Dive into Time-Series Anomaly Detection: A Decade Review

John Paparrizos; Mingyi Huang; Paul Boniol; Qinghua Liu; Themis Palpanas

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Dive into Time-Series Anomaly Detection: A Decade Review

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A decade of time-series anomaly detection can be sorted into one process-centric taxonomy, and the field's recent growth is driven by prediction-based deep models.

desk verdict Useful survey of time-series anomaly detection with a sound taxonomy and benchmark rundown, but the meta-analysis's trend claim is undermined by unreleased corpus and visible coding errors. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20512 v1 pith:AZ6EPNRG submitted 2024-12-29 cs.LG cs.AIcs.DBstat.ML

Paul Boniol , Qinghua Liu , Mingyi Huang , Themis Palpanas , John Paparrizos This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.DBstat.ML

keywords time-seriesanomalydetectionsurveyprocess-centrictaxonomydistance-basedmethodsdensity-basedprediction-basedmeta-analysisbenchmarks

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

This survey tries to give the time-series anomaly detection literature a single organizing structure. It groups methods into a process-centric taxonomy: distance-based methods score subsequences by similarity or distance; density-based methods build distributions, graphs, trees, or encodings and flag what is isolated; prediction-based methods learn to forecast or reconstruct normal behavior and use the error as the anomaly score. Its meta-analysis of the collected methods shows that after 2016 the number of new methods rises sharply, and that this surge is driven mainly by prediction-based approaches, specifically LSTM and autoencoder models, which account for almost half of new methods between 2020 and 2023. The survey also catalogs existing benchmarks and evaluation measures, recommending threshold-independent, range-aware measures such as VUS-ROC for comparing detectors. The point of the taxonomy and the recommendations is to let a fragmented field compare methods on a common basis.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the process-centric taxonomy itself. It classifies a detector by its core operation on time-series subsequences: comparing distances between subsequences (distance-based), measuring density over a learned representation such as a distribution, graph, tree, or symbol encoding (density-based), or training a model that forecasts the next point or reconstructs an input and scores by prediction or reconstruction error (prediction-based). A companion four-stage pipeline—pre-processing, detection method, scoring, post-processing—connects each algorithm to the taxonomy by showing where in the process a method acts. The taxonomy is what makes the survey's meta-analysis possible: methods are counted by family and publication date, which produces the trend figures and the conclusion that prediction-based approaches drove the recent growth.

What would settle it

Independently assemble a reproducible corpus of time-series anomaly detection papers from 1980 to 2023, code each method into the paper's three families, and check two numbers: whether new-method counts are roughly flat before 2016 and sharply higher after, and whether prediction-based methods, especially LSTM and autoencoder models, make up about half of new methods in 2020–2023; if either check fails on a comparable or larger corpus, the meta-analysis claim is undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the entire recent literature on time-series anomaly detection can be organized by what the detection step does with the series, and that this organization reveals a clear historical trend. The taxonomy has three first-level families: distance-based (proximity, clustering, discord detection), density-based (distribution, graph, tree, encoding), and prediction-based (forecasting, reconstruction), with the second-level categories not mutually exclusive. Applied to a collected set of methods, the taxonomy yields the paper's main empirical finding: between 2020 and 2023, prediction-based methods—particularly LSTM and autoencoder variants—make up almost half of newly proposed detectors, and this growth explains most of the post-2016 increase in publication volume. The paper further argues that no single detector wins on all data, and therefore the field should evaluate on shared benchmarks such as NAB, Yahoo, Exathlon, KDD21, TODS, TimeEval, TSB-UAD, and TSB-AD, using threshold-independent measures, with VUS-ROC singled out as preferred.

Load-bearing premise

The meta-analysis assumes that the authors' chosen collection of methods and their classification of each method by date, family, univariate or multivariate setting, and supervision level represents the literature as a whole; if that corpus or coding is biased, the reported trends, such as prediction-based methods being half of new proposals in 2020–2023, could be artifacts of selection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the taxonomy is adopted, every new method can be placed in a family and subcategory, which makes choosing competitive baselines from the other families a standard requirement.
Because the measured growth is concentrated in LSTM and autoencoder methods, evaluations that omit distance- and density-based baselines are likely missing the strongest existing comparators.
The recommendation of VUS-ROC implies that published point-wise AUC results on subsequence anomalies should be re-examined, since they can be inflated by threshold artifacts and labeling conventions.
The listed benchmarks, from NAB through TSB-AD, give the field a concrete shared testbed; if the survey's argument holds, new methods should report results across these rather than on private datasets.
The observation that no single method wins on all datasets points toward model selection, ensembling, and AutoML as more productive research directions than further isolated architecture proposals.

Reading between the lines

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

The taxonomy suggests a design space the paper does not develop: prediction-based error signals could be fed into distance- or density-based scorers as input features, blending families at the scoring stage rather than at the detection stage.
The meta-analysis's univariate/multivariate split implies that the recent drift toward univariate subsequence detection may reflect how easy the problem is to define and benchmark, not its practical importance; multivariate subsequence benchmarks would be a natural test of that reading.
A testable extension of the paper's evaluation claim would be to select one representative method per taxonomy leaf and run the full set on TSB-AD and TimeEval; if the taxonomy's families fail to separate in performance, the categories would be organizing history rather than behavior.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Paul,

Here's my read on the Boniol et al. survey. It's a genuinely useful piece of work: the three-way process-centric taxonomy (distance-, density-, prediction-based) is clean, the method tables are a handy reference, and the discussion of benchmarks and evaluation metrics—especially VUS and the point-adjustment critique—is careful and current. If you need a starting point for someone new to time-series anomaly detection, this is a reasonable place to point them.

The main soft spot is the meta-analysis in Section 9. The paper claims the recent growth in methods is driven mainly by LSTM and autoencoder approaches, but the corpus behind that claim is not described (no search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or coding protocol) and no data is released. Worse, visible rows of Table 3 are mis-coded: DeepAnT is listed as LSTM even though the original method is convolutional, and MSCRED is marked univariate though its title and design target multivariate series. If the visible coding has errors like that, the aggregate counts behind Figures 20-21 can shift materially, so the LSTM/autoencoder-driven-growth statement is an unsupported summary of an unavailable dataset. That's not fatal to the survey as a whole, because the taxonomy and method descriptions stand on their own, but it does mean the meta-analysis should be revised or removed until the corpus and coding are made reproducible.

There's also a small technical error in Section 7.3: Eq. 7 gives c(n) = H(n-1) - 2(n-1)/n for the Isolation Forest average path length, missing the factor 2. That's minor, but it should be fixed since people copy these formulas.

Overall, the paper is a solid, if not deeply novel, survey. It deserves a serious referee—send it to someone who knows the field and will require the meta-analysis to be backed by a released, reproducible dataset. With those fixes, it would be a reasonable reference for the community.

Recommendation: accept with major revisions, contingent on the meta-analysis being made reproducible and the coding errors corrected.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This survey proposes a process-centric taxonomy for time-series anomaly detection, dividing detection methods into distance-based, density-based, and prediction-based families with nine second-level categories, and catalogues roughly one hundred methods in Tables 1–3 and Figure 8. It also reports a meta-analysis of temporal trends in the literature (Section 9, Figures 20–21), reviews existing benchmarks (Table 4), and discusses threshold-based and threshold-independent evaluation measures, including range-based and volume-based metrics. The paper’s central empirical claim is that the post-2016 growth in anomaly-detection methods is driven mainly by prediction-based approaches, in particular LSTM and autoencoder methods.

Significance. If the taxonomy is accepted as a working map, the survey is a useful reference: it connects statistical, distance-based, and deep-learning strands of the field, provides compact method tables with supervision/dimensionality/streaming attributes, and offers a knowledgeable discussion of benchmark limitations and evaluation metrics, especially the VUS family. The meta-analysis is the part that would make the survey more than an annotated catalogue, and it is currently the weakest link because the underlying corpus and coding are not released and because visible rows in the tables contain demonstrable coding errors. The taxonomy and the evaluation-metric discussion can stand if these issues are addressed locally; the trend claims require either a reproducible coding protocol or a substantially weakened formulation.

major comments (3)

[Section 9, Figures 20–21] The meta-analysis supporting the central empirical claim is not reproducible as reported. The text states only that the authors “collected a comprehensive range of algorithms” (Section 1) and never specifies the search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or coding protocol behind Tables 1–3, and no corpus or per-method coding file is released. Because the aggregate counts behind Figures 20 and 21 are computed from these tables, claims such as the LSTM/autoencoder-driven increase and the 65%/50% supervision numbers cannot be checked by a reader. I request that the authors release the corpus and coding or state explicitly which public sources and rules were used; otherwise Section 9 should be confined to descriptive statements about the listed methods.
[Table 3 and Table 1] The table coding is demonstrably unreliable in visible rows. Table 3 classifies DeepAnT [167] as “LSTM” even though the published DeepAnT architecture is a convolutional neural network, and it codes MSCRED [265] as “I” (univariate) although MSCRED is designed for multivariate time series. Table 1 also lists TARZAN [115] as “S” (supervised), while TARZAN is an unsupervised surprising-pattern discovery method. Since the Section 9 trend analysis is computed from these codings, the authors should correct these entries and audit the full tables against the original papers.
[Section 7.3, Eq. (7)] The isolation-forest average path length is written as c(n)=H(n-1)-2(n-1)/n, but the standard expression is c(n)=2H(n-1)-2(n-1)/n. The displayed anomaly-score formula above Eq. (7) is also difficult to parse as typeset. For a survey that readers will use as a reference, the formula should be corrected and the anomaly score should be presented cleanly.

minor comments (5)

[Section 10.1, Table 4] The TSB-AD row reports 1070 curated time series while the text says the benchmark “comprises 1,000 rigorously curated” series; the numbers should be reconciled.
[Section 8.1.2] ARIMA is cited to reference [211], which is Rousseeuw and Leroy’s “Robust Regression and Outlier Detection”; this citation does not introduce ARIMA models and should be replaced by an appropriate time-series reference.
[Section 8.1.4 vs Table 3] The text refers to “AD-ITL” while Table 3 lists “AD-LTI”; the same name should be used throughout.
[Table 2 and Table 3] There are several small presentation errors: “SupriseEncode” and “GranmmarViz” in Table 2, and “Telemanon★” in Table 3 has a star but no accompanying footnote.
[Title and Section 4] The title announces “A Decade Review” but the corpus spans from 1980 to 2023; the paper should clarify in the introduction why the “decade” framing is used, or adjust the title to reflect the full time span.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's taxonomy and meta-analysis are descriptive and do not reduce to fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

This is a survey paper with no fitted parameters, no predictive equations, and no first-principles result whose output is reused as input. The process-centric taxonomy in Section 3 is defined directly in terms of methodological families (distance-, density-, and prediction-based), and the individual method descriptions in Sections 6-8 are expository summaries rather than derivations. The Section 9 meta-analysis is a descriptive tabulation of the methods the authors chose to include in Tables 1-3; its trends (e.g., growth of LSTM and autoencoder methods) are statements about that corpus, not conclusions derived from those methods' own outputs. Even if the corpus selection or coding were imperfect, that would be a reproducibility or correctness concern, not circularity. The authors do cite their own prior work (TSB-UAD, TSB-AD, VUS, SAND, Series2Graph), but those citations are used as examples, benchmarks, or evaluation recommendations; they are not invoked to force the taxonomy or to justify a derived quantity. No step in the paper exhibits the self-definitional or fitted-input-as-prediction patterns described in the analysis guidelines. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The survey's conclusions rest on two domain assumptions about how anomaly types and method pipelines are structured, plus an ad hoc selection of the method corpus for the meta-analysis. There are no free parameters fit to data and no newly postulated entities.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption All time-series anomaly detection methods can be placed into a common four-stage pipeline (pre-processing, detection, scoring, post-processing).
Section 2.5: 'Upon summarizing the various different algorithms on different domains, we realized a common pipeline for time-series anomaly detection algorithms.' This is an inductive generalization that underlies the process-centric taxonomy; if some methods do not fit the pipeline, the taxonomy is incomplete.
domain assumption The three anomaly types (point, contextual, collective) exhaustively cover time-series anomalies.
Section 2.2 defines these three types; the taxonomy is built on this tripartite distinction, which is standard but not proven exhaustive.
ad hoc to paper The corpus of methods in Figure 8 is representative of the field and the coding of dates and categories is consistent.
Section 9's meta-analysis trends depend on the authors' selection and coding, which is not systematized or released.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dive into Time-Series Anomaly Detection: A Decade Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZ6EPNRG

@misc{pith2026241220512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dive into Time-Series Anomaly Detection: A Decade Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZ6EPNRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20512}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advances in data collection technology, accompanied by the ever-rising volume and velocity of streaming data, underscore the vital need for time series analytics. In this regard, time-series anomaly detection has been an important activity, entailing various applications in fields such as cyber security, financial markets, law enforcement, and health care. While traditional literature on anomaly detection is centered on statistical measures, the increasing number of machine learning algorithms in recent years call for a structured, general characterization of the research methods for time-series anomaly detection. This survey groups and summarizes anomaly detection existing solutions under a process-centric taxonomy in the time series context. In addition to giving an original categorization of anomaly detection methods, we also perform a meta-analysis of the literature and outline general trends in time-series anomaly detection research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20512 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Synthetic example comparing anomalies in univariate and multivariate time series for (a) a point outlier and (b) a sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Time series anomaly detection pipeline. The data processing step represents how the anomaly detection method processes the time series data at the initial step. We have noticed all the anomaly detection models are somehow based on a windowed approach initially - converting the time series data into a matrix with rows of sliding window slices of the original time series. The pre-processing step consists of the additi… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (18 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Process-centric anomaly detection taxonomy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The scoring process. (1) The forecasting-based method is a model that, for a given index or timestamp, takes as input points or subsequences before this given timestamp and predicts its corresponding value or sub-sequence. In other words, such methods use past values …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Result using |Z | = 16 for a autoencoder Encoder(𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣 (64, 3)-𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑢 ( )-𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 ( )-𝑇 𝑎𝑛ℎ( )), Decoder(𝐷𝑒𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣 (64, 3)-𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑢 ( )- 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 ( )-𝑇 𝑎𝑛ℎ( )). Top plot: Input time series snippet. Bottom plot: 𝑆 (using mean square error) for all the sub-sequences of length 80. A for…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Illustration of Anomaly Detection Taxonomy for all methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: (a) Reachability distance between A and B, A and C for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: A dataset with 16 sub-sequences (of the same length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: (a) Matrix profile (𝑎2) applied on the SED (Nasa disk failure datasets) time series snippet (𝑎1). The highest value in the matrix profile (𝑎1) points to the discord of the SED time series. (b) Matrix profile (𝑏2) applied on a synthetic time series (𝑏1). The smallest v…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: OCSVM illustration in which a point corresponds to a subsequence and only the green points are provided for the training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Illustration of the Finite State Machine (FSM). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Example of Series2graph representation. types of subsequences. Series2Graph [26] is building such kinds of graphs. Moreover, an extension of Series2Graph proposed in the literature, named DADS [217], proposes a distributed implementation and, therefore, a much more sc…

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Set of isolation trees that randomly partition a dataset. On average, instance N has a longer path to the root than instance A. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Illustration of Dynamic Bayesian Network (DBN). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: LSTM cell architecture. to achieve both of the previously enumerated tasks. Then, what has to be done is to train this model on the normal section of the time series (apriori annotated by the knowledge expert) and use the forecasting error as an anomaly score. Therefo…

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Overview of autoencoders methods for time-series anomaly detection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_18.png]

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Overview of GAN methods for time-series anomaly detection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_19.png]

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Relative number of methods proposed over time per category, at different times-intervals (left), and cumulative (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_20.png]

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: Number of methods proposed over time that are Unsupervised/Semi-supervised (left), and that can handle univari [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_21.png]

**Figure 22.** Figure 22: Illustration of evaluation measures for time-series anomaly detection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

PRISM: Powerful Time Series to Image (TS2I) Representations for Multivariate Anomaly Detection
cs.LG 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A new channelization scheme (MSM) and image-based autoencoders make time-series anomaly detection competitive with 24 time-domain baselines on 14 benchmarks.
Real-Time Decorrelation-Based Anomaly Detection for Multivariate Time Series
cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

DAD detects multivariate time-series anomalies by measuring the change in an online-learned decorrelation matrix, achieving the best mean AUC (0.8027) among 15 methods on 50 datasets.
A Computational Ethical Framework for Financial Digital Phenotyping for Mental Health
cs.LO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Ethical rules for financial digital phenotyping can be written as deontic temporal constraints whose violations Z3 proves unsatisfiable inside the formal model.
ClouDens: Operational Context-Aware Anomaly Detection for Large-scale Cloud System Monitoring
cs.NI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

ClouDens detects cloud telemetry anomalies by partitioning metrics into status/aggregation subsets, building context-aware graphs, and forecasting with ST-GNNs, beating a GRU baseline on IBM Cloud data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

271 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

[167]

Mohsin Munir, Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui, Andreas Dengel, and Sheraz Ahmed. 2019. DeepAnT: A Deep Learning Approach for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in Time Series. 7 (2019), 1991–2005. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2886457

arXiv 2019
[265]

Chuxu Zhang, Dongjin Song, Yuncong Chen, Xinyang Feng, Cristian Lumezanu, Wei Cheng, Jingchao Ni, Bo Zong, Haifeng Chen, and Nitesh V. Chawla. 2019. A Deep Neural Network for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection and Diagnosis in Multivariate Time Series Data. In AAAI, Vol. 33. 1409–1416. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33011409

doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33011409 2019
[115]

Eamonn Keogh, Stefano Lonardi, and Bill’Yuan-chi’ Chiu. 2002. Finding surprising patterns in a time series database in linear time and space. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining . 550–556

2002
[1]

Ali Abdul-Aziz, Mark Woike, Nikunj Oza, Bryan Matthews, and George Baakilini. 2010. Propulsion health monitoring of a turbine engine disk using spin test data. In Health Monitoring of Structural and Biological Systems 2010 , Tribikram Kundu (Ed.), Vol. 7650. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 431 – 440. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.847574

work page doi:10.1117/12.847574 2010
[2]

Charu C Aggarwal. 2017. An introduction to outlier analysis. In Outlier analysis. Springer, 1–34

2017
[3]

Subutai Ahmad, Alexander Lavin, Scott Purdy, and Zuha Agha. 2017. Unsupervised Real-Time Anomaly Detection for Streaming Data. 262 (2017), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2017.04.070

doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2017.04.070 2017
[4]

Shadab Alam, Franco D Albareti, Carlos Allende Prieto, Friedrich Anders, Scott F Anderson, Timothy Anderton, Brett H Andrews, Eric Armengaud, Éric Aubourg, Stephen Bailey, et al. 2015. The eleventh and twelfth data releases of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: final data from SDSS-III. The Manuscript submitted to ACM 42 Paparrizos et al. Astrophysical Journal...

2015
[5]

Muhammad Qasim Ali, Ehab Al-Shaer, Hassan Khan, and Syed Ali Khayam. 2013. Automated anomaly detector adaptation using adaptive threshold tuning. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) 15, 4 (2013), 1–30

2013

Show all 271 references

[6]

Francisco Martinez Alvarez, Alicia Troncoso, Jose C Riquelme, and Jesus S Aguilar Ruiz. 2010. Energy time series forecasting based on pattern sequence similarity. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 23, 8 (2010), 1230–1243

2010
[7]

Jérôme Antoni and Pietro Borghesani. 2019. A Statistical Methodology for the Design of Condition Indicators. 114 (2019), 290–327. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.05.012

2019 doi
[8]

Julien Audibert, Pietro Michiardi, Frédéric Guyard, Sébastien Marti, and Maria A Zuluaga. 2020. Usad: Unsupervised anomaly detection on multivariate time series. In SIGKDD. 3395–3404

2020
[9]

Martin Bach-Andersen, Bo Rømer-Odgaard, and Ole Winther. 2017. Flexible non-linear predictive models for large-scale wind turbine diagnostics. Wind Energy 20, 5 (2017), 753–764

2017
[10]

Stuart G Baker and Paul F Pinsky. 2001. A proposed design and analysis for comparing digital and analog mammography: special receiver operating characteristic methods for cancer screening. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 96, 454 (2001), 421–428

2001
[11]

Ziv Bar-Joseph. 2004. Analyzing time series gene expression data. Bioinformatics 20, 16 (2004), 2493–2503

2004
[12]

Ziv Bar-Joseph, Georg K Gerber, David K Gifford, Tommi S Jaakkola, and Itamar Simon. 2003. Continuous representations of time-series gene expression data. Journal of Computational Biology 10, 3-4 (2003), 341–356

2003
[13]

Ziv Bar-Joseph, Anthony Gitter, and Itamar Simon. 2012. Studying and modelling dynamic biological processes using time-series gene expression data. Nature Reviews Genetics 13, 8 (2012), 552

2012
[14]

Mohini Bariya, Alexandra von Meier, John Paparrizos, and Michael J Franklin. 2021. k-ShapeStream: Probabilistic Streaming Clustering for Electric Grid Events. In 2021 IEEE Madrid PowerTech. IEEE, 1–6

2021
[15]

Barnet and T

V. Barnet and T. Lewis. 1994. Outliers in Statistical Data . John Wiley and Sons, Inc

1994
[16]

Vic Barnett and Toby Lewis. 1984. Outliers in statistical data. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Applied Probability and Statistics (1984)

1984
[17]

Md Abul Bashar and Richi Nayak. 2020. TAnoGAN: Time series anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks. InSSCI. IEEE, 1778–1785

2020
[18]

Sabyasachi Basu and Martin Meckesheimer. 2007. Automatic Outlier Detection for Time Series: An Application to Sensor Data. 11, 2 (2007), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-006-0026-6

2007 doi
[19]

Daniel Bernoulli and CG Allen. 1961. The most probable choice between several discrepant observations and the formation therefrom of the most likely induction. Biometrika 48, 1-2 (1961), 3–18

1961
[20]

Arpita Bhargava and AS Raghuvanshi. 2013. Anomaly detection in wireless sensor networks using S-Transform in combination with SVM. In 2013 5th International Conference and Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks . IEEE, 111–116

2013
[21]

Bharat B Biswal, Maarten Mennes, Xi-Nian Zuo, Suril Gohel, Clare Kelly, Steve M Smith, Christian F Beckmann, Jonathan S Adelstein, Randy L Buckner, Stan Colcombe, et al. 2010. Toward discovery science of human brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107...

2010
[22]

Ane Blázquez-García, Angel Conde, Usue Mori, and Jose A Lozano. 2021. A review on outlier/anomaly detection in time series data. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 3 (2021), 1–33

2021
[24]

Paul Boniol, Michele Linardi, Federico Roncallo, and Themis Palpanas. 2020. SAD: An Unsupervised System for Subsequence Anomaly Detection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . 1778–1781. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE48307.2020.00168

2020
[25]

Paul Boniol, Michele Linardi, Federico Roncallo, Themis Palpanas, Mohammed Meftah, and Emmanuel Remy. 2021. Unsupervised and scalable subsequence anomaly detection in large data series. The VLDB Journal (March 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-021-00655-8

2021 doi
[26]

Paul Boniol and Themis Palpanas. 2020. Series2Graph: Graph-Based Subsequence Anomaly Detection for Time Series. 13, 11 (2020), 14. https://doi.org/10.14778/3407790.3407792

2020
[27]

Paul Boniol, John Paparrizos, Yuhao Kang, Themis Palpanas, Ruey S Tsay, Aaron J Elmore, and Michael J Franklin. 2022. Theseus: navigating the labyrinth of time-series anomaly detection. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 15, 12 (2022), 3702–3705

2022
[28]

Paul Boniol, John Paparrizos, and Themis Palpanas. 2023. New Trends in Time Series Anomaly Detection.. In EDBT. 847–850

2023
[29]

Paul Boniol, John Paparrizos, and Themis Palpanas. 2024. An Interactive Dive into Time-Series Anomaly Detection. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)

2024
[30]

Paul Boniol, John Paparrizos, Themis Palpanas, and Michael J Franklin. 2021. Sand in action: subsequence anomaly detection for streams.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 14, 12 (2021), 2867–2870

2021
[31]

Paul Boniol, John Paparrizos, Themis Palpanas, and Michael J Franklin. 2021. SAND: streaming subsequence anomaly detection. PVLDB 14, 10 (2021), 1717–1729

2021
[32]

Paul Boniol, Emmanouil Sylligardos, John Paparrizos, Panos Trahanias, and Themis Palpanas. 2024. ADecimo: Model Selection for Time Series Anomaly Detection. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)

2024
[33]

Mohammad Braei and Sebastian Wagner. 2020. Anomaly detection in univariate time-series: A survey on the state-of-the-art. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.00433 (2020). Manuscript submitted to ACM Dive into Time-Series Anomaly Detection: A Decade Review 43

2020 arXiv
[34]

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
[35]

Breunig, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Raymond T

Markus M. Breunig, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Raymond T. Ng, and Jörg Sander. 2000. LOF: Identifying Density-based Local Outliers. In SIGMOD

2000
[36]

Peter J Brockwell and Richard A Davis. 2016. Introduction to time series and forecasting . springer

2016
[37]

Keogh, Jian Pei, and Sam Meshkin

Yingyi Bu, Oscar Tat-Wing Leung, Ada Wai-Chee Fu, Eamonn J. Keogh, Jian Pei, and Sam Meshkin. 2007. WAT: Finding Top-K Discords in Time Series Database. In SIAM

2007
[38]

Suratna Budalakoti, Ashok N Srivastava, and Matthew Eric Otey. 2008. Anomaly detection and diagnosis algorithms for discrete symbol sequences with applications to airline safety. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 39, 1 (2008)...

2008
[39]

C. Bui, N. Pham, A. Vo, A. Tran, A. Nguyen, and T. Le. 2018. Time Series Forecasting for Healthcare Diagnosis and Prognostics with the Focus on Cardiovascular Diseases. In International Conference on the Development of Biomedical Engineering in Vietnam (BME6) . Springer Singap...

2018
[40]

Ander Carreño, Iñaki Inza, and Jose A Lozano. 2020. Analyzing rare event, anomaly, novelty and outlier detection terms under the supervised classification framework. Artificial Intelligence Review 53, 5 (2020), 3575–3594

2020
[41]

Mete Celik, Filiz Dadaser-Celik, and Ahmet Sakir Dokuz. 2011. Anomaly detection in temperature data using DBSCAN algorithm.2011 International Symposium on Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications (2011), 91–95

2011
[42]

Soumen Chakrabarti, Sunita Sarawagi, and Byron Dom. 1998. Mining Surprising Patterns Using Temporal Description Length. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB) (VLDB ’98, Vol. 24) . Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 606–617. https://dl.acm....

1998
[43]

Raghavendra Chalapathy and Sanjay Chawla. 2019. Deep Learning for Anomaly Detection: A Survey . arXiv:1901.03407 [cs, stat] http://arxiv.org/ abs/1901.03407

2019 arXiv
[44]

Raghavendra Chalapathy, Aditya Krishna Menon, and Sanjay Chawla. 2017. Robust, Deep and Inductive Anomaly Detection. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases , Michelangelo Ceci, Jaakko Hollmén, Ljupčo Todorovski, Celine Vens, and Sašo Džeroski (Eds.). Springer...

2017
[45]

Varun Chandola, Arindam Banerjee, and Vipin Kumar. 2009. Anomaly detection: A survey. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 41, 3 (2009), 1–58

2009
[46]

Varun Chandola, Arindam Banerjee, and Vipin Kumar. 2009. Anomaly Detection: A Survey. 41, 3 (2009), 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/1541880. 1541882

2009 doi
[47]

Chandola, A

V. Chandola, A. Banerjee, and V. Kumar. 2012. Anomaly Detection for Discrete Sequences: A Survey. 24, 5 (2012), 823–839. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TKDE.2010.235

2012
[48]

Ih Chang, George C Tiao, and Chung Chen. 1988. Estimation of time series parameters in the presence of outliers. Technometrics 30, 2 (1988), 193–204

1988
[49]

Marcus Chang, Andreas Terzis, and Philippe Bonnet. 2009. Mote-Based Online Anomaly Detection Using Echo State Networks. InProceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOOS) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5516), Bhaskar Kris...

2009 doi
[50]

Chauhan and L

S. Chauhan and L. Vig. 2015. Anomaly Detection in ECG Time Signals via Deep Long Short-Term Memory Networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) . 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSAA.2015.7344872

2015
[51]

Qing Chen, Anguo Zhang, Tingwen Huang, Qianping He, and Yongduan Song. 2020. Imbalanced Dataset-Based Echo State Networks for Anomaly Detection. 32, 8 (2020), 3685–3694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3747-z

2020 doi
[52]

Run-Qing Chen, Guang-Hui Shi, Wan-Lei Zhao, and Chang-Hui Liang. 2021. A joint model for IT operation series prediction and anomaly detection. Neurocomputing 448 (2021), 130–139

2021
[53]

Zhangyu Cheng, Chengming Zou, and Jianwei Dong. 2019. Outlier Detection Using Isolation Forest and Local Outlier Factor. In Proceedings of the Conference on Research in Adaptive and Convergent Systems (RACS) . ACM, 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338840.3355641

2019
[54]

Dhruv Choudhary, Arun Kejariwal, and Francois Orsini. 2017. On the Runtime-Efficacy Trade-off of Anomaly Detection Techniques for Real-Time Streaming Data. arXiv:1710.04735 [cs, eess, stat] http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.04735

2017 arXiv
[55]

William W. Cohen. 1995. Fast Effective Rule Induction. In Machine Learning Proceedings 1995 , Armand Prieditis and Stuart Russell (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (CA), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-55860-377-6.50023-2

1995 doi
[56]

Cook, Goksel Misirli, and Zhong Fan

Andrew A. Cook, Goksel Misirli, and Zhong Fan. 2020. Anomaly Detection for IoT Time-Series Data: A Survey. 7, 7 (2020), 6481–6494. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2019.2958185

2020
[57]

Madalena Costa, Ary L Goldberger, and C-K Peng. 2002. Multiscale entropy analysis of complex physiologic time series. Physical review letters 89, 6 (2002), 068102

2002
[58]

Jesse Davis and Mark Goadrich. 2006. The relationship between Precision-Recall and ROC curves. In ICML. 233–240

2006
[59]

Nan Ding, Huanbo Gao, Hongyu Bu, Haoxuan Ma, and Huaiwei Si. 2018. Multivariate-Time-Series-Driven Real-Time Anomaly Detection Based on Bayesian Network. 18, 10 (2018), 3367. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18103367

2018 doi
[60]

Wilfred J Dixon. 1950. Analysis of extreme values. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21, 4 (1950), 488–506

1950
[61]

Adam Dziedzic, John Paparrizos, Sanjay Krishnan, Aaron Elmore, and Michael Franklin. 2019. Band-limited training and inference for convolutional neural networks. In ICML. PMLR, 1745–1754. Manuscript submitted to ACM 44 Paparrizos et al

2019
[62]

Jens E d’Hondt, Odysseas Papapetrou, and John Paparrizos. 2024. Beyond the Dimensions: A Structured Evaluation of Multivariate Time Series Distance Measures. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW) . IEEE, 107–112

2024
[63]

Francis Ysidro Edgeworth. 1887. Xli. on discordant observations. The london, edinburgh, and dublin philosophical magazine and journal of science 23, 143 (1887), 364–375
[64]

Jason Ernst and Ziv Bar-Joseph. 2006. STEM: a tool for the analysis of short time series gene expression data. BMC bioinformatics 7, 1 (2006), 191

2006
[65]

Philippe Esling and Carlos Agon. 2012. Time-series data mining. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 45, 1 (2012), 12

2012
[66]

Tom Fawcett. 2006. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters 27, 8 (2006), 861–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010 ROC Analysis in Pattern Recognition

2006 doi
[67]

Pavel Filonov, Andrey Lavrentyev, and Artem Vorontsov. 2016. Multivariate industrial time series with cyber-attack simulation: Fault detection using an lstm-based predictive data model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.06676 (2016)

2016 arXiv
[68]

Ralph Foorthuis. 2020. On the Nature and Types of Anomalies: A Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.15634 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[69]

Anthony J Fox. 1972. Outliers in time series. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) 34, 3 (1972), 350–363

1972
[70]

Keogh, and Jessica Lin

Ada Wai-Chee Fu, Oscar Tat-Wing Leung, Eamonn J. Keogh, and Jessica Lin. 2006. Finding Time Series Discords Based on Haar Transform. In ADMA

2006
[71]

Yifeng Gao, Jessica Lin, and Constantin Brif. 2020. Ensemble Grammar Induction For Detecting Anomalies in Time Series. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Extending Database Technology (EDBT) . https://doi.org/10.5441/002/edbt.2020.09

2020 doi
[72]

Gabriel Garcia, Gabriel Michau, Mélanie Ducoffe, Jayant Sen Gupta, and Olga Fink. 2020. Time Series to Images: Monitoring the Condition of Industrial Assets with Deep Learning Image Processing Algorithms. (05 2020)

2020
[73]

Gabriel Rodriguez Garcia, Gabriel Michau, Mélanie Ducoffe, Jayant Sen Gupta, and Olga Fink. 2020. Time Series to Images: Monitoring the Condition of Industrial Assets with Deep Learning Image Processing Algorithms . arXiv:2005.07031 [cs, eess, stat] http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07031

2020 arXiv
[74]

Martin Gavrilov, Dragomir Anguelov, Piotr Indyk, and Rajeev Motwani. 2000. Mining the stock market: Which measure is best. In Proc. of the 6th ACM SIGKDD. 487–496

2000
[75]

Sam George. 2019. IoT Signals report: IoT’s promise will be unlocked by addressing skills shortage, complexity and security. https://blogs.microsoft. com/blog/2019/07/30/

2019
[76]

JWL Glaisher. 1873. On the rejection of discordant observations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 33 (1873), 391–402
[77]

Steve Goddard, Sherri K Harms, Stephen E Reichenbach, Tsegaye Tadesse, and William J Waltman. 2003. Geospatial decision support for drought risk management. Commun. ACM 46, 1 (2003), 35–37

2003
[78]

Rahul Goel, Sandeep Soni, Naman Goyal, John Paparrizos, Hanna Wallach, Fernando Diaz, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2016. The social dynamics of language change in online networks. In Social Informatics: 8th International Conference, SocInfo 2016, Bellevue, W A, USA, November 11-14, 2...

2016
[79]

Markus Goldstein and Andreas Dengel. 2013. Histogram-based Outlier Score (HBOS): A fast Unsupervised Anomaly Detection Algorithm

2013
[80]

Markus Goldstein and Seiichi Uchida. 2016. A comparative evaluation of unsupervised anomaly detection algorithms for multivariate data. PloS one 11, 4 (2016), e0152173

2016
[81]

Vanessa Gómez-Verdejo, Jerónimo Arenas-García, Miguel Lazaro-Gredilla, and Ángel Navia-Vazquez. 2011. Adaptive one-class support vector machine. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 59, 6 (2011), 2975–2981

2011
[82]

Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. NeurIPS 27 (2014)

2014
[83]

BA Gould. 1855. On Peirce’s Criterion for the Rejection of Doubtful Observations, with tables for facilitating its application. The Astronomical Journal 4 (1855), 81–87
[84]

Aditya Grover, Ashish Kapoor, and Eric Horvitz. 2015. A deep hybrid model for weather forecasting. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . ACM, 379–386

2015
[85]

Frank E Grubbs. 1950. Sample criteria for testing outlying observations. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics (1950), 27–58

1950
[86]

Aggarwal, and Jiawei Han

Manish Gupta, Jing Gao, Charu C. Aggarwal, and Jiawei Han. 2014. Outlier Detection for Temporal Data: A Survey. 26, 9 (2014), 2250–2267. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2013.184

2014 doi
[87]

Nico Görnitz, Mikio Braun, and Marius Kloft. 2015. Hidden Markov Anomaly Detection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) (ICML’15). JMLR.org, 1833–1842. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3045118.3045313

2015
[88]

Michael Hahsler and Matthew Bolaos. 2016. Clustering Data Streams Based on Shared Density between Micro-Clusters. IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng. 28, 6 (jun 2016), 1449–1461. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2016.2522412

2016
[89]

Johanna Hardin and David M Rocke. 2004. Outlier detection in the multiple cluster setting using the minimum covariance determinant estimator. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 44, 4 (2004), 625 – 638. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9473(02)00280-3

2004 doi
[90]

Sahand Hariri, Matias Carrasco Kind, and Robert J. Brunner. 2019. Extended Isolation Forest. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2019.2947676 arXiv:1811.02141

2019
[91]

M Hawkins

D. M Hawkins. 1980. Identification of Outliers. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. OCLC: 945065134

1980
[92]

Jeff Hawkins and Richard Dawkins. 2021. A thousand brains : a new theory of intelligence. (2021)

2021
[93]

Zengyou He, Xiaofei Xu, and Shengchun Deng. 2003. Discovering cluster-based local outliers. Pattern recognition letters 24, 9-10 (2003), 1641–1650. Manuscript submitted to ACM Dive into Time-Series Anomaly Detection: A Decade Review 45

2003
[94]

M. A. Hearst, S. T. Dumais, E. Osuna, J. Platt, and B. Scholkopf. 1998. Support vector machines. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications 13, 4 (July 1998), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/5254.708428

1998
[95]

Donald O. Hebb. 1949. The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory . Wiley, New York

1949
[96]

Niklas Heim and James E. Avery. 2019. Adaptive Anomaly Detection in Chaotic Time Series with a Spatially A ware Echo State Network . arXiv:1909.01709 [cs, stat] http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.01709

2019 arXiv
[97]

Vallis, and Arun Kejariwal

Jordan Hochenbaum, Owen S. Vallis, and Arun Kejariwal. 2017. Automatic Anomaly Detection in the Cloud Via Statistical Learning . arXiv:1704.07706 [cs] http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.07706

2017 arXiv
[98]

Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Comput. 9, 8 (Nov. 1997), 1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/ neco.1997.9.8.1735

1997
[99]

Hodge and Jim Austin

Victoria J. Hodge and Jim Austin. 2004. A Survey of Outlier Detection Methodologies. 22, 2 (2004), 85–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-004-4304-y

2004 doi
[100]

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Peter J Mumby, Anthony J Hooten, Robert S Steneck, Paul Greenfield, Edgardo Gomez, C Drew Harvell, Peter F Sale, Alasdair J Edwards, Ken Caldeira, et al. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. science 318, 5857 (2007), 1737–1742

2007
[101]

Rie Honda, Shuai Wang, Tokio Kikuchi, and Osamu Konishi. 2002. Mining of moving objects from time-series images and its application to satellite weather imagery. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 19, 1 (2002), 79–93

2002
[102]

Pablo Huijse, Pablo A Estevez, Pavlos Protopapas, Jose C Principe, and Pablo Zegers. 2014. Computational intelligence challenges and applications on large-scale astronomical time series databases. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine 9, 3 (2014), 27–39

2014
[103]

Kyle Hundman, Valentino Constantinou, Christopher Laporte, Ian Colwell, and Tom Soderstrom. 2018. Detecting Spacecraft Anomalies Using LSTMs and Nonparametric Dynamic Thresholding. In SIGKDD. ACM, 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1145/3219819.3219845

2018
[104]

Kyle Hundman, Valentino Constantinou, Christopher Laporte, Ian Colwell, and Tom Soderstrom. 2018. Detecting spacecraft anomalies using lstms and nonparametric dynamic thresholding. In SIGKDD. 387–395

2018
[105]

Mark Hung. 2017. Leading the iot, gartner insights on how to lead in a connected world. Gartner Research (2017), 1–29

2017
[106]

JO Irwin. 1925. On a criterion for the rejection of outlying observations. Biometrika (1925), 238–250

1925
[107]

Alan Julian Izenman. 2008. Modern multivariate statistical techniques. Regression, classification and manifold learning 10 (2008), 978–0

2008
[108]

Vincent Jacob, Fei Song, Arnaud Stiegler, Bijan Rad, Yanlei Diao, and Nesime Tatbul. 2021. Exathlon: a benchmark for explainable anomaly detection over time series. PVLDB 14, 11 (2021), 2613–2626

2021
[109]

Hoyoung Jeung, Sofiane Sarni, Ioannis Paparrizos, Saket Sathe, Karl Aberer, Nicholas Dawes, Thanasis G Papaioannou, and Michael Lehning
[110]

Hao Jiang, Chunwei Liu, Qi Jin, John Paparrizos, and Aaron J Elmore. 2020. Pids: attribute decomposition for improved compression and query performance in columnar storage. Proc. VLDB Endow 13, 6 (2020), 925–938

2020
[111]

Hao Jiang, Chunwei Liu, John Paparrizos, Andrew A Chien, Jihong Ma, and Aaron J Elmore. 2021. Good to the Last Bit: Data-Driven Encoding with CodecDB. In SIGMOD. 843–856

2021
[112]

Kunio Kashino, Gavin Smith, and Hiroshi Murase. 1999. Time-series active search for quick retrieval of audio and video. In 1999 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings. ICASSP99 (Cat. No. 99CH36258) , Vol. 6. IEEE, 2993–2996

1999
[113]

Keogh, T

E. Keogh, T. Dutta Roy, U. Naik, and A Agrawal. 2021. Multi-dataset Time-Series Anomaly Detection Competition 2021, https://compete.hexagon- ml.com/practice/competition/39/

2021
[114]

Eamonn Keogh, Jessica Lin, and Ada Fu. 2005. Hot sax: Efficiently finding the most unusual time series subsequence. In Fifth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM’05) . Ieee, 8–pp

2005
[116]

Eamonn Keogh, Stefano Lonardi, Chotirat Ann Ratanamahatana, Li Wei, Sang-Hee Lee, and John Handley. 2007. Compression-based data mining of sequential data. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (2007)

2007
[117]

Chunggyeom Kim, Jinhyuk Lee, Raehyun Kim, Youngbin Park, and Jaewoo Kang. 2018. DeepNAP: Deep Neural Anomaly Pre-Detection in a Semiconductor Fab. 457-458 (2018), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.05.020

2018 doi
[118]

Siwon Kim, Kukjin Choi, Hyun-Soo Choi, Byunghan Lee, and Sungroh Yoon. 2022. Towards a rigorous evaluation of time-series anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 36. 7194–7201

2022
[119]

S Knieling, J Niediek, E Kutter, J Bostroem, CE Elger, and F Mormann. 2017. An online adaptive screening procedure for selective neuronal responses. Journal of neuroscience methods 291 (2017), 36–42

2017
[120]

Maria Kontaki, Anastasios Gounaris, Apostolos N Papadopoulos, Kostas Tsichlas, and Yannis Manolopoulos. 2011. Continuous monitoring of distance-based outliers over data streams. In 2011 IEEE 27th International Conference on Data Engineering . IEEE, 135–146

2011
[121]

Peter Krensky and Jim Hare. 2018. Hype Cycle for Data Science and Machine Learning, 2018. Gartner Company (2018)

2018
[122]

Sanjay Krishnan, Aaron J Elmore, Michael Franklin, John Paparrizos, Zechao Shang, Adam Dziedzic, and Rui Liu. 2019. Artificial intelligence in resource-constrained and shared environments. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 53, 1 (2019), 1–6

2019
[123]

Kwei-Herng Lai, Daochen Zha, Junjie Xu, Yue Zhao, Guanchu Wang, and Xia Hu. 2021. Revisiting Time Series Outlier Detection: Definitions and Benchmarks. In NeurIPS. Manuscript submitted to ACM 46 Paparrizos et al

2021
[124]

Bouchra Lamrini, Augustin Gjini, Simon Daudin, Pascal Pratmarty, François Armando, and Louise Travé-Massuyès. 2018. Anomaly Detection using Similarity-based One-Class SVM for Network Traffic Characterization.. In DX

2018
[125]

Laptev, S

N. Laptev, S. Amizadeh, and Y. Billawala. 2015. S5 - A Labeled Anomaly Detection Dataset, version 1.0(16M) . https://webscope.sandbox.yahoo.com/ catalog.php?datatype=s&did=70

2015
[126]

Alexander Lavin and Subutai Ahmad. 2015. Evaluating real-time anomaly detection algorithms–the Numenta anomaly benchmark. In ICMLA. IEEE, 38–44

2015
[127]

Ming-Chang Lee, Jia-Chun Lin, and Ernst Gunnar Gran. 2020. RePAD: Real-Time Proactive Anomaly Detection for Time Series. In AINA, Leonard Barolli, Flora Amato, Francesco Moscato, Tomoya Enokido, and Makoto Takizawa (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 1291–1302. https://...

2020 doi
[128]

Dan Li, Dacheng Chen, Jonathan Goh, and See-Kiong Ng. 2018. Anomaly Detection with Generative Adversarial Networks for Multivariate Time Series. CoRR abs/1809.04758 (2018). arXiv:1809.04758 http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.04758

2018 arXiv
[129]

Dan Li, Dacheng Chen, Baihong Jin, Lei Shi, Jonathan Goh, and See-Kiong Ng. 2019. MAD-GAN: Multivariate anomaly detection for time series data with generative adversarial networks. In International conference on artificial neural networks . Springer, 703–716

2019
[130]

Zeyan Li, Wenxiao Chen, and Dan Pei. 2018. Robust and Unsupervised KPI Anomaly Detection Based on Conditional Variational Autoencoder. In Proceedings of the International Performance Computing and Communications Conference (IPCCC) . IEEE, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/PCCC.2018...

2018 doi
[131]

Zhihua Li, Ziyuan Li, Ning Yu, Steven Wen, et al. 2017. Locality-based visual outlier detection algorithm for time series. Security and Communication Networks 2017 (2017)

2017
[132]

Zhi Li, Hong Ma, and Yongbing Mei. 2007. A Unifying Method for Outlier and Change Detection from Data Streams Based on Local Polynomial Fitting. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , Zhi-Hua Zhou, Hang Li, and Qiang Yang (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berli...

2007
[133]

Zheng Li, Yue Zhao, Nicola Botta, Cezar Ionescu, and Xiyang Hu. 2020. COPOD: Copula-Based Outlier Detection. In IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE

2020
[134]

Michele Linardi, Yan Zhu, Themis Palpanas, and Eamonn Keogh. 2018. Matrix Profile X: VALMOD - Scalable Discovery of Variable-Length Motifs in Data Series. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) (2018). ACM Press, 1053–1066. https: //doi.o...

2018
[135]

Michele Linardi, Yan Zhu, Themis Palpanas, and Eamonn Keogh. 2020. Matrix profile goes MAD: variable-length motif and discord discovery in data series. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 34 (2020), 1022–1071

2020
[136]

Michele Linardi, Yan Zhu, Themis Palpanas, and Eamonn J. Keogh. 2020. Matrix Profile Goes MAD: Variable-Length Motif And Discord Discovery in Data Series. In DAMI

2020
[137]

Chunwei Liu, Hao Jiang, John Paparrizos, and Aaron J Elmore. 2021. Decomposed bounded floats for fast compression and queries. Proc. VLDB Endow 14, 11 (2021), 2586–2598

2021
[138]

Chunwei Liu, John Paparrizos, and Aaron J Elmore. 2024. Adaedge: A dynamic compression selection framework for resource constrained devices. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 1506–1519

2024
[139]

Fei Tony Liu, Kai Ming Ting, and Zhi-Hua Zhou. 2008. Isolation Forest. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2008.17

2008 doi
[140]

Fei Tony Liu, Kai Ming Ting, and Zhi-Hua Zhou. 2008. Isolation forest. In ICDM. IEEE, 413–422

2008
[141]

Qinghua Liu, Paul Boniol, Themis Palpanas, and John Paparrizos. 2024. Time-Series Anomaly Detection: Overview and New Trends. PVLDB 17, 12 (2024), 4229–4232

2024
[142]

Qinghua Liu and John Paparrizos. 2024. The Elephant in the Room: Towards A Reliable Time-Series Anomaly Detection Benchmark. In NeurIPS 2024

2024
[143]

Shinan Liu, Tarun Mangla, Ted Shaowang, Jinjin Zhao, John Paparrizos, Sanjay Krishnan, and Nick Feamster. 2023. Amir: Active multimodal interaction recognition from video and network traffic in connected environments. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and...

2023
[144]

Yubao Liu, Xiuwei Chen, and Fei Wang. 2009. Efficient Detection of Discords for Time Series Stream. Advances in Data and Web Management (2009), 629–634. http://www.springerlink.com/index/n546h380446p95r7.pdf

2009
[145]

Jorge M Lobo, Alberto Jiménez-Valverde, and Raimundo Real. 2008. AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Global ecology and Biogeography 17, 2 (2008), 145–151

2008
[146]

Yue Lu, Renjie Wu, Abdullah Mueen, Maria A Zuluaga, and Eamonn Keogh. 2022. Matrix profile XXIV: scaling time series anomaly detection to trillions of datapoints and ultra-fast arriving data streams. In SIGKDD. 1173–1182

2022
[147]

Wei Luo and Marcus Gallagher. 2011. Faster and Parameter-Free Discord Search in Quasi-Periodic Time Series. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Joshua Zhexue Huang, Longbing Cao, and Jaideep Srivastava (Eds.)

2011
[148]

Helmut Lütkepohl, Markus Krätzig, and Peter CB Phillips. 2004. Applied time series econometrics. Cambridge university press

2004
[149]

Junshui Ma and Simon Perkins. 2003. Online Novelty Detection on Temporal Sequences. InProceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (SIGKDD) . ACM Press, 613. https://doi.org/10.1145/956750.956828 Manuscript submitted to ACM Dive into Time-...

2003
[150]

Junshui Ma and Simon Perkins. 2003. Time-series novelty detection using one-class support vector machines. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2003. , Vol. 3. IEEE, 1741–1745

2003
[151]

Mohammad Saeid Mahdavinejad, Mohammadreza Rezvan, Mohammadamin Barekatain, Peyman Adibi, Payam Barnaghi, and Amit P Sheth. 2017. Machine learning for Internet of Things data analysis: A survey. Digital Communications and Networks (2017)

2017
[152]

Pankaj Malhotra, Anusha Ramakrishnan, Gaurangi Anand, Lovekesh Vig, Puneet Agarwal, and Gautam Shroff. 2016. LSTM-Based Encoder-Decoder for Multi-Sensor Anomaly Detection. arXiv:1607.00148 [cs, stat] http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.00148

2016 arXiv
[153]

Pankaj Malhotra, Lovekesh Vig, Gautam Shroff, and Puneet Agarwal. 2015. Long Short Term Memory Networks for Anomaly Detection in Time Series. In Proceedings of the European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning (ESANN) , Vol. ...

2015
[154]

Pankaj Malhotra, Lovekesh Vig, Gautam Shroff, Puneet Agarwal, et al. 2015. Long Short Term Memory Networks for Anomaly Detection in Time Series.. In Esann, Vol. 2015. 89

2015
[155]

Rosario N Mantegna. 1999. Hierarchical structure in financial markets. The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 11, 1 (1999), 193–197

1999
[156]

Carla Marceau. 2000. Characterizing the Behavior of a Program Using Multiple-Length N-Grams. In Proceedings of the Workshop on New Security Paradigms (NSPW). ACM Press, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1145/366173.366197

2000
[157]

Pierre-François Marteau, Saeid Soheily-Khah, and Nicolas Béchet. 2017. Hybrid Isolation Forest - Application to Intrusion Detection . arXiv:1705.03800 [cs] http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03800

2017 arXiv
[158]

Francisco Martínez-Álvarez, Alicia Troncoso, Gualberto Asencio-Cortés, and José Riquelme. 2015. A survey on data mining techniques applied to electricity-related time series forecasting. Energies 8, 11 (2015), 13162–13193

2015
[159]

Robert L Mason and John C Young. 2002. Multivariate statistical process control with industrial applications . SIAM

2002
[160]

Richard McCleary, Richard A Hay, Erroll E Meidinger, and David McDowall. 1980. Applied time series analysis for the social sciences . Sage Publications Beverly Hills, CA

1980
[161]

Kathy McKeown, Hal Daume III, Snigdha Chaturvedi, John Paparrizos, Kapil Thadani, Pablo Barrio, Or Biran, Suvarna Bothe, Michael Collins, Kenneth R Fleischmann, et al. 2016. Predicting the impact of scientific concepts using full-text features. Journal of the Association for I...

2016
[162]

Katsiaryna Mirylenka, Vassilis Christophides, Themis Palpanas, Ioannis Pefkianakis, and Martin May. 2016. Characterizing home device usage from wireless traffic time series

2016
[163]

Maziar Moradi Fard, Thibaut Thonet, and Eric Gaussier. 2020. Deep k-Means: Jointly clustering with k-Means and learning representations. Pattern Recognition Letters 138 (2020), 185 – 192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2020.07.028

2020 doi
[164]

A Morales-Esteban, Francisco Martínez-Álvarez, A Troncoso, JL Justo, and Cristina Rubio-Escudero. 2010. Pattern recognition to forecast seismic time series. Expert Systems with Applications 37, 12 (2010), 8333–8342

2010
[165]

Cristina Morariu and Theodor Borangiu. 2018. Time series forecasting for dynamic scheduling of manufacturing processes. In2018 IEEE International Conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics (AQTR) . 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/AQTR.2018.8402748

2018
[166]

Abdullah Mueen, Yan Zhu, Michael Yeh, Kaveh Kamgar, Krishnamurthy Viswanathan, Chetan Gupta, and Eamonn Keogh. 2017. The Fastest Similarity Search Algorithm for Time Series Subsequences under Euclidean Distance

2017
[168]

Gyoung S Na, Donghyun Kim, and Hwanjo Yu. 2018. Dilof: Effective and memory efficient local outlier detection in data streams. In SIGKDD. 1993–2002

2018
[169]

Takaaki Nakamura, Makoto Imamura, Ryan Mercer, and Eamonn J. Keogh. 2020. MERLIN: Parameter-Free Discovery of Arbitrary Length Anomalies in Massive Time Series Archives. InICDM, Claudia Plant, Haixun Wang, Alfredo Cuzzocrea, Carlo Zaniolo, and Xindong Wu (Eds.). IEEE, 1190–119...

2020
[170]

Takaaki Nakamura, Ryan Mercer, Makoto Imamura, and Eamonn Keogh. 2023. MERLIN++: parameter-free discovery of time series anomalies. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 37, 2 (2023), 670–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618-022-00876-7

2023 doi
[171]

Zijian Niu, Ke Yu, and Xiaofei Wu. 2020. LSTM-based VAE-GAN for time-series anomaly detection. Sensors 20, 13 (2020), 3738

2020
[172]

Rosalind Wang, and Mikhail Prokopenko

Oliver Obst, X. Rosalind Wang, and Mikhail Prokopenko. 2008. Using Echo State Networks for Anomaly Detection in Underground Coal Mines. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN) . IEEE, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1109/I...

2008 doi
[173]

Alberto Ogbechie, Javier Díaz-Rozo, Pedro Larrañaga, and Concha Bielza. 2017. Dynamic Bayesian Network-Based Anomaly Detection for In-Process Visual Inspection of Laser Surface Heat Treatment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning for Cyber Physica...

2017 doi
[174]

Randy Paffenroth, Kathleen Kay, and Les Servi. 2018. Robust PCA for Anomaly Detection in Cyber Networks . arXiv:1801.01571 [cs] http: //arxiv.org/abs/1801.01571

2018 arXiv
[175]

ES Page. 1957. On problems in which a change in a parameter occurs at an unknown point. Biometrika 44, 1/2 (1957), 248–252

1957
[176]

Themis Palpanas. 2015. Data Series Management: The Road to Big Sequence Analytics. SIGMOD Rec. 44, 2 (2015), 47–52. Manuscript submitted to ACM 48 Paparrizos et al

2015
[177]

Girish Keshav Palshikar. 2005. Distance-based outliers in sequences. In Distributed Computing and Internet Technology: Second International Conference, ICDCIT 2005, Bhubaneswar, India, December 22-24, 2005. Proceedings 2 . Springer, 547–552

2005
[178]

Spiros Papadimitriou, Hiroyuki Kitagawa, Phillip B Gibbons, and Christos Faloutsos. 2003. Loci: Fast outlier detection using the local correlation integral. In ICDE. IEEE, 315–326

2003
[179]

Ioannis Paparrizos. 2018. Fast, Scalable, and Accurate Algorithms for Time-Series Analysis . Ph. D. Dissertation. Columbia University

2018
[180]

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. PVLDB 15, 11 (2022), 2774–2787

2022
[181]

John Paparrizos, Ikraduya Edian, Chunwei Liu, Aaron J Elmore, and Michael J Franklin. 2022. Fast adaptive similarity search through variance-aware quantization. In ICDE. IEEE, 2969–2983

2022
[182]

John Paparrizos and Michael J Franklin. 2019. GRAIL: efficient time-series representation learning. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 12, 11 (2019), 1762–1777

2019
[183]

John Paparrizos and Luis Gravano. 2016. k-Shape: Efficient and Accurate Clustering of Time Series. SIGMOD 45, 1 (June 2016), 69–76. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2949741.2949758

2016
[184]

John Paparrizos and Luis Gravano. 2017. Fast and Accurate Time-Series Clustering. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) 42, 2 (2017), 8

2017
[185]

John Paparrizos, Yuhao Kang, Paul Boniol, Ruey S Tsay, Themis Palpanas, and Michael J Franklin. 2022. TSB-UAD: an end-to-end benchmark suite for univariate time-series anomaly detection. PVLDB 15, 8 (2022), 1697–1711

2022
[186]

John Paparrizos, Chunwei Liu, Bruno Barbarioli, Johnny Hwang, Ikraduya Edian, Aaron J Elmore, Michael J Franklin, and Sanjay Krishnan. 2021. VergeDB: A Database for IoT Analytics on Edge Devices.. In CIDR

2021
[187]

Franklin

John Paparrizos, Chunwei Liu, Aaron Elmore, and Michael J. Franklin. 2023. Querying Time-Series Data: A Comprehensive Comparison of Distance Measures. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin (DEB 2023) 47 (2023), 69–88

2023
[188]

John Paparrizos, Chunwei Liu, Aaron J Elmore, and Michael J Franklin. 2020. Debunking four long-standing misconceptions of time-series distance measures. In SIGMOD. 1887–1905

2020
[189]

John Paparrizos and Sai Prasanna Teja Reddy. 2023. Odyssey: An engine enabling the time-series clustering journey. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 16, 12 (2023), 4066–4069

2023
[190]

John Paparrizos, Ryen W White, and Eric Horvitz. 2016. Detecting devastating diseases in search logs. In SIGKDD. 559–568

2016
[191]

John Paparrizos, Ryen W White, and Eric Horvitz. 2016. Screening for pancreatic adenocarcinoma using signals from web search logs: Feasibility study and results. Journal of oncology practice 12, 8 (2016), 737–744

2016
[192]

John Paparrizos, Kaize Wu, Aaron Elmore, Christos Faloutsos, and Michael J Franklin. 2023. Accelerating similarity search for elastic measures: A study and new generalization of lower bounding distances. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 16, 8 (2023), 2019–2032

2023
[193]

Daehyung Park, Zackory Erickson, Tapomayukh Bhattacharjee, and Charles C. Kemp. 2016. Multimodal Execution Monitoring for Anomaly Detection during Robot Manipulation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 407–414. https: //doi...

