# Benchmarking IoT Time-Series AD with Event-Level Augmentations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15457 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15457/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Detecting Spacecraft Anomalies Using LSTMs and Nonparametric Dynamic Thresholding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.04431/) (2018)
- [Anomaly Transformer: Time Series Anomaly Detection with Association Discrepancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.02642/) (2021)
- [Graph Neural Network-Based Anomaly Detection in Multivariate Time Series](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.06947/) (2021)
- [A Multimodal Anomaly Detector for Robot-Assisted Feeding Using an LSTM-based Variational Autoencoder](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00614/) (2017)
- [A Deep Neural Network for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection and Diagnosis in Multivariate Time Series Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.08055/) (2018)
- [Multivariate Time-series Anomaly Detection via Graph Attention Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.02040/) (2020)
- [Current Time Series Anomaly Detection Benchmarks are Flawed and are Creating the Illusion of Progress](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.13807/) (2020)
- [Deep Learning for Time Series Anomaly Detection: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.05244/) (2022)
- [Learning Graph Structures with Transformer for Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection in IoT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.03466/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Real-time Anomaly Detection Algorithms - the Numenta Anomaly Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1510.03336/) (2015)
- [Precision and Recall for Time Series](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.03639/) (2018)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Anomaly detection (AD) for safety-critical IoT time series should be judged at the event level: reliability and earliness under realistic perturbations. Yet many studies still emphasize point-level results on curated base datasets, limiting value for model selection in practice. We introduce an evaluation protocol with unified event-level augmentations that simulate real-world issues: calibrated sensor dropout, linear and log drift, additive noise, and window shifts. We also perform sensor-level probing via mask-as-missing zeroing with per-channel influence estimation to support root-cause analysis. We evaluate 14 representative models on five public anomaly datasets (SWaT, WADI, SMD, SKAB, TEP) and two industrial datasets (steam turbine, nuclear turbogenerator) using unified splits and event aggregation. There is no universal winner: graph-structured models transfer best under dropout and long events (e.g., on SWaT under additive noise F1 drops 0.804->0.677 for a graph autoencoder, 0.759->0.680 for a graph-attention variant, and 0.762->0.756 for a hybrid graph attention model); density/flow models work well on clean stationary plants but can be fragile to monotone drift; spectral CNNs lead when periodicity is strong; reconstruction autoencoders become competitive after basic sensor vetting; predictive/hybrid dynamics help when faults break temporal dependencies but remain window-sensitive. The protocol also informs design choices: on SWaT under log drift, replacing normalizing flows with Gaussian density reduces high-stress F1 from ~0.75 to ~0.57, and fixing a learned DAG gives a small clean-set gain (~0.5-1.0 points) but increases drift sensitivity by ~8x.