Document Open Access Logo

Leveraging Causal Information for Multivariate Timeseries Anomaly Detection

Authors Lukas Heppel , Andreas Gerhardus , Ferdinand Rewicki , Jan Deeken , Günther Waxenegger-Wilfing

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.DX.2024.11.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.68 MB
  • 18 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Lukas Heppel
  • University of Würzburg, Germany
  • German Aerospace Center (DLR), Lampoldshausen, Germany
Andreas Gerhardus
  • German Aerospace Center (DLR), Jena, Germany
Ferdinand Rewicki
  • German Aerospace Center (DLR), Jena, Germany
Jan Deeken
  • German Aerospace Center (DLR), Lampoldhausen, Germany
Günther Waxenegger-Wilfing
  • University of Würzburg, Germany
  • German Aerospace Center (DLR), Lampoldhausen, Germany

Cite As Get BibTex

Lukas Heppel, Andreas Gerhardus, Ferdinand Rewicki, Jan Deeken, and Günther Waxenegger-Wilfing. Leveraging Causal Information for Multivariate Timeseries Anomaly Detection. In 35th International Conference on Principles of Diagnosis and Resilient Systems (DX 2024). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 125, pp. 11:1-11:18, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024) https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.DX.2024.11

Abstract

Anomaly detection in multivariate timeseries is used in various domains, such as finance, IT, or aerospace, to identify irregular behavior in the used applications. Prior research in anomaly detection has focused on estimating the joint probability of all variables. Then, anomalies are scored based on the probability they receive. Thereby, the variables' dependencies are only considered implicitly. This work follows recent work in anomaly detection that integrates information about the causal relations between the variables in the timeseries into the detection mechanism. The causal mechanisms of the variables are then used to identify anomalies. An observation is identified as anomalous if at least one of the variables it contains deviates from its regular causal mechanism. These regular causal mechanisms are estimated via the conditional distribution of a variable given its causal parent variables, i.e., the variables having a causal influence on a variable. We further develop previous work by gathering information about the causal parents of the variables by applying causal discovery algorithms adapted to the timeseries setting. We apply Conditional Kernel Density Estimation and Conditional Variational Autoencoders to estimate the conditional probabilities. With this causal approach, we outperform methods that rely on the joint probability of the variables in our synthetically generated datasets and the C-MAPPS dataset, which provides simulation data of turbofan engines. Moreover, we investigate the causal approach’s inferred scores on the C-MAPPS dataset to gather insights into the measurements responsible for the prediction of anomalies. Furthermore, we investigate the influence of deviations from the true causal graph on the anomaly detection performance using synthetic data.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computing methodologies → Anomaly detection
Keywords
  • Anomaly Detection
  • Causal Discovery
  • Multivariate Timeseries