2016
[194]

Daehyung Park, Yuuna Hoshi, and Charles C. Kemp. 2018. A Multimodal Anomaly Detector for Robot-Assisted Feeding Using an LSTM-Based Variational Autoencoder. 3, 3 (2018), 1544–1551. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2018.2801475

2018
[195]

Stephen Pauwels and Toon Calders. 2019. An Anomaly Detection Technique for Business Processes Based on Extended Dynamic Bayesian Networks. In Proceedings of the ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC) . ACM, 494–501. https://doi.org/10.1145/3297280.3297326

2019
[196]

Stephen Pauwels and Toon Calders. 2019. Detecting Anomalies in Hybrid Business Process Logs. 19, 2 (2019), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3357385.3357387

2019
[197]

ERWIN S Pearson and C Chandra Sekar. 1936. The efficiency of statistical tools and a criterion for the rejection of outlying observations.Biometrika 28, 3/4 (1936), 308–320

1936
[198]

Benjamin Peirce. 1852. Criterion for the rejection of doubtful observations. The Astronomical Journal 2 (1852), 161–163
[199]

C-K Peng, Shlomo Havlin, H Eugene Stanley, and Ary L Goldberger. 1995. Quantification of scaling exponents and crossover phenomena in nonstationary heartbeat time series. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 5, 1 (1995), 82–87

1995
[200]

Dragoljub Pokrajac, Aleksandar Lazarevic, and Longin Jan Latecki. 2007. Incremental local outlier detection for data streams. In 2007 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence and data mining . IEEE, 504–515

2007
[201]

Jensen, Zhenli Sheng, and Bin Yang

Xiangfei Qiu, Jilin Hu, Lekui Zhou, Xingjian Wu, Junyang Du, Buang Zhang, Chenjuan Guo, Aoying Zhou, Christian S. Jensen, Zhenli Sheng, and Bin Yang. 2024. TFB: Towards Comprehensive and Fair Benchmarking of Time Series Forecasting Methods. Proc. VLDB Endow. 17, 9 (2024), 2363–2377

2024
[202]

Sridhar Ramaswamy, Rajeev Rastogi, and Kyuseok Shim. 2000. Efficient Algorithms for Mining Outliers from Large Data Sets. SIGMOD Rec. 29, 2 (may 2000), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1145/335191.335437

2000
[203]

Usman Raza, Alessandro Camerra, Amy L Murphy, Themis Palpanas, and Gian Pietro Picco. 2015. Practical data prediction for real-world wireless sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 27, 8 (2015), 2231–2244

2015
[204]

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 detection service at microsoft. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining...

2019
[205]

Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Shakir Mohamed, and Daan Wierstra. 2014. Stochastic Backpropagation and Approximate Inference in Deep Generative Models. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on ICML - Volume 32 (Beijing, China) (ICML’14). JMLR.org, II–1278–II–1286

2014
[206]

Joshua S Richman and J Randall Moorman. 2000. Physiological time-series analysis using approximate entropy and sample entropy. American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology 278, 6 (2000), H2039–H2049

2000
[207]

Kexin Rong, Clara E Yoon, Karianne J Bergen, Hashem Elezabi, Peter Bailis, Philip Levis, and Gregory C Beroza. 2018. Locality-sensitive hashing for earthquake detection: A case study of scaling data-driven science. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 11, 11 (2018), 1674–1687

2018
[208]

Volker Roth. 2006. Kernel Fisher Discriminants for Outlier Detection. 18, 4 (2006), 942–960. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2006.18.4.942

2006 doi
[209]

Peter Rousseeuw. 1984. Least Median of Squares Regression. Journal of The American Statistical Association - J AMER STATIST ASSN 79 (12 1984), 871–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1984.10477105

1984
[210]

Rousseeuw and Katrien Van Driessen

Peter J. Rousseeuw and Katrien Van Driessen. 1999. A Fast Algorithm for the Minimum Covariance Determinant Estimator. Technometrics 41, 3 (1999), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1999.10485670 arXiv:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00401706.1999.10485670

1999
[211]

Rousseeuw and Annick M

Peter J. Rousseeuw and Annick M. Leroy. 1987. Robust regression and outlier detection . Wiley, New York

1987
[212]

Peter J Rousseeuw and Annick M Leroy. 2005. Robust regression and outlier detection . Vol. 589. John wiley & sons

2005
[213]

Eduardo J Ruiz, Vagelis Hristidis, Carlos Castillo, Aristides Gionis, and Alejandro Jaimes. 2012. Correlating financial time series with micro-blogging activity. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining . ACM, 513–522

2012
[214]

Stan Salvador and Philip Chan. 2005. Learning States and Rules for Detecting Anomalies in Time Series. 23, 3 (2005), 241–255. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10489-005-4610-3

2005 doi
[215]

Jörg Sander, Martin Ester, Hans-Peter Kriegel, and Xiaowei Xu. 1998. Density-Based Clustering in Spatial Databases: The Algorithm GDBSCAN and Its Applications. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 2, 2 (01 Jun 1998), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009745219419

1998 doi
[216]

Sebastian Schmidl, Phillip Wenig, and Thorsten Papenbrock. 2022. Anomaly Detection in Time Series: A Comprehensive Evaluation. PVLDB 15, 9 (may 2022), 1779–1797. https://doi.org/10.14778/3538598.3538602

2022
[217]

Johannes Schneider, Phillip Wenig, and Thorsten Papenbrock. 2021. Distributed Detection of Sequential Anomalies in Univariate Time Series. The VLDB Journal 30, 4 (mar 2021), 579–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-021-00657-6

2021 doi
[218]

Bernhard Schölkopf, Robert C Williamson, Alex Smola, John Shawe-Taylor, and John Platt. 1999. Support vector method for novelty detection. NeurIPS 12 (1999)

1999
[219]

Boedihardjo, Crystal Chen, and Susan Frankenstein

Pavel Senin, Jessica Lin, Xing Wang, Tim Oates, Sunil Gandhi, Arnold P. Boedihardjo, Crystal Chen, and Susan Frankenstein. 2015. Time series anomaly discovery with grammar-based compression. In EDBT

2015
[220]

Boedihardjo, Crystal Chen, and Susan Frankenstein

Pavel Senin, Jessica Lin, Xing Wang, Tim Oates, Sunil Gandhi, Arnold P. Boedihardjo, Crystal Chen, and Susan Frankenstein. 2015. Time Series Anomaly Discovery with Grammar-Based Compression. , 481–492 pages. https://doi.org/10.5441/002/edbt.2015.42

2015 doi
[221]

Dennis Shasha. 1999. Tuning time series queries in finance: Case studies and recommendations. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 22, 2 (1999), 40–46

1999
[222]

Lifeng Shen, Zhuocong Li, and James Kwok. 2020. Timeseries anomaly detection using temporal hierarchical one-class network. NeurIPS 33 (2020), 13016–13026

2020
[223]

S-C. Chen K. Sarinnapakorn Shyu, M-L. and LW. Chang. 2003. A Novel Anomaly Detection Scheme Based on Principal Component Classifier. (2003)

2003
[224]

Alban Siffer, Pierre-Alain Fouque, Alexandre Termier, and Christine Largouet. 2017. Anomaly detection in streams with extreme value theory. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 1067–1075

2017
[225]

David Eugene Smith. 2012. A source book in mathematics . Courier Corporation

2012
[226]

Snyder and Stephen J

Ralph D. Snyder and Stephen J. Withers. 1983. Exponential smoothing with finite sample correction . Number 1983,1 in Working paper. Department of Econometrics and Operations Research. Monash University. Dept., Univ, Clayton

1983
[227]

Maximilian Soelch, Justin Bayer, Marvin Ludersdorfer, and Patrick van der Smagt. 2016. Variational Inference for On-Line Anomaly Detection in High-Dimensional Time Series. arXiv:1602.07109 [cs, stat] http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.07109

2016 arXiv
[228]

Hongchao Song, Zhuqing Jiang, Aidong Men, and Bo Yang. 2017. A Hybrid Semi-Supervised Anomaly Detection Model for High-Dimensional Data. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2017 (15 Nov 2017), 8501683. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8501683

2017 doi
[229]

Sondre Sørbø and Massimiliano Ruocco. 2023. Navigating the Metric Maze: A Taxonomy of Evaluation Metrics for Anomaly Detection in Time Series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01272 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[230]

EJ Stone. 1873. On the rejection of discordant observations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 34 (1873), 9
[231]

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 SIGKDD. ACM, 2828–2837. https://doi.org/10.1145/3292500.3330672

2019
[232]

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 SIGKDD. 2828–2837

2019
[233]

Subramaniam, T

S. Subramaniam, T. Palpanas, D. Papadopoulos, V. Kalogeraki, and D. Gunopulos. 2006. Online Outlier Detection in Sensor Data Using Non- Parametric Models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB) (VLDB ’06) . VLDB Endowment, 187–198. https:...

2006
[234]

Pei Sun, Sanjay Chawla, and Bavani Arunasalam. 2006. Mining for Outliers in Sequential Databases. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611972764.9 Manuscript...

