ANOMALY DETECTION ALGORITHMS IN STREAMING DATA: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION

Timofey A. Konovalov; A V Gerasimov

doi:10.55421/3034-4689_2026_29_8_98

ANOMALY DETECTION ALGORITHMS IN STREAMING DATA: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION

Published in Herald of Technological University · Volume 29, Issue 8, 2026 · Pages 98–105 · Rubric: 3. Information teory, computer technology and control

DOI: https://doi.org/10.55421/3034-4689_2026_29_8_98 · EDN: HPAVGY

Received: 26.06.2026 Accepted: 30.07.2026 Published: 28.08.2026

Authors

Timofey A. Konovalov

A V Gerasimov

Timofey A. Konovalov

Kazan National Research Technological University Student · Department of Automated Data Collection and Processing Systems · Kazan

A V Gerasimov

KNITU

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a systematic review and comparative analysis of state-of-the-art anomaly detection algorithms for streaming data - one of the fundamental problems in data mining, cybersecurity, and industrial monitoring. Unlike existing surveys, which mostly address the batch setting, all methods here are examined from a streaming perspective: per-observation processing cost, resident memory footprint, and the ability to update the model incrementally. An explicit set of comparison criteria is introduced - computational complexity, memory requirements, adaptivity, robustness to concept drift, and interpretability - together with the scales and rules used to assign qualitative ratings. Four major algorithm classes are examined: statistical methods (Z-score, EWMA, CUSUM, Shewhart control charts), distance- and density-based methods (k-NN, LOF, ILOF), ensemble methods - Isolation Forest and its streaming adaptations Half-Space Trees, iForestASD, and Robust Random Cut Forest - and neural network architectures including autoencoders (Autoencoder, VAE, LSTM-Autoencoder) and transformer-based models (Anomaly Transformer, TranAD). For each class, both strengths and intrinsic limitations are systematised: the dependence of statistical methods on distributional assumptions, the degradation of distance-based methods in high-dimensional spaces, the sensitivity of Isolation Forest to complex data structures and masking effects, and the high resource demands and limited interpretability of neural models. Concept drift adaptation strategies are discussed: sliding window, weighted learning, and the ADWIN algorithm. Evaluation results on real-world datasets are described - KDD Cup 1999 (cybersecurity) and SMAP NASA (industrial IoT) - along with the well-documented methodological limitations of these benchmarks and evaluation protocols, which imply that published metric values should be treated as upper bounds. Key practical application domains are considered: network intrusion detection, predictive equipment maintenance, financial transaction monitoring, and medical diagnostics. The results demonstrate that algorithm selection is governed by a trade-off between computational efficiency, accuracy, and adaptability; practical selection guidelines are formulated for five typical deployment scenarios. Promising directions for future research are identified: federated learning, explainable models (SHAP, LIME), transformer-based architectures, and hardware acceleration on FPGAs.

KEYWORDS

ANOMALY DETECTION, STREAMING DATA, MACHINE LEARNING, ISOLATION FOREST, AUTOENCODER, CONCEPT DRIFT, CYBERSECURITY, NEURAL NETWORKS, HALF-SPACE TREES, ROBUST RANDOM CUT FOREST, ADWIN, COMPARISON CRITERIA, INTERPRETABILITY

Text

Text (PDF)

Read Download

1. Aggarwal C.C. Outlier Analysis. 2nd ed. Springer, New York, 2017. 466 p. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47578-3.

2. Gama J., Žliobaitė I., Bifet A., Pechenizkiy M., Bouchachia A., ACM Comput. Surv., 46, 4, 44 (2014). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2523813.

3. IDC. The Digitization of the World — From Edge to Core. IDC White Paper, 2018. 28 p.

4. Chandola V., Banerjee A., Kumar V., ACM Comput. Surv., 41, 3, Article 15 (2009). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1541880.1541882.

5. Gupta M., Gao J., Aggarwal C.C., Han J., IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 26, 9, 2250–2267 (2014). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2013.184.

6. Montgomery D.C. Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. 7th ed. Wiley, Hoboken, 2012. 768 p.

7. Hunter J.S., J. Qual. Technol., 18, 4, 203–210 (1986). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1986.11979014.

8. Page E.S., Biometrika, 41, 1–2, 100–115 (1954). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/41.1-2.100.

9. Ramaswamy S., Rastogi R., Shim K., ACM SIGMOD Rec., 29, 2, 427–438 (2000). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/335191.335437.

10. Breunig M.M., Kriegel H.-P., Ng R.T., Sander J., ACM SIGMOD Rec., 29, 2, 93–104 (2000). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/342009.335388.

11. Pokrajac D., Lazarevic A., Latecki L.J. V sb.: Proc. IEEE Symp. Comput. Intell. Data Mining, Nashville, 2007. P. 504–515. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CIDM.2007.368917.

12. Liu F.T., Ting K.M., Zhou Z.-H. V sb.: Proc. 8th IEEE ICDM, Pisa, 2008. P. 413–422. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2008.17.

13. Tan S.C., Ting K.M., Liu T.F. V sb.: Proc. IJCAI-2011, Barcelona, 2011. P. 1511–1516. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5591/978-1-57735-516-8/IJCAI11-254.

14. Hariri S., Kind M.C., Brunner R.J., ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 15, 1, Article 2 (2021). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3402573.

15. Goodfellow I., Bengio Y., Courville A. Deep Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2016. 800 p.

16. An J., Cho S., Spec. Lect. IE, 2, 1, 1–18 (2015).

17. Malhotra P., Ramakrishnan A., Anand G., Vig L., Agarwal P., Shroff G., arXiv:1607.00148 (2016).

18. Xu J., Wu H., Wang J., Long M. V sb.: Proc. ICLR-2022, OpenReview, 2022. P. 1–18.

19. Tuli S., Casale G., Jennings N.R. V sb.: Proc. IJCAI-2022, Vienna, 2022. P. 2350–2356. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2022/327.

20. Lu J., Liu A., Dong F., Gu F., Gama J., Zhang G., IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 31, 12, 2346–2363 (2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2018.2876857.

21. Baena-García M., del Campo-Ávila J., Fidalgo R., Bifet A. V sb.: Proc. ECML-2006 Workshop, Springer, Berlin, 2006. P. 77–86.

22. Bifet A., Gavalda R. V sb.: Proc. 7th SIAM Conf. Data Mining, Minneapolis, 2007. P. 443–448. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611972771.42.

23. Pang G., Shen C., Cao L., Hengel A., ACM Comput. Surv., 54, 2, Article 38 (2022). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3439950.

24. KDD Cup 1999 Data. UCI Machine Learning Repository. URL: kdd.ics.uci.edu/databases/kddcup99/kddcup99.html (data obrascheniya: 19.04.2026).

25. Hundman K., Constantinou V., Laporte C., Colwell I., Soderstrom T. V sb.: Proc. KDD-2018, ACM, London, 2018. P. 387–395. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3219819.3219845.

26. Goldstein M., Dengel A. V sb.: Proc. KI-2012, Springer, Berlin, 2012. P. 75–86. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33347-7_7.

27. McMahan H.B., Moore E., Ramage D., Hampson S., Arcas B.A. V sb.: Proc. AISTATS-2017, PMLR, 2017. P. 1273–1282.

28. Reyna M.A., Josef C.S., Jeter R. et al., Crit. Care Med., 48, 2, 210–217 (2020). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004119.

29. Kieu T., Yang B., Guo C., Jensen C.S. V sb.: Proc. SIGMOD-2019, ACM, Amsterdam, 2019. P. 1377–1394. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3299869.3300070.

30. Mothukuri V., Parizi R.M., Pouriyeh S. et al., Comput. Secur., 104, Article 102252 (2021). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102252.

31. Lundberg S.M., Lee S.-I. V sb.: Proc. NeurIPS-2017, Curran Associates, 2017. P. 4765–4774.

32. Nurvitadhi E., Kwon D., Jang J. et al. V sb.: Proc. FPGA-2019, ACM, Seaside, 2019. P. 171–180. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3289602.3293974.

33. Emmott A.F., Das S., Dietterich T., Fern A., Wong W.-K. V sb.: Proc. KDD Workshop Outlier Detection, Chicago, 2013. P. 1–8.

34. Nakamura T., Imamura M., Mercer R., Keogh E. V sb.: Proc. 20th IEEE ICDM, Sorrento, 2020. P. 412–421. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM50108.2020.00050.

35. Liu F.T., Ting K.M., Zhou Z.-H., ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 6, 1, Article 3 (2012). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2133360.2133363.

36. Ruff L., Vandermeulen R., Goernitz N. et al. V sb.: Proc. ICML-2018, PMLR, Stockholm, 2018. P. 4393–4402.

37. Pimentel M.A.F., Clifton D.A., Clifton L., Tarassenko L., Med. Image Anal., 22, 1, 430–452 (2014). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2014.06.012.

38. Wang H., Bah M.J., Hammad M., IEEE Access, 7, 35354–35383 (2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2905098.

39. Blázquez-García A., Conde A., Mori U., Lozano J.A., ACM Comput. Surv., 54, 3, Article 56 (2021). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3444690.

40. Salehi M., Rashidi L., Proc. Comput. Sci., 80, 1027–1033 (2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.05.414.

41. Campos G.O., Zimek A., Sander J. et al., Data Min. Knowl. Discov., 30, 4, 891–927 (2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618-015-0444-8.

42. Guha S., Mishra N., Roy G., Schrijvers O. V sb.: Proc. ICML-2016, PMLR, New York, 2016. P. 2712–2721.

43. Aggarwal C.C., Sathe S., ACM SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 17, 1, 24–47 (2015). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2830544.2830549.

44. Tavallaee M., Bagheri E., Lu W., Ghorbani A.A. V sb.: Proc. IEEE CISDA-2009, Ottawa, 2009. P. 1–6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CISDA.2009.5356528.

45. Sommer R., Paxson V. V sb.: Proc. IEEE Symp. Security andPrivacy, Oakland, 2010. P. 305–316. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2010.25.

46. Kim S., Choi K., Choi H.-S., Lee B., Yoon S. V sb.: Proc. AAAI-2022, 2022. P. 7194–7201. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i7.20680.

47. Wu R., Keogh E.J., IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 35, 3, 2421–2429 (2023). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2021.3112126.

48. Bifet A., Holmes G., Kirkby R., Pfahringer B., J. Mach. Learn. Res., 11, 1601–1604 (2010).

49. Ding Z., Fei M., IFAC Proc. Vol., 46, 20, 12–17 (2013). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3182/20130902-3-CN-3020.00044.

50. Manzoor E., Lamba H., Akoglu L. V sb.: Proc. KDD-2018, ACM, London, 2018. P. 1963–1972. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3219819.3220107.

51. Zhao Y., Nasrullah Z., Li Z., J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20, 96, 1–7 (2019).

52. Ribeiro M.T., Singh S., Guestrin C. V sb.: Proc. KDD-2016, ACM, San Francisco, 2016. P. 1135–1144. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778.

53. Garg A., Zhang W., Samaran J., Savitha R., Foo C.-S., IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., 33, 6, 2508–2517 (2022). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3105827.

54. Zong B., Song Q., Min M.R. et al. V sb.: Proc. ICLR-2018, Vancouver, 2018. P. 1–19.

55. Yang Q., Liu Y., Chen T., Tong Y., ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., 10, 2, Article 12 (2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3298981.

PDF JATS XML

Head of the Publishing house

Raziya Romanova

romanova_rg@mail.ru

Deputy Editor-in-Chief

Aleksandr Dresvyannikov

a.dresvyannikov@mail.ru

Executive Secretary

Svetlana Goryunova

svetlanagoryunova@yandex.ru

Editor-in-Chief

Yurij Kazakov

office@kstu.ru

Deputy Editor-in-Chief

Oleg Mickailov

olegmkhlv@gmail.com

downloads

GOST

Konovalov T. A., ANOMALY DETECTION ALGORITHMS IN STREAMING DATA: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION // Herald of Technological University. 2026. no. 8. pp. 98-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55421/3034-4689_2026_29_8_98. EDN: HPAVGY. (Date of access 25.10.2026).

MLA

Timofey A. Konovalov, . "ANOMALY DETECTION ALGORITHMS IN STREAMING DATA: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION." Herald of Technological University 29.8 (2026): 98-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55421/3034-4689_2026_29_8_98. EDN: HPAVGY.

APA

Konovalov T. A., (2026). ANOMALY DETECTION ALGORITHMS IN STREAMING DATA: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION. Herald of Technological University, 29(8), 98-105. https://doi.org/10.55421/3034-4689_2026_29_8_98 EDN: HPAVGY.

Chicago

Timofey A. Konovalov, . "ANOMALY DETECTION ALGORITHMS IN STREAMING DATA: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION." Herald of Technological University 29, no. 8 (2026): 98-105. https://doi.org/10.55421/3034-4689_2026_29_8_98. EDN: HPAVGY.

WIKI

{{cite journal | author = Konovalov T. A., | title = ANOMALY DETECTION ALGORITHMS IN STREAMING DATA: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION | journal = Herald of Technological University | year = 2026 | volume = 29 | issue = 8 | pages = 98-105 | doi = 10.55421/3034-4689_2026_29_8_98 }} EDN: HPAVGY

Copy

Export: BibTeX EndNote RefMan RusMARC

ANOMALY DETECTION ALGORITHMS IN STREAMING DATA: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION

Confirmation