Successive data injection in conditional quantum GAN applied to time series anomaly detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Classical GAN architectures have shown interesting results for solving anomaly detection problems in general and for time series anomalies in particular, such as those arising in communication networks. In recent years, several quantum GAN (QGAN) architectures have been proposed in the literature. When detecting anomalies in time series using QGANs, huge challenges arise due to the limited number of qubits compared to the size of the data. To address these challenges, a new high‐dimensional encoding approach, named Successive Data Injection (SuDaI) is proposed. In this approach, SuDaI explores a larger portion of the quantum state, compared to the conventional angle encoding method used predominantly in the literature. This is achieved through repeated data injections into the quantum state. SuDaI encoding allows the authors to adapt the QGAN for anomaly detection with network data of a much higher dimensionality than with the existing known QGANs implementations. In addition, SuDaI encoding applies to other types of high‐dimensional time series and can be used in contexts beyond anomaly detection and QGANs, opening up therefore multiple fields of application.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".