Can LLMs Understand Time Series Anomalies?
Zihao Zhou, Rose Yu
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained popularity in time series forecasting, but their potential for anomaly detection remains largely unexplored. Our study investigates whether LLMs can understand and detect anomalies in time series data, focusing on zero-shot and few-shot scenarios. Inspired by conjectures about LLMs' behavior from time series forecasting research, we formulate key hypotheses about LLMs' capabilities in time series anomaly detection. We design and conduct principled experiments to test each of these hypotheses. Our investigation reveals several surprising findings about LLMs for time series: (1) LLMs understand time series better as images rather than as text, (2) LLMs do not demonstrate enhanced performance when prompted to engage in explicit reasoning about time series analysis. (3) Contrary to common beliefs, LLMs' understanding of time series does not stem from their repetition biases or arithmetic abilities. (4) LLMs' behaviors and performance in time series analysis vary significantly across different models. This study provides the first comprehensive analysis of contemporary LLM capabilities in time series anomaly detection. Our results suggest that while LLMs can understand trivial time series anomalies, we have no evidence that they can understand more subtle real-world anomalies. Many common conjectures based on their reasoning capabilities do not hold. All synthetic dataset generators, final prompts, and evaluation scripts have been made available in https://github.com/rose-stl-lab/anomllm . Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2025 claims about LLMs' time series understanding. Our findings reveal a more nuanced understanding of LLMs' capabilities and limitations in time series data, including: • Visual Advantage: LLMs perform significantly better in anomaly detection when processing time series data as images rather than text tokens. • Limited Reasoning: LLMs do not benefit from chain-of-thought reasoning when analyzing time series data. Their performance often decreases when prompted to explain their reasoning. • Alternative Processing Mechanisms: Contrary to common beliefs, LLMs' understanding of time series does not stem from their repetition biases or arithmetic abilities, challenging prevailing assumptions about how these models process numerical data. • Model Heterogeneity: Time series understanding and anomaly detection capabilities differ across various LLM architectures, highlighting the importance of model selection. In summary, while LLMs can detect simple anomalies, their abilities to understand and reason about numerical time series are considerably limited. Our research calls for more caution in applying LLMs to time series and for controlled studies to examine LLMs' behavior for other data modalities. RELATED WORK LLMs for Time Series Analysis. LLMs have been applied to various time series analysis tasks, with recent literature establishing strong claims about their capabilities. Gruver et al. (2023) showed that LLMs such as GPT-3 and LLaMA-2 possess broad pattern extrapolation capabilities, enabling zero-shot time series forecasting by encoding time series as strings of numerical digits and achieving comparable performance to purpose-built models. Building on these claims, Liu et al. (2024c) proposed a Cross-Modal LLM Fine-Tuning framework, suggesting that LLMs can provide interpretable predictions while addressing the distribution discrepancy between textual and temporal input tokens in multivariate time series forecasting. Liu et al. (2024b) introduced Time-MMD, a multi-domain, multimodal time series dataset for LLM finetuning. For anomaly detection, Liu et al. (2024a) proposed AnomalyLLM, a knowledge distillation-based approach using GPT-2 as the teacher network. Zhang et al. (2024) provided a comprehensive survey of LLM applications in time series analysis. In the financial domain, Wimmer & Rekabsaz (2023) used vision language models, i.e., CLIP, but not M-LLMs to process visualizations of stock data for market change prediction. However, these prevailing beliefs about LLMs' pattern extrapolation capabilities and interpretable predictions remain controversial. Zeng et al. (2023) argued that the permutation-invariant nature of self-attention mechanisms may lead to loss of critical temporal information. Tan et al. (2024) found that removing the LLM component or replacing it with a basic attention layer often improved performance in popular LLM-based forecasting methods, challenging the assumed benefits of LLMs' pattern recognition abilities. The interpretability of LLMs in time series analysis remains a challenge, as their reasoning capabilities are often opaque and difficult to interpret. Time Series Anomaly Detection. Time series anomaly detection is a critical task in various domains, including finance, healthcare, and cybersecurity. Traditional methods rely on statistical techniques, while recent work has focused on developing deep learning-based a
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 119fd394-e4d7-4102-baf7-1265bd11e850Cited by top-tier papers6
- Can Multimodal LLMs Perform Time Series Anomaly Detection?Xiongxiao Xu, Haoran Wang, Yueqing Liang, Philip S. Yu et al.WWW 2026 · 18 citations
- SciTS: Scientific Time Series Understanding and Generation with LLMsWen Wu, Ziyang Zhang, Liwei Liu, Xuenan Xu et al.ICLR 2026 · 11 citations
- Inferring Events from Time Series using Language ModelsMingtian Tan, Mike A. Merrill, Zachary Gottesman, Tim Althoff et al.ACL 2026 · 7 citations
- Delving into Large Language Models for Effective Time-Series Anomaly DetectionJunwoo Park, Kyudan Jung, Dohyun Lee, Hyuck Lee et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 1 citation
- Time Series Reasoning via Process-Verifiable Thinking Data Synthesis and Scheduling for Tailored LLM ReasoningJiahui Zhou, Dan Li, Boxin Li, Xiao Zhang et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
Builds on17
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Large Language Models are Zero-Shot ReasonersTakeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 8,168 citations
- The Curious Case of Neural Text DegenerationAri Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes et al.ICLR 2020 · 4,112 citations
- Are Transformers Effective for Time Series Forecasting?Ailing Zeng, Muxi Chen, Lei Zhang, Qiang XuAAAI 2023 · 3,619 citations
Related papers
- Understanding Why Large Language Models Can Be Ineffective in Time Series Analysis: The Impact of Modality AlignmentLiangwei Nathan Zheng, Chang George Dong, Wei Emma Zhang, Lin Yue et al.KDD 2025 · 1 citation
- Harnessing Vision-Language Models for Time Series Anomaly DetectionZelin He, Sarah Alnegheimish, Matthew ReimherrAAAI 2026 · 10 citations
- Semantic-Enhanced Time-Series Forecasting via Large Language ModelsHao Liu, Zhang xiaoxing, Chun Yang, Xiaobin ZhuICLR 2026 · 5 citations
- TsLLM: Augmenting LLMs for General Time Series Understanding and PredictionFelix Parker, Nimeesha Chan, Chi Zhang, Kimia GhobadiICML 2026 · 3 citations
- Large Language Models Are Zero-Shot Time Series ForecastersNate Gruver, Marc Finzi, Shikai Qiu, Andrew Gordon WilsonNeurIPS 2023 · 898 citations
