Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 35 references

AI-Enabled Operations at Fermi Complex: Multivariate Time Series Prediction for Outage Prediction and Diagnosis

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 LSTM detects more Fermilab beam outages early than Transformer or linear models, and a random forest labels causes with 82.1% accuracy.

desk verdict The new, curated Fermilab dataset and the random-forest labeler are solid contributions, but the paper's headline claim—that LSTM beats SOTA for early outage detection—rests on an undefined metric that counts flags arriving 11 seconds before outages the model can only forecast 2–6 seconds ahead. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01509 v1 pith:YLAEIIJC submitted 2025-01-02 cs.LG cs.AIcs.ETeess.SP

Milan Jain , Burcu O. Mutlu , Caleb Stam , Jan Strube , Brian A. Schupbach , Jason M. St. John , William A. Pellico This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.ETeess.SP
keywords beamoutagepredictionmultivariatetimeseriesLSTMtransformerrandomforestacceleratoroperationspredictivemaintenanceFermilabLinac
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 argues that a machine-learning pipeline can shift beam-outage handling at the Fermilab accelerator complex from reactive alarms to near-real-time prediction. Using data from 2,703 Linac devices and 80 operator-labeled outages, it compares recurrent, attention-based, and linear deep-learning architectures for predicting when the beam permit will drop. Its central finding is that a two-layer LSTM detects more outages early than the Transformer or the linear models, with an average lead time of about 11 seconds, while a random forest labels outage causes with 82.1% accuracy. If these results hold, control-room operators would gain a short but actionable warning window and consistent, confidence-scored outage labels, reducing downtime and wasted energy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the beam-permit prediction task: a model maps a 2-second look-back of 1,719 analogue device readings, plus a 2-second gap, to a 4-second look-forward window of the permit bit, and an outage is flagged when the predicted permit crosses a threshold. The gap (G=30 ticks) and the threshold sensitivity analysis are what allow "early" detections to be scored. For labeling, the machinery is a fixed linear aggregation Fa that subtracts the mean of the last k time steps from the outage-time reading, followed by a random forest classifier. The permit bit is a binary safety signal that must be 1 for beam to run.

What would settle it

Re-run the trained LSTM on test windows whose outage start times have been randomly shifted by several minutes relative to their sensor readings. If the early-detection rate on 80 outage instances stays near 75, the flags are not tied to actual temporal precursors. Alternatively, tabulate for each early-flagged outage how many seconds before the actual drop the predicted permit first crosses the detection threshold; if that first crossing never occurs before the latest directly forecast time (about 6 seconds ahead at Lb=30, G=30, Lf=60), then the reported 11-second average lead time is not a forecast of the permit drop but a threshold artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core discovery is that the LSTM is the strongest of the six tested architectures for beam-outage prediction: it flagged 75 of 80 operator-labeled outages early, with an average lead time of -11.16 seconds, missed none, and produced 9 false positives on 31 non-outage windows. The Transformer ranked second in early detections (72) with slightly fewer false positives, and N-HiTS third (71). For diagnosis, the random forest labeler reached 82.1% mean accuracy and macro F1 of 0.691 over 100 cross-validation runs, and it agreed closely with a separate bit-pattern labeler. The paper interprets these results as evidence that a relatively simple recurrent network can detect outage precursors that attention-based and linear models miss, and that automated labeling can replace inconsistent operator annotations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a threshold crossing in the predicted permit within the 4-second look-ahead window is a genuine signal of an impending outage, rather than a response to random fluctuations; the reported 11-second average lead time is well beyond the model's direct forecast horizon, so the early warnings depend on this precursor assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Operators would receive roughly 10–12 seconds of advance notice before a beam drop, enough to begin staged power reductions for idle machines.
  • Consistent, confidence-scored outage labels from the random forest would reduce mislabeling and enable outage analytics that the current subjective labeling does not support.
  • The LSTM's combination of the highest early-detection rate, zero false negatives on operator-labeled outages, and modest model size makes it the most deployable of the six architectures tested.
  • The deployed pipeline at FNAL control rooms is positioned to provide real-world impact data for future refinement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the average early-lead time (11.16 s) is longer than the model's direct forecast horizon (4 s look-ahead after a 2 s gap), the LSTM's "early detection" is likely precursor recognition rather than direct permit forecasting; the paper's own discussion of precursors in Appendix B supports this reading.
  • An ensemble of LSTM, Transformer, and N-HiTS may outperform any single model, since the three models miss different outage types (e.g., KRF1, KRF2, LRF cases).
  • The labeler's macro F1 (0.691) is dragged down by the three-instance "Other" class; as more operator labels accumulate, accuracy and class coverage should improve.
  • The same permit-prediction plus random-forest-labeling template could transfer to other accelerator facilities or industrial plants with binary safety interlocks and rich sensor streams.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes an AI-based operations-support pipeline for the Fermilab Linac. The first task is multivariate time-series forecasting of the beam-permit signal, with outages defined as permit drops lasting at least 10 s; six deep-learning architectures (LSTM, Transformer, N-BEATS, N-HiTS, TiDE, TSMixer) are trained on data from 2,703 devices and evaluated on 80 operator-labeled outage events and 31 non-outage windows. The second task is automatic outage-cause labeling with a random forest applied to an aggregated look-back representation, evaluated on the same 80 operator-labeled events. The paper reports that LSTM has the highest early-detection rate (75/80, mean 11.16 s before the outage) and that the random forest labeler achieves 82.1% accuracy, and states that both components are deployed at FNAL control rooms.

Significance. The paper's strengths are the real industrial data collection effort, the operator labeling campaign, the comparison of several model families in a realistic control-room setting, and the reported deployment. If the evaluation were made transparent and statistically sound, the study would be a useful data point for predictive maintenance in accelerator operations, and the automated labelers address a genuine operational need created by inconsistent human labels. However, the headline LSTM result currently rests on an undefined detection metric whose reported lead times are inconsistent with the stated forecast horizon, and the evaluation lacks significance testing; the labeler accuracy is also measured against the noisy operator labels that the paper itself criticizes. For these reasons, the significance of the claims is conditional on the revisions described below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Table 1, Eq. (1), Appendix B] The 'n early' and 'Time diff.' metrics are never defined. With Lb=30, G=30, and Lf=60 ticks at 15 Hz, Eq. (1) forecasts the beam permit only over the window [t+2 s, t+6 s], so a direct forecast of an outage at time t0 can be issued no earlier than t0-6 s. Table 1 reports a mean Time diff. of -11.16 s for LSTM, and Table 4 reports -12.31 s for G=60, both well outside that horizon. Please define exactly how predicted sequences are converted into a detected outage and a detection time, state how flags are associated with outages (including whether multiple flags for one outage are counted), and reconcile detection leads above 6 s with the stated forecast horizon. If detections come from predicted precursor dips inside the look-forward window rather than from the outage itself, that should be stated explicitly and the metric should be named accordingly; as written, the central model comparison may be measuring threshold artifacts rather than outage-prediction skill.
  2. [Section 5, Table 1] The claim that LSTM has the highest early-detection rate rests on counts of 75 vs. 72 vs. 71 early detections on 80 test outages with 31 non-outage windows, and no confidence intervals, bootstrap repetitions, or significance tests are reported. These differences are small relative to the sample size. Please add confidence intervals and a paired significance test (for example, McNemar's test over the 80 outages) or repeated-seed experiments, and report the variability of the false-positive counts. The absence of error bars also weakens the sensitivity comparison in Table 4.
  3. [Section 4, Appendix B] The baseline configuration (Lb=30, G=30, Lf=60) and the detection threshold appear to be selected using the same test data on which Table 1 and Table 4 are reported: Section 4 states that 'these values were chosen as the model's performance converged at these settings,' and Appendix B reports sensitivity on the test set. If hyperparameters and thresholds were tuned on the test data, the reported early-detection rates are optimistically biased. Please specify the model-selection protocol (separate validation set or nested cross-validation), state the threshold-selection rule, and report performance on a truly held-out test set that is not used for any of the reported tuning decisions.
  4. [Section 5, Outage Labeling, and Appendix A] The random forest labeler is evaluated against operator labels, yet Appendix A documents that operator labels are inconsistent (for example, four different spellings for the same ZOV fault). Accuracy relative to noisy, non-standardized ground truth measures agreement with operators, not true label correctness. Please frame the 82.1% figure as agreement with operator labels and discuss how label noise affects the reported accuracy, the macro F1-score, and the interpretation of the confusion matrix.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 5, Outage Labeling] There is a typo in 'Due to the the relative smallness of the data'; it should read 'Due to the relative smallness of the data.'
  2. [Section 5, Computational Cost, Table 2] The text says 'TFT performs the worst' from the inference perspective, but Table 2 contains no TFT row because TFT was excluded from the study; please either include TFT results or rephrase the sentence.
  3. [Section 5, Beam Permit Prediction] The text says false positives were 'identified on validation data,' while Table 1 reports false positives on the 31 test non-outage instances described in Section 4; please clarify which split the false-positive counts come from.
  4. [Section 4, Data Collection and Processing] The terms 'beam-permit-labeled outage instances' and 'operator-labeled outage instances' are used without a precise definition of the former; please define 'beam-permit-labeled' (or use a consistent term such as 'bit-labeled') and state how the 125 beam-permit-labeled outages were obtained.
  5. [Section 6, Discussion] The statement that 'LSTM outperforms SOTA DL architectures across multiple dimensions' is stronger than Table 2 supports: N-HiTS has a lower MSE (0.17 vs. 0.21), Transformer has faster inference (1.77 s vs. 8.17 s per instance), and N-BEATS has fewer false positives (4 vs. 9). Please qualify the claim to early-detection rate or identify the specific dimensions in which LSTM is superior.
  6. [Appendix B, Impact of gap] The sentence '2-4 seconds before an outage, the models are detecting disturbances in certain devices (precursors)' is not obviously connected to the G=60 configuration, which shifts the forecast window to [t+4 s, t+8 s]; please provide the precursor timing analysis that supports this statement or rephrase it.
  7. [Figure 6] The threshold sensitivity figure lacks a definition of the threshold and of how it is applied to the predicted sequences; please specify both, and state which metric is plotted on each axis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictions and labeler are evaluated on held-out data; self-citations are motivational only.

