledge discovery & data...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Kyeong-Joong Jeong and Yong-Min Shin. 2022. Time-series anomaly detection with implicit neural representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11950 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aofan Jiang, Chaoqin Huang, Qing Cao, Shuang Wu, Zi Zeng, Kang Chen, Ya Zhang, and Yanfeng Wang. 2023. Multi-scale Cross-restoration Framework for Electrocardiogram Anomaly Detection. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention . S...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Xin Jie, Xixi Zhou, Chanfei Su, Zijun Zhou, Yuqing Yuan, Jiajun Bu, and Haishuai Wang. 2024. Disentangled Anomaly Detection For Multivariate Time Series. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 931–934

    2024

  5. [13]

    Katser and Vyacheslav O

    Iurii D. Katser and Vyacheslav O. Kozitsin. 2020. Skoltech Anomaly Bench- mark (SKAB). https://www.kaggle.com/dsv/1693952. https://doi.org/10.34740/ KAGGLE/DSV/1693952

    2020

  6. [14]

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Amit Pal Singh Kohli, Vincent Sitzmann, and Gordon Wetzstein. 2020. Semantic implicit neural scene representations with semi-supervised training. In 2020 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) . IEEE, 423–433

    2020

  8. [16]

    Kwei-Herng Lai, Daochen Zha, Junjie Xu, Yue Zhao, Guanchu Wang, and Xia Hu. 2021. Revisiting time series outlier detection: Definitions and benchmarks. In Thirty-fifth conference on neural information processing systems datasets and benchmarks track (round 1)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Gen Li and Jason J Jung. 2023. Deep learning for anomaly detection in multivariate time series: Approaches, applications, and challenges. Information Fusion 91 (2023), 93–102

    2023

  10. [18]

    Jinbo Li, Witold Pedrycz, and Iqbal Jamal. 2017. Multivariate time series anomaly detection: A framework of Hidden Markov Models. Applied Soft Computing 60 (2017), 229–240

    2017

  11. [19]

    Mengxuan Li, Peng Peng, Haiyue Sun, Min Wang, and Hongwei Wang. 2023. An Order-Invariant and Interpretable Dilated Convolution Neural Network for Chemical Process Fault Detection and Diagnosis.IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering (2023), 1–11. https://doi.or...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Mengxuan Li, Peng Peng, Jingxin Zhang, Hongwei Wang, and Weiming Shen

  13. [21]

    Fei Tony Liu, Kai Ming Ting, and Zhi-Hua Zhou. 2008. Isolation forest. In 2008 eighth ieee international conference on data mining . IEEE, 413–422

    2008

  14. [22]

    Ke Liu, Feng Liu, Haishuai Wang, Ning Ma, Jiajun Bu, and Bo Han. 2023. Parti- tion Speeds Up Learning Implicit Neural Representations Based on Exponential- Increase Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 5474–5483

    2023

  15. [23]

    Ke Liu, Ning Ma, Zhihua Wang, Jingjun Gu, Jiajun Bu, and Haishuai Wang. 2023. Implicit Neural Distance Optimization for Mesh Neural Subdivision. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE, 2039–2044

    2023

  16. [24]

    Shizhan Liu, Hang Yu, Cong Liao, Jianguo Li, Weiyao Lin, Alex X Liu, and Schahram Dustdar. 2021. Pyraformer: Low-complexity pyramidal attention for long-range time series modeling and forecasting. In International conference on learning representations

    2021

  17. [25]

    Yunfan Lu, Zipeng Wang, Minjie Liu, Hongjian Wang, and Lin Wang. 2023. Learning Spatial-Temporal Implicit Neural Representations for Event-Guided Video Super-Resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 1557–1567

    2023

  18. [26]

    Long Mai and Feng Liu. 2022. Motion-adjustable neural implicit video represen- tation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 10738–10747

    2022

  19. [27]

