Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

DConAD: A Differencing-based Contrastive Representation Learning Framework for Time Series Anomaly Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes DConAD, which uses a differencing view and a positive-only KL contrastive loss to beat nine baselines on four of five public time series anomaly detection datasets.

desk verdict A plausible incremental method in TS anomaly detection, but the published training objective (Eq. 15) appears to push view 2 away from view 1, so the reported results cannot be attributed to the described method without code verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14204 v2 pith:75KKXYSW submitted 2025-04-19 cs.LG cs.AI

Wenxin Zhang , Xiaojian Lin , Wenjun Yu , Guangzhen Yao , jingxiang Zhong , Yu Li , Renda Han , Songcheng Xu
show 2 more authors
Hao Shi Cuicui Luo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords timeseriesanomalydetectioncontrastivelearningdifferencingKLdivergencetransformerunsupervisedspatiotemporalrepresentationstop-gradient
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 proposes DConAD, a framework for unsupervised multivariate time series anomaly detection. Instead of reconstructing or forecasting the series, it learns representations by contrasting the original series with its first-order differenced version, and it scores anomalies by the symmetric KL divergence between two contrastive views. The framework uses a transformer encoder with separate time-oriented and relation-oriented blocks to capture long-range temporal and inter-variable dependencies. On five public datasets (MSL, SMAP, SWaT, PSM, SMD) it reports F1-macro improvements over nine baselines ranging from roughly 0.2 to 34 percentage points. The training set is assumed to contain only normal data, which is the paper's stated problem setting.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the differencing transformation $x^d_t = x_{t+1} - x_t$, which is encoded alongside the original series by a spatiotemporal dependency learning (SDL) module. SDL stacks time-oriented and relation-oriented transformer blocks: the first applies self-attention along time, the second applies it along the variable dimension after transposition. The two encoded sequences $H_t$ and $H_d$ are combined into two contrastive views: view 1 via a bilinear network with LeakyReLU and sigmoid, view 2 via concatenation followed by linear layers. The training loss is a symmetric KL divergence between the two views with stop-gradient applied to both, $L = (L_{v1} - L_{v2})/\mathrm{len}(H_{v2})$, and the same KL sum serves as the point-wise anomaly score at inference.

What would settle it

Train DConAD on a dataset where a known fraction, say 5 to 10 percent, of training points are anomalies drawn from the test set or injected synthetically, then evaluate F1 on the held-out test set. If performance drops to the level of the baselines or below, the claim that DConAD avoids dependence on high-quality normal-only prior knowledge is false; if performance holds, the robustness claim is supported. This experiment is directly implementable with the released code and any of the five public datasets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a first-order differencing transformation, applied as an additional input view, prevents transformer attention from over-weighting anomalous points and supplies complementary information about normal dynamics. The paper argues that this, combined with a contrastive objective that compares a bilinear combination of the original and differential encodings against a concatenated combination, yields representations where normal points are consistent between views and anomalies are not. The consistency is measured by a symmetric KL divergence that doubles as the anomaly score, with stop-gradient applied on both views to force convergence without negative samples. On the five evaluated datasets the reported F1-macro of DConAD exceeds all nine baselines on four of them, with SMD being the exception where the paper attributes the smaller gain to the low anomaly rate.

Load-bearing premise

The training set is assumed to contain only normal data; if actual anomalies appear during training, the paper's robustness motivation and the reported superiority are not validated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If DConAD's reported gains hold, differencing is a cheap, effective augmentation for transformer-based time series anomaly detectors: it needs no extra labels or negative samples.
  • The positive-only KL contrastive objective removes the need for reconstruction or forecasting heads, so the framework can be trained with a single forward pass through the encoder.
  • Because the anomaly score is the same KL consistency used in training, the method needs no separate scoring network; thresholding this score yields the detector.
  • The stop-gradient strategy is essential: ablations show F1 drops by 8 to 9 percentage points without it across the five datasets.
  • On SMD, where the anomaly rate is lowest, DConAD does not beat the best baseline, suggesting the method's edge is tied to datasets with enough anomalous structure to create view inconsistency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the paper's robustness story would be to contaminate the training set with a small fraction of anomalies: if the KL consistency score still separates points, the method is genuinely robust to impure training data; if not, the reported gains depend on the fully-normal training assumption.
  • Differencing uses $x_{t+1} - x_t$, which looks one step ahead; for streaming or online detection a lagged or causal difference might be a variant worth exploring, at some cost to the reported performance.
  • The two-view construction resembles a Siamese network; the paper's ablation suggests asymmetrical stop-gradient is worse, which could be probed further with different view-generation operators, such as random masking or frequency-domain transforms, to see whether the view design or the contrastive loss matters more.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DConAD, an unsupervised framework for multivariate time series anomaly detection. The method preprocesses the input by differencing, normalizing, and embedding, then encodes both the original and differenced series with a transformer-based spatiotemporal dependency learning module. Two contrastive views are generated via a bilinear network and a concatenation layer, and a KL-divergence-based, positive-only contrastive loss with stop-gradient is used for training. At inference, the KL distance between the two views is used as a point-wise anomaly score with a per-dataset threshold. The authors report experiments on MSL, SMAP, PSM, SMD, and SWaT, comparing against nine baselines and claiming state-of-the-art F1-macro on most datasets, along with ablation and sensitivity studies.

Significance. If the method as described is correct and the empirical results are reproducible, the paper would make a useful, if incremental, contribution: it combines a differential view with a positive-only KL contrastive objective and a stop-gradient strategy, avoiding explicit reconstruction and claiming robustness to contamination. The code is provided, which is a strength. However, several technical descriptions are internally inconsistent, most importantly the sign in the final loss equation, the unspecified conversion of sigmoid outputs into KL-valid distributions, and the dimensionality mismatch between the two views. These issues currently prevent the reader from verifying that the reported performance is attributable to the proposed method. With careful corrections and code-level verification, the central empirical claim could be salvageable, but as written the paper does not yet support its attribution claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.E, Eq. (15)] The final loss is defined as L = L_v1 - L_v2 / len(H_v2), where L_v1 and L_v2 are sums of nonnegative KL terms (with stop-gradient on the target view). Since all KL terms are nonnegative, the negative sign on L_v2 causes the optimizer to push H_v2 away from H_v1, which is the opposite of the stated objective of learning 'consistencies of normal patterns between the two views'. It is also inconsistent with the symmetric anomaly score in Eq. (16), which sums both directions. The paper must either correct Eq. (15) to L = L_v1 + L_v2 / len(H_v2) (or an equivalent symmetric form) or provide a derivation that justifies the minus sign. Without this correction, the reported F1 gains cannot be attributed to the described KL contrastive objective.
  2. [Section III.C and III.D] The differencing operation in Eq. (1) reduces the length of the sequence from T to T-1, so Ht has shape L x d_model while Hd has shape (L-1) x d_model. Equations (9)-(12) use a bilinear network and a concatenation operation that require aligned inputs, but the paper does not specify how the length mismatch is handled (e.g., padding, truncation, shift, or a different summation window). This detail is load-bearing for view generation and reproducibility; without it the architecture is under-specified.
  3. [Section III.E, Eqs. (13)-(16)] KL divergence is only well-defined between probability distributions, but the views Hv1 and Hv2 are produced by a Sigmoid activation function, which maps each element to [0,1] without normalizing over any probability simplex. The paper does not specify the axis along which KL is computed (feature dimension, time dimension, or per-element), whether a softmax or other normalization is applied before computing KL, or how the sums over timestamps in Eqs. (13), (14), and (16) are taken. As written, the training loss and the anomaly score are not well-defined, and the reader cannot infer a correct implementation.
  4. [Section IV.A vs. Section IV.D] Section IV.A states 'The hidden size d_model is set to 256' for all experiments, but Section IV.D reports that 'When the hidden size is 64, DConAD achieves the best outcomes, and the performance decreases as the hidden size becomes larger' (see also Figure 2). This is a direct contradiction: either the main results use a suboptimal hidden size according to the paper's own sensitivity analysis, or the sensitivity text/Figure is misreported. The authors need to clarify the actual configuration used for the main results and discuss the discrepancy, since this affects the validity of the reported comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.C, Eq. (2)] The normalization formula appears to be missing a fraction bar: it should read Norm(vi) = (vi - Ave(vi)) / sqrt(Var(vi)). The current typesetting 'vi− Ave(vi)p Var(vi)' is ambiguous.
  2. [Table II] The column header 'Metrix' should be 'Metric'.
  3. [Section IV.E] In the validation of contrastive learning paradigms, the text says the results 'underscor[e] the effectiveness and superiority of SimSiam.' This is a typo: the proposed method is DConAD, not SimSiam; the sentence should refer to DConAD.
  4. [Section IV.B] The claim that DConAD 'outperforms nine baselines' is too strong because on the SMD dataset TranAD and AnomalyTrans achieve higher F1 (91.57 and 90.33 vs. 87.05 for DConAD). The paper later acknowledges suboptimal performance on SMD, but the initial phrasing should be qualified.
  5. [Table IV] The table headers for the ablation of the stop-gradient strategy are unclear: the first two columns are labeled 'view1' and 'view2' but the rows contain empty cells, making it difficult to map the four configurations to the reported F1 values. The authors should add explicit descriptions of which views have stop-gradient enabled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical benchmark result, and no prediction is defined in terms of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a first-principles derivation of its anomaly score; it directly defines Score(X) as the KL consistency between two contrastive views (Eq. 16) and trains those views on assumed-normal data with a KL-based objective (Eqs. 13-15). Using the training objective as the anomaly score is an energy-based model design, not a construction that fits the target labels or predicts a quantity already contained in the inputs. The per-dataset thresholds reported in Section IV.A are evaluation hyperparameters, not renamed predictions. The citation to [9] for positive-only contrastive learning is not self-citation, since the author lists do not overlap, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work. The reported F1 gains are empirical benchmark comparisons against nine baselines. Even if the training objective in Eq. (15) has a sign issue or the normal-only assumption is violated, those concerns are about correctness and generalization, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. Its most consequential assumptions are the clean-training-data assumption and the KL consistency criterion, both domain assumptions. Hyperparameters such as thresholds, window sizes, and layer counts are fitted per dataset, which adds a small circularity burden to the F1 claims.

