Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Is it worth it? Comparing six deep and classical methods for unsupervised anomaly detection in time series

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 2212.11080 v3 pith:3T57MN6Y submitted 2022-12-21 cs.LG cs.AIcs.IR

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.IR
keywords methodsanomalyanomaliesmethodcertaindetectiontypesbetter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Detecting anomalies in time series data is important in a variety of fields, including system monitoring, healthcare, and cybersecurity. While the abundance of available methods makes it difficult to choose the most appropriate method for a given application, each method has its strengths in detecting certain types of anomalies. In this study, we compare six unsupervised anomaly detection methods of varying complexity to determine whether more complex methods generally perform better and if certain methods are better suited to certain types of anomalies. We evaluated the methods using the UCR anomaly archive, a recent benchmark dataset for anomaly detection. We analyzed the results on a dataset and anomaly type level after adjusting the necessary hyperparameters for each method. Additionally, we assessed the ability of each method to incorporate prior knowledge about anomalies and examined the differences between point-wise and sequence-wise features. Our experiments show that classical machine learning methods generally outperform deep learning methods across a range of anomaly types.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools