PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 2, 20261 citationsOpen Access

A Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Anomaly Detection in Industrial Smart Meter Time-Series Data

View Full Paper
GAGulshat AmirkhanovaAAAzim AidynulyСАСалтанат Адилжанова

Key Points

  • The research aims to evaluate various machine learning models for effectively detecting anomalies in industrial smart meter data.
  • Benchmarking three machine learning models: SARIMA, Isolation Forest, and LSTM-Autoencoder.
  • Utilization of a multivariate dataset from bakery manufacturing equipment.
  • Application of a synthetic anomaly injection framework with a 5% contamination rate.
  • SARIMA model achieved the highest average F1-Score of 0.256.
  • Isolation Forest followed with an F1-Score of 0.233.
  • LSTM-Autoencoder had the lowest performance with an F1-Score of 0.110.
  • All models showed low precision between 0.074 and 0.204, indicating high false positive rates.

Abstract

The integration of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) provides high-resolution electrical data, essential for enhancing industrial efficiency and monitoring equipment health. However, the utility of this data is frequently compromised by anomalies, underscoring the necessity for robust, automated detection methodologies. This study benchmarks three distinct categories of machine learning models: a statistical baseline (SARIMA), an unsupervised classifier (Isolation Forest), and a deep learning reconstruction model (LSTM-Autoencoder). The evaluation was conducted using a multivariate dataset acquired from bakery manufactory equipment, employing a synthetic anomaly injection framework with a 5% contamination rate. The results indicate significant challenges in accurately detecting anomalies within this dataset. The SARIMA model achieved the highest average F1-Score (0.256), slightly outperforming the Isolation Forest (0.233), while the LSTM-Autoencoder performed the poorest (0.110). Critically, all models exhibited extremely low precision (ranging from 0.074 to 0.204), indicating an unacceptably high rate of false positives. The findings suggest that standard configurations of these models struggle to differentiate between true anomalies and the inherent variability of industrial operations, highlighting the need for advanced optimization and feature engineering for practical deployment.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Amirkhanova et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6980ffb4c1c9540dea81263bhttps://doi.org/10.3390/info17020131
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper