Functional Kernel Density Estimation: Point and Fourier Approaches to Time Series Anomaly Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an unsupervised method to detect anomalous time series among a collection of time series. To do so, we extend traditional Kernel Density Estimation for estimating probability distributions in Euclidean space to Hilbert spaces. The estimated probability densities we derive can be obtained formally through treating each series as a point in a Hilbert space, placing a kernel at those points, and summing the kernels (a "point approach"), or through using Kernel Density Estimation to approximate the distributions of Fourier mode coefficients to infer a probability density (a "Fourier approach"). We refer to these approaches as Functional Kernel Density Estimation for Anomaly Detection as they both yield functionals that can score a time series for how anomalous it is. Both methods naturally handle missing data and apply to a variety of settings, performing well when compared with an outlyingness score derived from a boxplot method for functional data, with a Principal Component Analysis approach for functional data, and with the Functional Isolation Forest method. We illustrate the use of the proposed methods with aviation safety report data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".