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Simon D Duque Anton, Sapna Sinha, and Hans Dieter Schotten. Anomaly-based intrusion detection in industrial data with svm and random forests. In 2019 International conference on software, telecommunications and computer networks (SoftCOM), pages 1-6. IEEE, 2019. Google Scholar
  2. Jianmin Bao, Dong Chen, Fang Wen, Houqiang Li, and Gang Hua. Cvae-gan: fine-grained image generation through asymmetric training. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2745-2754, 2017. Google Scholar
  3. Arpita Bhargava and AS Raghuvanshi. Anomaly detection in wireless sensor networks using s-transform in combination with svm. In 2013 5th International Conference and Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks, pages 111-116. IEEE, 2013. Google Scholar
  4. Enyan Dai and Jie Chen. Graph-augmented normalizing flows for anomaly detection of multiple time series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07857, 2022. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.07857.
  5. Zahra Zamanzadeh Darban, Geoffrey I Webb, Shirui Pan, Charu C Aggarwal, and Mahsa Salehi. Deep learning for time series anomaly detection: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05244, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.05244.
  6. Ailin Deng and Bryan Hooi. Graph neural network-based anomaly detection in multivariate time series. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35(5), pages 4027-4035, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1609/AAAI.V35I5.16523.
  7. Dean K Frederick, Jonathan A DeCastro, and Jonathan S Litt. User’s guide for the commercial modular aero-propulsion system simulation (c-mapss). Technical report, NASA, 2007. Google Scholar
  8. Felix O Heimes. Recurrent neural networks for remaining useful life estimation. In 2008 international conference on prognostics and health management, pages 1-6. IEEE, 2008. Google Scholar
  9. Jakub Jakubowski, Przemysław Stanisz, Szymon Bobek, and Grzegorz J Nalepa. Anomaly detection in asset degradation process using variational autoencoder and explanations. Sensors, 22(1):291, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/S22010291.
  10. Andrew KS Jardine, Daming Lin, and Dragan Banjevic. A review on machinery diagnostics and prognostics implementing condition-based maintenance. Mechanical systems and signal processing, 20(7):1483-1510, 2006. Google Scholar
  11. Mohammed Shaker Kareem and Lamia AbedNoor Muhammed. Anomaly detection in streaming data using isolation forest. In 2024 Seventh International Women in Data Science Conference at Prince Sultan University (WiDS PSU), pages 223-228. IEEE, 2024. Google Scholar
  12. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. Google Scholar
  13. Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114, 2013. Google Scholar
  14. Daehyung Park, Yuuna Hoshi, and Charles C Kemp. A multimodal anomaly detector for robot-assisted feeding using an lstm-based variational autoencoder. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(3):1544-1551, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2018.2801475.
  15. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825-2830, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.5555/1953048.2078195.
  16. Jonas Peters, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Elements of causal inference: foundations and learning algorithms. The MIT Press, 2017. Google Scholar
  17. Jeffrey S Racine et al. Nonparametric econometrics: A primer. Foundations and Trendsregistered in Econometrics, 3(1):1-88, 2008. Google Scholar
  18. Ajay Singh Raghuvanshi, Rajeev Tripathi, and Sudarshan Tiwari. Machine learning approach for anomaly detection in wireless sensor data. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, 1(4):47, 2011. Google Scholar
  19. Kishore K Reddy, Soumalya Sarkar, Vivek Venugopalan, and Michael Giering. Anomaly detection and fault disambiguation in large flight data: A multi-modal deep auto-encoder approach. In Annual conference of the phm society, volume 8(1), 2016. Google Scholar
  20. Ferdinand Rewicki, Joachim Denzler, and Julia Niebling. Is it worth it? comparing six deep and classical methods for unsupervised anomaly detection in time series. Applied Sciences, 13(3):1778, 2023. Google Scholar
  21. Jonas Rothfuss, Fabio Ferreira, Simon Walther, and Maxim Ulrich. Conditional density estimation with neural networks: Best practices and benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00954, 2019. Google Scholar
  22. Jakob Runge. Discovering contemporaneous and lagged causal relations in autocorrelated nonlinear time series datasets. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1388-1397. Pmlr, 2020. URL: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v124/runge20a.html.
  23. Jakob Runge, Sebastian Bathiany, Erik Bollt, Gustau Camps-Valls, Dim Coumou, Ethan Deyle, Clark Glymour, Marlene Kretschmer, Miguel D Mahecha, Jordi Muñoz-Marí, et al. Inferring causation from time series in earth system sciences. Nature communications, 10(1):2553, 2019. Google Scholar
  24. Jakob Runge, Andreas Gerhardus, Gherardo Varando, Veronika Eyring, and Gustau Camps-Valls. Causal inference for time series. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 4(7):487-505, 2023. Google Scholar
  25. Jakob Runge, Peer Nowack, Marlene Kretschmer, Seth Flaxman, and Dino Sejdinovic. Detecting and quantifying causal associations in large nonlinear time series datasets. Science advances, 5(11):eaau4996, 2019. Google Scholar
  26. Abhinav Saxena, Kai Goebel, Don Simon, and Neil Eklund. Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine run-to-failure simulation. In 2008 international conference on prognostics and health management, pages 1-9. IEEE, 2008. Google Scholar
  27. Kihyuk Sohn, Honglak Lee, and Xinchen Yan. Learning structured output representation using deep conditional generative models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015. Google Scholar
  28. Peter Spirtes and Clark Glymour. An algorithm for fast recovery of sparse causal graphs. Social science computer review, 9(1):62-72, 1991. Google Scholar
  29. Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, and Richard Scheines. Causation, prediction, and search. MIT press, 2001. Google Scholar
  30. Jun-ichi Takeuchi and Kenji Yamanishi. A unifying framework for detecting outliers and change points from time series. IEEE transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 18(4):482-492, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2006.1599387.
  31. Haowen Xu, Wenxiao Chen, Nengwen Zhao, Zeyan Li, Jiahao Bu, Zhihan Li, Ying Liu, Youjian Zhao, Dan Pei, Yang Feng, et al. Unsupervised anomaly detection via variational auto-encoder for seasonal kpis in web applications. In Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference, pages 187-196, 2018. Google Scholar
  32. Asrul H Yaacob, Ian KT Tan, Su Fong Chien, and Hon Khi Tan. Arima based network anomaly detection. In 2010 Second International Conference on Communication Software and Networks, pages 205-209. IEEE, 2010. Google Scholar
  33. Wenzhuo Yang, Kun Zhang, and Steven CH Hoi. A causal approach to detecting multivariate time-series anomalies and root causes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15033, 2022. Google Scholar
  34. Yufeng Zhang, Jialu Pan, Li Ken Li, Wanwei Liu, Zhenbang Chen, Xinwang Liu, and Ji Wang. On the properties of kullback-leibler divergence between multivariate gaussian distributions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. Google Scholar
  35. Hang Zhao, Yujing Wang, Juanyong Duan, Congrui Huang, Defu Cao, Yunhai Tong, Bixiong Xu, Jing Bai, Jie Tong, and Qi Zhang. Multivariate time-series anomaly detection via graph attention network. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 841-850. IEEE, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM50108.2020.00093.
  36. Rui Zhao, Ruqiang Yan, Zhenghua Chen, Kezhi Mao, Peng Wang, and Robert X Gao. Deep learning and its applications to machine health monitoring. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 115:213-237, 2019. Google Scholar
  37. Bo Zong, Qi Song, Martin Renqiang Min, Wei Cheng, Cristian Lumezanu, Daeki Cho, and Haifeng Chen. Deep autoencoding gaussian mixture model for unsupervised anomaly detection. In International conference on learning representations, 2018. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact