Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MSCRED performance #1

Open
DaveFantini opened this issue Jan 16, 2020 · 6 comments
Open

MSCRED performance #1

DaveFantini opened this issue Jan 16, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@DaveFantini
Copy link

Hi,
I was reading about multivariate time series anomaly detection algorithm and the paper seemed interesting to me, can you provide some tests results which shows the actual "bullshit" performance you mentioned in the README ?
The the artificial data generated with the simulate_data.py was your only experiment ?

@sangramkapre
Copy link

sangramkapre commented Jun 15, 2020

Hi, were you able to successfully run the model on any data? I was curious to know if this model really works. The author of this repo has mentioned that he couldn't get the results claimed in the paper though he had implemented everything to the last detail. What was your experience?

@DaveFantini
Copy link
Author

DaveFantini commented Jun 17, 2020 via email

@sangramkapre
Copy link

Thanks! Also, did you get reasonable results on the synthetic dataset provided in the repo? I am going through that right now. Looking forward to knowing more about your efforts soon!

@PeterA182
Copy link

I'm curious on this as well. Please do tell if anyone finishes up an application of it. Trying to spend time on it myself.

@neozhao98
Copy link

Now, I can't agree with you @albertwujj more

@yasirroni
Copy link

yasirroni commented Feb 15, 2022

Now, I can't agree with you @albertwujj more

Hi @neozhao98, you means to disagree that the paper is bullshit right? Can you explain and provide code implementation that really work and tested, both using the author data and outside data?

If we look to the author repo, no confirmation from user that the code, implementation, or model that works.

Edit:

My bad, "I can't agree with you more" have same meaning to "I can't more agree with you" (that means you are agree with this author repo that the paper is bullshit).

So, it's more and more confirmed that the paper is a sscam.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants