Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 2 cited by

Enhancing Web Service Anomaly Detection via Fine-grained Multi-modal Association and Frequency Domain Analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 8 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 The paper claims that FFAD, an unsupervised multi-modal detector, achieves a 93.6% average anomaly-detection F1-score by fusing logs and metrics in a fully connected graph and suppressing high-energy frequency components during…

desk verdict Strong reported numbers on a plausible but overclaimed fusion architecture; the graph's fine-grained alignment claim is untested without a simple concatenation baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16875 v1 pith:5BIKMM6S submitted 2025-01-28 cs.SE cs.LG

Xixuan Yang , Xin Huang , Chiming Duan , Tong Jia , Shandong Dong , Ying Li , Gang Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.LG
keywords anomalydetectionwebservicesmulti-modalfusionloganalysismetrictimeseriesgraphneuralnetworksFouriertransformfrequencydomain
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

FFAD is a method for detecting anomalies in web services by jointly analyzing logs and metrics. The paper argues that previous fusion methods fail twice: coarse time-window matching cannot associate log entries with metric samples that arrive asynchronously, and reconstruction-based detectors can rebuild anomalous inputs too well. FFAD tries to fix both by treating every log and metric feature in a sliding window as a node in a fully connected graph and by scaling down high-energy frequency components while reconstructing normal patterns. On two industrial datasets and one open-source dataset, the paper reports an average anomaly-detection F1-score of 93.6%, an 8.8 percentage-point gain over prior state-of-the-art methods. If the results hold, an unsupervised model that needs no labels can outperform semi-supervised and supervised alternatives on realistic monitoring data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fully connected fusion graph: every metric feature and log-template feature in a sliding window becomes a node, and the adjacency matrix is all ones, so every cross-modal pair starts equally connected. A Fourier Graph Operator (FGO) then does graph matrix multiplication in Fourier space, which the paper uses as a cheaper replacement for graph convolution and as the place where association weights are learned. The companion mechanism is Fourier Frequency Focus (FFF), which computes per-frequency signal energy and amplitude variance, then multiplies frequency components above 95th-percentile thresholds by a learnable factor $\alpha_{\mathrm{anomaly}} < 1$ during stacked graph operations. Two supporting modules, temporal-feature-retention convolutions and dual noise injection, preserve time order and balance the learning between log and metric modalities. Together these mechanisms are what the paper claims produces fine-grained association and prevents anomalies from being reconstructed cleanly.

What would settle it

Run FFAD on Dataset C with the fully connected graph replaced by a graph whose edges are fixed random weights or by a simple concatenation of the same features, keeping the Fourier Frequency Focus module; if the F1 score does not drop, the claimed precision of the log-metric association is not the source of the reported improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, this paper claims that the two known weaknesses of log-metric anomaly detectors are removable in one architecture. Precise association between logs and metrics is obtained by flattening the time-window features of both modalities into a single fully connected fusion graph, with adjacency matrix all ones, and letting a Fourier Graph Operator learn edge weights in graph Fourier space. The overgeneralization of reconstruction is countered by a Fourier Frequency Focus strategy that measures the energy and amplitude variance of each frequency component and shrinks the components whose energy and variance exceed 95th-percentile thresholds, so the model concentrates on low-energy normal patterns. The paper reports that this combination yields an average F1-score of 93.6% across three datasets, with recall reaching 100% on two of them, and states that FFAD has run in production since September 2023. The central claim is not merely that the numbers are high; it is that the observed gain comes from the graph-based alignment and the frequency suppression working together.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that flattening all log and metric features in a sliding window into one fully connected graph, with every pair of nodes equally connected, counts as a fine-grained association that resolves log-metric asynchrony; the graph itself encodes no time offsets or event-to-sample correspondences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unsupervised multi-modal detection can match or exceed semi-supervised performance: FFAD reports higher F1 than the semi-supervised baseline on all three datasets.
  • On datasets with many log templates and metric channels, the reported gain is largest (roughly 20 points over the previous unsupervised method on Dataset C), suggesting the approach helps most where asynchrony is severe.
  • Suppressing high-energy frequency components during reconstruction should make anomalous segments harder to reconstruct while leaving normal patterns intact, improving separation in the reconstruction-error signal.
  • The method's recall of 100% on two datasets means it rarely misses injected faults; the paper accepts extra false positives as the trade-off.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the fusion graph starts with all-ones adjacency and no timestamp offsets, the claimed 'precise association' is not built into the architecture: it is whatever weights the Fourier Graph Operator learns. A fair test would be to replace the learned graph with fixed random weights and see whether the F1 gain survives.
  • The frequency-suppression idea is not tied to the graph construction and could be lifted into any reconstruction-based detector; if the ablation results are representative, most of the robustness on Dataset C may come from FFF rather than the graph alignment.
  • The 95th-percentile hard threshold for energy and variance is a dataset-specific choice; on data with different anomaly ratios, the threshold may need retuning, and a soft or learned threshold would be a natural extension.
  • The paper's success on two industrial datasets suggests that log-metric asynchrony is a practical obstacle, but the fully connected graph treats it as a learning problem rather than modeling the actual delays. Encoding known event ordering as edge priors could be a testable improvement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 FFAD, an unsupervised anomaly detection method that fuses logs and metrics for web services. The method parses logs into template sequences, applies temporal convolutions, injects modality-specific noise, flattens a sliding window of features into a fully connected graph, processes this graph in the Fourier domain via a Fourier Graph Operator, and suppresses high-energy frequency components during reconstruction. On three datasets, FFAD reports an average F1-score of 93.6%, an 8.8-point improvement over the previous state of the art, together with ablations of the temporal, noise-injection, and frequency-focus modules.