free parameters (4)
  • Per-dataset anomaly threshold ξ = MSL: 1.1, SMAP: 0.8, PSM: 1.5, SMD: 1.1, SWaT: 1.0
    Chosen per dataset in Section IV.A; the paper does not report a selection procedure, so these are tuned to the test data and any reported F1 depends on them.
  • Number of SDL layers = 1 (MSL, SMD), 3 (SMAP, PSM, SWaT)
    Set per dataset in Section IV.A; sensitivity analysis in Figure 2 shows performance varies with layer count.
  • Window size = 90 (MSL), 105 (SMAP, SMD, SWaT), 60 (PSM)
    Per-dataset hyperparameter; Figure 2 shows window size has a distinct effect on F1.
  • Hidden size d_model = 256 (main experiments), 64 (claimed best in sensitivity)
    Main experiments use 256 despite the sensitivity analysis reporting that 64 gives the best outcomes (Section IV.A vs Section IV.D).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Training set Xtrain consists of fully normal data
    Stated in Section III.A; the method is not validated on training data containing anomalies, though the introduction claims robustness to anomalies in the training set.
  • domain assumption Anomalies are rare and produce lower consistency between the two contrastive views
    The anomaly score in Eq. (16) relies on this; no theoretical or empirical support beyond the reported tests.
  • domain assumption KL divergence between the two views is a valid similarity measure for normal patterns
    The loss and anomaly score are both KL-based; the paper validates only via ablations (Figure 4), not a derivation.
  • standard math Standard transformer blocks, layer normalization, and feedforward networks behave as expected
    Assumed from prior literature; not axiomatized here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DConAD: A Differencing-based Contrastive Representation Learning Framework for Time Series Anomaly Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/75KKXYSW

@misc{pith2026250414204,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DConAD: A Differencing-based Contrastive Representation Learning Framework for Time Series Anomaly Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/75KKXYSW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14204}
}
read the original abstract

