Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Redefining Normal: A Novel Object-Level Approach for Multi-Object Novelty Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that redefining 'normal' as the most dominant object, plus dense feature fine-tuning and teacher-guided masked distillation, lifts multi-object novelty detection to 95.4 AUROC on Pascal VOC and 94.5 on COCO.

desk verdict A useful multi-object novelty detection benchmark with strong empirical results, but the guided-masking mechanism is under-tested on multi-object inputs and the reporting needs tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11148 v1 pith:FAN67UA6 submitted 2024-12-15 cs.CV

Mohammadreza Salehi , Nikolaos Apostolikas , Efstratios Gavves , Cees G. M. Snoek , Yuki M. Asano This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords multi-objectnoveltydetectionobject-levelnormalknowledgedistillationdensefeaturefine-tuningmaskedvisiontransformerPascalVOCCOCO
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 claims that the standard image-level definition of 'normal' is why novelty detectors fail on real-world multi-object images, and proposes redefining 'normal' as the most dominant object in the training set rather than the whole image. To realize this definition, it introduces DEFEND, a dense feature fine-tuning stage that aligns patch-level features for the same object across images, and guided masked knowledge distillation, in which a student must reconstruct the teacher's features from an input masked according to the teacher's own attention map. The resulting detector reaches 95.4 AUROC on Pascal VOC and 94.5 on COCO in the uni-class setting, and 63.0 and 70.2 in the all-vs-one multi-class setting, surpassing prior methods by roughly 4-8 points and up to 18 points respectively. If correct, this is a step from object-centric benchmarks toward novelty detection in uncurated scenes where multiple objects coexist.

What carries the argument

Two stages carry the argument. First, DEFEND tunes the teacher's spatial tokens by computing cosine-similarity distributions against $K$ learnable prototypes and matching the crop's distribution to the full image's via optimal transport, minimizing a 2D cross-entropy loss $\mathcal{H}(Q', \alpha(Q))$; this gives the same object consistent dense features across images. Second, guided masked knowledge distillation takes the teacher's [CLS] attention map, masks the student's input by 50% over informative regions, and minimizes the squared error between L2-normalized last-layer features of student and teacher; the mask both forces inference from partial information and halves student computation. Prototype count is set to twice the number of observed objects, following the paper's balancing heuristic.

What would settle it

Measure the intersection over union between the teacher's thresholded [CLS] attention map and the ground-truth box of the normal object on held-out Pascal VOC or COCO images; if attention often misses the normal object, and guided masking still matches or beats random masking, then the central claim about object-level guidance is undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that object-level redefinition of 'normal' transfers knowledge-distillation novelty detection from single-object datasets to multi-object datasets. After fine-tuning the last two layers of a pre-trained teacher so that spatial tokens representing the same object become consistent via prototype-based dense alignment, a randomly initialized student trained to predict the teacher's L2-normalized last-layer features from a teacher-masked input can flag images that do not contain the dominant normal object, even when training images include other objects. The paper supports this by showing that guided masking consistently beats random masking and no masking, that dense fine-tuning improves results under two different pre-trainings, and that distilling only the last layer suffices with appropriate normalization. It also introduces Pascal VOC and COCO as the first multi-object novelty detection benchmarks, where prior object-centric methods degrade sharply.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the teacher's [CLS] attention map points at the normal dominant object in a multi-object scene, so masking those regions trains the student on the right content; if attention locks onto a salient distractor instead, the guided mask could teach the student the wrong object.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-object novelty detection can be benchmarked on Pascal VOC and COCO instead of only object-centric datasets, yielding numbers that reflect real-world clutter.
  • Masking the student's input by 50% is not just a regularization trick; it cuts the student's compute roughly in half, and the paper reports faster inference than the transformer distillation baseline it compares against.
  • Dense feature fine-tuning improves AUROC consistently under both supervised and self-supervised pre-training, so the gains do not depend on one particular initialization.
  • Distilling only the last layer with L2 normalization is sufficient for semantic novelty detection, removing the need for multi-layer distillation.
  • The method matches state-of-the-art on single-object datasets without generating synthetic outliers with diffusion models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to measure the teacher's [CLS] attention localization against ground-truth object boxes on multi-object images; if attention often lands on a distractor, the guided mask may be helping for reasons other than object-level focus, and objectness priors could do better.
  • The object-level definition of 'normal' is a data-labeling choice, so it can be bolted onto other student-teacher or embedding detectors; the benchmark contribution may outlive the specific two-stage training.
  • The large COCO all-vs-one gap (70.2 vs 52.9 for the closest baseline) suggests existing self-supervised objectives solve an object-centric shortcut; adding a dense alignment loss to those baselines would isolate which component causes the gap.
  • In settings with several equally frequent normal classes, the single-dominant-object definition may need to become a per-image or per-region prior; extending the benchmark to such distributions is a testable next step.
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 addresses semantic novelty detection in multi-object images by redefining 'normal' at the object level: the most dominant object class in the training set is treated as normal, even when images also contain other objects. The method has two main components: DeFeND, a dense self-supervised fine-tuning stage that aligns patch-level features across views so that the teacher produces consistent object-level representations, and guided masked knowledge distillation, in which the student sees a masked input derived from the teacher's [CLS] attention map and is trained to reproduce the teacher's last-layer features on the full input. The paper evaluates on single-object benchmarks (CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, MVTecAD) and introduces a multi-object benchmark on Pascal VOC and COCO, reporting state-of-the-art AUROC in the multi-object uni-class and multi-class settings, for example 95.4 on Pascal VOC and 94.5 on COCO in the uni-class setting (Table 4).

Significance. If the reported multi-object gains hold under rigorous evaluation, the paper would make a useful contribution by shifting novelty detection from object-centric datasets toward more realistic multi-object scenes. The object-level formulation of 'normal' is a reasonable and clearly stated design choice, and the dense feature fine-tuning loss is well motivated by the goal of consistent object-level teacher features. The authors provide per-class results in the appendix and a public code repository, which are valuable for verification and future comparison. However, the strength of the state-of-the-art claims is currently limited by the absence of error bars and by the lack of direct evidence that the teacher's [CLS] attention mask is selective for the normal object in multi-object images, which is the core premise of the guided-masking mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.7] The cross-references for the main empirical claims are incorrect. The text says the uni-class test was 'previously detailed in Table 2', but the uni-class results are in Table 4. It also says the multi-object multi-class results are 'shown in Table 5', but Table 5 reports CIFAR-10 half-vs-half results; the Pascal VOC and COCO multi-class results are in Table 2 (and Table 11 for Pascal per-class). The 9% and 18% improvement claims in that paragraph therefore cannot be checked without correcting these references.
  2. [Equation (2), Section 3.2] The guided masking mechanism is underspecified and its object-level selectivity is not verified. Attn_t is described only as 'the Vision Transformer's attention map with regard to its [CLS] token', without specifying which layer, how heads are aggregated, or how Mask() turns the map into a token mask at a 50% ratio. More importantly, Table 1d compares guided vs random masking only on CIFAR-10 and MVTecAD, which are effectively single-object benchmarks; no experiment measures where the attention falls on multi-object Pascal or COCO images. Since the paper attributes part of its multi-object gains to guided masking, the absence of such an analysis leaves the central mechanism unsupported.
  3. [Tables 1-11] All AUROC tables report point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Given that several improvements over baselines are modest in absolute terms (e.g., Table 4 shows 95.4 vs 91.8 for MSAD on Pascal VOC, and Table 2 shows 70.2 vs 52.9 on COCO), the reader cannot assess whether these differences are consistent across random seeds or normal-class splits. Reporting standard deviations over at least three runs or a per-class paired test would substantially strengthen the state-of-the-art claim.
  4. [Section 4.3] Key hyperparameters, in particular the 50% masking ratio and the number of prototypes (twice the number of observed objects), are chosen with little justification and no sensitivity analysis. The text does not state whether these values were selected using a validation split of the normal training data or tuned on the test classes. Without this information, the reported numbers may be optimistic, and the method's robustness to these choices is unclear.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Figure 2] The acronym is spelled 'defend' in the abstract and in the Figure 2 caption but 'DeFeND' elsewhere in the paper; please use one consistent form.
  2. [Section 4.5 and Tables 2, 4] The method name is written as 'FITYMI' in the tables and 'FYTMI' in the text; please unify the spelling.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Table 10] The claim that masking 'reduces memory and increases speed' should be qualified. Table 10 shows training time increases from 63 to 75 minutes, so the efficiency gain appears to be limited to the student's token processing or to inference speed (164 vs 100 FPS), not to overall training.
  4. [Section 4.4] The test-time labeling for multi-object images is not fully explicit: please state whether a test image containing the normal object together with an abnormal object is considered normal. The training protocol is clear, but the evaluation protocol for such mixed images should be described explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported AUROC values are genuine held-out predictions, and the method's components are specified and ablated within the paper.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is state-of-the-art AUROC on multi-object datasets. Those AUROC values are genuine predictions: at test time the novelty score is the squared error between the student and teacher features (Eq. 4), computed on held-out classes, and no parameter is fitted to test labels. The two contributions, DeFeND and masked knowledge distillation, are specified by Equations (1)-(4) and validated by ablations (Tables 1, 3, 8a, 8b) that compare against random masking, no masking, and no dense tuning. The object-level redefinition of 'normal' is a benchmark construction, not a derivation that assumes the method's conclusion. Several references are to prior works by the present authors ([28], [34], [35], [36], [37], [40]), but they are used as baselines, as inspirations for dense feature tuning, or as frameworks being modified; the paper never uses a self-citation as the proof of its own effectiveness. The guided-masking premise (Eq. 2) is an architectural assumption whose effect is empirically measured rather than a result that reduces by definition to its inputs. Any concern about attention localization on multi-object scenes is a correctness or robustness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on standard transfer-learning assumptions about pre-trained ViT features and on the paper's own task definition of object-level normal. The principal free parameters are hyperparameters (masking ratio, prototype count, temperature, training schedule); none are fitted to reproduce a target scientific constant, so the circularity burden is low.

free parameters (4)
  • masking_ratio = 50%
    Masking ratio for the student input in knowledge distillation; the paper states 'we found it an optimal point' (Section 4.3), so it is hand-chosen and affects both efficiency and accuracy.
  • num_prototypes = 2x number of normal classes (5 in ablations)
    Number of learnable prototypes in the dense feature fine-tuning loss, set following SwAV (Section 4.3); controls the granularity of patch-to-prototype assignment.
  • distillation_temperature = 0.1
    Temperature used in the 2D cross-entropy loss for dense feature tuning (Section 4.2); no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • training_epochs_and_lr = 3-10 epochs dense, 10 epochs distillation; lr 1e-5 backbone / 1e-4 head
    Standard optimization hyperparameters (Sections 4.2-4.3); the central results depend on this schedule, though it is not unusual for the field.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained ViT spatial token features contain object-level semantic information that can be aligned across images.
    Motivates the dense fine-tuning stage (Sections 1 and 3.1) and relies on prior findings in [35,47] rather than being verified here.
  • domain assumption The teacher's [CLS] attention map highlights the normal object(s), so masking the most attended regions by 50% improves the student's representation.
    Core to the guided masking mechanism in Section 3.2, Eq. (2); the paper provides no attention localization analysis on multi-object images.
  • standard math Optimal transport (Sinkhorn) assignment of patch features to prototypes yields semantically consistent correspondences.
    Inherited from SeLa/SwAV and used in Eq. (1) to avoid trivial solutions; treated as a standard tool.
  • ad hoc to paper Defining 'normal' as the most dominant object in the training set is a valid and useful task formulation for multi-object novelty detection.
    This is the paper's proposed problem redefinition (Sections 1 and 4.1); it is a modeling choice without an empirical comparison to alternative normal definitions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Redefining Normal: A Novel Object-Level Approach for Multi-Object Novelty Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FAN67UA6

@misc{pith2026241211148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Redefining Normal: A Novel Object-Level Approach for Multi-Object Novelty Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FAN67UA6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11148}
}
read the original abstract

In the realm of novelty detection, accurately identifying outliers in data without specific class information poses a significant challenge. While current methods excel in single-object scenarios, they struggle with multi-object situations due to their focus on individual objects. Our paper suggests a novel approach: redefining `normal' at the object level in training datasets. Rather than the usual image-level view, we consider the most dominant object in a dataset as the norm, offering a perspective that is more effective for real-world scenarios. Adapting to our object-level definition of `normal', we modify knowledge distillation frameworks, where a student network learns from a pre-trained teacher network. Our first contribution, DeFeND(Dense Feature Fine-tuning on Normal Data), integrates dense feature fine-tuning into the distillation process, allowing the teacher network to focus on object-level features with a self-supervised loss. The second is masked knowledge distillation, where the student network works with partially hidden inputs, honing its ability to deduce and generalize from incomplete data. This approach not only fares well in single-object novelty detection but also considerably surpasses existing methods in multi-object contexts. The implementation is available at: https://github.com/SMSD75/Redefining_Normal_ACCV24/tree/main

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11148 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A new setting and new method. On the left, the likelihood of object existence for different datasets is shown. COCO, as opposed to MNIST and CIFAR￾10, shows less object-centric biases. In the middle, we introduce a multi-object novelty detection setting, where we define the ‘normal’ class as the predominant object in the dataset. In contrast to previous object-centric datasets, images can include objects of other ca… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The proposed method overview. In the first stage, the last two layers of the pre-trained feature are fine-tuned on the inputs using a dense self-supervised loss to provide consistent spatial features, output features except the CLS token, for different object views. This is done by projecting the spatial features by a shared MLP head and making the corresponding features similar while avoiding trivial solutions from… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of the proposed method and KDAD. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representa- tions (ICLR) (2020) 6

    Asano, Y.M., Rupprecht, C., Vedaldi, A.: Self-labelling via simultaneous clustering and representation learning. In: International Conference on Learning Representa- tions (ICLR) (2020) 6

