Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

GCAD: Anomaly Detection in Multivariate Time Series from the Perspective of Granger Causality

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

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

Pith's one-line read GCAD detects multivariate time series anomalies by measuring deviations in Granger causality between sensors, computed from the gradients of a deep predictor.

desk verdict GCAD is a genuinely novel gradient-based Granger-causality scoring method with strong benchmark results, but the causal quantity it defines is not what it computes, and the missing prediction-error baseline leaves the core interpretability claim unsubstantiated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13493 v1 pith:OZF7LQSM submitted 2025-01-23 cs.LG cs.AI

Zehao Liu , Mengzhou Gao , Pengfei Jiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords anomalydetectionmultivariatetimeseriesGrangercausalitygradient-basedcausaldiscoverydynamicgraphdeeplearninginterpretabilitydeviationscoringsensornetworks
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 tries to show that multivariate time series anomalies are visible as changes in Granger causality between sensors, and that these causal changes can be read off from the gradients of a trained neural predictor. Concretely, GCAD trains a simple all-MLP predictor on normal data, then for each sliding window computes a Granger causality matrix whose entry $a_{i,j}$ is the accumulated magnitude of the gradient of sensor $j$'s prediction loss with respect to the past values of sensor $i$. After sparsifying away symmetric similarity edges, the method compares each test window's causal matrix with the typical normal matrix; large relative deviations flag anomalies. If the premise holds, this turns anomaly detection into monitoring an interpretable, dynamic dependency graph rather than raw prediction errors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the channel-separated gradient tensor $G_t \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N\times \tau}$: for each target channel $j$, the gradient of the squared prediction error with respect to every past input value of every source channel $i$. Integrating absolute gradient magnitudes over the time lag (Eq. 5) turns this tensor into a Granger causality matrix $A$, whose off-diagonal entries encode directed spatial dependence and whose diagonal entries encode temporal self-dependence. Two further mechanisms carry the argument: a symmetry-based sparsification $\tilde{A}_{i,j} = \max(0, A_{i,j} - A_{j,i})$ that strips bidirectional similarity, and the relative deviation score in Eq. (10) that separates anomalous causal patterns from the normal baseline. Because the predictor is fixed after training, all of this is computed in one forward plus backward pass per window, with no online optimization.

