Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 379

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Anomaly detection in dynamic networks: a survey

Open access
Ranshous, Stephen, Shen, Shitian, Koutra, Danai, Harenberg, Steve, Faloutsos, Christos, Samatova, Nagiza F.·2015·WIREs Computational Statistics

Abstract

Anomaly detection is an important problem with multiple applications, and thus has been studied for decades in various research domains. In the past decade there has been a growing interest in anomaly detection in data represented as networks, or graphs, largely because of their robust expressiveness and their natural ability to represent complex relationships. Originally, techniques focused on anomaly detection in static graphs, which do not change and are capable of representing only a single snapshot of data. As real‐world networks are constantly changing, there has been a shift in focus to dynamic graphs, which evolve over time. In this survey, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of anomaly detection in dynamic networks, concentrating on the state‐of‐the‐art methods. We first describe four types of anomalies that arise in dynamic networks, providing an intuitive explanation, applications, and a concrete example for each. Having established an idea for what constitutes an anomaly, a general two‐stage approach to anomaly detection in dynamic networks that is common among the methods is presented. We then construct a two‐tiered taxonomy, first partitioning the methods based on the intuition behind their approach, and subsequently subdividing them based on the types of anomalies they detect. Within each of the tier one categories—community, compression, decomposition, distance, and probabilistic model based—we highlight the major similarities and differences, showing the wealth of techniques derived from similar conceptual approaches.WIREs Comput Stat 2015, 7:223–247. doi: 10.1002/wics.1347 This article is categorized under:Algorithms and Computational Methods > Algorithms Data: Types and Structure > Graph and Network Data Statistical Learning and Exploratory Methods of the Data Sciences > Pattern Recognition

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wics.1347

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 379

Metadata

Authors
Ranshous, S., Shen, S., Koutra, D., Harenberg, S., Faloutsos, C., & Samatova, N. F.
Venue
WIREs Computational Statistics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03-21
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
223-247
ISSN
  • 1939-0068 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5108
OpenAlex
W2093168265
Cited by
379
References
7
FWCI
25.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Anomaly detection in dynamic networks: a survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/wics.1347
The paper
Ranshous, S., Shen, S., Koutra, D., Harenberg, S., Faloutsos, C., & Samatova, N. F. (2015). Anomaly detection in dynamic networks: a survey. WIREs Computational Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1347

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.