Significance. The problem is practically important and the empirical scope is reasonably broad: three datasets, several log-, metric-, and multi-modal baselines, and ablations of three components. The paper also states that FFAD has been deployed in production, which, if true, is a meaningful practical signal. However, the novelty claims currently outrun the evidence: the fully connected graph does not encode the fine-grained associations it claims to learn, and the frequency-focus mechanism rests on an assumption that is not separately tested. The quantitative claim is also presented without error bars or a documented validation protocol, so the size of the margin is underdetermined.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.4-3.5, Eq. (8)] The 'fine-grained and precise association' between logs and metrics is not implemented by the architecture. The fusion graph is fully connected with adjacency A_G in {1}^{N x N}; this adjacency is node-transitive and encodes no template-to-metric correspondence, no timestamp offsets, and no modality identities. The Fourier Graph Operator in Eq. (8) is a learned dense transformation over the flattened window, so the model is functionally close to concatenation followed by a learned linear/nonlinear mixing. The claim in Section 4.2 that the graph handles asynchrony is not testable from Table 3, because the graph/FGO component is never removed or replaced. Please add an experiment that isolates the graph from a non-graph dense fusion baseline, or from an explicitly time-offset alignment, or substantially soften the alignment claim.
  2. [4.1.4, Table 2] The reported improvements are not accompanied by any variance information. Some of the margins are small (Dataset A: 0.934 vs 0.918 for Hades; Dataset B: 0.961 vs 0.956 for UAC-AD), and the aggregate 8.8% improvement is dominated by Dataset C. The noise scaling coefficients alpha_m and alpha_l, and the noise variance, are tuned per dataset over grids (Section 4.1.4), but no validation protocol or multiple-seed statistics are given. Please report confidence intervals or significance tests and state explicitly how the per-dataset hyperparameters were selected.
  3. [3.5, Eq. (7), RQ4, Table 3] The FFF mechanism assumes that high-energy, high-variance frequency components are anomalous and suppresses the top 5% of components by energy and variance. The ablation in Table 3 only shows that removing FFF reduces average F1; it does not test whether the energy/variance criterion is the reason for the improvement. The visualizations in Figure 4 are not a substitute for a quantitative test, since they show a single representative segment. Please add a sensitivity analysis (for example, suppressing low-energy components or random components, and varying the percentile) to support the causal claim that the method improves detection by focusing on normal frequencies.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract vs 4.1.1] The abstract says the method is validated on 'two real-world industrial datasets and one open-source dataset,' but Section 4.1.1 describes Dataset A as an in-lab dataset, Dataset B as simulated by an intelligent operations company, and Dataset C as the only clearly real-world industrial dataset; please align these descriptions.
  2. [4.1.4] The text says the noise variance was selected from candidate values 0.007, 0.009, 0.01, 0.03, 0.05, 0.07, and 0.1, but then sets the noise variance to 0.003 for Datasets B and C; the value 0.003 is not in the candidate list.
  3. [3.3, Eq. (4)] The Poisson noise parameter lambda in Eq. (4) is never specified, and its relation to the per-dataset tuning of alpha_l is unclear.
  4. [Table 1] The table columns 'Log Message' and 'Metric Length' are not clearly defined; please state whether the numbers count raw log messages, parsed templates, time blocks, or something else.
  5. [Figure 4] Figure 4 lacks axis labels and a description of the projection or embedding used; without them, the claim that the FFF mechanism 'amplifies reconstruction errors of anomalous features' is difficult to verify visually.
  6. [3.3] The sentence 'The core idea of DNBM is...' contains a typo: DNBM should be DNI.
  7. [3.5, Eq. (5)] The notation F is used for the Discrete Fourier Transform over the node dimension, but the text also refers to the 'Fourier space of the graph' and to the Fourier Graph Operator from FourierGNN; please clarify whether the transform is a standard DFT over nodes or a graph Fourier transform based on the adjacency matrix.
  8. [4.1.2] The strongest baseline, UAC-AD, is authored by two of the FFAD authors, but the comparison does not note this overlap or state whether the authors' own implementation was used; please disclose the relationship.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: FFAD's results are empirical against external fault labels; the graph-alignment novelty is under-supported but not circular, and the only self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