Time series anomaly detection holds notable importance for risk identification and fault detection across diverse application domains. Unsupervised learning methods have become popular because they have no requirement for labels. However, due to the challenges posed by the multiplicity of abnormal patterns, the sparsity of anomalies, and the growth of data scale and complexity, these methods often fail to capture robust and representative dependencies within the time series for identifying anomalies. To enhance the ability of models to capture normal patterns of time series and avoid the retrogression of modeling ability triggered by the dependencies on high-quality prior knowledge, we propose a differencing-based contrastive representation learning framework for time series anomaly detection (DConAD). Specifically, DConAD generates differential data to provide additional information about time series and utilizes transformer-based architecture to capture spatiotemporal dependencies, which enhances the robustness of unbiased representation learning ability. Furthermore, DConAD implements a novel KL divergence-based contrastive learning paradigm that only uses positive samples to avoid deviation from reconstruction and deploys the stop-gradient strategy to compel convergence. Extensive experiments on five public datasets show the superiority and effectiveness of DConAD compared with nine baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/shaieesss/DConAD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14204 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The illustration of DConAD framework. First, DConAD leverages the preprocessing module to generate differential representations of the original [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The sensitivity experimental results of DConAD on four hyperparam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The validation experiments on contrastive learning paradigms on three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The validation experiments on the utility of KL divergence on five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. A Multimodal Deep Learning Framework for Early Diagnosis of Liver Cancer via Optimized BiLSTM-AM-VMD Architecture

    cs.LG 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    The paper claims a BiLSTM-AM-VMD model achieves AUC 0.963 for early HCC diagnosis, but the evidence is undermined by contradictory dataset descriptions and missing artifacts.

  2. Multi-Modal Machine Learning Framework for Predicting Early Recurrence of Brain Tumors Using MRI and Clinical Biomarkers

    cs.LG 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    XGBoost combining MRI radiomics and clinical biomarkers reportedly reaches C-index 0.782 for early brain tumor recurrence, but the paper's methods describe a liver-cancer cohort and no evaluation of its claimed tempor...

  3. Butter: Frequency Consistency and Hierarchical Fusion for Autonomous Driving Object Detection

    cs.CV 2025-07 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A YOLO-family detector named Butter claims state-of-the-art efficiency on KITTI, BDD100K, and Cityscapes, but the paper's loss equations, parameter counts, and baseline comparisons contain contradictions that undermin...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Pipeline safety early warning method for distributed signal using bilinear CNN and lightgbm,

    Y . Yang, Y . Li, and H. Zhang, “Pipeline safety early warning method for distributed signal using bilinear CNN and lightgbm,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing , 2021, pp. 4110–4114

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    A review on outlier/anomaly detection in time series data,

    A. Bl ´azquez-Garc´ıa, A. Conde, U. Mori, and J. A. Lozano, “A review on outlier/anomaly detection in time series data,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 56:1–56:33, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Anomaly detection in uasn localization based on time series analysis and fuzzy logic,

    A. P. Das, S. M. Thampi, and J. Lloret, “Anomaly detection in uasn localization based on time series analysis and fuzzy logic,” Mobile networks & applications , vol. 25, no. 1, SI, pp. 55–67, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    An improved arima-based traffic anomaly detection algorithm for wireless sensor networks,

    Q. Yu, L. Jibin, and L. Jiang, “An improved arima-based traffic anomaly detection algorithm for wireless sensor networks,” International journal of distributed sensor networks , 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Stl-convtransformer: Series decomposition and convolution-infused transformer architecture in multivariate time series anomaly detection,

    Y .-X. Wu and B.-R. Dai, “Stl-convtransformer: Series decomposition and convolution-infused transformer architecture in multivariate time series anomaly detection,” in Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2024, pp. 41–52

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Improved lstm-based time- series anomaly detection in rail transit operation environments,

    Y . Wang, X. Du, Z. Lu, Q. Duan, and J. Wu, “Improved lstm-based time- series anomaly detection in rail transit operation environments,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 9027–9036, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” in Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017 , 2017, pp. 5998–6008

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Anomaly transformer: time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy,

    J. Xu, H. Wu, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Anomaly transformer: time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy,” in Proceedings of 10th international conference on learning representations , 2022

    2022

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Dcdetector: Dual attention contrastive representation learning for time series anomaly detection,

    Y . Yang, C. Zhang, T. Zhou, Q. Wen, and L. Sun, “Dcdetector: Dual attention contrastive representation learning for time series anomaly detection,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2023, pp. 3033–3045

