Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the recent advances in technology, a wide range of systems continue to collect a large amount of data over time and thus generate time series. Time-Series Anomaly Detection (TSAD) is an important task in various time-series applications such as e-commerce, cybersecurity, vehicle maintenance, and healthcare monitoring. However, this task is very challenging as it requires considering both the intra-variable dependency (relationships within a variable over time) and the inter-variable dependency (relationships between multiple variables) existing in time-series data. Recent graph-based approaches have made impressive progress in tackling the challenges of this field. In this survey, we conduct a comprehensive and up-to-date review of TSAD using graphs, referred to as G-TSAD. First, we explore the significant potential of graph representation for time-series data and and its contributions to facilitating anomaly detection. Then, we review state-of-the-art graph anomaly detection techniques, mostly leveraging deep learning architectures, in the context of time series. For each method, we discuss its strengths, limitations, and the specific applications where it excels. Finally, we address both the technical and application challenges currently facing the field, and suggest potential future directions for advancing research and improving practical outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".