The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Autocorrelation-based LSTM-Autoencoder for Anomaly Detection on Time-Series Data
Abstract
Data quality significantly impacts the results of data analytics. Researchers have proposed machine learning based anomaly detection techniques to identify incorrect data. Existing approaches fail to (1) identify the underlying domain constraints violated by the anomalous data, and (2) generate explanations of these violations in a form comprehensible to domain experts. We propose IDEAL, which is an LSTM-Autoencoder based approach that detects anomalies in multivariate time-series data, generates domain constraints, and reports subsequences that violate the constraints as anomalies. We propose an automated autocorrelation-based windowing approach to adjust the network input size, thereby improving the correctness and performance of constraint discovery over manual and brute-force approaches. The anomalies are visualized in a manner comprehensible to domain experts in the form of decision trees extracted from a random forest classifier. Domain experts can then provide feedback to retrain the learning model and improve the accuracy of the process. We evaluate the effectiveness of IDEAL using datasets from Yahoo servers, NASA Shuttle, and Colorado State University Energy Institute. We demonstrate that IDEAL can detect previously known anomalies from these datasets. Using mutation analysis, we show that IDEAL can detect different types of injected faults. We also demonstrate that the accuracy improves after incorporating domain expert feedback.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
LOF: identifying density-based local outliers
Breunig, M. M., Kriegel, H.-P., Ng, R. T., & Sander, J. (2000) · ACM SIGMOD Record · doi:10.1145/335191.335388 · Cited by 5,207
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- 10.1109/ISCO.2017.7855983 · DOI
- 10.1145/3097983.3098052 · DOI
- bergstra, 2012, Random Search for Hyper-parameter Optimization, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13, 281
- park, 2017, Fundamentals of Probability and Stochastic Processes with Applications to Communications
- 10.1109/DEPCOS-RELCOMEX.2006.38 · DOI
- bishop, 2011, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
- 10.1007/s13347-017-0293-z · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10100-017-0479-6 · DOI
- 10.1109/SIEDS.2019.8735594 · DOI
- 10.1016/bs.adcom.2018.03.015 · DOI
- park, 2018, A MultimodalAnomaly Detector for Robot-Assisted Feeding Using an LSTM-Based Variational Autoencoder, RA-L, 3, 1544
- 10.1109/PHM-Paris.2019.00055 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-642-16248-0_54 · DOI
- 10.1080/10618600.2019.1617160 · DOI
- adhikari, 2013, An introductory study on time series modeling and forecasting
- 10.1109/CCECE.2018.8447597 · DOI
- 10.1144/geochem2016-024 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.neucom.2017.08.026 · DOI
- 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33011409 · DOI
- 10.1145/3338840.3355641 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-30671-1_4 · DOI
- 10.1145/342009.335388 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870151 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-981-15-3992-3_42 · DOI
- 10.1109/DSAA.2016.92 · DOI
- 10.1162/neco_a_01199 · DOI
- 10.1109/MDM.2018.00029 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICCIKE47802.2019.9004325 · DOI
- 10.1145/2783258.2788611 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICDMW.2015.104 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.06.004 · DOI
- kay, 2015, How Good is 85%? A Survey Tool to Connect Classifier Evaluation to Acceptability of Accuracy, Proc of CHI, 347
- 10.1016/j.scs.2017.08.009 · DOI
- bishop, 1995, Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition, 10.1093/oso/9780198538493.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/978-3-030-03493-1_41 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kus, D., Wagner, E., Pennekamp, J., Wolsing, K., Fink, I. B., Dahlmanns, M., Wehrle, K., & Henze, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the 8th ACM on Cyber-Physical System Security Workshop · doi:10.1145/3494107.3522773 · Cited by 28
A machine learning approach using autoencoders to perform quality control on meteorological data
Spohn, T. K., Walsh, E., Horan, K., O’Donoghue, J., Charnecki, T., Haslam, M., & Gallagher, S. (2026) · Environmental Data Science · doi:10.1017/eds.2026.10030 · Cited by 1
“The encoder processes the input sequence to produce a compressed representation, and the decoder reconstructs the sequence from this representation (Homayouni et al., 2020).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Homayouni, H., Ghosh, S., Ray, I., Gondalia, S., Duggan, J., & Kahn, M. G.
- Affiliations
- Colorado State University (US)
- University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
- Venue
- 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2020-12-10
- Pages
- 5068-5077
- OpenAlex
- W3135977745
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 2.29
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Time Series Analysis and Forecasting
- Keywords
- anomaly detection, multivariate time series, LSTM autoencoder, data quality, data cleaning, decision tree, expert feedback, fault injection, ideals
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