Anomaly Detection in Multivariate Industrial Signals: LLMs, TSFMs, or Classical Deep Learning

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published Jul 3, 2026
Allen Baranov Sarah Alnegheimish Alfredo Cuesta-Infante Weizhong Yan Masoud Abbaszadeh Kalyan Veeramachaneni

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) offer several distinctive advantages over other machine learning models. First, they are trained as general-purpose models and are readily available, which eliminates the need for task-specific training and allows them to improve rapidly over time. Second, they can be applied directly, without constructing domain-specific or signal-specific models. Third, they are easy to integrate into existing systems and can be deployed without requiring an additional training step. Finally, they are inherently interactive because users can direct them with natural language. In this paper, we investigate whether LLMs can achieve multivariate anomaly detection. To fully exploit the aforementioned benefits, we define a set of guiding principles (such as avoiding pre-learning or representation learning on the signals) to ensure the LLMs remain general-purpose models. Based on these principles, we then propose several algorithmic approaches for building multivariate anomaly detection pipelines. We compare our approaches with two alternatives: (i) classical deep learning pipelines trained specifically for anomaly detection, and (ii) a foundation-model-based approach, in which domain-specific or general purpose time-series foundation models are trained without explicit supervision for anomaly detection but are then used for this purpose. The comparison highlights trade-offs along three key dimensions: anomaly detection accuracy, computational cost, and the amount of domain knowledge required to develop the pipeline. We evaluate our methods through two case studies. The first uses a benchmarking testbed designed for anomaly detection, while the second examines real-world data from wind turbines with known anomalous events.

How to Cite

Baranov, A., Alnegheimish, S., Cuesta-Infante, A., Yan, W., Abbaszadeh, M., & Veeramachaneni, K. (2026). Anomaly Detection in Multivariate Industrial Signals: LLMs, TSFMs, or Classical Deep Learning. PHM Society European Conference, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.36001/phme.2026.v9i1.5026
Abstract 0 | PDF Downloads 0

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

time series anomaly detection, industrial monitoring, large language models, time series foundation models, zero-shot forecasting

References
Alnegheimish, S. (2025). Machine learning systems for unsupervised time series anomaly detection (PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Retrieved from https://dai.lids.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/sarah-alnegheimish-thesis.pdf

Alnegheimish, S., Berti-Equille, L., & Veeramachaneni, K. (2024). OrionBench: Benchmarking time series generative models in the service of the end-user. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (pp. 1215–1222). doi: 10.1109/BigData62323.2024.10825341

Alnegheimish, S., Nguyen, L., Berti-Equille, L., & Veeramachaneni, K. (2024). Can large language models be anomaly detectors for time series? In 2024 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) (pp. 1–10). doi: 10.1109/DSAA61799.2024.10722786

Ansari, A. F., Shchur, O., Küken, J., Auer, A., Han, B., Mercado, P., Rangapuram, S. S., Shen, H., Stella, L., Zhang, X., Goswami, M., Kapoor, S., Maddix, D. C., Guerron, P., Hu, T., Yin, J., Erickson, N., Desai, P. M., Wang, H., Rangwala, H., Karypis, G., Wang, Y., & Bohlke-Schneider, M. (2025). Chronos-2: From univariate to universal forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15821.

Berndt, D. J., & Clifford, J. (1994). Using dynamic time warping to find patterns in time series. In AAAI-94 Workshop on Knowledge Discovery in Databases (pp. 359–370). Seattle, Washington.

Box, G. E. P., & Pierce, D. A. (1970). Distribution of residual autocorrelations in autoregressive-integrated moving average time series models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65(332), 1509–1526. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1970.10481180

Chatzigeorgakidis, G., Lentzos, K., & Skoutas, D. (2024). MultiCast: Zero-shot multivariate time series forecasting using LLMs. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW) (pp. 119–127). doi: 10.1109/ICDEW61823.2024.00022

Geiger, A., Liu, D., Alnegheimish, S., Cuesta-Infante, A., & Veeramachaneni, K. (2020). TadGAN: Time series anomaly detection using generative adversarial networks. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (pp. 33–43). doi: 10.1109/BigData50022.2020.9378139

Gou, L., Khare, A., Pabolu, P., Patel, P., Ross, J., Shen, H., Song, Y., Sun, J., Curtis, K., Dharnidharka, V., Mathur, A., & Yang, H. (2025). Cisco Time Series Model Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.19841.

Gruver, N., Finzi, M., Qiu, S., & Wilson, A. G. (2023). Large language models are zero-shot time series forecasters. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.

Hundman, K., Constantinou, V., Laporte, C., Colwell, I., & Soderstrom, T. (2018). Detecting spacecraft anomalies using LSTMs and nonparametric dynamic thresholding. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (pp. 387–395). doi: 10.1145/3219819.3219845

Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., de las Casas, D., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., Lavaud, L. R., Lachaux, M.-A., Stock, P., Le Scao, T., Lavril, T., Wang, T., Lacroix, T., & El Sayed, W. (2023). Mistral 7B. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825.

Liu, J., Zhang, C., Qian, J., Ma, M., Qin, S., Bansal, C., Rajmohan, S., Lin, Q., Pei, D., & Zhang, D. (2025). Large language models can deliver accurate and interpretable time series anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 4623–4634). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. doi: 10.1145/3711896.3737239

Malhotra, P., Ramakrishnan, A., Anand, G., Vig, L., Agarwal, P., & Shroff, G. (2016). LSTM-based encoder-decoder for multi-sensor anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the 2016 ICML Workshop on Anomaly Detection.

Pena, E. H. M., de Assis, M. V. O., & Proença, M. L. (2013). Anomaly detection using forecasting methods ARIMA and HWDS. In 32nd International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC) (pp. 63–66). doi: 10.1109/SCCC.2013.18

Ringberg, H., Soule, A., Rexford, J., & Diot, C. (2007). Sensitivity of PCA for traffic anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (pp. 109–120). doi: 10.1145/1254882.1254895

Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O., & Le, Q. V. (2014). Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 27.

Martínez Torres, J., García Nieto, P. J., Alejano, L., & Reyes, A. N. (2011). Detection of outliers in gas emissions from urban areas using functional data analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 186(1), 144–149. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.10.091

Wong, L., Liu, D., Berti-Equille, L., Alnegheimish, S., & Veeramachaneni, K. (2022). AER: Auto-Encoder with Regression for time series anomaly detection. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (pp. 1152–1161). doi: 10.1109/BigData55660.2022.10020857

Xu, J., Wu, H., Wang, J., & Long, M. (2022). Anomaly Transformer: Time series anomaly detection with association discrepancy. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

Zhou, Z., & Yu, R. (2025). Can LLMs understand time series anomalies? In International Conference on Learning Representations.

Zucchini, W., & MacDonald, I. L. (2009). Hidden Markov Models for Time Series: An Introduction Using R. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Section
Technical Papers