2006 doi
[235]

Trahanias, and Themis Palpanas

Emmanouil Sylligardos, Paul Boniol, John Paparrizos, Panos E. Trahanias, and Themis Palpanas. 2023. Choose Wisely: An Extensive Evaluation of Model Selection for Anomaly Detection in Time Series. Proc. VLDB Endow. 16, 11 (2023), 3418–3432. https://doi.org/10.14778/3611479.3611536

2023
[236]

Jian Tang, Zhixiang Chen, Ada Wai-Chee Fu, and David W Cheung. 2002. Enhancing effectiveness of outlier detections for low density patterns. In PAKDD. 535–548

2002
[237]

Nesime Tatbul, Tae Jun Lee, Stan Zdonik, Mejbah Alam, and Justin Gottschlich. 2018. Precision and recall for time series. In NeurIPS. 1924–1934

2018
[238]

David MJ Tax and Robert PW Duin. 2004. Support vector data description. Machine learning 54, 1 (2004), 45–66

2004
[239]

Ruey S Tsay. 1988. Outliers, level shifts, and variance changes in time series. Journal of forecasting 7, 1 (1988), 1–20

1988
[240]

Ruey S Tsay. 2014. Financial Time Series. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online (2014), 1–23

2014
[241]

Ruey S Tsay, Daniel Pena, and Alan E Pankratz. 2000. Outliers in multivariate time series. Biometrika 87, 4 (2000), 789–804

2000
[242]

John W Tukey et al. 1977. Exploratory data analysis. Vol. 2. Reading, Mass

1977
[243]

Kuniaki Uehara and Mitsuomi Shimada. 2002. Extraction of primitive motion and discovery of association rules from human motion data. In Progress in Discovery Science . Springer, 338–348

2002
[244]

Vieira, Marcos A

Rafael G. Vieira, Marcos A. Leone Filho, and Robinson Semolini. 2018. An Enhanced Seasonal-Hybrid ESD Technique for Robust Anomaly Detection on Time Series. In Simpósio Brasileiro de Redes de Computadores (SBRC) , Vol. 36

2018
[245]

Gabriel Wachman, Roni Khardon, Pavlos Protopapas, and Charles R Alcock. 2009. Kernels for periodic time series arising in astronomy. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases . Springer, 489–505

2009
[246]

Yi Wang, Linsheng Han, Wei Liu, Shujia Yang, and Yanbo Gao. 2019. Study on Wavelet Neural Network Based Anomaly Detection in Ocean Observing Data Series. 186 (2019), 106129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106129

2019
[247]

Peter J Webster, Greg J Holland, Judith A Curry, and H-R Chang. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309, 5742 (2005), 1844–1846

2005
[248]

Billy M Williams and Lester A Hoel. 2003. Modeling and forecasting vehicular traffic flow as a seasonal ARIMA process: Theoretical basis and empirical results. Journal of transportation engineering 129, 6 (2003), 664–672

2003
[249]

Jia Wu, Weiru Zeng, and Fei Yan. 2018. Hierarchical Temporal Memory Method for Time-Series-Based Anomaly Detection. 273 (2018), 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2017.08.026

2018 doi
[250]

P. Wu, J. Liu, and F. Shen. 2020. A Deep One-Class Neural Network for Anomalous Event Detection in Complex Scenes. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 31, 7 (2020), 2609–2622. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2019.2933554

2020
[251]

Renjie Wu and Eamonn J. Keogh. 2023. Current Time Series Anomaly Detection Benchmarks are Flawed and are Creating the Illusion of Progress. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 35, 3 (2023), 2421–2429. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2021.3112126

2023
[252]

Wentai Wu, Ligang He, Weiwei Lin, Yi Su, Yuhua Cui, Carsten Maple, and Stephen Jarvis. 2020. Developing an Unsupervised Real-Time Anomaly Detection Scheme for Time Series with Multi-Seasonality . arXiv:1908.01146 [cs, eess, stat] http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.01146

2020 arXiv
[253]

Yanshan Xiao, Bo Liu, Longbing Cao, Xindong Wu, Chengqi Zhang, Zhifeng Hao, Fengzhao Yang, and Jie Cao. 2009. Multi-sphere support vector data description for outliers detection on multi-distribution data. In 2009 IEEE international conference on data mining workshops . IEEE, 82–87

2009
[254]

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. InProceedings of the International Conference on W...

2018
[255]

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. InProceedings of the 2018 world wide web conferenc...

2018
[256]

Kenji Yamanishi, Jun-ichi Takeuchi, Graham Williams, and Peter Milne. 2004. On-Line Unsupervised Outlier Detection Using Finite Mixtures with Discounting Learning Algorithms. 8, 3 (2004), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:DAMI.0000023676.72185.7c

2004
[257]

Chao-Lung Yang and Wei-Ju Liao. 2017. Adjacent Mean Difference (AMD) method for dynamic segmentation in time series anomaly detection. In 2017 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII) . IEEE, 241–246

2017
[258]

Dragomir Yankov, Eamonn Keogh, and Umaa Rebbapragada. 2008. Disk aware discord discovery: Finding unusual time series in terabyte sized datasets. Knowledge and Information Systems 17 (2008), 241–262

2008
[259]

Keogh, and Umaa Rebbapragada

Dragomir Yankov, Eamonn J. Keogh, and Umaa Rebbapragada. 2007. Disk Aware Discord Discovery: Finding Unusual Time Series in Terabyte Sized Datasets. In ICDM

2007
[260]

Yuan Yao, Abhishek Sharma, Leana Golubchik, and Ramesh Govindan. 2010. Online Anomaly Detection for Sensor Systems: A Simple and Efficient Approach. Perform. Eval. 67, 11 (nov 2010), 1059–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peva.2010.08.018

2010 doi
[261]

C.-C.M. Yeh, Y. Zhu, L. Ulanova, N. Begum, Y. Ding, H.A. Dau, D.F. Silva, A. Mueen, and E.J. Keogh. 2016. Matrix Profile I: All Pairs Similarity Joins for Time Series: A Unifying View That Includes Motifs, Discords and Shapelets. In ICDM

2016
[262]

Chin-Chia Michael Yeh, Yan Zhu, Liudmila Ulanova, Nurjahan Begum, Yifei Ding, Hoang Anh Dau, Diego Furtado Silva, Abdullah Mueen, and Eamonn Keogh. 2016. Matrix Profile I: All Pairs Similarity Joins for Time Series: A Unifying View That Includes Motifs, Discords and Shapelets....

2016
[263]

Yufeng Yu, Yuelong Zhu, Shijin Li, and Dingsheng Wan. 2014. Time Series Outlier Detection Based on Sliding Window Prediction. 2014 (2014), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/879736 Manuscript submitted to ACM Dive into Time-Series Anomaly Detection: A Decade Review 51

2014 doi
[264]

Chunkai Zhang, Shaocong Li, Hongye Zhang, and Yingyang Chen. 2020. VELC: A New Variational AutoEncoder Based Model for Time Series Anomaly Detection. arXiv:1907.01702 [cs, stat] http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.01702

2020 arXiv
[266]

Rui Zhang, Shaoyan Zhang, Sethuraman Muthuraman, and Jianmin Jiang. 2007. One Class Support Vector Machine for Anomaly Detection in the Communication Network Performance Data. In Proceedings of the Conference on Applied Electromagnetics, Wireless and Optical Communications (EL...

2007
[267]

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 ICDM. IEEE, 841–850

2020
[268]

Yan Zhu, Chin-Chia Michael Yeh, Zachary Zimmerman, Kaveh Kamgar, and Eamonn Keogh. 2018. Matrix profile XI: SCRIMP++: time series motif discovery at interactive speeds. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 837–846

2018
[270]

Yan Zhu, Zachary Zimmerman, Nader Shakibay Senobari, Chin-Chia Michael Yeh, Gareth Funning, Abdullah Mueen, Philip Brisk, and Eamonn Keogh. 2016. Matrix profile ii: Exploiting a novel algorithm and gpus to break the one hundred million barrier for time series motifs and joins....

2016
[271]

Zachary Zimmerman, Kaveh Kamgar, Nader Shakibay Senobari, Brian Crites, Gareth Funning, Philip Brisk, and Eamonn Keogh. 2019. Matrix profile XIV: scaling time series motif discovery with GPUs to break a quintillion pairwise comparisons a day and beyond. In Proceedings of the A...

2019
[272]

Zachary Zimmerman, Nader Shakibay Senobari, Gareth Funning, Evangelos Papalexakis, Samet Oymak, Philip Brisk, and Eamonn Keogh. 2019. Matrix profile XVIII: time series mining in the face of fast moving streams using a learned approximate matrix profile. In 2019 IEEE Internatio...

2019
[2010]

In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Sensor Networks, Ubiquitous, and Trustworthy Computing

Effective metadata management in federated sensor networks. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Sensor Networks, Ubiquitous, and Trustworthy Computing. IEEE, 107–114

2010

Pith tools

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

[1] [167]

Mohsin Munir, Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui, Andreas Dengel, and Sheraz Ahmed. 2019. DeepAnT: A Deep Learning Approach for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection in Time Series. 7 (2019), 1991–2005. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2886457

arXiv 2019

[2] [265]

Chuxu Zhang, Dongjin Song, Yuncong Chen, Xinyang Feng, Cristian Lumezanu, Wei Cheng, Jingchao Ni, Bo Zong, Haifeng Chen, and Nitesh V. Chawla. 2019. A Deep Neural Network for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection and Diagnosis in Multivariate Time Series Data. In AAAI, Vol. 33. 1409–1416. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33011409

doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33011409 2019

[3] [115]

Eamonn Keogh, Stefano Lonardi, and Bill’Yuan-chi’ Chiu. 2002. Finding surprising patterns in a time series database in linear time and space. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining . 550–556

2002

[4] [1]

Ali Abdul-Aziz, Mark Woike, Nikunj Oza, Bryan Matthews, and George Baakilini. 2010. Propulsion health monitoring of a turbine engine disk using spin test data. In Health Monitoring of Structural and Biological Systems 2010 , Tribikram Kundu (Ed.), Vol. 7650. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 431 – 440. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.847574

work page doi:10.1117/12.847574 2010

[5] [2]

Charu C Aggarwal. 2017. An introduction to outlier analysis. In Outlier analysis. Springer, 1–34

2017

[6] [3]

Subutai Ahmad, Alexander Lavin, Scott Purdy, and Zuha Agha. 2017. Unsupervised Real-Time Anomaly Detection for Streaming Data. 262 (2017), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2017.04.070

doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2017.04.070 2017

[7] [4]

Shadab Alam, Franco D Albareti, Carlos Allende Prieto, Friedrich Anders, Scott F Anderson, Timothy Anderton, Brett H Andrews, Eric Armengaud, Éric Aubourg, Stephen Bailey, et al. 2015. The eleventh and twelfth data releases of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: final data from SDSS-III. The Manuscript submitted to ACM 42 Paparrizos et al. Astrophysical Journal...

2015

[8] [5]

Muhammad Qasim Ali, Ehab Al-Shaer, Hassan Khan, and Syed Ali Khayam. 2013. Automated anomaly detector adaptation using adaptive threshold tuning. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) 15, 4 (2013), 1–30

2013