In plain words: They tested six anomaly-detection methods, from simple classical ones to deep neural networks, on a standard archive of time-series anomalies, tuning each and sorting results by anomaly type. The simpler classical methods generally detected anomalies better than the deep learning ones.
Abstract · Is it worth it? Comparing six deep and classical methods for unsupervised anomaly detection in time series
Detecting anomalies in time series data is important in a variety of fields, including system monitoring, healthcare, and cybersecurity. While the abundance of available methods makes it difficult to choose the most appropriate method for a given application, each method has its strengths in detecting certain types of anomalies. In this study, we compare six unsupervised anomaly detection methods of varying complexity to determine whether more complex methods generally perform better and if certain methods are better suited to certain types of anomalies. We evaluated the methods using the UCR anomaly archive, a recent benchmark dataset for anomaly detection. We analyzed the results on a dataset and anomaly type level after adjusting the necessary hyperparameters for each method. Additionally, we assessed the ability of each method to incorporate prior knowledge about anomalies and examined the differences between point-wise and sequence-wise features. Our experiments show that classical machine learning methods generally outperform deep learning methods across a range of anomaly types.
Ferdinand Rewicki, Joachim Denzler, Julia Niebling
arXiv:2212.11080 · cs.LG, cs.AI, cs.IR · submitted Dec 21, 2022 · updated Feb 2, 2023
abstract · pdf · html · 17 Pages, The repository to reproduce the results is available at https://gitlab.com/dlr-dw/is-it-worth-it-benchmark
The fact that they have an ontology of anomaly types is a clue that if you want to put up a great number on their tests you should have features or mechanisms that target those anomaly types.