We study how far a simple statistical pipeline can go on univariate time series anomaly detection under a strict selection protocol. The method extracts a small pool of statistics over sliding windows, scores each window with a transductive robust (MAD) model, and selects a feature subset per domain on a held-out tuning split. On TSB-AD-U it reaches 0.529 per-series VUS-PR, above the best neural (0.45) and statistical (0.44) entries on the public leaderboard and within 0.06 of the strongest pretrained foundation model, several of which use more supervision than ours. Ablations locate the cause: across three selection strategies and a hindsight oracle the score moves by 0.031, and across the aggregation grid by 0.096, while changing the candidate pool moves it by 0.226. The candidate pool sets the ceiling; the search over it is second-order. We therefore generate a pool per domain by prompting a multimodal LLM with in-context example windows from that domain. The generated pools match the hand-crafted one under matched selection, and the two cover different domains: selecting over their union improves on the generated pool in all twelve generator-seed pairs and lifts the pipeline to 0.588, matching the performance of the best entry on the leaderboard.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Per-series VUS-PR on TSB-AD-U. Our pipeline scores each series with a transductive median/MAD model over a small pool of window statistics. With hand-crafted features it already clears the best neural (StreamVAE) and statistical (MMPAD) entries; with a pool discovered per domain by a language model and unioned with the hand-crafted one, it reaches the level of the best pretrained entry on the leaderboard. Red marks our two variants, dark grey the pretrained foundation models, and light grey the methods without pretraining. Leaderboard values are as published.
Figure 2: The pipeline. Steps 1–5 are transductive and label-free; labels enter only in the per-domain feature selection that fixes which columns of X are used (Section 3.4 ).
Figure 3: Automatic pool generation (Section 3.5 ). The model sees only rendered tuning windows and a fixed instruction; it never sees the evaluation split, the detector, or any score. Everything downstream of the pool is identical to the hand-crafted pipeline, so the candidate pool is the only variable that changes.
Method
Family
Pretrain.
VUS-PR
Pretrained on time series
Time-RCD + MAFT †
foundation
✓
0.59
TSPulse_FT †
foundation
✓
0.55
Time-RCD †
foundation
✓
0.52
CHARM †
foundation
✓
0.50
MOMENT_FT †
foundation
✓
0.39
Table 1: TSB-AD-U, per-series mean VUS-PR over the 350 evaluation series. † as published on the leaderboard; ✓marks pretraining on time series. ‡ The union pool’s candidate features are written offline by a general-purpose language model, not a time-series foundation model, while its detector is untrained and transductive. Our two rows are the hand-crafted pool (Section 5.2 ) and the union with the generated pool (Table 4 , best generator, seed-averaged); the hand-crafted pipeline leads the non-pretrained baselines by 8 points and the union by 14 , and the union comes close to the leaderboard’s best entry.
point aggregation
feature aggregation
mean
max
mean
0.435
0.389
q75
0.433
0.389
top-3
0.430
0.384
q90
0.428
0.384
top-2
0.424
0.380
Table 2: Score-aggregation ablation (per-series VUS-PR), full hand-crafted pool with no feature selection, so the absolute level is below the selected pipeline ( 0.529 ) throughout. Rows are ordered by the mean point-aggregation column. Mean point aggregation dominates max at every one of the nine feature aggregations, and mean/mean is best overall; it is the setting used for every other result in the paper.
Feature pool
#feat.
VUS-PR
Union (generated ∪ hand)
20
0.588 ± 0.016
Generated ( gemini-3.5 )
10
0.569 ± 0.025
Hand-crafted statistics
10
0.529
catch22 (generic library)
22
0.362
Table 3: The pool is the ceiling (per-series VUS-PR). Same detector, window, aggregation, and per-domain selection; only the candidate pool changes. The generic catch22 library is the weakest despite being the largest; the adaptively generated pool beats the hand-crafted one; their union is best. The generated and union rows are the mean ± standard deviation over four generation seeds.
Figure 4: Effect size of the three design choices on one axis. Each bar spans the configurations we ran for that choice, dots are individual configurations, and only the two endpoints are named; the number at the right is the range. Selection strategy moves per-series VUS-PR by 0.031 even when a hindsight oracle is allowed, and score aggregation by 0.096 , while the candidate feature pool moves it by 0.226 . The aggregation sweep runs on the full pool without selection, so that row sits at a lower absolute level than the other two.