    Aditya P Mathur and Nils Ole Tippenhauer. 2016. SWaT: A water treatment testbed for research and training on ICS security. In 2016 international workshop on cyber-physical systems for smart water networks (CySWater) . IEEE, 31–36

    2016

  20. [28]

    Amirali Molaei, Amirhossein Aminimehr, Armin Tavakoli, Amirhossein Kazer- ouni, Bobby Azad, Reza Azad, and Dorit Merhof. 2023. Implicit neural represen- tation in medical imaging: A comparative survey. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision ...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Etienne Le Naour, Louis Serrano, Léon Migus, Yuan Yin, Ghislain Agoua, Nicolas Baskiotis, Vincent Guigue, et al . 2023. Time Series Continuous Modeling for Imputation and Forecasting with Implicit Neural Representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05880 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Boris N Oreshkin, Dmitri Carpov, Nicolas Chapados, and Yoshua Bengio. 2019. N- BEATS: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  23. [31]

    John Paparrizos, Paul Boniol, Themis Palpanas, Ruey S Tsay, Aaron Elmore, and Michael J Franklin. 2022. Volume under the surface: a new accuracy evaluation measure for time-series anomaly detection. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 15, 11 (2022), 2774–2787

    2022

  24. [32]

    Daehyung Park, Yuuna Hoshi, and Charles C Kemp. 2018. A multimodal anomaly detector for robot-assisted feeding using an lstm-based variational autoencoder. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3, 3 (2018), 1544–1551

    2018

  25. [33]

    Samuel Pfrommer, Mathew Halm, and Michael Posa. 2021. Contactnets: Learn- ing discontinuous contact dynamics with smooth, implicit representations. In Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2279–2291

    2021

  26. [34]

    Dian Qin, Haishuai Wang, Zhe Liu, Hongjia Xu, Sheng Zhou, and Jiajun Bu. 2022. Hilbert Distillation for Cross-Dimensionality Networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 11726–11738

    2022

  27. [35]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog 1, 8 (2019), 9

    2019

  28. [36]

    Nasim Rahaman, Aristide Baratin, Devansh Arpit, Felix Draxler, Min Lin, Fred Hamprecht, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. 2019. On the spectral bias of neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 5301–5310

    2019

  29. [37]

    Maziar Raissi, Paris Perdikaris, and George E Karniadakis. 2019. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computa- tional physics 378 (2019), 686–707

    2019

  30. [38]

    Yunlong Ran, Jing Zeng, Shibo He, Jiming Chen, Lincheng Li, Yingfeng Chen, Gimhee Lee, and Qi Ye. 2023. NeurAR: Neural Uncertainty for Autonomous 3D Reconstruction With Implicit Neural Representations. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8, 2 (2023), 1125–1132

    2023

  31. [39]

    Lukas Ruff, Robert Vandermeulen, Nico Goernitz, Lucas Deecke, Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui, Alexander Binder, Emmanuel Müller, and Marius Kloft. 2018. Deep one-class classification. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 4393–4402

    2018

  32. [40]

    Artem Ryzhikov, Maxim Borisyak, Andrey Ustyuzhanin, and Denis Derkach

  33. [41]

    Mayu Sakurada and Takehisa Yairi. 2014. Anomaly detection using autoencoders with nonlinear dimensionality reduction. In Proceedings of the MLSDA 2014 2nd workshop on machine learning for sensory data analysis . 4–11

    2014

  34. [42]

    Youjin Shin, Sangyup Lee, Shahroz Tariq, Myeong Shin Lee, Okchul Jung, Daewon Chung, and Simon S Woo. 2020. Itad: integrative tensor-based anomaly detection system for reducing false positives of satellite systems. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on inf...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Karanjit Singh and Shuchita Upadhyaya. 2012. Outlier detection: applications and techniques. International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI) 9, 1 (2012), 307

    2012

  36. [44]

    Vincent Sitzmann, Julien Martel, Alexander Bergman, David Lindell, and Gordon Wetzstein. 2020. Implicit neural representations with periodic activation func- tions. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 7462–7473

    2020

  37. [45]

    Yannick Strümpler, Janis Postels, Ren Yang, Luc Van Gool, and Federico Tombari

  38. [46]

    Ya Su, Youjian Zhao, Chenhao Niu, Rong Liu, Wei Sun, and Dan Pei. 2019. Robust anomaly detection for multivariate time series through stochastic recurrent neural network. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 2828–2837

    2019

  39. [47]

    Matthew Tancik, Pratul Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Sara Fridovich-Keil, Nithin Raghavan, Utkarsh Singhal, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Jonathan Barron, and Ren Ng

  40. [48]

    Shreshth Tuli, Giuliano Casale, and Nicholas R Jennings. 2022. TranAD: deep transformer networks for anomaly detection in multivariate time series data. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 15, 6 (2022), 1201–1214

    2022

  41. [49]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Patrick Wagner, Nils Strodthoff, Ralf-Dieter Bousseljot, Dieter Kreiseler, Fatima I Lunze, Wojciech Samek, and Tobias Schaeffter. 2020. PTB-XL, a large publicly available electrocardiography dataset. Scientific data 7, 1 (2020), 1–15

    2020

  43. [51]

    Haishuai Wang, Jia Wu, Peng Zhang, and Yixin Chen. 2018. Learning shapelet pat- terns from network-based time series. IEEE transactions on industrial informatics 15, 7 (2018), 3864–3876

    2018

  44. [52]

    Haishuai Wang, Qin Zhang, Jia Wu, Shirui Pan, and Yixin Chen. 2019. Time series feature learning with labeled and unlabeled data. Pattern Recognition 89 (2019), 55–66

    2019

  45. [53]

    Gerald Woo, Chenghao Liu, Doyen Sahoo, Akshat Kumar, and Steven Hoi. 2022. Etsformer: Exponential smoothing transformers for time-series forecasting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01381 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Chenrui Wu, Haishuai Wang, Xiang Zhang, Zhen Fang, and Jiajun Bu. 2024. Spatio-temporal Heterogeneous Federated Learning for Time Series Classifi- cation with Multi-view Orthogonal Training. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 2613–2622

    2024

  47. [55]

    Haixu Wu, Tengge Hu, Yong Liu, Hang Zhou, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2022. Timesnet: Temporal 2d-variation modeling for general time series analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02186 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Haixu Wu, Jiehui Xu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2021. Autoformer: De- composition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 22419–22430

    2021

  49. [57]

    Renjie Wu and Eamonn Keogh. 2021. Current time series anomaly detection benchmarks are flawed and are creating the illusion of progress.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Yiheng Xie, Towaki Takikawa, Shunsuke Saito, Or Litany, Shiqin Yan, Numair Khan, Federico Tombari, James Tompkin, Vincent Sitzmann, and Srinath Sridhar

  51. [59]

    Jiehui Xu, Haixu Wu, Jianmin Wang, and Mingsheng Long. 2021. Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02642 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Asrul H Yaacob, Ian KT Tan, Su Fong Chien, and Hon Khi Tan. 2010. Arima based network anomaly detection. In 2010 Second International Conference on Communication Software and Networks . IEEE, 205–209

    2010

  53. [61]

    Takehisa Yairi, Naoya Takeishi, Tetsuo Oda, Yuta Nakajima, Naoki Nishimura, and Noboru Takata. 2017. A data-driven health monitoring method for satellite housekeeping data based on probabilistic clustering and dimensionality reduction. IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electron. Systems 5...

