Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 29, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Time series anomaly detection (TSAD) plays a crucial role in healthcare, finance, industrial monitoring, and other sectors. Within and between these settings, anomalies span vastly different temporal scales, from sub-second point spikes to multi-hour drift patterns. However, most existing TSAD methods commit to a single temporal granularity, and multi-scale designs either analyze different scales in isolation or are constrained to a predefined coarse-to-fine hierarchy, both failing to sufficiently capture multi-scale interactions. To resolve this limitation, we propose Multi-Scale Autoencoder with Cross-Scale Attention for TSAD (MSCAD), a simple yet powerful semi-supervised TSAD framework founded on parallel autoencoder branches corresponding to different patch sizes. A stack of symmetric bidirectional cross-scale attention blocks enables every pair of scales to exchange information before reconstruction without allowing any single scale to be privileged. On the comprehensive TSB-AD benchmark (40 datasets, 530 series), MSCAD achieves large performance gains against 50 baselines across multiple metrics, with VUS-PR of 0.57(+9.6%) on the univariate split and 0.47(+9.3%) on the multivariate split compared to the state-of-the-art.