Generator
llm
union
gemini-3.5-flash
0.569 ± 0.025
0.588 ± 0.016
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
0.540 ± 0.018
0.564 ± 0.025
claude-sonnet-5
0.497 ± 0.024
0.551 ± 0.028
Table 4: Generated pools (per-series VUS-PR), mean ± standard deviation over four generation seeds. llm selects over the generated pool alone; union over the generated and hand-crafted pools jointly. union beats llm for every generator, and the best union beats the hand-crafted pipeline ( 0.529 ).
Domain
n
Hand
llm
union
environment
18
0.360
0.348
0.408
facility
87
0.603
0.673
0.656
finance
8
0.768
0.745
0.743
human activity
43
0.238
0.513
0.528
medical
47
0.593
0.540
0.590
sensor
39
0.686
0.643
0.756
Table 5: Per-domain VUS-PR for the best generator ( gemini-3.5-flash , seed-averaged). “Hand” is the hand-crafted pipeline, llm the generated pool, union the two pools selected over jointly; best per row in bold. Neither source wins everywhere, and the union exceeds both on four domains, which is why it leads overall.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Domain
Tuning
Eval
environment
2
18
facility
9
87
finance
2
8
human activity
3
43
medical
7
47
sensor
5
39
Appendix
Table 6: TSB-AD-U series counts per domain, as distributed by the benchmark.
Hyperparameter
Values tried
Final
Windowing — fixed a priori, not searched
window length w
—
per-series dominant period
stride s
—
⌊w/2⌋
period floor / cap
—
4 / series length
Detector
location / scale
—
median / MAD
Appendix
Table 7: Pipeline hyperparameters. A dash under Values tried means the setting was fixed a priori and never varied; only the two aggregation choices and the feature subset are searched at all, both on the tuning split. The detector has no learned parameters.
Setting
Value
Generators
gemini-3.5-flash [ 7 ] ,
gemini-3.1-flash-lite [ 4 ] ,
claude-sonnet-5 [ 2 ]
Features requested
10 per domain
Accepted pool size
10 (a run yielding fewer is retried)
Example windows
5 normal + 5 anomalous per domain
Appendix
Table 8: Generation settings. Only the attached plots change between domains and seeds; the instruction is byte-identical throughout.
Generator
Input
Output
Total
USD
s
gemini-3.5-flash
11,180
546
17,075
0.070
34.9
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
11,180
512
11,692
0.004
2.7
claude-sonnet-5
1,767
1,744
3,511
0.031
14.0
Appendix
Table 9: Average tokens, list-price cost and latency for one generation call, which produces one domain’s pool, measured from the providers’ usage telemetry. Prices are the providers’ published current rates per million input/output tokens: 1.50 / 9.00 , 0.25 / 1.50 and 3.00 / 15.00 respectively.
Generator
Pool
greedy
top- k
mRMR
gemini-3.5-flash
llm
0.572
0.576
0.573
union
—
0.571
0.588
gemini-3.1-
llm
0.541
0.543
0.540
flash-lite
union
—
0.538
0.564
claude-sonnet-5
llm
0.491
0.496
0.495
union
—
0.526
0.551
Appendix
Table 10: Per-series VUS-PR by selection strategy. Generated and union entries are seed-averaged over four generation seeds; the hand-crafted entry is a single deterministic run.
Domain
Selected features
Tun.
Eval
environment
skewness, mean abs. change
0.430
0.360
facility
IQR, skewness
0.751
0.604
finance
std, mean abs. change, skewness
0.212
0.768
human activity
zero crossings, autocorr. lag-2, skewness
0.213
0.238
medical
skewness, std, entropy
0.513
0.593
sensor
std, IQR
0.732
0.686
Appendix
Table 11: Feature subsets selected by greedy forward on the hand-crafted pool. “Tun.” is the tuning objective used to make the choice; “Eval” is the full VUS-PR on that domain’s evaluation series. The per-series mean of the Eval column over all 350 series is 0.529 .
