Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Adaptive Deviation Learning for Visual Anomaly Detection with Data Contamination

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a new self-supervised method, adaptive deviation learning, that keeps visual anomaly detection accurate even when up to 20% of training images are anomalies.

desk verdict The soft-deviation + reweighting idea is worth a second look, but the contamination protocol leaks test anomalies into training, so the headline SOTA claim is not supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09558 v1 pith:5BTXXIDS submitted 2024-11-14 cs.CV cs.LG

Anindya Sundar Das , Guansong Pang , Monowar Bhuyan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords anomalydetectiondatacontaminationdeviationlearningsamplereweightingself-supervisedsoftlabelsindustrialdefect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes Adaptive Deviation Learning (ADL), a self-supervised method for visual anomaly detection that is explicitly designed for training sets containing unlabeled anomalies. ADL learns an anomaly scoring function in which normal images score near a reference mean drawn from a standard Gaussian, while anomalous images must deviate from that mean by a margin. To stay robust when some training images are themselves anomalies, the method replaces hard labels with soft likelihood estimates from a classification head and adaptively reweights each instance's loss through a constrained optimization solved per mini-batch. The authors claim that on the MVTec and VisA benchmarks, at contamination levels of 10%, 15%, and 20%, ADL outperforms previous methods including PatchCore, DestSeg, DRÆM, and LOE, and remains relatively stable as contamination rises.

What carries the argument

The central object is the adaptive deviation learning objective, a combination of a soft deviation loss and an instance-reweighting scheme. Deviation learning scores each image by the mean of its top-K patch-level anomaly scores, pushes normal scores toward the mean of a prior Gaussian reference, and forces anomaly scores at least gamma standard deviations away; the soft version swaps hard binary labels for the probabilities produced by a k-means-refined classification head. Instance reweighting solves a constrained optimization that keeps the weight distribution close to uniform under KL, reverse-KL, or alpha-divergence, yielding closed-form per-sample weights computed per mini-batch. A segmentation head trained with focal loss on Perlin-noise masks stabilizes the features.

What would settle it

Re-run the comparison with training contamination drawn from anomaly classes that are completely absent from the test set; if ADL's advantage over DestSeg and LOE shrinks or vanishes, the claimed state-of-the-art robustness is an artifact of the near-duplicate contamination protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' terms, the paper's central discovery is that deviation learning, which was previously used with a small set of clean labeled anomalies, can be made to work in a fully self-supervised setting with contaminated unlabeled normal data. The key to this is a soft-deviation objective, where the binary anomaly label is replaced by the probability output of an auxiliary classification head, together with an adaptive sample-importance mechanism that assigns closed-form weights to individual instances based on their loss values, derived from a constrained divergence-minimization problem. With these components, the top-K patch-based anomaly score trained on Perlin-noise pseudo-anomalies and contaminated originals produces image-level AUC-ROC scores that the paper reports as state-of-the-art on MVTec (for example, 92.4/90.8/87.3 at 10/15/20% contamination) and VisA (84.4/82.7/80.7).

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that contaminating the training set with Gaussian-noised copies of the test-set anomaly images is a valid measure of robustness, even though those same test images then also appear, in nearly identical form, in the test set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Anomaly detectors trained with ADL can be applied to real-world data collection pipelines where clean normal data is not guaranteed, without a separate data-purification stage.
  • The per-mini-batch closed-form reweighting adds negligible computational overhead compared to standard deviation learning.
  • The soft-deviation objective reduces sensitivity to the true contamination ratio, which the framework does not need to know in advance.
  • The reported results suggest that ADL degrades more gracefully than PatchCore and DRÆM as contamination rises from 10% to 20%.
  • Ablations show that the combination of soft-deviation and reweighting, rather than either alone, drives most of the gain on both datasets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Going beyond the paper, the closed-form reweighting formulas are not specific to deviation learning and could be dropped into other self-supervised anomaly objectives, such as reconstruction-based or contrastive losses, whenever contamination is suspected.
  • The paper's contamination protocol uses Gaussian-noised copies of test-set anomalies in the training set, which creates near-duplicates across the train/test split; a disjoint-anomaly evaluation would be a stronger test of the robustness claim.
  • An immediate testable extension is to vary the noise variance of the injected contamination, since very large Gaussian noise may make the contamination trivially detectable and inflate the apparent robustness.
  • The failure cases listed (cable, transistor, screw, macaroni2) suggest that texture-like or fine-grained anomalies remain difficult under contamination; a targeted analysis of those categories could reveal where the soft-label head is misled.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Adaptive Deviation Learning (ADL), a self-supervised framework for visual anomaly detection on contaminated training data. ADL combines a soft deviation loss with instance reweighting via constrained optimization, using a classification head to produce soft labels and a segmentation loss for stability. The authors claim state-of-the-art performance under 10%–20% training contamination on MVTec AD and VisA, supported by tables and robustness curves. The key evaluation protocol, however, is flawed: Section 4.1 states that artificial contamination is created by sampling from the test-set anomalies and adding Gaussian noise, so the training set contains near-duplicates of the exact test images being scored. This leaks test information into training and invalidates the reported AUC improvements.

Significance. If the method worked as advertised, it would be a useful contribution to anomaly detection under label contamination, since most existing methods assume clean training data. The paper introduces a plausible combination of deviation learning and sample reweighting, and the ablation study in Table 2 provides some evidence that the individual components contribute. However, the empirical evidence for the headline claim is not trustworthy because of the train/test leakage, and the paper also lacks statistical error bars, a clean-data baseline, and a working code link. The contribution is therefore not established; its significance remains conditional on a valid evaluation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] The contamination protocol leaks test anomalies into training. The text states: 'we introduced artificial anomalies by sampling from the test set anomalies and adding zero-mean Gaussian noise with a relatively large variance to the samples.' Since the test set contains the original anomaly images and the training set contains Gaussian-noised copies of those same images, the test set is no longer independent of the training set. A model can memorize the noisy copies and receive inflated AUC on the original test anomalies, so the reported comparison against PatchCore, DestSeg, DRÆM, and LOE does not measure robustness to previously unseen contamination. This directly undermines contribution (v) in Section 1. To fix this, the contamination should be drawn from a held-out subset of anomalies that is disjoint from the evaluation set, or from an external anomalous source that does not overlap with the test images. The authors should also verify that the noise transformation itself does not create near-duplicates by, for example, reporting results with and without noise on a disjoint split.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 1] The reported results contradict the text. Section 4.2 claims that 'our method outperforms the top-performing DestSeg model at contamination levels of 15% and 20%, and surpasses other competitive baselines across all contamination levels.' However, Table 1 shows that on MVTec at 10% contamination, DestSeg has an average AUC-ROC of 0.927 while ADL has 0.924, so ADL does not surpass DestSeg at that level. The claim is therefore inaccurate. Moreover, the table reports only mean values without standard deviations, making it impossible to judge whether the small differences (e.g., 0.908 vs 0.894 at 15%) are statistically meaningful. The authors should provide error bars or at least standard deviations across runs, and correct the overstatement.
  3. [Equations (5) and (6)] The soft-deviation loss in Eq. (5) depends on p(x_i), which is produced by a classification head trained with labels that alternate between the (corrupted) original labels y_i and the k-means assignments \tilde{y}_i computed from the anomaly score \psi_K(x_i) of the same scoring network. This creates a circular dependency: the soft labels used to train the scoring network are derived from the scoring network's own output. The paper does not analyze the fixed-point behavior of this loop or provide an ablation that trains the classification head using only fixed synthetic labels. Without such an analysis, it is unclear whether Eq. (5) actually reduces contamination or merely propagates the network's own bias. The authors should add an experiment that isolates the effect of the k-means-derived labels from the soft-deviation objective.
  4. [Section 4.2, Figure 2] The robustness analysis lacks a clean-data baseline. All experiments in Figure 2 start at 5% contamination, and there is no comparison to training on uncontaminated data. As a result, the claim that the method shows 'stability and robustness' is not anchored: a method that is robust but has a large clean-data performance drop would be unattractive. The authors should include a 0% contamination condition for all methods and report the absolute performance level, not just the rate of decline with contamination.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The code link in the footnote is malformed: 'https://github.com/anindyasdas/ADL4V AD/' contains a space and does not resolve to a working repository. Please provide a valid anonymous link for review.
  2. [Table 1] The cable row for PatchCore contains '0.7370.713' with a missing separator; it should read '0.737/0.713' or similar. Please check all table entries for formatting.
  3. [Section 2] In the last sentence of the first paragraph, 'approached' should be 'approach'.
  4. [Section 4.1] The comparison with LOE is not fully clear: LOE applies contamination in a learned latent space, while the authors add Gaussian noise in image space. The paper should explain how the noise variance is chosen and whether it is intended to mimic a specific real-world distortion, or whether it is arbitrary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the method's equations are training objectives rather than derivations, and the main evaluation weakness (test-derived contamination) is a validity issue, not a definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical deep-learning method and makes no claim that a derived quantity is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The deviation loss (Eq. 4) and top-K anomaly score (Eq. 2) follow prior deviation-network work [24,25]; those citations are to published, externally established methods, and although one author overlaps, the citations are not used to forbid alternatives or to import an unverified uniqueness result. The soft-deviation loss (Eq. 5) uses probabilities p(x_i) from a classification head, and Eq. 6 derives intermediate k-means labels from the anomaly scores being learned. This is a self-training feedback loop, but it is not a definitional circularity: the anomaly score is not defined as the classifier probability, the two networks have separate parameters, and the paper's claims rest on empirical benchmark performance rather than on a proof that the score equals its own target. The instance reweighting (Eqs. 8-10) is taken from prior work [17] and depends on the unweighted per-sample loss, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The most serious concern is the contamination protocol in Sec. 4.1, where artificial training anomalies are created by adding Gaussian noise to test-set anomalies; this is a train/test leakage that undermines the validity of the reported state-of-the-art claim under contamination. However, leakage is a correctness and evaluation flaw, not a circularity in the sense of a derivation reducing to its own inputs, so it does not raise the circularity score under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several unverified domain assumptions about the score prior, the synthetic anomaly proxy, the reliability of the soft-label head, and the loss-based reweighting. The most serious is the ad hoc evaluation axiom that training contamination can be drawn from test-set anomalies, which breaks test independence. No new physical or architectural entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • gamma = 5
    Confidence interval in deviation loss (Eqns. 4,5); set manually, controls margin between normal and anomalous scores.
  • lambda = 0.1
    Lagrange multiplier in reweighting updates (Eqns. 8-10); tuned, sensitivity analysis in Fig. 4.
  • alpha = 0.1
    Divergence parameter in alpha-divergence weights (Eq. 10); tuned, sensitivity in Fig. 4.
  • K = 0.1
    Proportion of top-scoring patches used in anomaly score (Eq. 2); set manually.
  • m = 5000
    Number of reference scores sampled for the prior mean (Eq. 3); set manually.
  • contamination_noise_variance = not specified
    Variance of Gaussian noise added to test anomalies to create training contamination; described only as 'relatively large variance'.
  • epochs = 25
    Number of training epochs for Adam; no validation shown.
  • burn_in_epoch = not specified
    Burn-in period in Algorithm 1 before reweighting starts; value not reported.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Reference scores drawn from N(0,1) adequately represent anomaly scores of normal samples.
    Used in Eqns. 3-4 to set the deviation target; the suitability of the standard normal prior is not validated on MVTec or VisA.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-anomalies created with Perlin noise and an external texture source are a valid proxy for real defects.
    Synthetic anomaly generation (Eq. 1) follows DRÆM [43]; the transfer from synthetic to real anomalies is assumed.
  • domain assumption The classification head's probability p(x_i) remains a reliable soft label even when training labels are contaminated.
    Soft deviation loss (Eq. 5) weights the two terms by p(x_i); if p is unreliable, the loss is mis-specified.
  • domain assumption Instances with higher loss values are more likely to be contaminated, so reweighting by loss reduces noise influence.
    The reweighting updates (Eqns. 8-10) are adopted from [17]; the high-loss-means-noisy assumption is not tested here.
  • ad hoc to paper Contaminating training with Gaussian-noised copies of test anomalies is a fair simulation of real-world contamination.
    Section 4.1 introduces this protocol; it violates test set independence and is the central flaw in the evaluation.
  • domain assumption ImageNet-pretrained ResNet features transfer well to industrial anomaly detection.
    The feature encoder (Section 3.3.2) relies on ImageNet pretraining with only 25 epochs of fine-tuning; this is a standard but untested assumption for these datasets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Deviation Learning for Visual Anomaly Detection with Data Contamination." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5BTXXIDS

@misc{pith2026241109558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Deviation Learning for Visual Anomaly Detection with Data Contamination},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5BTXXIDS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09558}
}
read the original abstract

Visual anomaly detection targets to detect images that notably differ from normal pattern, and it has found extensive application in identifying defective parts within the manufacturing industry. These anomaly detection paradigms predominantly focus on training detection models using only clean, unlabeled normal samples, assuming an absence of contamination; a condition often unmet in real-world scenarios. The performance of these methods significantly depends on the quality of the data and usually decreases when exposed to noise. We introduce a systematic adaptive method that employs deviation learning to compute anomaly scores end-to-end while addressing data contamination by assigning relative importance to the weights of individual instances. In this approach, the anomaly scores for normal instances are designed to approximate scalar scores obtained from the known prior distribution. Meanwhile, anomaly scores for anomaly examples are adjusted to exhibit statistically significant deviations from these reference scores. Our approach incorporates a constrained optimization problem within the deviation learning framework to update instance weights, resolving this problem for each mini-batch. Comprehensive experiments on the MVTec and VisA benchmark datasets indicate that our proposed method surpasses competing techniques and exhibits both stability and robustness in the presence of data contamination.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09558 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our proposed Adaptive Deviation Learning framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Robustness: AUC-ROC and AUC-PR vs. Anomaly Contamination (%) on MVTec and VisA datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Key Failure Cases: Sensitivity to Contamination Levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity: AUC-ROC vs Hyperparameters at different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Skip-ganomaly: Skip connected and adversarially trained encoder-decoder anomaly detection

    Samet Akc ¸ay, Amir Atapour-Abarghouei, and Toby P Breckon. Skip-ganomaly: Skip connected and adversarially trained encoder-decoder anomaly detection. In2019 Interna- tional Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Unsupervised label noise modeling and loss correction

    Eric Arazo, Diego Ortego, Paul Albert, Noel O’Connor, and Kevin McGuinness. Unsupervised label noise modeling and loss correction. In International conference on machine learning, pages 312–321. PMLR, 2019. 1

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Mvtec ad–a comprehensive real-world dataset for unsupervised anomaly detection

    Paul Bergmann, Michael Fauser, David Sattlegger, and Carsten Steger. Mvtec ad–a comprehensive real-world dataset for unsupervised anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9592–9600, 2019. 6

    2019

  4. [4]

    Improving unsupervised defect seg- mentation by applying structural similarity to autoencoders

    Paul Bergmann, Sindy L ¨owe, Michael Fauser, David Sattleg- ger, and Carsten Steger. Improving unsupervised defect seg- mentation by applying structural similarity to autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02011, 2018. 2

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Describing textures in the wild

    Mircea Cimpoi, Subhransu Maji, Iasonas Kokkinos, Sammy Mohamed, and Andrea Vedaldi. Describing textures in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3606–3613, 2014. 6

    2014

  6. [6]

    Few-shot anomaly detection in text with deviation learning

    Anindya Sundar Das, Aravind Ajay, Sriparna Saha, and Monowar Bhuyan. Few-shot anomaly detection in text with deviation learning. In International Conference on Neural Information Processing, pages 425–438. Springer, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Padim: a patch distribution modeling framework for anomaly detection and localization

    Thomas Defard, Aleksandr Setkov, Angelique Loesch, and Romaric Audigier. Padim: a patch distribution modeling framework for anomaly detection and localization. In Inter- national Conference on Pattern Recognition, pages 475–489. Springer, 2021. 2, 3, 6

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Anomaly detection via reverse distillation from one-class embedding

    Hanqiu Deng and Xingyu Li. Anomaly detection via reverse distillation from one-class embedding. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 9737–9746, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009. 3

    2009

  2. [10]

    Improved regular- ization of convolutional neural networks with cutout

    Terrance DeVries and Graham W Taylor. Improved regular- ization of convolutional neural networks with cutout. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.04552, 2017. 2

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Un- supervised representation learning by predicting image rota- tions

    Spyros Gidaris, Praveer Singh, and Nikos Komodakis. Un- supervised representation learning by predicting image rota- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07728, 2018. 2

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 3, 6

    2016

  5. [13]

    Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure

    Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, and Thomas Dietterich. Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04606, 2018. 2

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Using trusted data to train deep networks on labels corrupted by severe noise

    Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, Duncan Wilson, and Kevin Gimpel. Using trusted data to train deep networks on labels corrupted by severe noise. Advances in neural in- formation processing systems, 31, 2018. 1

    2018

  7. [15]

    Unsupervised out- lier detection using memory and contrastive learning

    Ning Huyan, Dou Quan, Xiangrong Zhang, Xuefeng Liang, Jocelyn Chanussot, and Licheng Jiao. Unsupervised out- lier detection using memory and contrastive learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31:6440–6454, 2022. 2

    2022

  8. [16]

    Interpreting and unifying outlier scores

    Hans-Peter Kriegel, Peer Kroger, Erich Schubert, and Arthur Zimek. Interpreting and unifying outlier scores. In Proceed- ings of the 2011 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pages 13–24. SIAM, 2011. 4

    2011

  9. [17]

    Constrained instance and class reweighting for robust learning under label noise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05428, 2021

    Abhishek Kumar and Ehsan Amid. Constrained instance and class reweighting for robust learning under label noise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.05428, 2021. 1, 5

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cutpaste: Self-supervised learning for anomaly de- tection and localization

    Chun-Liang Li, Kihyuk Sohn, Jinsung Yoon, and Tomas Pfister. Cutpaste: Self-supervised learning for anomaly de- tection and localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 9664–9674, 2021. 2

    2021

  11. [19]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Doll´ar. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2980–2988, 2017. 4

    2017

  12. [20]

    Classifier two sample test for video anomaly detections

    Yusha Liu, Chun-Liang Li, and Barnab ´as P´oczos. Classifier two sample test for video anomaly detections. In BMVC, page 71, 2018. 1

    2018

  13. [21]

    Normalized loss functions for deep learning with noisy labels

    Xingjun Ma, Hanxun Huang, Yisen Wang, Simone Romano, Sarah Erfani, and James Bailey. Normalized loss functions for deep learning with noisy labels. In International confer- ence on machine learning, pages 6543–6553. PMLR, 2020. 1

    2020

  14. [22]

    Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations

    James MacQueen et al. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, volume 1, pages 281–297. Oakland, CA, USA,

  15. [23]

    Exponentiated gradient reweighting for robust training under label noise and beyond

    Negin Majidi, Ehsan Amid, Hossein Talebi, and Manfred K Warmuth. Exponentiated gradient reweighting for robust training under label noise and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.01493, 2021. 1

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Explainable deep few-shot anomaly detection with deviation networks

    Guansong Pang, Choubo Ding, Chunhua Shen, and Anton van den Hengel. Explainable deep few-shot anomaly detection with deviation networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.00462, 2021. 1, 2, 3, 4

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Deep anomaly detection with deviation networks

    Guansong Pang, Chunhua Shen, and Anton Van Den Hen- gel. Deep anomaly detection with deviation networks. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international confer- ence on knowledge discovery & data mining, pages 353–362,

  18. [26]

    Oc- gan: One-class novelty detection using gans with constrained latent representations

    Pramuditha Perera, Ramesh Nallapati, and Bing Xiang. Oc- gan: One-class novelty detection using gans with constrained latent representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2898–2906, 2019. 2

    2019

  19. [27]

    An image synthesizer

    Ken Perlin. An image synthesizer. ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics, 19(3):287–296, 1985. 2, 3

    1985

  20. [28]

    Inpainting transformer for anomaly detection

    Jonathan Pirnay and Keng Chai. Inpainting transformer for anomaly detection. In International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing, pages 394–406. Springer, 2022. 2 9

    2022

  21. [29]

    Latent outlier exposure for anomaly detec- tion with contaminated data

    Chen Qiu, Aodong Li, Marius Kloft, Maja Rudolph, and Stephan Mandt. Latent outlier exposure for anomaly detec- tion with contaminated data. In International conference on machine learning, pages 18153–18167. PMLR, 2022. 2, 6

    2022

  22. [30]

    Model- ing the distribution of normal data in pre-trained deep fea- tures for anomaly detection

    Oliver Rippel, Patrick Mertens, and Dorit Merhof. Model- ing the distribution of normal data in pre-trained deep fea- tures for anomaly detection. In 2020 25th International Con- ference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) , pages 6726–6733. IEEE, 2021. 2

    2020

  23. [31]

    Towards to- tal recall in industrial anomaly detection

    Karsten Roth, Latha Pemula, Joaquin Zepeda, Bernhard Sch¨olkopf, Thomas Brox, and Peter Gehler. Towards to- tal recall in industrial anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14318–14328, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2022

  24. [32]

    Deep one-class classifica- tion

    Lukas Ruff, Robert Vandermeulen, Nico Goernitz, Lucas Deecke, Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui, Alexander Binder, Em- manuel M¨uller, and Marius Kloft. Deep one-class classifica- tion. In International conference on machine learning, pages 4393–4402. PMLR, 2018. 2

    2018

  25. [33]

    f-anogan: Fast unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks

    Thomas Schlegl, Philipp Seeb ¨ock, Sebastian M Waldstein, Georg Langs, and Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth. f-anogan: Fast unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks. Medical image analysis, 54:30–44, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  26. [34]

    Unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks to guide marker discovery

    Thomas Schlegl, Philipp Seeb ¨ock, Sebastian M Waldstein, Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth, and Georg Langs. Unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks to guide marker discovery. In International conference on in- formation processing in medical imaging , pages ...

    2017

  27. [35]

    Rethinking the inception archi- tecture for computer vision

    Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. Rethinking the inception archi- tecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2818–2826, 2016. 1

    2016

  28. [36]

    Anomaly detec- tion neural network with dual auto-encoders gan and its in- dustrial inspection applications

    Ta-Wei Tang, Wei-Han Kuo, Jauh-Hsiang Lan, Chien-Fang Ding, Hakiem Hsu, and Hong-Tsu Young. Anomaly detec- tion neural network with dual auto-encoders gan and its in- dustrial inspection applications. Sensors, 20(12):3336, 2020. 2

    2020

  29. [37]

    Support vector data description

    David MJ Tax and Robert PW Duin. Support vector data description. Machine learning, 54:45–66, 2004. 2

    2004

  30. [38]

    q-space novelty detection with variational autoencoders

    Aleksei Vasilev, Vladimir Golkov, Marc Meissner, Ilona Lipp, Eleonora Sgarlata, Valentina Tomassini, Derek K Jones, and Daniel Cremers. q-space novelty detection with variational autoencoders. In Computational Diffusion MRI: MICCAI Workshop, Shenzhen, China, October 2019 , pag...

    2019

  31. [39]

    Effective end-to-end unsu- pervised outlier detection via inlier priority of discriminative network

    Siqi Wang, Yijie Zeng, Xinwang Liu, En Zhu, Jianping Yin, Chuanfu Xu, and Marius Kloft. Effective end-to-end unsu- pervised outlier detection via inlier priority of discriminative network. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 32, 2019. 2

    2019

  32. [40]

    Patch svdd: Patch-level svdd for anomaly detection and segmentation

    Jihun Yi and Sungroh Yoon. Patch svdd: Patch-level svdd for anomaly detection and segmentation. In Proceedings of the Asian conference on computer vision, 2020. 2, 6

    2020

  33. [41]

    Self-supervise, refine, re- peat: Improving unsupervised anomaly detection

    Jinsung Yoon, Kihyuk Sohn, Chun-Liang Li, Sercan O Arik, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister. Self-supervise, refine, re- peat: Improving unsupervised anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.06115, 2021. 2

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Cutmix: Regu- larization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features

    Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, Seong Joon Oh, Sanghyuk Chun, Junsuk Choe, and Youngjoon Yoo. Cutmix: Regu- larization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international con- ference on computer vision, pages 6023–6032, 2019. 2

    2019

  35. [43]

    Draem- a discriminatively trained reconstruction embedding for sur- face anomaly detection

    Vitjan Zavrtanik, Matej Kristan, and Danijel Skoˇcaj. Draem- a discriminatively trained reconstruction embedding for sur- face anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 8330– 8339, 2021. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2021

  36. [44]

    Dsr– a dual subspace re-projection network for surface anomaly detection

    Vitjan Zavrtanik, Matej Kristan, and Danijel Sko ˇcaj. Dsr– a dual subspace re-projection network for surface anomaly detection. In European conference on computer vision, pages 539–554. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  37. [45]

    Destseg: Segmentation guided denoising student-teacher for anomaly detection

    Xuan Zhang, Shiyu Li, Xi Li, Ping Huang, Jiulong Shan, and Ting Chen. Destseg: Segmentation guided denoising student-teacher for anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3914–3923, 2023. 2, 6

    2023

  38. [46]

    Spot-the-difference self-supervised pre- training for anomaly detection and segmentation

    Yang Zou, Jongheon Jeong, Latha Pemula, Dongqing Zhang, and Onkar Dabeer. Spot-the-difference self-supervised pre- training for anomaly detection and segmentation. In Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision , pages 392–408. Springer, 2022. 6 10

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.