Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection by Capturing Coarse-Grained Intra- and Inter-Variate Dependencies

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MtsCID's coarse-grained dual-network design, using multi-scale patch attention and fixed sinusoidal prototypes, beats nine baselines on six of seven anomaly detection datasets.

desk verdict A competent and honest empirical paper with public code, but the claimed mechanism for the sinusoidal prototype memory is not actually trained to make the relationship-deviation term meaningful, so the inter-variate gains are not fully supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16364 v1 pith:XVASN7SF submitted 2025-01-22 cs.LG cs.AI

Yongzheng Xie , Hongyu Zhang , Muhammad Ali Babar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords multivariatetimeseriesanomalydetectionsemi-supervisedlearningcoarse-graineddependenciesmulti-scalepatchattentionsinusoidalprototypesfrequencydomainprocessingAIOps
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

The paper sets out to show that multivariate time series anomaly detection is better served by coarse-grained dependency learning than by fine-grained step-level modeling. MtsCID pairs a temporal autoencoder branch, which learns from attention maps of multi-scale patches in the frequency domain, with an inter-variate branch that combines convolution, a frequency-domain transformer along the variate dimension, and a fixed sinusoidal prototype memory. Training uses a reconstruction loss plus an entropy loss on prototype weights, and anomalies are scored from temporal deviation and relationship deviation. On seven public datasets, the reported F1 is the best in six and second-best in one, against nine state-of-the-art baselines. A reader should care because reliable anomaly detection underpins failure management in web operations and critical infrastructure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pair of coarse-grained encoders plus the sinusoidal prototype memory. The t-AutoEncoder (temporal autoencoder) computes the discrete Fourier transform, projects real and imaginary parts through fc-Linear and fc-Transformer in frequency space, returns to the time domain, and forms attention maps $A_{p_i} = \mathrm{Softmax}(Z_{p_i}Z_{p_i}^T / \sqrt{p_i})M_{p_i}$ over multi-scale patches; these maps are the features used for temporal dependency learning. The i-Encoder (inter-variate encoder) applies a 1D convolution over the time axis, then a frequency transformer whose self-attention runs along the variate dimension, yielding representations $O$. The p-i Module (sinusoidal prototypes interaction) multiplies $O$ with the fixed matrix $M_{i,j} = \cos(2\pi i j / L)$, which encodes normal inter-variate combinations as a limited set of periodic patterns; a softmax over prototype positions gives weights whose entropy is minimized during training. These components together convert the problem from fine-grained step reconstruction into coarse-grained pattern matching against a fixed periodic memory.

What would settle it

Take a synthetic multivariate process with no periodicity, where normality is defined by a linear subspace such as $x_1 + x_2 + \dots + x_C = 0$ and anomalies violate that constraint; train MtsCID on normal data and check whether the relationship-deviation term (RD in Equation 17) rises at anomaly timestamps. If RD does not separate the classes, the sinusoidal prototype memory is insufficient for non-periodic inter-variate structure. A complementary test is to repeat the GECCO and SWAN experiments with a learned prototype memory in place of the fixed sinusoids; if the learned memory matches or beats MtsCID there, the fixed basis is the limiting factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that coarse-grained intra-variate and inter-variate dependencies are the missing ingredient in semi-supervised multivariate time series anomaly detection. Step-level methods reconstruct or score each timestamp, which the authors argue is too fine-grained to capture salient normal patterns. MtsCID instead learns temporal dependencies from attention maps of multi-scale patches applied to frequency-domain representations, and learns inter-variate relationships by passing a 1D-convolved time-domain representation through a frequency transformer along the variate axis, then interacting it with a fixed matrix of sinusoidal prototypes, $M_{i,j} = \cos(2\pi i j / L)$. The anomaly score multiplies temporal reconstruction deviation by a softmax-weighted relationship deviation, measuring how far each time step's inter-variate state sits from the nearest prototype. The paper reports that this design outperforms nine baseline methods on seven widely used datasets, including a 42.12 percent F1 improvement over the second-best method on the GECCO dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fixed sinusoidal prototype matrix, $M_{i,j} = \cos(2\pi i j / L)$, contains a sufficient set of normal inter-variate combinations for every dataset; if true normal relationships do not live near these periodic prototype combinations, the relationship-deviation term in the anomaly score cannot separate normal from anomalous states, and the reported inter-variate gains would vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, anomaly detectors for cloud and web operations can rely on segment-level and cross-variate pattern deviations instead of per-step reconstruction, which should be more tolerant of noise and sensor misalignment.
  • The fixed sinusoidal prototype memory removes the need for learned memory updates and two-phase training, simplifying deployment while retaining prototype-based inter-variate modeling.
  • The method's strong gain on GECCO indicates coarse-grained inter-variate modeling helps when anomalies are rare and heterogeneous, not just when they follow clean periodic patterns.
  • Because the two branches are independent, the architecture can be extended by upgrading either branch, for example with richer patch hierarchies or learned prototype bases, without redesigning the other.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the fixed sinusoidal prototype basis is a strong inductive bias; a dataset whose normal cross-variate relationships are non-periodic, such as those governed by arbitrary graph structure, would likely require learned or data-adaptive prototypes, a regime the paper does not test.
  • The coarse-graining principle, using attention-map features rather than step-level features, could transfer to other reconstruction-based and contrastive time series anomaly detectors, not just this architecture.
  • The frequency-domain alignment argument suggests a natural application to unsynchronized multi-sensor streams, where aligning variates in frequency space could compensate for loose time synchronization; the paper asserts this benefit but does not measure it directly.
  • SWaT, where MtsCID is second-best, is a continuous physical process, so the sinusoidal prototype assumption may be less decisive there; that dataset offers a natural test case for prototype design.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MtsCID, a semi-supervised multivariate time series anomaly detection method with a dual-network architecture. The upper branch (t-AutoEncoder) captures coarse-grained intra-variate temporal dependencies from attention maps of multi-scale patches in the frequency and time domains; the lower branch (i-Encoder) captures inter-variate relationships through convolution, a frequency-domain Transformer, and interaction with a fixed matrix of sinusoidal prototypes. Training combines a reconstruction loss with an entropy loss that encourages peaked prototype attention. At inference, the anomaly score combines temporal deviation with a softmax-weighted relationship deviation. The method is evaluated on seven public datasets against nine baselines, with additional ablation, sensitivity, and scalability analyses.

Significance. If the empirical claims are fully supported, MtsCID would be a useful addition to the MTS anomaly detection literature: the coarse-grained patch-attention idea is well motivated, the fixed sinusoidal prototype memory avoids the training instability of learned memory items, and the paper evaluates on multiple metrics and provides code. The paper also reports sensitivity analyses and a scalability study, which are valuable. However, the central comparative claim currently rests on a partially non-reproduced baseline comparison, threshold selection on test data, and an anomaly-score component whose discriminative value is not directly demonstrated.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.6–§2.7, Eq. (17)] The relationship deviation term RD in Eq. (17) is never explicitly minimized during training: the only lower-branch supervision is the entropy loss L_i_ent in Eq. (15), which encourages peaked weights but does not constrain the distance between O and the fixed sinusoidal prototypes. The paper reports no RD distributions, no experiment with RD removed from the score, and no comparison against random prototypes; the ablation in Table 4 removes the entire lower branch, which conflates the scoring mechanism with added network capacity. This is load-bearing because the claimed inter-variate gains are attributed to the prototype interaction. Please provide evidence that RD separates normal from anomalous timestamps, for example by reporting RD distributions on normal versus anomalous test segments or by replacing Eq. (17) with TD-only and with random-prototype versions.
  2. [§4.1, Table 3] The text states that MtsCID 'secures the highest F1 and AF-F1 scores in six out of seven datasets,' but Table 3 does not support this reading. On SWaT, MtsCID's AF-F1 is 57.01, well below STEN's 70.98 and DCdetector's 69.75; on SMD, STEN's VUS-ROC is 91.29 versus MtsCID's 84.22; on SMAP, STEN's VUS-PR and VUS-ROC are higher than MtsCID's. The summary of results should be qualified to name the specific metric-dataset combinations where MtsCID is best, second-best, or not competitive, rather than claiming blanket superiority.
  3. [§4.1, Table 2 note] The paper says 'Each method was executed five times for each dataset, and the resulting values were averaged,' but the note under Table 2 states that results for iForest, DeepSVDD, DAGMM, THOC, and InterFusion were adopted from [30] rather than re-run. No standard deviations are reported for any method, so the statement that MtsCID outperforms all nine baselines is not backed by comparable experimental evidence. Please either re-run the five copied baselines under the same protocol or clearly separate reproduced results from cited results, and report variance across the five runs.
  4. [§3.2, §4.1] The reported F1 and AF-F1 values use the best threshold chosen on the test set, which can inflate performance and makes cross-method comparisons optimistic. Since the paper also reports VUS-ROC and VUS-PR, which are threshold-free, please state explicitly that the headline F1 comparison is an upper-bound estimate, or select thresholds on the validation split and report those F1 values as the primary comparison.
  5. [§2.7, Eq. (17)] Equation (17) is not dimensionally well-defined as written: AScore(X) is declared to be in R^L, but TD(X_t,:, \hat X_t,:) is a distance between C-dimensional vectors and RD(O_t,:, M_::) is also indexed per time step. It is unclear whether TD is first aggregated over variates, whether RD is a vector of length C or L, and how the softmax over RD is aligned with the element-wise multiplication. Please provide explicit definitions of TD and RD as functions with stated output shapes, and write Eq. (17) with the correct indices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1, Contributions] The first contribution contains a typo: 'an novel scheme' should be 'a novel scheme.'
  2. [Figure 1] The figure label 't-AutoEcoder' is misspelled; it should be 't-AutoEncoder.'
  3. [§2.5, Eq. (13)] The notation w_ti is introduced with indices t and i, but the summation in the denominator runs over j=1..L; please clarify that j indexes the L rows of M and align the index names consistently.
  4. [§5.1] The discussion of why MtsCID works is qualitative and does not reference any quantitative evidence beyond the ablation table; consider adding a short analysis of which component drives the gain on each dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MtsCID is an empirical architecture evaluation whose anomaly score is not derived from fitted parameters; the only self-citation is peripheral.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: MtsCID is an architecture evaluated against nine baselines on seven public benchmarks. No prediction is derived from fitted inputs. The training losses (Eqs. 14-16) are optimized on normal subsequences, and the inference score (Eq. 17) combines the reconstruction-based temporal deviation TD with a relationship deviation RD against fixed sinusoidal prototypes defined in Sec. 2.5 as M_{i,j} = cos(2π i j / L). These prototypes are not learned from anomalous test data, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only author-overlapping citation is reference [6], which includes co-author Hongyu Zhang; it appears in the introduction as one of several examples of AI-based anomaly detection methods and is not load-bearing for the architecture, the loss design, or the reported results. The ablation and sensitivity analyses are empirical component checks rather than derivations that reduce to the paper's own assumptions. The skeptical concern that RD is not explicitly optimized and may not separate normal from anomalous timestamps is a correctness/evidence question, not a circularity: the paper does not define the prototypes in terms of the anomaly score, nor does it force the reported gains by construction. Therefore no specific circular step is exhibited, and the derivation chain is self-contained apart from a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a few hand-chosen hyperparameters and on the domain assumption that a fixed sinusoidal dictionary can represent normal inter-variate relationships. The architecture introduces one invented entity, the sinusoidal prototype matrix, which has no independent validation. The method is empirical and self-contained in the sense that it does not fit the benchmark results through free parameters, but the sensitivity analysis is used to pick hyperparameters that are then kept for the final results.

free parameters (5)
  • Loss weight lambda = 0.1
    Weight for the entropy loss in Eq 16; selected via sensitivity analysis in Sec 4.3.1, where the paper says performance is largely insensitive, but the value is fixed for all experiments.
  • Multi-scale patch sizes = [10, 20]
    Chosen from {[5,10], [10,20], [5,10,20]} in Sec 4.3.2; affects the granularity of attention-map temporal learning.
  • 1D convolution kernel size = 5
    Chosen from {1,3,5,7,9} in Sec 4.3.3; the paper notes performance on SMD degrades as the kernel grows.
  • Subsequence length = 100
    Fixed non-overlapping window length following MEMTO [30]; no sensitivity analysis is reported for this value.
  • Number of training epochs and early stopping = 20 epochs, patience 10
    Chosen with early stopping on validation; the impact of the epoch budget is not analyzed.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math DFT and iDFT are invertible and preserve the information needed for reconstruction.
    Used in the t-AutoEncoder (Eqs 1 and 4) and i-Encoder (Eqs 10 and 12); the reconstruction loss assumes the frequency-domain operations can represent the original normal patterns.
  • domain assumption The fixed sinusoidal prototype matrix M provides an adequate dictionary for normal inter-variate states.
    Introduced in Sec 2.5; the claim that combinations along the time step dimension 'approximate a limited set' and encode normal patterns is asserted without empirical validation on out-of-distribution data.
  • ad hoc to paper The anomaly score formed by the softmax-normalized relationship deviation and the reconstruction deviation is monotonically related to abnormality.
    Eq 17 defines AScore = Softmax(RD) ∘ TD; the paper does not derive why this combination is appropriate or why softmax on RD (rather than a raw distance) is beneficial.
invented entities (1)
  • Sinusoidal prototype matrix M
    purpose: Function as a fixed memory of normal inter-variate combinations; each row is a sinusoidal pattern over time steps, used in the prototype-oriented learning task (Eq 13) and in the relationship deviation term (Eq 17).
    The matrix is hand-designed from cos(2π i j / L) and is not learned or validated against any external measurement of normal behavior. There is no evidence that it covers all relevant normal patterns in arbitrary multivariate systems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection by Capturing Coarse-Grained Intra- and Inter-Variate Dependencies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XVASN7SF

@misc{pith2026250116364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection by Capturing Coarse-Grained Intra- and Inter-Variate Dependencies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XVASN7SF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16364}
}
read the original abstract

Multivariate time series anomaly detection is essential for failure management in web application operations, as it directly influences the effectiveness and timeliness of implementing remedial or preventive measures. This task is often framed as a semi-supervised learning problem, where only normal data are available for model training, primarily due to the labor-intensive nature of data labeling and the scarcity of anomalous data. Existing semi-supervised methods often detect anomalies by capturing intra-variate temporal dependencies and/or inter-variate relationships to learn normal patterns, flagging timestamps that deviate from these patterns as anomalies. However, these approaches often fail to capture salient intra-variate temporal and inter-variate dependencies in time series due to their focus on excessively fine granularity, leading to suboptimal performance. In this study, we introduce MtsCID, a novel semi-supervised multivariate time series anomaly detection method. MtsCID employs a dual network architecture: one network operates on the attention maps of multi-scale intra-variate patches for coarse-grained temporal dependency learning, while the other works on variates to capture coarse-grained inter-variate relationships through convolution and interaction with sinusoidal prototypes. This design enhances the ability to capture the patterns from both intra-variate temporal dependencies and inter-variate relationships, resulting in improved performance. Extensive experiments across seven widely used datasets demonstrate that MtsCID achieves performance comparable or superior to state-of-the-art benchmark methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16364 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overview of MtsCID. parts of the frequency components, with 𝑓 representing the number of frequency components. This transformation is achieved using the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT). The real and imaginary parts of the derived frequency compo￾nents are projected into distinct latent spaces in the fc-Linear net￾work using respective learnable parameters𝑊 (𝑟) and𝑊 (𝑖) ∈ R 𝐶×𝑑 . Two independent networks for pro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The building blocks in MtsCID. 2.4 Inter-variate Dependency Encoder Network (i-Encoder) Prior studies have demonstrated that inter-variate relationships can enhance anomaly detection in multivariate time series [5, 15, 30]. In this study, we employ an independent inter-variate dependency encoder network to capture these relationships from normal time series. Since each variate measures different aspects of the moni￾… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sensitivity and Scalability Analysis. variations based on patch settings. Consequently, we have chosen to use the [10, 20] configuration. 4.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis of Convolution Kernel Settings. To further investigate the impact of kernel settings, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with kernels set to {1, 3, 5, 7, 9}. As shown in Figure 3c, per￾formance slightly fluctuated with different kernel settings, except … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Junho Song, Keonwoo Kim, Jeonglyul Oh, and Sungzoon Cho. 2024. Memto: Memory-guided transformer for multivariate time series anomaly detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [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

  3. [2]

    Rafal Angryk, Petrus Martens, Berkay Aydin, Dustin Kempton, Sushant Mahajan, Sunitha Basodi, Azim Ahmadzadeh, Xumin Cai, Soukaina Filali Boubrahimi, Shah Muhammad Hamdi, Micheal Schuh, and Manolis Georgoulis. 2020. SWAN- SF. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EBCFKM

    doi:10.7910/dvn/ebcfkm 2020

  4. [3]

    Julien Audibert, Pietro Michiardi, Frédéric Guyard, Sébastien Marti, and Maria A Zuluaga. 2020. Usad: Unsupervised anomaly detection on multivariate time series. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 3395–3404

    2020

  5. [4]

    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

  6. [5]

    Yutong Chen, Hongzuo Xu, Guansong Pang, Hezhe Qiao, Yuan Zhou, and Ming- sheng Shang. 2024. Self-supervised Spatial-Temporal Normality Learning for Time Series Anomaly Detection. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learn- ing and Knowledge Discovery in Databases . Springer, 145–162

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Zhuangbin Chen, Jinyang Liu, Yuxin Su, Hongyu Zhang, Xiao Ling, Yongqiang Yang, and Michael R Lyu. 2022. Adaptive performance anomaly detection for on- line service systems via pattern sketching. In Proceedings of the 44th international conference on software engineering . 61–72

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Enyan Dai and Jie Chen. 2022. Graph-augmented normalizing flows for anomaly detection of multiple time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07857 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Stephen Elliot. 2014. DevOps and the cost of downtime: Fortune 1000 best practice metrics quantified. International Data Corporation (IDC) (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    Jingkun Gao, Xiaomin Song, Qingsong Wen, Pichao Wang, Liang Sun, and Huan Xu. 2020. Robusttad: Robust time series anomaly detection via decomposition and convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.09545 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Alexis Huet, Jose Manuel Navarro, and Dario Rossi. 2022. Local evaluation of time series anomaly detection algorithms. InProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 635–645

    2022

  4. [11]

    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

  5. [12]

    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

  6. [13]

    Jongsoo Lee, Byeongtae Park, and Dong-Kyu Chae. 2023. DuoGAT: Dual Time- oriented Graph Attention Networks for Accurate, Efficient and Explainable Anomaly Detection on Time-series. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management ...

    2023

  7. [14]

    Yuxin Li, Wenchao Chen, Bo Chen, Dongsheng Wang, Long Tian, and Mingyuan Zhou. 2023. Prototype-oriented unsupervised anomaly detection for multivariate time series. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 19407–19424

    2023

  8. [15]

    Zhihan Li, Youjian Zhao, Jiaqi Han, Ya Su, Rui Jiao, Xidao Wen, and Dan Pei. 2021. Multivariate time series anomaly detection and interpretation using hierarchical inter-metric and temporal embedding. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & da...

    2021

  9. [16]

    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

  10. [17]

    Jinyang Liu, Tianyi Yang, Zhuangbin Chen, Yuxin Su, Cong Feng, Zengyin Yang, and Michael R Lyu. 2023. Practical Anomaly Detection over Multivariate Moni- toring Metrics for Online Services. In 2023 IEEE 34th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) ....

    2023

  11. [18]

    Yuan Luo, Ya Xiao, Long Cheng, Guojun Peng, and Danfeng Yao. 2021. Deep learning-based anomaly detection in cyber-physical systems: Progress and op- portunities. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 5 (2021), 1–36

    2021

  12. [19]

    Minghua Ma, Zheng Yin, Shenglin Zhang, Sheng Wang, Christopher Zheng, Xin- hao Jiang, Hanwen Hu, Cheng Luo, Yilin Li, Nengjun Qiu, et al. 2020. Diagnosing root causes of intermittent slow queries in cloud databases. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 13, 8 (2020), 1176–1189

    2020

  13. [20]

    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

  14. [21]

    Steffen Moritz, Frederik Rehbach, Sowmya Chandrasekaran, Margarita Rebolledo, and Thomas Bartz-Beielstein. 2018. GECCO Industrial Challenge 2018 Dataset: A water quality dataset for the ‘Internet of Things: Online Anomaly Detection for Drinking Water Quality’competition at the...

    2018

  15. [22]

    Youngeun Nam, Susik Yoon, Yooju Shin, Minyoung Bae, Hwanjun Song, Jae- Gil Lee, and Byung Suk Lee. 2024. Breaking the Time-Frequency Granularity Discrepancy in Time-Series Anomaly Detection. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024. 4204–4215

    2024

  16. [23]

    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

  17. [24]

    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

  18. [25]

    Hansheng Ren, Bixiong Xu, Yujing Wang, Chao Yi, Congrui Huang, Xiaoyu Kou, Tony Xing, Mao Yang, Jie Tong, and Qi Zhang. 2019. Time-series anomaly detec- tion service at microsoft. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mini...

    2019

  19. [26]

    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

  20. [27]

    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

  21. [28]

    Bernhard Schölkopf, John C Platt, John Shawe-Taylor, Alex J Smola, and Robert C Williamson. 2001. Estimating the support of a high-dimensional distribution. Neural computation 13, 7 (2001), 1443–1471

    2001

  22. [29]

    Lifeng Shen, Zhuocong Li, and James Kwok. 2020. Timeseries anomaly detection using temporal hierarchical one-class network. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 13016–13026

    2020

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Shreshth Tuli, Giuliano Casale, and Nicholas R Jennings. 2022. Tranad: Deep transformer networks for anomaly detection in multivariate time series data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07284 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zexin Wang, Changhua Pei, Minghua Ma, Xin Wang, Zhihan Li, Dan Pei, Saravan Rajmohan, Dongmei Zhang, Qingwei Lin, Haiming Zhang, et al. 2024. Revisiting VAE for Unsupervised Time Series Anomaly Detection: A Frequency Perspective. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 202...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Chunjing Xiao, Zehua Gou, Wenxin Tai, Kunpeng Zhang, and Fan Zhou

  27. [35]

    Haowen Xu, Wenxiao Chen, Nengwen Zhao, Zeyan Li, Jiahao Bu, Zhihan Li, Ying Liu, Youjian Zhao, Dan Pei, Yang Feng, et al. 2018. Unsupervised anomaly detection via variational auto-encoder for seasonal kpis in web applications. In Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conferen...

    2018

  28. [36]

    Jiehui Xu. 2021. Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.02642 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Yiyuan Yang, Chaoli Zhang, Tian Zhou, Qingsong Wen, and Liang Sun. 2023. Dcdetector: Dual attention contrastive representation learning for time series anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowl- edge Discovery and Data Mining . 3033–3045

    2023

  30. [38]

    Chaoli Zhang, Tian Zhou, Qingsong Wen, and Liang Sun. 2022. TFAD: A de- composition time series anomaly detection architecture with time-frequency analysis. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 2497–2507

    2022

  31. [39]

    Lingzhe Zhang, Tong Jia, Mengxi Jia, Yong Yang, Zhonghai Wu, and Ying Li

  32. [40]

    Hang Zhao, Yujing Wang, Juanyong Duan, Congrui Huang, Defu Cao, Yunhai Tong, Bixiong Xu, Jing Bai, Jie Tong, and Qi Zhang. 2020. Multivariate time- series anomaly detection via graph attention network. In 2020 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 841–850

    2020

  33. [41]

    Qihang Zhou, Jiming Chen, Haoyu Liu, Shibo He, and Wenchao Meng. 2023. De- tecting multivariate time series anomalies with zero known label. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 37. 4963–4971

    2023

  34. [42]

    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

    2018

  35. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    Imputation-based time-series anomaly detection with conditional weight- incremental diffusion models. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 2742–2751

  36. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11213 (2024)

    A Survey of AIOps for Failure Management in the Era of Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11213 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.