What would settle it

Run GCAD on a synthetic system with known nonlinear causal structure, and perturb the test data in two ways: break one causal edge (a true anomaly) and scale the marginal variance of all sensors without touching any causal edge (a benign distribution shift). If the causal deviation score does not rise sharply for the edge break and stay flat for the variance shift, the central premise is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an anomaly in a multivariate sensor stream is, at root, a change in the pairwise Granger causal pattern, and that the pattern can be measured cheaply at test time by backpropagating each channel's squared error through a pretrained predictor. In the paper's setup, the Granger causality matrix $A$ has entries $a_{i,j} = \int_{t-\tau}^{t-1} |\partial L_{t,j}/\partial x_{\phi,i}|\, dP(x_{\phi,i})$, where $L_{t,j}$ is the prediction error for channel $j$ and $\phi$ indexes past time steps; this makes the causality effect proportional to how much sensor $i$'s past values influence the predictor's error on sensor $j$. The matrix is sparsified by subtracting its transpose (keeping only unidirectional edges) and thresholding, and the anomaly score is the relative $\ell^1$ deviation of the test matrix from the averaged normal matrix, plus a weighted term for diagonal (temporal self-dependence) deviations. On SWaT, SMD, MSL, SMAP, and PSM, GCAD reports higher AUROC and AUPRC than six prior methods on most metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the influence one sensor's past values has on the model's error for another sensor, as measured through the trained predictor's gradients, faithfully reflects true causal influence, so that a change in those gradient magnitudes means an anomaly rather than just a shift in the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Anomaly detection becomes interpretable: the deviation matrix $D = |\tilde{A}_{test} - A_{norm}|$ shows exactly which sensor pairs' causal links have changed, enabling diagnosis rather than just flagging.
  • The method works on streaming data without retraining or parameter adjustment during testing, since causality is extracted from gradients of the already-trained predictor.
  • Because the causal matrix encodes both off-diagonal spatial effects and diagonal temporal effects, a single pipeline captures both types of dependency change.
  • On five real-world benchmarks, the causal-pattern deviation score outperforms prediction-error and reconstruction baselines in AUROC and AUPRC on most datasets.
  • Sparsifying the causal graph improves accuracy, indicating that removing bidirectional similarity noise strengthens the causal signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same gradient-based causality estimator could be applied to any differentiable predictor, so the core idea generalizes beyond the specific all-MLP network used here; any model whose output is differentiable with respect to its inputs can yield a causal graph.
  • The per-pair deviation matrix $D$ could be thresholded per edge to produce a causal 'diff' map, converting a scalar anomaly score into a root-cause localization tool for operators.
  • The paper's success on SWaT, where single-sensor readings barely change during attacks, suggests that interaction-structure changes are an earlier and more reliable anomaly signal than marginal distribution shifts in real control systems.
  • Since the authors note only pairwise causal effects are captured, a natural extension is to compute gradients of joint or conditional losses over groups of channels, which might expose anomalies that only appear in coordinated multi-sensor 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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GCAD, an unsupervised anomaly detection method for multivariate time series. It first trains a TSMixer-style predictor with MSE loss on normal data. At test time, for each sliding window it back-propagates the per-channel squared error to compute gradients of each prediction channel with respect to each input channel and lag. These gradients are aggregated into a Granger causality matrix (Eq. 5), sparsified by removing symmetric contributions and low-magnitude entries (Eq. 6), and compared to a typical matrix estimated from Bernoulli-sampled training windows (Eqs. 7-8). The final anomaly score combines the causal deviation (Eq. 10) with a diagonal temporal deviation (Eq. 11). Experiments on SWaT, SMD, MSL, SMAP, and PSM report AUC/PRC against six baselines, an ablation study, and a SWaT case study.

Significance. If the gradient-based quantity in Eq. (5) were a faithful estimate of nonlinear Granger causality, the paper would contribute a useful interpretable dependency-detection mechanism: it avoids repeated optimization at test time, produces dynamic per-window graphs, and is evaluated on five standard benchmarks with a physically interpretable case study. The main weakness is that the causal quantity is defined through the prediction loss, making it a residual-weighted Jacobian rather than a pure dependence measure. The paper does not compare against the underlying prediction error, so the central interpretive claim is not yet empirically separated from a standard prediction-error detector. This is fixable but requires additional analysis and experiments.