full rationale

The paper's central beam-permit prediction is a direct supervised time-series forecasting task: models map look-back analogue readings and covariates to future permit values (Eq. 1), trained with MSE against observed permit values on a training split, and evaluated on a separate test split (Section 4, Table 1). The outage labeler is a random forest on fixed aggregations (Eqs. 2-3) trained on operator labels and evaluated with 8-fold cross-validation (Section 5). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the detection threshold is a hyperparameter varied in Appendix B, not fitted to test labels. The self-citations (Jain et al. 2022; Strube et al. 2023) motivate the application but do not provide any load-bearing theorem or fitted quantity. The reported lead times exceeding the 2-6 s forecast horizon are a metric-definition concern, not a circularity: the flags may correspond to precursor dips, but this does not make the evaluation equivalent to the training inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a handful of hyperparameters chosen on validation data, a detection threshold that is not disclosed, and several domain assumptions about the representativeness of the data and the reliability of the permit signal. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Look-back window size Lb = 30 ticks (2s)
    Chosen because 'performance converged at these settings' (Section 4); sensitivity explored in Appendix B.
  • Gap G between look-back and look-forward = 30 ticks (2s)
    Chosen on validation; Appendix B shows G=60 improves early detection but raises false positives.
  • Look-forward window size Lf = 60 ticks (4s)
    Set as the prediction horizon; not varied in sensitivity analysis.
  • Detection threshold = Not stated explicitly; Figure 6 shows sensitivity around 0.8
    The threshold on predicted permit values determines 'n early' and false positives; the operating point is not reported.
  • Aggregation window k in Eq. 2 = Not specified
    The random-forest labeler uses the difference between outage-time data and the average of the last k time steps; k is never given.
  • Minimum outage duration = 10 seconds
    Outages shorter than 10 seconds are excluded from training and evaluation, which filters out permit fluctuations but also removes short trips.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The beam permit signal is a reliable ground-truth indicator of outages.
    The entire prediction task is framed as predicting the permit bit; if the permit drops for reasons unrelated to actual beam loss, the labels are noisy.
  • domain assumption The 2703 Linac devices contain all information needed to predict outages.
    No external information (e.g., weather, grid events, operator actions) is included; if an outage is caused by an unmonitored factor, it is unpredictable from this data.
  • domain assumption Forward-fill interpolation does not distort the signal in a way that biases prediction.
    Missing values are filled with the last observation; if gaps occur right before an outage, the imputation could hide the precursor.
  • domain assumption Local per-file normalization preserves short-term anomaly patterns.
    The authors normalize each hour of data independently, which they note may obscure long-term trends; the assumption is that precursors are local and short-lived.
  • domain assumption The 31 non-outage instances are representative of normal operation.
    False-positive rate is estimated from only 31 non-outage windows; this is a very small sample and may not cover the variety of normal conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-Enabled Operations at Fermi Complex: Multivariate Time Series Prediction for Outage Prediction and Diagnosis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YLAEIIJC

@misc{pith2026250101509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-Enabled Operations at Fermi Complex: Multivariate Time Series Prediction for Outage Prediction and Diagnosis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YLAEIIJC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01509}
}
abstract

The Main Control Room of the Fermilab accelerator complex continuously gathers extensive time-series data from thousands of sensors monitoring the beam. However, unplanned events such as trips or voltage fluctuations often result in beam outages, causing operational downtime. This downtime not only consumes operator effort in diagnosing and addressing the issue but also leads to unnecessary energy consumption by idle machines awaiting beam restoration. The current threshold-based alarm system is reactive and faces challenges including frequent false alarms and inconsistent outage-cause labeling. To address these limitations, we propose an AI-enabled framework that leverages predictive analytics and automated labeling. Using data from $2,703$ Linac devices and $80$ operator-labeled outages, we evaluate state-of-the-art deep learning architectures, including recurrent, attention-based, and linear models, for beam outage prediction. Additionally, we assess a Random Forest-based labeling system for providing consistent, confidence-scored outage annotations. Our findings highlight the strengths and weaknesses of these architectures for beam outage prediction and identify critical gaps that must be addressed to fully harness AI for transitioning downtime handling from reactive to predictive, ultimately reducing downtime and improving decision-making in accelerator management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01509 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview diagram illustrating: (a) the Fermilab accelerator complex with sample device data collected from the Linac, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of outage duration by class. The dura [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Model-wise detection rate of outage types. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Confusion Matrix for Random Forest Classifier [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of RF Labeler with Bit Labeler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Threshold sensitivity. B Sensitivity Analysis In this section, we discuss sensitivity of models trained for beam-permit prediction with respect to threshold values and data preprocessing parameters. Threshold Sensitivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    A., and Nayak, R

    Bashar, M. A., and Nayak, R. 2020. Tanogan: Time series anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks. In 2020 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) , 1778--1785. IEEE

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    E.; Jenkins, G

    Box, G. E.; Jenkins, G. M.; Reinsel, G. C.; and Ljung, G. M. 2015. Time series analysis: forecasting and control . John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    G.; Oreshkin, B

    Challu, C.; Olivares, K. G.; Oreshkin, B. N.; Ramirez, F. G.; Canseco, M. M.; and Dubrawski, A. 2023. Nhits: Neural hierarchical interpolation for time series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 37, 6989--6997

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Chandola, V.; Banerjee, A.; and Kumar, V. 2009. Anomaly detection: A survey. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 41(3):1--58

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    M.; Abdussalam Nuhu, A.; Zeeshan, Q.; Korhan, O.; Asmael, M.; and Safaei, B

    C nar, Z. M.; Abdussalam Nuhu, A.; Zeeshan, Q.; Korhan, O.; Asmael, M.; and Safaei, B. 2020. Machine learning in predictive maintenance towards sustainable smart manufacturing in industry 4.0. Sustainability 12(19):8211

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Das, A.; Kong, W.; Leach, A.; Mathur, S.; Sen, R.; and Yu, R. 2023. Long-term forecasting with tide: Time-series dense encoder. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08424

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Ekambaram, V.; Jati, A.; Nguyen, N.; Sinthong, P.; and Kalagnanam, J. 2023. Tsmixer: Lightweight mlp-mixer model for multivariate time series forecasting. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 459--469

    work page 2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Google Inc. 2022. Snappy, a fast compressor/decompressor . https://github.com/google/snappy

    2022

  2. [10]

    G.; Neuer, T.; Tafti, L.; Raille, G.; Pottelbergh, T

    Herzen, J.; Lässig, F.; Piazzetta, S. G.; Neuer, T.; Tafti, L.; Raille, G.; Pottelbergh, T. V.; Pasieka, M.; Skrodzki, A.; Huguenin, N.; Dumonal, M.; Kościsz, J.; Bader, D.; Gusset, F.; Benheddi, M.; Williamson, C.; Kosinski, M.; Petrik, M.; and Grosch, G. 2022. Darts: User-...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Ho, T. K. 1995. Random decision forests. In Proceedings of 3rd international conference on document analysis and recognition , volume 1, 278--282. IEEE

    1995

  4. [12]

    Hochreiter, S. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural Computation MIT-Press

    1997

  5. [13]

    A.; Gunady, M.; Corrada Bravo, H.; and Feizi, S

    Ismail, A. A.; Gunady, M.; Corrada Bravo, H.; and Feizi, S. 2020. Benchmarking deep learning interpretability in time series predictions. Advances in neural information processing systems 33:6441--6452

    2020

  6. [14]

    Jain, M.; Gupta, M.; Singh, A.; and Chandan, V. 2019. Beyond control: Enabling smart thermostats for leakage detection. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 3(1):1--21

    2019

  7. [15]

    Jain, M.; Amatya, V.; Harrison, B.; Hazelwood, K.; Panapitiya, G.; Pellico, W.; Schupbach, B.; Seiya, K.; St John, J.; and Strube, J. 2022. The l-cape project at fnal. Technical report, Fermi National Accelerator Lab.(FNAL), Batavia, IL (United States); Pacific …

    2022

  8. [16]

    \"O .; Loeff, N.; and Pfister, T

    Lim, B.; Ar k, S. \"O .; Loeff, N.; and Pfister, T. 2021. Temporal fusion transformers for interpretable multi-horizon time series forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting 37(4):1748--1764

    2021

  9. [17]

    T., and Medjaher, K

    Nguyen, K. T., and Medjaher, K. 2019. A new dynamic predictive maintenance framework using deep learning for failure prognostics. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 188:251--262

    2019

  10. [18]

    N.; Carpov, D.; Chapados, N.; and Bengio, Y

    Oreshkin, B. N.; Carpov, D.; Chapados, N.; and Bengio, Y. 2020. N-beats: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    Paszke, A.; Gross, S.; Massa, F.; Lerer, A.; Bradbury, J.; Chanan, G.; Killeen, T.; Lin, Z.; Gimelshein, N.; Antiga, L.; Desmaison, A.; Kopf, A.; Yang, E.; DeVito, Z.; Raison, M.; Tejani, A.; Chilamkurthy, S.; Steiner, B.; Fang, L.; Bai, J.; and Chintala, S. 2019. Pytorch: An ...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Pedregosa, F.; Varoquaux, G.; Gramfort, A.; Michel, V.; Thirion, B.; Grisel, O.; Blondel, M.; Prettenhofer, P.; Weiss, R.; Dubourg, V.; Vanderplas, J.; Passos, A.; Cournapeau, D.; Brucher, M.; Perrot, M.; and Duchesnay, E. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in P ython. Journ...

    2011

  14. [22]

    Qin, Y.; Song, D.; Chen, H.; Cheng, W.; Jiang, G.; and Cottrell, G. 2017. A dual-stage attention-based recurrent neural network for time series prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.02971

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Schmidl, S.; Wenig, P.; and Papenbrock, T. 2022. Anomaly detection in time series: a comprehensive evaluation. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 15(9):1779--1797

    2022

  16. [24]

    Shiva, K.; Etikani, P.; Bhaskar, V. V. S. R.; Mittal, A.; Dave, A.; Thakkar, D.; Kanchetti, D.; and Munirathnam, R. 2024. Anomaly detection in sensor data with machine learning: Predictive maintenance for industrial systems. Journal of Electrical Systems 20(10s):454--462

    2024

  17. [25]

    S.; and Yuan, Z

    Strube, J.; Jain, M.; Amatya, V.; Harrison, B.; Hazelwood, K.; Pellico, B.; Schupbach, B.; Seiya, K.; John, J. S.; and Yuan, Z. 2023. Artificial intelligence for improved facilities operation in the fnal linac

    2023

  18. [26]

    Vaswani, A. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2017

  19. [27]

    Vohra, D. 2016. Apache Parquet . Berkeley, CA: Apress. 325--335

    2016

  20. [28]

    Wu, H.; Xu, J.; Wang, J.; and Long, M. 2021. Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting. Advances in neural information processing systems 34:22419--22430

    2021

  21. [29]

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

    2023

  22. [30]

    Zeng, A.; Chen, M.; Zhang, L.; and Xu, Q. 2023. Are transformers effective for time series forecasting? In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 37, 11121--11128

    2023

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Zhang, C.; Zhou, T.; Wen, Q.; and Sun, L. 2022. Tfad: A decomposition time series anomaly detection architecture with time-frequency analysis. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management , 2497--2507

    2022

  25. [33]

    Zhou, H.; Zhang, S.; Peng, J.; Zhang, S.; Li, J.; Xiong, H.; and Zhang, W. 2021. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , volume 35, 11106--11115

    2021

  26. [34]

    Zhou, T.; Ma, Z.; Wen, Q.; Sun, L.; Yao, T.; Yin, W.; Jin, R.; et al. 2022a. Film: Frequency improved legendre memory model for long-term time series forecasting. Advances in neural information processing systems 35:12677--12690

  27. [35]

    Zhou, T.; Ma, Z.; Wen, Q.; Wang, X.; Sun, L.; and Jin, R. 2022b. Fedformer: Frequency enhanced decomposed transformer for long-term series forecasting. In International conference on machine learning , 27268--27286. PMLR

Pith tools

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