    2023

  2. [10]

    Seasonal arma-based spc charts for anomaly detection: Application to emergency department systems,

    F. Kadri, F. Harrou, S. Chaabane, Y . Sun, and C. Tahon, “Seasonal arma-based spc charts for anomaly detection: Application to emergency department systems,” Neurocomputing, vol. 173, pp. 2102–2114, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Machine learning-assisted improved anomaly detection for structural health monitoring,

    S. Samudra, M. Barbosh, and A. Sadhu, “Machine learning-assisted improved anomaly detection for structural health monitoring,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 7, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Clustering- based granular representation of time series with application to collective anomaly detection,

    W. Shi, D. Karastoyanova, Y . Ma, Y . Huang, and G. Zhang, “Clustering- based granular representation of time series with application to collective anomaly detection,” IEEE transactions on instrumentation and measure- ment, vol. 72, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Event-based anomaly detection using a one-class svm for a hybrid electric vehicle,

    Y . Ji and H. Lee, “Event-based anomaly detection using a one-class svm for a hybrid electric vehicle,” IEEE transactions on vehicular technology, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 6032–6043, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    In-situ early anomaly detection and remaining useful lifetime prediction for high-power white leds with distance and entropy-based long short-term memory recurrent neural networks,

    M. Wen, M. S. Ibrahim, A. H. Meda, G. Zhang, and J. Fan, “In-situ early anomaly detection and remaining useful lifetime prediction for high-power white leds with distance and entropy-based long short-term memory recurrent neural networks,” Expert systems with applications , vo...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Time series anomaly detection with adversarial reconstruction net- works,

    S. Liu, B. Zhou, Q. Ding, B. Hooi, Z. Zhang, H. Shen, and X. Cheng, “Time series anomaly detection with adversarial reconstruction net- works,” IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 4293–4306, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy,

    J. Xu, H. Wu, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Anomaly transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Learning Representations , 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Class-imbalanced time series anomaly detection method based on cost-sensitive hybrid network,

    X. Wang, Y . Zhang, N. Bai, Q. Yu, and Q. Wang, “Class-imbalanced time series anomaly detection method based on cost-sensitive hybrid network,” Expert systems with applications , vol. 238, no. E, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Grand: Gan-based software runtime anomaly detection method using trace information,

    S. Kong, J. Ai, M. Lu, and Y . Gong, “Grand: Gan-based software runtime anomaly detection method using trace information,” Neural networks , vol. 169, pp. 365–377, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Paformer: anomaly detection of time series with parallel-attention transformer,

    N. Bai, X. Wang, R. Han, Q. Wang, and Z. Liu, “Paformer: anomaly detection of time series with parallel-attention transformer,” IEEE trans- actions on neural networks and learning systems , 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Transformer-based multivariate time se- ries anomaly detection using inter-variable attention mechanism,

    H. Kang and P. Kang, “Transformer-based multivariate time se- ries anomaly detection using inter-variable attention mechanism,” Knowledge-based systems, vol. 290, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Imdiffusion: Imputed diffusion models for multivariate time series anomaly detection,

    Y . Chen, C. Zhang, M. Ma, Y . Liu, R. Ding, B. Li, S. He, S. Rajmohan, Q. Lin, and D. Zhang, “Imdiffusion: Imputed diffusion models for multivariate time series anomaly detection,” in Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, vol. 17, no. 3, 2023, pp. 359 – 372

    2023

  14. [22]

    Multivariate time series anomaly detection via dynamic graph attention network and informer,

    X. Huang, N. Chen, Z. Deng, and S. Huang, “Multivariate time series anomaly detection via dynamic graph attention network and informer,” Applied Intelligence, pp. 1–23, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Itrans- former: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting,

    Y . Liu, T. Hu, H. Zhang, H. Wu, S. Wang, L. Ma, and M. Long, “Itrans- former: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting,” in 12th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Drift doesn’t matter: dynamic decomposition with diffusion recon- struction for unstable multivariate time series anomaly detection,

    C. Wang, Z. Zhuang, Q. Qi, J. Wang, X. Wang, H. Sun, and J. Liao, “Drift doesn’t matter: dynamic decomposition with diffusion recon- struction for unstable multivariate time series anomaly detection,” in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Pr...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,