FFAD's central claims are evaluated against independently labeled fault-injection datasets and external baselines, so the reported 93.6% average F1 / 8.8% improvement is not derived from the method's own definitions. The graph module (Sec 3.4) constructs a fully connected graph with adjacency matrix of all ones and then applies a learned Fourier Graph Operator; this is effectively a dense mixing of flattened window features, and the paper's 'fine-grained association' language overstates what the architecture guarantees, but this is a novelty/expressiveness concern rather than a circular reduction of the predicted anomaly score to the input. The FFF mechanism (Sec 3.5, Eqs. 5-8) suppresses high-energy frequency components and then uses reconstruction error as the anomaly score; that is an explicit inductive bias whose validity is checked against external fault labels, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only self-citations are UAC-AD [12] as a baseline and the use of Drain and sliding-window methodology from [12]; these are normal implementation and comparison practices and are not load-bearing for the claimed result. No step in the derivation chain equates the output to the input by construction. Score 2 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation rather than any circular step.

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

The central contribution is an empirical method. The main free parameters are per-dataset noise and threshold settings, which are tuned rather than derived. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the graph and frequency components are computational constructs, not invented entities. The assumptions are standard reconstruction and frequency-domain heuristics, some of which are stated without independent validation.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_m, alpha_l noise scaling coefficients = Dataset A: alpha_m=0, alpha_l=1; Dataset B: alpha_m=1, alpha_l=0; Dataset C: alpha_m=0, alpha_l=7
    Chosen per dataset from the range 0..9 to balance modality data volumes; directly affects reconstruction and results (Section 4.1.4).
  • Noise variance = 0.007 for Dataset A, 0.003 for Datasets B and C
    Selected from candidate values {0.007, 0.009, 0.01, 0.03, 0.05, 0.07, 0.1}; the chosen 0.003 for B and C is not in the listed candidate set (Section 4.1.4).
  • Energy and variance thresholds E_th, V_th = Set at the 95th percentile of distributions
    Hand-chosen threshold determines which 5 percent of frequency components are suppressed by FFF; no sensitivity analysis is provided (Section 4.1.4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Logs and metrics in a window can be represented as nodes in a fully connected graph, and graph Fourier operations can learn precise cross-modal associations.
    Sections 3.4 and 3.5: the adjacency matrix is all ones and node order is flattened by modality, so temporal alignment between log events and metric samples is not explicitly represented.
  • domain assumption Anomalies manifest as high-energy, high-variance frequency components, so scaling down the top 5 percent of such components during reconstruction amplifies anomalous reconstruction errors.
    Section 3.5, Equations 5-7; the paper cites references [3, 14] for this claim but provides no derivation.
  • domain assumption Reconstruction error is a valid anomaly score: normal data is reconstructed well and anomalies are reconstructed poorly.
    Standard reconstruction-based anomaly detection assumption, used throughout the evaluation and ablation.
  • standard math The Discrete Fourier Transform and the Fourier Graph Operator from FourierGNN are valid and correctly implemented.
    Section 3.5 relies on reference [24] and uses the operator as a black box without formal verification.
  • domain assumption Binarizing log templates to presence or absence within a time block preserves the information needed for anomaly detection.
    Section 3.1 converts logs to 0/1 indicators, discarding counts and timing within the block, assuming rare template presence is the discriminative signal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Web Service Anomaly Detection via Fine-grained Multi-modal Association and Frequency Domain Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5BIKMM6S

@misc{pith2026250116875,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Web Service Anomaly Detection via Fine-grained Multi-modal Association and Frequency Domain Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5BIKMM6S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16875}
}
read the original abstract

Anomaly detection is crucial for ensuring the stability and reliability of web service systems. Logs and metrics contain multiple information that can reflect the system's operational state and potential anomalies. Thus, existing anomaly detection methods use logs and metrics to detect web service systems' anomalies through data fusion approaches. They associate logs and metrics using coarse-grained time window alignment and capture the normal patterns of system operation through reconstruction. However, these methods have two issues that limit their performance in anomaly detection. First, due to asynchrony between logs and metrics, coarse-grained time window alignment cannot achieve a precise association between the two modalities. Second, reconstruction-based methods suffer from severe overgeneralization problems, resulting in anomalies being accurately reconstructed. In this paper, we propose a novel anomaly detection method named FFAD to address these two issues. On the one hand, FFAD employs graph-based alignment to mine and extract associations between the modalities from the constructed log-metric relation graph, achieving precise associations between logs and metrics. On the other hand, we improve the model's fit to normal data distributions through Fourier Frequency Focus, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of anomaly detection. We validated the effectiveness of our model on two real-world industrial datasets and one open-source dataset. The results show that our method achieves an average anomaly detection F1-score of 93.6%, representing an 8.8% improvement over previous state-of-the-art methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16875 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Precise Association Between Logs and Metrics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of FFAD. time blocks. The goal of anomaly detection is to determine whether 𝑋 (𝑖) contains anomalies, where 𝑋 (𝑖) = 𝑥𝑡𝑡 = 𝑖 − 𝑤 + 1 𝑖 represents the multi-modal data in the 𝑖th sliding window, and 𝑤 is the size of the sliding window. 3.2 Temporal Feature Retention Fully connected graphs can capture global associations between nodes, but they ignore the temporal order among nodes during construction. In … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Modality Data Ablation When the DNI module is removed, the model inadequately learns from the modality with less data, affecting overall performance. In Dataset B, the amount of metrics data is greater than the effec￾tive log data. Consequently, after removing the DNI module, the model tends to ignore the contribution of the log modality and over-relies on metrics data for judgments. However, as shown in Figure 3b, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization Study In this section, we explore the effectiveness of the Fourier Fre￾quency Focus (FFF) mechanism in anomaly detection by visualizing the original and reconstructed features. To highlight the impact of the FFF mechanism, we selected a data segment conta…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Rethinking Causal Mask Attention for Vision-Language Inference

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Relaxing causal masking so image tokens can preview future image and text context during prefill improves several vision-language benchmarks, and pooling future attention into a single prefix token preserves most of the gain.

  2. From Few-Label to Zero-Label: An Approach for Cross-System Log-Based Anomaly Detection with Meta-Learning

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    FreeLog combines meta-learning and adversarial domain adaptation to classify anomalies in an unlabeled target log system using labeled source logs, with reported F1 scores near 80%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    Feiyi Chen, Zhen Qin, Mengchu Zhou, Yingying Zhang, Shuiguang Deng, Lunt- ing Fan, Guansong Pang, and Qingsong Wen. 2024. LARA: A Light and Anti- overfitting Retraining Approach for Unsupervised Time Series Anomaly Detec- tion. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 4138–4149

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Feiyi Chen, Yingying Zhang, Zhen Qin, Lunting Fan, Renhe Jiang, Yuxuan Liang, Qingsong Wen, and Shuiguang Deng. 2024. Learning Multi-Pattern Normalities in the Frequency Domain for Efficient Time Series Anomaly Detection. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 747–760

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Min Du, Feifei Li, Guineng Zheng, and Vivek Srikumar. 2017. Deeplog: Anomaly detection and diagnosis from system logs through deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security . 1285–1298

    2017

  5. [5]

    Yuanyuan Fu, Kun Liang, and Jian Xu. 2023. MLog: Mogrifier LSTM-based log anomaly detection approach using semantic representation. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 16, 5 (2023), 3537–3549

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Wei Guan, Jian Cao, Yang Gu, and Shiyou Qian. 2023. Grasped: A gru-ae net- work based multi-perspective business process anomaly detection model. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 16, 5 (2023), 3412–3424

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Pinjia He, Jieming Zhu, Zibin Zheng, and Michael R Lyu. 2017. Drain: An online log parsing approach with fixed depth tree. In 2017 IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS) . IEEE, 33–40

    2017

  8. [8]

    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

    work page 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Armand Joulin. 2016. Fasttext. zip: Compressing text classification models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.03651 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cheryl Lee, Tianyi Yang, Zhuangbin Chen, Yuxin Su, Yongqiang Yang, and Michael R Lyu. 2023. Heterogeneous anomaly detection for software systems via semi-supervised cross-modal attention. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 1724–1736

    2023

  3. [11]

    Qingwei Lin, Hongyu Zhang, Jian-Guang Lou, Yu Zhang, and Xuewei Chen. 2016. Log clustering based problem identification for online service systems. In Pro- ceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion . 102–111

    2016

  4. [12]

    Hongyi Liu, Xiaosong Huang, Mengxi Jia, Tong Jia, Jing Han, Ying Li, and Zhong- hai Wu. 2024. UAC-AD: Unsupervised Adversarial Contrastive Learning for Anomaly Detection on Multi-modal Data in Microservice Systems. IEEE Transac- tions on Services Computing (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Locust Authors. [n. d.]. Locust. https://locust.io

  6. [14]

    2021.{Jump-Starting} multi- variate time series anomaly detection for online service systems

    Minghua Ma, Shenglin Zhang, Junjie Chen, Jim Xu, Haozhe Li, Yongliang Lin, Xiaohui Nie, Bo Zhou, Yong Wang, and Dan Pei. 2021.{Jump-Starting} multi- variate time series anomaly detection for online service systems. In 2021 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 21). 413–426

    2021

  7. [15]

    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

  8. [16]

    Hyunjong Park, Jongyoun Noh, and Bumsub Ham. 2020. Learning memory- guided normality for anomaly detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 14372–14381

    2020

  9. [17]

    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

  10. [18]

    Junho Song, Keonwoo Kim, Jeonglyul Oh, and Sungzoon Cho. 2023. Memto: Memory-guided transformer for multivariate time series anomaly detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), 57947–57963

    2023

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    Yuanzheng Tan, Qing Li, Junkun Peng, Zhenhui Yuan, and Yong Jiang. 2024. Air-CAD: Edge-Assisted Multi-Drone Network for Real-time Crowd Anomaly Detection. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 2817–2825

    2024

  13. [21]

    Jian Tang, Zhixiang Chen, Ada Wai-Chee Fu, and David W Cheung. 2002. En- hancing effectiveness of outlier detections for low density patterns. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: 6th Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2002 Taipei, Taiwan, May 6–8, 2002 Proceedings ...

    2002

  14. [22]

    David MJ Tax and Robert PW Duin. 2004. Support vector data description. Machine learning 54 (2004), 45–66

    2004

  15. [23]

    Wei Xu. 2010. System problem detection by mining console logs . University of California, Berkeley

    2010

  16. [24]

    Kun Yi, Qi Zhang, Wei Fan, Hui He, Liang Hu, Pengyang Wang, Ning An, Long- bing Cao, and Zhendong Niu. 2024. FourierGNN: Rethinking multivariate time series forecasting from a pure graph perspective. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Jun Zhan, Siqi Wang, Xiandong Ma, Chengkun Wu, Canqun Yang, Detian Zeng, and Shilin Wang. 2022. Stgat-mad: Spatial-temporal graph attention network for multivariate time series anomaly detection. In ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Sign...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Xu Zhang, Yong Xu, Qingwei Lin, Bo Qiao, Hongyu Zhang, Yingnong Dang, Chunyu Xie, Xinsheng Yang, Qian Cheng, Ze Li, et al. 2019. Robust log-based anomaly detection on unstable log data. In Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM joint meeting on European software engineering conferen...

    2019

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    Haihong Zhao, Chenyi Zi, Yang Liu, Chen Zhang, Yan Zhou, and Jia Li. 2024. Weakly Supervised Anomaly Detection via Knowledge-Data Alignment. In Pro- ceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 4083–4094

    2024

  21. [29]

    Nengwen Zhao, Junjie Chen, Zhaoyang Yu, Honglin Wang, Jiesong Li, Bin Qiu, Hongyu Xu, Wenchi Zhang, Kaixin Sui, and Dan Pei. 2021. Identifying bad software changes via multimodal anomaly detection for online service systems. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on Euro...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Xiang Zhou, Xin Peng, Tao Xie, Jun Sun, Chenjie Xu, Chao Ji, and Wenyun Zhao. 2018. Benchmarking microservice systems for software engineering re- search. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceeedings. 323–324

    2018

  23. [31]

    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

Pith tools

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