major comments (4)
  1. [Granger Causality Discovery, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The derivation from Definition 1 to Eq. (5) is not sound as written. Eq. (4) states that the limit of |L_{t,j}-L*_{t,j}| as Delta approaches 0 equals |partial L_{t,j}/partial x_{t',i}| |Delta|, but the left-hand side tends to 0 for any differentiable L; the correct statement is an asymptotic equivalence as Delta approaches 0. More substantively, since L_{t,j} = (y_hat_{t,j} - y_{t,j})^2, the derivative partial L_{t,j}/partial x_{t',i} equals 2(y_hat_{t,j} - y_{t,j}) times partial y_hat_{t,j}/partial x_{t',i}. The quantity a_{i,j} in Eq. (5) is therefore a residual-weighted Jacobian, not a property of the predictor's input-output map f alone. On normal training windows with small residuals, a_{i,j} under-weights genuinely strong dependencies, and on anomalous windows the score in Eq. (10) can increase simply because prediction error increases. The paper therefore does not currently establish that GCAD detects changes in Granger causal structure; it establishes only that it detects a transformed prediction-error signal. Please replace L by y_hat in the gradient definition, or otherwise provide validation that the residual weighting does not drive the reported results.
  2. [Experimental Results, Tables 2 and 3] No experiment compares GCAD to the plain prediction-error score of the same TSMixer predictor. Since the gradient in Eq. (5) contains the prediction residual as a factor, the relative improvement over a thresholded MSE baseline is necessary to support the causal-deviation claim. The ablation '-GC' in Table 3 is not defined in the text, so it is unclear whether it removes the gradient transformation or replaces the score with raw prediction error. Without such an ablation, the competitive AUC/PRC results in Table 2 are consistent with the hypothesis that GCAD is a prediction-error detector with an additional nonlinear transformation.
  3. [Causal Deviation Scoring, Eqs. (7)-(12)] The anomaly score in Eq. (10) compares test causal matrices to a pointwise training-set average A_norm sampled with Bernoulli(p) in Eq. (7). Because A_norm is an average over normal windows, a distribution shift in the test input that changes the Jacobian but not the causal relation will still produce a large score; likewise, a true causal change that happens to preserve the residual-weighted gradient magnitude will be missed. The paper should include an experiment that distinguishes these cases, for example by evaluating on windows with synthetic additive noise but unchanged causal structure, or by reporting the score decomposition into residual and Jacobian components.
  4. [Granger Causality Discovery, Eq. (5) and implementation] Eq. (5) defines a_{i,j} as an integral with respect to a distribution P over x_{phi,i}, with limits of integration t-tau to t-1, but the experiments appear to compute pointwise gradients on each observed window G_t (Figure 1 and the 'Prediction-based Gradient Generator' section). If the implementation uses pointwise gradients, Eq. (5) is not what is evaluated; if it uses an empirical average, the Monte Carlo estimator should be stated. Either way, the uniform-distribution simplification is undefined over the unbounded support of the input variables, and the integral notation with time-lag limits and an input-space integration variable is confusing.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Experimental Setup] The implementation details omit concrete values for the hyperparameters tau, h, beta, p, and epsilon; these should be reported for reproducibility, along with the predictor depth and width.
  2. [Causal Deviation Scoring, Eq. (7)] The notation W'_train = W_train ⊙ B mixes a time-indexed matrix with a vector of length n_train; please clarify the dimensions and the exact Bernoulli sampling procedure.
  3. [Experimental Results, Table 2] Averages over 10 runs are reported without standard deviations or significance tests, so small differences such as the SWaT AUROC gap of 0.8690 versus 0.8493 may be within run-to-run noise.
  4. [Throughout] There are several rendering issues, including 'by_t = f' instead of a hat notation, and the matrix entries in Eq. (6) are printed as 'eAi,j' and 'Ai,j - AT i,j'; please fix these formatting problems.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GCAD's causal-deviation score is a derived quantity computed from a trained predictor and evaluated against independent ground-truth labels, not an input fitted to those labels.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (5) defines the Granger causality matrix as an integral of absolute channel-separated gradients of the squared prediction error from Equation (1); this is an operational definition derived from the predictor, not a parameter fitted to anomaly labels. The typical pattern A_norm in Equation (8) is the mean of these matrices over Bernoulli-sampled normal training windows, and the anomaly score in Equation (10) is a relative deviation of each test window's matrix from that in-sample reference. The evaluation is external: it uses ground-truth anomaly labels and six published baselines on five benchmark datasets, so the detection result is not enforced by the definition. The one citation involving the authors (Zhang et al. 2024, VGGM) appears only in a general motivation sentence about economic losses and is not load-bearing. The skeptical concern that the loss-gradient in Equation (5) is a residual-weighted Jacobian (since dL/dx = 2(yhat-y) dyhat/dx) is a correctness or validity question about whether the quantity faithfully measures Definition 1, not a circularity: the method does not assume its conclusion by defining the anomaly score as the labels or by fitting the typical pattern to test outcomes.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or theoretical entities. Its free parameters are mostly unspecified or tuned on a single dataset, and its principal axiom is that prediction-loss gradients are a valid Granger causality measure.

free parameters (5)
  • tau = tuned on SWaT (Figure 2a); value not reported for other datasets
    Maximum time lag for Granger causality; controls sensitivity versus complexity.
  • h = tuned on SWaT (Figure 2b); value not reported for other datasets
    Sparsification threshold for the causality graph.
  • beta = not specified
    Balance between causal and temporal deviation in Eq (12).
  • p = not specified
    Bernoulli sampling probability for training windows in Eq (7).
  • epsilon = not specified
    Small constant in Eqs (10)-(11) to avoid division by zero.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Gradient magnitude of prediction loss with respect to input measures Granger causal strength
    Core identification in Eq (4)-(5); not derived from Granger's definition but from a local Taylor expansion.
  • domain assumption Bidirectional edges in the raw causality matrix represent similarity and should be removed
    Justifies sparsification in Eq (6); assumes true causality is asymmetric and similarity is symmetric.
  • domain assumption The predictor trained on normal data produces stable causal patterns, and test deviations from the mean pattern are anomaly indicators
    Basis of the scoring in Eq (10); assumes no distribution shift other than anomalies.
  • standard math Uniform distribution P for the integral in Eq (5)
    Actually the integral is not computed; the point gradient is used instead.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GCAD: Anomaly Detection in Multivariate Time Series from the Perspective of Granger Causality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZF7LQSM

@misc{pith2026250113493,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GCAD: Anomaly Detection in Multivariate Time Series from the Perspective of Granger Causality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZF7LQSM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13493}
}
read the original abstract

Multivariate time series anomaly detection has numerous real-world applications and is being extensively studied. Modeling pairwise correlations between variables is crucial. Existing methods employ learnable graph structures and graph neural networks to explicitly model the spatial dependencies between variables. However, these methods are primarily based on prediction or reconstruction tasks, which can only learn similarity relationships between sequence embeddings and lack interpretability in how graph structures affect time series evolution. In this paper, we designed a framework that models spatial dependencies using interpretable causal relationships and detects anomalies through changes in causal patterns. Specifically, we propose a method to dynamically discover Granger causality using gradients in nonlinear deep predictors and employ a simple sparsification strategy to obtain a Granger causality graph, detecting anomalies from a causal perspective. Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that the proposed model achieves more accurate anomaly detection compared to baseline methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13493 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall Architecture of GCAD. During the training phase, the gradient generator is trained for the prediction task. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of parameters. AUROC and AUPRC as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Two Affected Sensors and the Changes in the Total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Physical Structure of the SWaT Testbed, Attack [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdulaal, A.; Liu, Z.; and Lancewicki, T. 2021. Practical approach to asynchronous multivariate time series anomaly detection and localization. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 2485--2494

    2021

  2. [2]

    Audibert, J.; Michiardi, P.; Guyard, F.; Marti, S.; and Zuluaga, M. A. 2020. Usad: Unsupervised anomaly detection on multivariate time series. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 3395--3404

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    O.; Yoder, N

    Chen, S.-A.; Li, C.-L.; Arik, S. O.; Yoder, N. C.; and Pfister, T. 2023. TSMixer: An All-MLP Architecture for Time Series Forecast-ing. Transactions on Machine Learning Research

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Chen, W.; Tian, L.; Chen, B.; Dai, L.; Duan, Z.; and Zhou, M. 2022. Deep variational graph convolutional recurrent network for multivariate time series anomaly detection. In International conference on machine learning, 3621--3633

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Chen, Z.; Chen, D.; Zhang, X.; Yuan, Z.; and Cheng, X. 2021. Learning graph structures with transformer for multivariate time-series anomaly detection in IoT. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9(12): 9179--9189

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Cheng, Y.; Wang, Z.; Xiao, T.; Zhong, Q.; Suo, J.; and He, K. 2024. CausalTime: Realistically Generated Time-series for Benchmarking of Causal Discovery. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Cheng, Y.; Yang, R.; Xiao, T.; Li, Z.; Suo, J.; He, K.; and Dai, Q. 2022. CUTS: Neural Causal Discovery from Irregular Time-Series Data. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Dai, E.; and Chen, J. 2022. Graph-augmented normalizing flows for anomaly detection of multiple time series. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2022

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Deng, A.; and Hooi, B. 2021. Graph neural network-based anomaly detection in multivariate time series. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, 4027--4035

    2021

  2. [10]

    N.; and Mathur, A

    Goh, J.; Adepu, S.; Junejo, K. N.; and Mathur, A. 2017. A dataset to support research in the design of secure water treatment systems. In Critical Information Infrastructures Security: 11th International Conference, CRITIS 2016, Paris, France, October 10--12, 2016, Revised Sel...

    2017

  3. [11]

    Granger, C. W. 1969. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 424--438

    1969

  4. [12]

    Han, S.; and Woo, S. S. 2022. Learning sparse latent graph representations for anomaly detection in multivariate time series. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2977--2986

    2022

  5. [13]

    Hundman, K.; Constantinou, V.; Laporte, C.; Colwell, I.; and Soderstrom, T. 2018. Detecting spacecraft anomalies using lstms and nonparametric dynamic thresholding. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 387--395

    2018

  6. [14]

    Y.; Wen, Q.; Zambon, D.; Alippi, C.; Webb, G

    Jin, M.; Koh, H. Y.; Wen, Q.; Zambon, D.; Alippi, C.; Webb, G. I.; King, I.; and Pan, S. 2024. A survey on graph neural networks for time series: Forecasting, classification, imputation, and anomaly detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

    2024

  7. [15]

    Keogh, E.; Lin, J.; and Fu, A. 2005. Hot sax: Efficiently finding the most unusual time series subsequence. In Fifth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM'05), 8--pp. Ieee

    2005

  8. [16]

    Khanna, S.; and Tan, V. Y. 2019. Economy Statistical Recurrent Units For Inferring Nonlinear Granger Causality. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  9. [17]

    Li, D.; Chen, D.; Jin, B.; Shi, L.; Goh, J.; and Ng, S.-K. 2019. MAD-GAN: Multivariate anomaly detection for time series data with generative adversarial networks. In International conference on artificial neural networks, 703--716. Springer

    2019

  10. [18]

    Li, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Han, J.; Su, Y.; Jiao, R.; Wen, X.; and Pei, D. 2021. Multivariate time series anomaly detection and interpretation using hierarchical inter-metric and temporal embedding. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, ...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Liu, M.; Sun, X.; Hu, L.; and Wang, Y. 2023. Causal discovery from subsampled time series with proxy variables. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36

    2023

  12. [20]

    P.; and Tippenhauer, N

    Mathur, A. P.; and Tippenhauer, N. O. 2016. SWaT: A water treatment testbed for research and training on ICS security. In 2016 international workshop on cyber-physical systems for smart water networks (CySWater), 31--36. IEEE

    2016

  13. [21]

    A.; Dengel, A.; and Ahmed, S

    Munir, M.; Siddiqui, S. A.; Dengel, A.; and Ahmed, S. 2018. DeepAnT: A deep learning approach for unsupervised anomaly detection in time series. Ieee Access, 7: 1991--2005

    2018

  14. [22]

    Park, D.; Hoshi, Y.; and Kemp, C. C. 2018. A multimodal anomaly detector for robot-assisted feeding using an lstm-based variational autoencoder. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(3): 1544--1551

    2018

  15. [23]

    A.; and Li, W

    Qiu, H.; Liu, Y.; Subrahmanya, N. A.; and Li, W. 2012. Granger causality for time-series anomaly detection. In 2012 IEEE 12th international conference on data mining, 1074--1079. IEEE

    2012

  16. [24]

    Shojaie, A.; and Fox, E. B. 2022. Granger causality: A review and recent advances. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 9: 289--319

    2022

  17. [25]

    Song, J.; Kim, K.; Oh, J.; and Cho, S. 2024. Memto: Memory-guided transformer for multivariate time series anomaly detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  18. [26]

    Su, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Niu, C.; Liu, R.; Sun, W.; and Pei, D. 2019. Robust anomaly detection for multivariate time series through stochastic recurrent neural network. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 2828--2837

    2019

  19. [27]

    Tank, A.; Covert, I.; Foti, N.; Shojaie, A.; and Fox, E. B. 2021. Neural granger causality. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(8): 4267--4279

    2021

  20. [28]

    Tayeh, T.; Aburakhia, S.; Myers, R.; and Shami, A. 2022. An attention-based ConvLSTM autoencoder with dynamic thresholding for unsupervised anomaly detection in multivariate time series. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, 4(2): 350--370

    2022

  21. [29]

    Tuli, S.; Casale, G.; and Jennings, N. R. 2022. TranAD: Deep Transformer Networks for Anomaly Detection in Multivariate Time Series Data . Proceedings of VLDB, 15(6): 1201--1214

    2022

  22. [30]

    Wang, X.; Lin, J.; Patel, N.; and Braun, M. 2018. Exact variable-length anomaly detection algorithm for univariate and multivariate time series. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 32: 1806--1844

    2018

  23. [31]

    Xu, J.; Wu, H.; Wang, J.; and Long, M. 2021. Anomaly Transformer: Time Series Anomaly Detection with Association Discrepancy. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  24. [32]

    Yu, Q.; Jibin, L.; and Jiang, L. 2016. An improved ARIMA-based traffic anomaly detection algorithm for wireless sensor networks. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 12(1): 9653230

    2016

  25. [33]

    I.; Pan, S.; Aggarwal, C.; and Salehi, M

    Zamanzadeh Darban, Z.; Webb, G. I.; Pan, S.; Aggarwal, C.; and Salehi, M. 2024. Deep learning for time series anomaly detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 57(1): 1--42

    2024

  26. [34]

    Zhang, C.; Song, D.; Chen, Y.; Feng, X.; Lumezanu, C.; Cheng, W.; Ni, J.; Zong, B.; Chen, H.; and Chawla, N. V. 2019. A deep neural network for unsupervised anomaly detection and diagnosis in multivariate time series data. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial in...

    2019

  27. [35]

    Zhang, W.; Zhang, C.; and Tsung, F. 2022. GRELEN: Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection from the Perspective of Graph Relational Learning. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2390--2397

    2022

  28. [36]

    Zhang, X.; Jiao, P.; Gao, M.; Li, T.; Wu, Y.; Wu, H.; and Zhao, Z. 2024. VGGM: Variational Graph Gaussian Mixture Model for Unsupervised Change Point Detection in Dynamic Networks. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security

    2024

  29. [37]

    Zhang, Z.; Geng, Z.; and Han, Y. 2024. Graph Structure Change-Based Anomaly Detection in Multivariate Time Series of Industrial Processes. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics

    2024

  30. [38]

    Y.; Jin, M.; Chi, L.; Phan, K

    Zheng, Y.; Koh, H. Y.; Jin, M.; Chi, L.; Phan, K. T.; Pan, S.; Chen, Y.-P. P.; and Xiang, W. 2023. Correlation-aware spatial--temporal graph learning for multivariate time-series anomaly detection. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems

    2023

  31. [39]

    Zhou, B.; Liu, S.; Hooi, B.; Cheng, X.; and Ye, J. 2019. Beatgan: Anomalous rhythm detection using adversarially generated time series. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 2019, 4433--4439

    2019

  32. [40]

    R.; Cheng, W.; Lumezanu, C.; Cho, D.; and Chen, H

    Zong, B.; Song, Q.; Min, M. R.; Cheng, W.; Lumezanu, C.; Cho, D.; and Chen, H. 2018. Deep autoencoding gaussian mixture model for unsupervised anomaly detection. In International conference on learning representations

    2018

  33. [41]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  34. [42]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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