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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".