A Generalizable Anomaly Detection Method in Dynamic Graphs

Xiao Yang; Xuejiao Zhao; Zhiqi Shen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

A Generalizable Anomaly Detection Method in Dynamic Graphs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims GeneralDyG, one unsupervised pipeline, detects anomalous edges and nodes in continuous-time dynamic graphs and outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on four real-world datasets.

desk verdict The training objective in Eq. (10) is incoherent as written—all-zero labels during training drive scores to zero—so the method cannot work as described, despite a solid experimental study. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16447 v1 pith:YFCQA2NP submitted 2024-12-21 cs.LG cs.AI

Xiao Yang , Xuejiao Zhao , Zhiqi Shen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords dynamicgraphanomalydetectioncontinuous-timegraphstemporalego-graphsamplingneuralnetworktransformernodeedgegeneralization

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

GeneralDyG is a single unsupervised pipeline for anomaly detection in continuous-time dynamic graphs, designed to cover edge-level and node-level anomalies at once. Rather than consuming whole graphs or snapshot sequences, it samples a temporal $k$-hop ego-graph around each event, orders those historical interactions by time, and inserts special tokens that mark their hop hierarchy. A GNN extractor called TensGNN embeds nodes and edges together by alternating node and edge message passing, and a temporal-aware transformer scores each event. The paper reports that this pipeline outperforms twenty state-of-the-art baselines on Bitcoin-Alpha and Bitcoin-OTC (edge anomalies) and on SWaT and WADI (node anomalies), and that it degrades less than baselines when a model built for one task type is applied to the other. If the claim holds, one architecture can cover multiple dynamic-graph anomaly tasks without task-specific redesign.

What carries the argument

Temporal ego-graph sampling converts a large evolving graph into small, chronologically ordered subgraphs centered on each event; the $\langle|KHS|\rangle$ special tokens tell the model which hop layer each historical interaction belongs to. TensGNN alternately applies node-level propagation $H_v^{(K+1)} = \sigma(T^T H_e^{(K)} W'_e \odot \bar{A}_v H_v^{(K)} W_v)$ and edge-level propagation $H_e^{(K+1)} = \sigma(T^T H_v^{(K)} W'_v \odot \bar{A}_e H_e^{(K)} W_e)$, so node and edge embeddings refine each other inside a shared feature space. The temporal-aware transformer then rewrites self-attention as kernel smoothing, with queries and keys built from the GNN structure embedding $\varphi(z_i)$ and values from the original event features, preserving the raw signal while attending over structure. Together these components are what the paper credits for handling data diversity, capturing local and global dynamics, and keeping computational cost low.

What would settle it

Train GeneralDyG on the normal split of a benchmark such as Bitcoin-Alpha, score held-out test events with injected anomalies at 1%, 5%, and 10%, and compute AUC and AP; if the scores rank anomalous events no better than chance (AUC near 0.5), the generalizable-detection claim is refuted. The paper's Table 1 reports the opposite outcome, so this check is directly reproducible with the published protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that generalizability follows from treating every edge and node as an 'anomaly event' and encoding each event through its own temporally ordered $k$-hop ego-graph. The mechanism is: temporal ego-graph sampling so the model sees local neighborhoods rather than entire graphs; TensGNN, which alternates node-level and edge-level propagation rules built on Laplacian-adjacency matrices $\bar{A}_v$ and $\bar{A}_e$; and a temporal-aware transformer whose attention kernel uses structural embeddings for queries and keys while keeping the original event features as values, with $\langle|KHS|\rangle$ tokens preserving hop hierarchy. Trained with binary cross-entropy under the convention that all training events are normal, the model assigns anomaly scores that the authors report beat state-of-the-art edge-level and node-level detectors on four benchmarks. The result is a single score function for both anomalous edges and anomalous nodes.

Load-bearing premise

Training uses binary cross-entropy on data in which every training event is labeled normal, so the model's ability to rank unseen anomalies above normal events depends on an unstated inductive bias rather than on an explicit reconstruction, density, or contrastive signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single trained model can score both anomalous edges and anomalous nodes, so separate pipelines for, say, fraudulent transactions and compromised users would not be needed.
Because training sees $k$-hop ego-graphs around events rather than whole graphs, the method scales more cheaply to large dynamic graphs.
The model does not depend on rich raw event attributes; when attributes are sparse or absent, topology and timing alone can still form the event encoding.
On the reported benchmarks, the largest gains are in average precision on edge-level datasets, so the method's main practical value may be ranking rare anomalous events ahead of many normal ones.

Reading between the lines

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

A stricter test of the paper's generalizability claim would be zero-shot transfer: train once on one domain and score anomalies in an unseen domain with different semantics, such as network-intrusion logs, without retraining or retuning.
The training objective in Eq. (10) uses binary cross-entropy on labels that are all normal during training, so the method is effectively one-class; the anomaly-ranking behavior must come from an implicit inductive bias, such as anomalies having atypical ego-graph neighborhoods, which the paper does not name.
If the mechanism is the portable part, swapping TensGNN for a different node-and-edge GNN should preserve most of the benefit, which gives a cheap experimental check of where the generalization actually comes from.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Colleague,

The paper has a load-bearing flaw in its training objective, and the abstract overclaims. In the appendix, Eq. (10) defines a binary cross-entropy loss over node and edge labels. But the problem definition states that during training all edges and nodes are normal, i.e., every label is 0. With all labels zero, the BCE loss reduces to -log(1-f), minimized at f=0. The authors then say the final output embedding is used directly as the anomaly score for edge-level tasks. That gives a degenerate score that cannot rank anything. No reconstruction error or density estimate is described to create a meaningful anomaly signal. This is not a missing ablation; as written, the method has no training signal for anomaly detection.

That said, the paper is not without value. The architecture is clearly presented: temporal ego-graph sampling, an alternating node/edge GNN (TensGNN), and a Transformer with GraphIT-style kernel attention. The special tokens for hierarchy are a small but sensible touch. The experimental section is thorough—20 baselines, four datasets, with an ablation study that isolates each component. The code is available. The WADI result is honestly reported in the text as slightly below FuSAGNet, but the abstract claims 'significantly outperforms' on all four datasets, which is contradicted by that same table.

The 'generalizable analysis' in Table 4 is weak. It compares unadapted baselines on mismatched task types and calls that a generalizability test. That is not evidence of transfer; it is a strawman comparison. The hyperparameter sensitivity analysis on k and K is reasonable, and choosing k=2, K=2 is standard model selection, not circular.

If the training objective issue can be resolved—for example, if the code uses a different loss or labels are not actually all zero—the empirical results might be salvageable. But as the paper stands, the central mechanism is incoherent. I would not cite it, but I'd send it to peer review because the flaw is specific, and the empirical study is substantial enough that the authors deserve a chance to clarify.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GeneralDyG, an unsupervised anomaly detection method for continuous-time dynamic graphs that aims to handle both edge-level and node-level anomalies in a single architecture. The method samples temporal k-hop ego-graphs around each event, embeds them with a node/edge alternating GNN called TensGNN, and feeds the resulting structural and temporal features into a Transformer with hierarchical special tokens. The authors report state-of-the-art or competitive results on four real-world datasets (Bitcoin-Alpha, Bitcoin-OTC, SWaT, WADI) and include ablations, parameter analyses, and a generalizability study.

Significance. If the claimed results were sound, GeneralDyG would be a practically valuable contribution: a single architecture that handles both edge- and node-level anomalies, with a lightweight ego-graph sampling scheme that could reduce computational cost and a TensGNN design that explicitly alternates node and edge message passing. The paper also provides a public code link and compares against a broad set of 20 baselines. However, the central training mechanism described in the paper is internally inconsistent, and one of the headline results contradicts the abstract's claim of significant improvement. These issues prevent the paper from currently supporting its main claims.

major comments (3)

[Problem Definition; Appendix, Objective Function (Eq. 10)] The training objective is internally inconsistent with the stated unsupervised setting. The Problem Definition states that all edges and nodes are considered normal during training and that binary labels are only provided for testing; yet Eq. (10) defines a binary cross-entropy loss over node and edge labels y_n and y_e. With every training label set to 0, each summand reduces to -log(1 - f(·)), which is minimized by f(·) = 0 for every event. The paper does not specify any reconstruction error, density estimate, contrastive objective, or pseudo-labelling mechanism that could turn this zero-label BCE loss into a meaningful anomaly score. Since the text says that for edge-level tasks the final output embedding is directly used as the anomaly score, the trained model would assign a degenerate score to all edges, leaving no mechanism for ranking anomalies above normal events. This is not a tuning or ablation issue; as written, the method cannot learn to detect anomalies.
[Abstract; Table 2 (Node-Level results)] The abstract and introduction claim GeneralDyG 'significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods on four real-world datasets,' but Table 2 shows that on WADI GeneralDyG achieves F1=60.43, slightly lower than FuSAGNet's 60.70. The main text itself acknowledges this as 'slightly below.' The central claim of significant improvement is therefore false on one of the four datasets, and the claim should be qualified or the experiments revisited.
[Generalizable Analysis, Table 4] Table 4 and the surrounding text do not present a valid comparison for the generalizability claim. The table's headers are confusing ('Node-Level Method' combined with 'Bitcoin-Alpha Edge-Level' and 'WADI'), and the text says baselines were 'evaluated in a mismatched dataset context' while the table appears to compare GeneralDyG's performance on one dataset with baselines' performance on another. Without a clear protocol—same task, same dataset, same anomaly injection, and standard evaluation metrics—this table does not support the conclusion that GeneralDyG generalizes across tasks better than the baselines. The authors should either redesign this experiment or remove this analysis.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] The manuscript contains several typos and formatting inconsistencies, including 'Tabel 5' for Table 5, inconsistent spacing in 'W ADI', and 'LSTM-V AE' with an unwanted space.
[Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is difficult to parse; the notation '⟨|KHS |⟩, ai, ⟨|KHS |⟩, ai; 11, a2_i;1, ...' appears garbled and should be rewritten to clearly show how special tokens and hierarchical event sets are concatenated.
[Generalizable Analysis, Table 4] The caption and table layout should be revised so that columns unambiguously indicate which method is evaluated on which dataset/task; currently the table is not self-contained.
[Experiment Description (Appendix)] The hyperparameters k=2 and K=2 are selected based on Figure 2 on Bitcoin-Alpha and then used for all datasets; the authors should state whether performance is robust to these settings on the other datasets, since a single-dataset choice of a key structural hyperparameter weakens the generality claim.
[Introduction] The phrase 'they often lack of generalizability' is grammatically incorrect; it should be 'they often lack generalizability.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GeneralDyG's reported results are empirical benchmarks; no predicted quantity reduces by construction to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, GeneralDyG is an unsupervised anomaly scorer whose components (ego-graph sampling, TensGNN, temporal-aware Transformer) are defined independently of the reported AUC/AP/F1 numbers. Hyperparameters k=2 and K=2 are selected via a Bitcoin-Alpha heatmap and then reused; this is model selection, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no cited prior work by the same authors that smuggles in the central assumption. The main weakness is a training-objective inconsistency, not circularity: the Problem Definition states labels are provided only during testing, yet Appendix Eq. (10) defines a binary cross-entropy loss over yn and ye; with all training labels zero this drives scores toward zero. That is an internal incoherence/correctness risk, not a circular reduction of the kind this pass is asked to flag, because the reported benchmark numbers are not equivalent to the training input by construction. The WADI result (60.43 vs FuSAGNet 60.70) also undercuts the abstract's 'significantly outperforms' claim, but that is an empirical discrepancy, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on hyperparameters chosen by hand, domain assumptions about the training data and ego-graph sufficiency, and the ad hoc design of TensGNN. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

k (temporal ego-graph hop) = 2
Chosen based on experiments on Bitcoin-Alpha (Figure 2) and fixed for all datasets; k>3 is discouraged without further tuning.
K (number of TensGNN layers) = 2
Selected from the same heatmap on Bitcoin-Alpha; higher K decreases AUC.
GNN hidden size = 128
Reported in appendix, no search shown.
Transformer hidden size = 258
Reported in appendix, no search shown.
Number of attention heads = 4
Reported in appendix, no search shown.
Number of transformer layers = 6
Reported in appendix, no search shown.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Anomaly labels are rare and the training set is entirely normal.
The problem definition states all training edges/nodes are normal, which is the basis for the unsupervised setup.
domain assumption The k-hop temporal ego-graph around an event contains sufficient context to score its anomaly.
The method relies on sampling ego-graphs of size k=2 instead of the full graph.
ad hoc to paper Alternating node and edge message passing in TensGNN embeds both node and edge features into a shared space without loss.
This is the core design choice of the new GNN and is not derived from theory.
standard math The kernel attention from GraphIT can be directly reused for temporal ego-graphs.
The paper cites Mialon et al. 2021 and rewrites self-attention as kernel smoothing without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Generalizable Anomaly Detection Method in Dynamic Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFCQA2NP

@misc{pith2026241216447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Generalizable Anomaly Detection Method in Dynamic Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFCQA2NP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16447}
}

read the original abstract

Anomaly detection aims to identify deviations from normal patterns within data. This task is particularly crucial in dynamic graphs, which are common in applications like social networks and cybersecurity, due to their evolving structures and complex relationships. Although recent deep learning-based methods have shown promising results in anomaly detection on dynamic graphs, they often lack of generalizability. In this study, we propose GeneralDyG, a method that samples temporal ego-graphs and sequentially extracts structural and temporal features to address the three key challenges in achieving generalizability: Data Diversity, Dynamic Feature Capture, and Computational Cost. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our proposed GeneralDyG significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods on four real-world datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16447 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Effect of Parameters k and K on Bitcoin-Alpha The heatmap in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * 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 mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Angiulli, F.; and Pizzuti, C. 2002. Fast outlier detection in high dimensional spaces. In European conference on principles of data mining and knowledge discovery, 15--27. Springer

work page 2002
[4]

Bai, G.; Ling, C.; and Zhao, L. 2022. Temporal domain generalization with drift-aware dynamic neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10664

arXiv 2022
[5]

Beladev, M.; Katz, G.; Rokach, L.; Singer, U.; and Radinsky, K. 2023. GraphERT--Transformers-based Temporal Dynamic Graph Embedding. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 68--77

work page 2023
[6]

Bhatia, S.; Hooi, B.; Yoon, M.; Shin, K.; and Faloutsos, C. 2020. Midas: Microcluster-based detector of anomalies in edge streams. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, 3242--3249

work page 2020
[7]

Brennan, R. L. 1992. Generalizability theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(4): 27--34

work page 1992
[8]

Cai, L.; Chen, Z.; Luo, C.; Gui, J.; Ni, J.; Li, D.; and Chen, H. 2021. Structural temporal graph neural networks for anomaly detection in dynamic graphs. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management, 3747--3756

work page 2021

Show all 52 references

[9]

Chen, D.; O’Bray, L.; and Borgwardt, K. 2022. Structure-aware transformer for graph representation learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 3469--3489. PMLR

2022
[10]

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. PMLR

2022
[11]

Cong, Y.; Liao, W.; Ackermann, H.; Rosenhahn, B.; and Yang, M. Y. 2021. Spatial-temporal transformer for dynamic scene graph generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 16372--16382

2021
[12]

Dai, E.; and Chen, J. 2022. Graph-augmented normalizing flows for anomaly detection of multiple time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07857

2022 arXiv
[13]

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
[14]

Ding, C.; Sun, S.; and Zhao, J. 2023. MST-GAT: A multimodal spatial--temporal graph attention network for time series anomaly detection. Information Fusion, 89: 527--536

2023
[15]

Dou, Y.; Liu, Z.; Sun, L.; Deng, Y.; Peng, H.; and Yu, P. S. 2020. Enhancing graph neural network-based fraud detectors against camouflaged fraudsters. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management, 315--324

2020
[16]

P.; and Bresson, X

Dwivedi, V. P.; and Bresson, X. 2020. A generalization of transformer networks to graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.09699

2020 arXiv
[17]

P.; Luu, A

Dwivedi, V. P.; Luu, A. T.; Laurent, T.; Bengio, Y.; and Bresson, X. 2021. Graph neural networks with learnable structural and positional representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07875

2021 arXiv
[18]

A.; and Eberle, W

Ekle, O. A.; and Eberle, W. 2024. Anomaly Detection in Dynamic Graphs: A Comprehensive Survey. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 18(8): 1–44

2024
[19]

Eswaran, D.; and Faloutsos, C. 2018. Sedanspot: Detecting anomalies in edge streams. In 2018 IEEE International conference on data mining (ICDM), 953--958. IEEE

2018
[20]

Fang, X.; Liu, D.; Fang, W.; Zhou, P.; Cheng, Y.; Tang, K.; and Zou, K. 2023 a . Annotations Are Not All You Need: A Cross-modal Knowledge Transfer Network for Unsupervised Temporal Sentence Grounding. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, 8...

2023
[21]

Fang, X.; Liu, D.; Zhou, P.; Xu, Z.; and Li, R. 2023 b . Hierarchical local-global transformer for temporal sentence grounding. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia

2023
[22]

Gao, Y.; Li, X.; Peng, H.; Fang, B.; and Philip, S. Y. 2020. Hincti: A cyber threat intelligence modeling and identification system based on heterogeneous information network. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 34(2): 708--722

2020
[23]

Gao, Z.-K.; Ma, L.-M.; Li, M.-T.; Zhao, G.; and Li, M. J.-J. 2023. Anomaly Detection in Dynamic Graphs Via Long Short-Term Temporal Attention Network. In 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics (ICMLC), 153--158. IEEE

2023
[24]

Grover, A.; and Leskovec, J. 2016. node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 855--864

2016
[25]

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
[26]

Ho, T. K. K.; Karami, A.; and Armanfard, N. 2024. Graph Anomaly Detection in Time Series: A Survey. arXiv:2302.00058

2024 arXiv
[27]

Ji, S.; Pan, S.; Cambria, E.; Marttinen, P.; and Philip, S. Y. 2021. A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acquisition, and applications. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 33(2): 494--514

2021
[28]

Lee, J.; Kim, S.; and Shin, K. 2024. SLADE: Detecting Dynamic Anomalies in Edge Streams without Labels via Self-Supervised Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11933

2024 arXiv
[29]

G.; Xiong, F.; Wang, L.; Chen, Q.; and Lee, V

Liu, Y.; Pan, S.; Wang, Y. G.; Xiong, F.; Wang, L.; Chen, Q.; and Lee, V. C. 2021. Anomaly detection in dynamic graphs via transformer. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(12): 12081--12094

2021
[30]

Ma, M.; Han, L.; and Zhou, C. 2023. BTAD: A binary transformer deep neural network model for anomaly detection in multivariate time series data. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 56: 101949

2023
[31]

Z.; Xiong, H.; and Akoglu, L

Ma, X.; Wu, J.; Xue, S.; Yang, J.; Zhou, C.; Sheng, Q. Z.; Xiong, H.; and Akoglu, L. 2021. A comprehensive survey on graph anomaly detection with deep learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(12): 12012--12038

2021
[32]

Mialon, G.; Chen, D.; Selosse, M.; and Mairal, J. 2021. Graphit: Encoding graph structure in transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05667

2021 arXiv
[33]

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
[34]

Perozzi, B.; Al-Rfou, R.; and Skiena, S. 2014. Deepwalk: Online learning of social representations. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 701--710

2014
[35]

H.; and Boo, Y

Pourhabibi, T.; Ong, K.-L.; Kam, B. H.; and Boo, Y. L. 2020. Fraud detection: A systematic literature review of graph-based anomaly detection approaches. Decision Support Systems, 133: 113303

2020
[36]

Qu, X.; Li, Z.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zou, P.; Jiang, J.; Huang, J.; Xiao, R.; Zhang, J.; and Gao, J. 2020. Category-aware graph neural networks for improving e-commerce review helpfulness prediction. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Know...

2020
[37]

Rossi, E.; Chamberlain, B.; Frasca, F.; Eynard, D.; Monti, F.; and Bronstein, M. 2020. Temporal graph networks for deep learning on dynamic graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10637

2020 arXiv
[38]

Shyu, M.-L.; Chen, S.-C.; Sarinnapakorn, K.; and Chang, L. 2003. A novel anomaly detection scheme based on principal component classifier. In Proceedings of the IEEE foundations and new directions of data mining workshop, 172--179. IEEE Press Piscataway, NJ, USA

2003
[39]

Skarding, J.; Gabrys, B.; and Musial, K. 2021. Foundations and modeling of dynamic networks using dynamic graph neural networks: A survey. iEEE Access, 9: 79143--79168

2021
[40]

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
[41]

Sun, M.; Cui, W.; Yu, S.; Han, H.; Hu, B.; and Li, Y. 2022. A dual-branch dynamic graph convolution based adaptive transformer feature fusion network for EEG emotion recognition. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 13(4): 2218--2228

2022
[42]

Tang, C.; Xu, L.; Yang, B.; Tang, Y.; and Zhao, D. 2023. GRU-based interpretable multivariate time series anomaly detection in industrial control system. Computers & Security, 127: 103094

2023
[43]

Tian, S.; Dong, J.; Li, J.; Zhao, W.; Xu, X.; Song, B.; Meng, C.; Zhang, T.; Chen, L.; et al. 2023. Sad: Semi-supervised anomaly detection on dynamic graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13573

2023 arXiv
[44]

N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I

Vaswani, A.; Shazeer, N.; Parmar, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Jones, L.; Gomez, A. N.; Kaiser, .; and Polosukhin, I. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

2017
[45]

Wang, L.; Chang, X.; Li, S.; Chu, Y.; Li, H.; Zhang, W.; He, X.; Song, L.; Zhou, J.; and Yang, H. 2021. Tcl: Transformer-based dynamic graph modelling via contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.07944

2021 arXiv
[46]

Wang, L.; Yu, Z.; Xiong, F.; Yang, D.; Pan, S.; and Yan, Z. 2019. Influence spread in geo-social networks: a multiobjective optimization perspective. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 51(5): 2663--2675

2019
[47]

Wu, Y.; Fang, Y.; and Liao, L. 2024. On the Feasibility of Simple Transformer for Dynamic Graph Modeling. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, 870--880

2024
[48]

Xu, D.; Ruan, C.; Korpeoglu, E.; Kumar, S.; and Achan, K. 2020. Inductive representation learning on temporal graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.07962

2020 arXiv
[49]

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

2022
[50]

Zhao, H.; Wang, Y.; Duan, J.; Huang, C.; Cao, D.; Tong, Y.; Xu, B.; Bai, J.; Tong, J.; and Zhang, Q. 2020. Multivariate time-series anomaly detection via graph attention network. In 2020 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), 841--850. IEEE

2020
[51]

Zheng, L.; Li, Z.; Li, J.; Li, Z.; and Gao, J. 2019. AddGraph: Anomaly Detection in Dynamic Graph Using Attention-based Temporal GCN. In IJCAI, volume 3, 7

2019
[52]

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * 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 mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Angiulli, F.; and Pizzuti, C. 2002. Fast outlier detection in high dimensional spaces. In European conference on principles of data mining and knowledge discovery, 15--27. Springer

work page 2002

[4] [4]

Bai, G.; Ling, C.; and Zhao, L. 2022. Temporal domain generalization with drift-aware dynamic neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10664

arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

Beladev, M.; Katz, G.; Rokach, L.; Singer, U.; and Radinsky, K. 2023. GraphERT--Transformers-based Temporal Dynamic Graph Embedding. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 68--77

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Bhatia, S.; Hooi, B.; Yoon, M.; Shin, K.; and Faloutsos, C. 2020. Midas: Microcluster-based detector of anomalies in edge streams. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, 3242--3249

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Brennan, R. L. 1992. Generalizability theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(4): 27--34

work page 1992

[8] [8]

Cai, L.; Chen, Z.; Luo, C.; Gui, J.; Ni, J.; Li, D.; and Chen, H. 2021. Structural temporal graph neural networks for anomaly detection in dynamic graphs. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management, 3747--3756

work page 2021