Generator
Seed
llm
union
Δ
gemini-3.5-flash
0
0.563
0.591
+0.028
1
0.589
0.599
+0.010
2
0.531
0.562
+0.031
3
0.594
0.600
+0.006
gemini-3.1-flash-lite
0
0.547
0.583
+0.036
1
0.533
0.545
+0.012
Appendix
Table 12: Per-seed per-series VUS-PR over the 350 evaluation series. Within a seed, the union pool is exactly that seed’s generated pool plus the ten hand-crafted features, so Δ is an exact paired difference. All twelve differences are positive.
Domain
n
greedy
top- k
mRMR
oracle
environment
18
0.360
0.360
0.360
0.360
facility
87
0.604
0.565
0.656
0.656
finance
8
0.768
0.780
0.780
0.780
human activity
43
0.238
0.239
0.239
0.239
medical
47
0.593
0.538
0.538
0.593
sensor
39
0.686
0.758
0.754
0.758
Appendix
Table 13: Selection-strategy ablation on the hand-crafted pool, per domain (VUS-PR on the evaluation split).
Time-series anomalies can appear not only as pointwise deviations but also as changes in recurring temporal structure, such as shifted periodicity or localized oscillatory fluctuations. However, existing LLM-based time-series anomaly detection methods mainly expose time-domain evidence through indexed values, plots, or de-seasonalized representations, leaving spectral structure implicit. We propose an evidence-augmented zero-shot TSAD framework that preserves indexed de-seasonalized observations while adding compact frequency-domain evidence computed with the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). The evidence is constructed at two resolutions: global frequency-domain evidence summarizes sequence-level periodic context, while local frequency-domain evidence captures time-localized spectral departures. Experiments on AnomLLM with InternVL2-LLaMA3-76B, Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct, Gemini-2.5-Flash, and GPT-4o, together with evaluation on the TSB-AD-U subset, show that explicit frequency-domain evidence improves LLM-based TSAD baselines. These results suggest that frequency-domain evidence can complement indexed and de-seasonalized time-domain inputs for zero-shot LLM-based TSAD.
Jungwook Seo, Sangwon Son, Minjeong Kim +3
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Hanyang University Seoul, Republic of Korea · Department of Data Science, Hanyang University Seoul, Republic of Korea
Time-series anomaly detection trades off predictive accuracy, computational efficiency, and interpretability. We use a large language model not as the detector but as the author of one: an autonomous research loop in which the model repeatedly edits a single short NumPy program under a leakage-free objective, keeping the best-scoring detector it finds. The loop discovers two compact detectors, one for univariate and one for multivariate series, that describe short windows by their local spectral features and compare them with the training-region distribution through a covariance-aware distance. On the TSB-AD benchmark these detectors lead the field across metrics, ahead of the strongest classical, deep, and foundation-model baselines including Time-RCD, yet they train no network and use no GPU, and the multivariate detector is faster than every similarly performing baseline. LLM-driven program search is thus a practical route to accurate, efficient, and transparent detectors.
David Berghaus
Lamarr Institute Germany · Fraunhofer IAIS Germany
Time-series anomaly detection (TSAD) is difficult to generalize across datasets because heterogeneous temporal dynamics imply different notions of normality and favor different detection criteria. While time-series foundation models provide transferable representations, coupling them with a fixed anomaly-scoring mechanism can overlook this variation. This motivates a different perspective on foundation-model-based TSAD: using foundation models to coordinate specialized anomaly criteria rather than directly imposing a universal one. Based on this view, we propose TS-Router, a generalist-representation, specialist-detection framework that estimates the relative competence of heterogeneous anomaly detectors from pretrained temporal representations and selects suitable specialists for each target series. To avoid relying on specialist-performance labels from real tasks, we derive soft competence supervision from specialists' relative performance on labeled simulated tasks. At deployment, routing requires no target anomaly labels, and only the selected specialists are fitted unsupervisedly on the target series. We bound Top-k set-competence regret under representation coverage and conditional competence stability. Across 16 real-world benchmarks and four complementary evaluation metrics, TS-Router achieves the best overall average rank. Controlled ablations with multiple frozen TSFM encoders further support the use of pretrained representations for competence estimation and adaptive specialist selection. The code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/TS-Router-D8FF.
Tian Lan, Yifei Gao, Yimeng Lu +6
Department of Industrial Engineering Tsinghua University · Huawei · Datadog AI Research Paris, France