    H. Zhou, S. Zhang, J. Peng, S. Zhang, J. Li, H. Xiong, and W. Zhang, “Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intel- ligence, vol. 35, no. 12, 2021, pp. 11 106–11 115

    2021

  18. [26]

    Exploring simple siamese representation learning,

    X. Chen and K. He, “Exploring simple siamese representation learning,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 15 750–15 758

    2021

  19. [27]

    A unifying review of deep and shallow anomaly detection,

    L. Ruff, J. R. Kauffmann, R. A. Vandermeulen, G. Montavon, W. Samek, M. Kloft, T. G. Dietterich, and K. M ¨uller, “A unifying review of deep and shallow anomaly detection,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 756– 795, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Detecting spacecraft anomalies using lstms and nonparametric dynamic thresholding,

    K. Hundman, V . Constantinou, C. Laporte, I. Colwell, and T. Soder- strom, “Detecting spacecraft anomalies using lstms and nonparametric dynamic thresholding,” in Proceedings of the 24th acm sigkdd inter- national conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , 2018, pp. 387–395

    2018

  21. [29]

    Practical approach to asyn- chronous multivariate time series anomaly detection and localization,

    A. Abdulaal, Z. Liu, and T. Lancewicki, “Practical approach to asyn- chronous multivariate time series anomaly detection and localization,” in Proceedings of the 27th acm sigkdd conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , 2021, pp. 2485–2494

    2021

  22. [31]

    Swat: A water treatment testbed for research and training on ics security,

    A. P. Mathur and N. O. Tippenhauer, “Swat: A water treatment testbed for research and training on ics security,” in2016 international workshop on cyber-physical systems for smart water networks , 2016, pp. 31–36

    2016

  23. [32]

    Lof: Identifying density- based local outliers,

    M. Breunig, H. Kriegel, R. Ng, and J. Sander, “Lof: Identifying density- based local outliers,” International Conference on Management of Data, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 93–104, 2000

    2000

  24. [33]

    Robust anomaly detection for multivariate time series through stochastic recurrent neural network,

    Y . Su, Y . Zhao, C. Niu, R. Liu, W. Sun, and D. Pei, “Robust anomaly detection for multivariate time series through stochastic recurrent neural network,” in Proceedings of the 25th acm sigkdd international confer- encce on knowledge discovery and data mining , 2019, pp. 2828–2837

    2019

  25. [34]

    Multivariate time series anomaly detection and interpretation using hierarchical inter- metric and temporal embedding,

    Z. Li, Y . Zhao, J. Han, Y . Su, R. Jiao, X. Wen, and D. Pei, “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 & data mining , 2021, ...

    2021

  26. [35]

    Time series change point detection with self-supervised contrastive predictive coding,

    S. Deldari, D. Smith, V , H. Xue, and F. D. Salim, “Time series change point detection with self-supervised contrastive predictive coding,” in Proceedings of the world wide web conference , 2021, pp. 3124–3135

    2021

  27. [36]

    Tranad: Deep transformer networks for anomaly detection in multivariate time series data,

    S. Tuli, G. Casale, and N. R. Jennings, “Tranad: Deep transformer networks for anomaly detection in multivariate time series data,” in Proceedings of VLDB endowment , vol. 15, no. 6, 2022, p. 1201–1214

    2022

  28. [37]

    Memory-augmented u-transformer for multivariate time series anomaly detection,

    S. Qin, Y . Luo, and G. Tao, “Memory-augmented u-transformer for multivariate time series anomaly detection,” in Proceedings of IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing , 2023

    2023

  29. [38]

    An adversarial time- frequency reconstruction network for unsupervised anomaly detection,

    J. Fan, Z. Wang, H. Wu, D. Sun, J. Wu, and X. Lu, “An adversarial time- frequency reconstruction network for unsupervised anomaly detection,” Neural networks, vol. 168, pp. 44–56, 2023

    2023

  30. [39]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations,

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. Hinton, “A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations,” in International conference on machine learning , 2020, pp. 1597–1607

    2020

  31. [40]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning,

    K. He, H. Fan, Y . Wu, S. Xie, and R. Girshick, “Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2020, pp. 9729–9738

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.