    2017

  54. [62]

    Yiyuan Yang, Chaoli Zhang, Tian Zhou, Qingsong Wen, and Liang Sun. 2023. DCdetector: Dual Attention Contrastive Representation Learning for Time Se- ries Anomaly Detection. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . ACM

    2023

  55. [63]

    Ailing Zeng, Muxi Chen, Lei Zhang, and Qiang Xu. 2023. Are transformers effective for time series forecasting?. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 37. 11121–11128

    2023

  56. [64]

    In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol

    Neural fields in visual computing and beyond. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 41. Wiley Online Library, 641–676

  57. [65]

    Tianping Zhang, Yizhuo Zhang, Wei Cao, Jiang Bian, Xiaohan Yi, Shun Zheng, and Jian Li. 2022. Less is more: Fast multivariate time series forecasting with light sampling-oriented mlp structures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.01186 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Zhijie Zhang, Wenzhong Li, Wangxiang Ding, Linming Zhang, Qingning Lu, Peng Hu, Tong Gui, and Sanglu Lu. 2023. STAD-GAN: unsupervised anomaly detection on multivariate time series with self-training generative adversarial networks. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from ...

    2023

  59. [67]

    Guoxiang Zhong, Fagui Liu, Jun Jiang, Bin Wang, and CL Philip Chen. 2024. Refining one-class representation: A unified transformer for unsupervised time- series anomaly detection. Information Sciences 656 (2024), 119914

    2024

  60. [68]

    Bin Zhou, Shenghua Liu, Bryan Hooi, Xueqi Cheng, and Jing Ye. 2019. Beatgan: Anomalous rhythm detection using adversarially generated time series.. InIJCAI, Vol. 2019. 4433–4439

    2019

  61. [69]

    Haoyi Zhou, Shanghang Zhang, Jieqi Peng, Shuai Zhang, Jianxin Li, Hui Xiong, and Wancai Zhang. 2021. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long se- quence time-series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 35. 11106–11115

    2021

  62. [70]

    Shuyi Zhang, Ke Liu, Jingjun Gu, Xiaoxu Cai, Zhihua Wang, Jiajun Bu, and Haishuai Wang. 2024. Attention beats linear for fast implicit neural representation generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15355 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Tian Zhou, Ziqing Ma, Qingsong Wen, Xue Wang, Liang Sun, and Rong Jin

  64. [72]

    Tian Zhou, Peisong Niu, Liang Sun, Rong Jin, et al . 2024. One fits all: Power general time series analysis by pretrained lm. Advances in neural information processing systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Bo Zong, Qi Song, Martin Renqiang Min, Wei Cheng, Cristian Lumezanu, Daeki Cho, and Haifeng Chen. 2018. Deep autoencoding gaussian mixture model for unsupervised anomaly detection. In International conference on learning represen- tations. APPENDIX A ADDITIONAL RESULTS In addi...

    2018

  66. [76]

    Sheng Zhou, Yucheng Wang, Defang Chen, Jiawei Chen, Xin Wang, Can Wang, and Jiajun Bu. 2021. Distilling holistic knowledge with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 10387– 10396

    2021

  67. [78]

    In International Conference on Machine Learning

    Fedformer: Frequency enhanced decomposed transformer for long-term series forecasting. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 27268– 27286

  68. [1990]

    STL: A seasonal-trend decomposition. J. Off. Stat 6, 1 (1990), 3–73

    1990

  69. [2020]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 7537–7547

    Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimen- sional domains. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 7537–7547

    2020

  70. [2021]

    PeerJ Computer Science 7 (2021), e757

    NFAD: fixing anomaly detection using normalizing flows. PeerJ Computer Science 7 (2021), e757

    2021

  71. [2022]

    In European Con- ference on Computer Vision

    Implicit neural representations for image compression. In European Con- ference on Computer Vision . Springer, 74–91. TSINR: Capturing Temporal Continuity via Implicit Neural Representations for Time Series Anomaly Detection KDD ’25, August 3–7, 2025, Toronto, ON, Canada

    2025

  72. [2023]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (2023), 1–12

    SCCAM: Supervised Contrastive Convolutional Attention Mechanism for Ante-Hoc Interpretable Fault Diagnosis With Limited Fault Samples. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (2023), 1–12. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2023.3313728

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.