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision

    Bae, J., Lee, J.H., Kim, S.: Pni: industrial anomaly detection using position and neighborhood information. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision. pp. 6373–6383 (2023) 4

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.10445 (2020) 4

    Bergman, L., Cohen, N., Hoshen, Y.: Deep nearest neighbor anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.10445 (2020) 4

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Bergmann, P., Fauser, M., Sattlegger, D., Steger, C.: Mvtec ad–a comprehen- sive real-world dataset for unsupervised anomaly detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 9592–9600 (2019) 4, 8

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion

    Bergmann, P., Fauser, M., Sattlegger, D., Steger, C.: Uninformed students: Student-teacher anomaly detection with discriminative latent embeddings. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion. pp. 4183–4192 (2020) 4

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Advances in neural information processing systems33, 9912–9924 (2020) 6, 9

    Caron, M., Misra, I., Mairal, J., Goyal, P., Bojanowski, P., Joulin, A.: Unsupervised learning of visual features by contrasting cluster assignments. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 9912–9924 (2020) 6, 9

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Caron, M., Touvron, H., Misra, I., Jégou, H., Mairal, J., Bojanowski, P., Joulin, A.: Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 9650–9660 (2021) 11

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Cohen, M.J., Avidan, S.: Transformaly-two (feature spaces) are better than one. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 4060–4069 (2022) 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13

    work page 2022

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Ad- vances in neural information processing systems26 (2013) 6

    Cuturi, M.: Sinkhorn distances: Lightspeed computation of optimal transport. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems26 (2013) 6

    2013

  2. [10]

    In: International Conference on Pattern Recognition

    Defard,T.,Setkov,A.,Loesch,A.,Audigier,R.:Padim:apatchdistributionmodel- ing framework for anomaly detection and localization. In: International Conference on Pattern Recognition. pp. 475–489. Springer (2021) 4

    2021

  3. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Deng, H., Li, X.: Anomaly detection via reverse distillation from one-class em- bedding. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 9737–9746 (2022) 2, 4, 10

    2022

  4. [12]

    IEEE signal processing magazine29(6), 141–142 (2012) 7, 8

    Deng, L.: The mnist database of handwritten digit images for machine learning research [best of the web]. IEEE signal processing magazine29(6), 141–142 (2012) 7, 8

    2012

  5. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020) 9

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X., Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S., et al.: An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020) 9

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Everingham, M., Eslami, S.A., Van Gool, L., Williams, C.K., Winn, J., Zisserman, A.:Thepascalvisualobjectclasseschallenge:Aretrospective.Internationaljournal of computer vision111, 98–136 (2015) 8

    2015

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision

    Girshick, R.: Fast r-cnn. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. pp. 1440–1448 (2015) 11, 4

    2015

  8. [16]

    Advances in neural information processing systems31 (2018) 4 16 M

    Golan, I., El-Yaniv, R.: Deep anomaly detection using geometric transformations. Advances in neural information processing systems31 (2018) 4 16 M. Salehi et al

    2018

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision

    Gudovskiy,D.,Ishizaka,S.,Kozuka,K.:Cflow-ad:Real-timeunsupervisedanomaly detection with localization via conditional normalizing flows. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. pp. 98–107 (2022) 4

    2022

  10. [18]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Guo, H., Ren, L., Fu, J., Wang, Y., Zhang, Z., Lan, C., Wang, H., Hou, X.: Template-guided hierarchical feature restoration for anomaly detection. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 6447–6458 (2023) 4

    2023

  11. [19]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Heckler, L., König, R., Bergmann, P.: Exploring the importance of pretrained fea- ture extractors for unsupervised anomaly detection and localization. In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 2916–2925 (2023) 9

    2023

  12. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.11132 (2019) 8

    Hendrycks, D., Basart, S., Mazeika, M., Zou, A., Kwon, J., Mostajabi, M., Stein- hardt, J., Song, D.: Scaling out-of-distribution detection for real-world settings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.11132 (2019) 8

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415 (2016) 9

    Hendrycks, D., Gimpel, K.: Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415 (2016) 9

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems32 (2019) 4

    Hendrycks, D., Mazeika, M., Kadavath, S., Song, D.: Using self-supervised learning can improve model robustness and uncertainty. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems32 (2019) 4

    2019

  15. [23]

    Krizhevsky, A., Hinton, G., et al.: Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images (2009) 1, 7, 8

    2009

  16. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Li, C.L., Sohn, K., Yoon, J., Pfister, T.: Cutpaste: Self-supervised learning for anomaly detection and localization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 9664–9674 (2021) 4

    2021

  17. [25]

    In: Computer Vision– ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13

    Lin, T.Y., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ramanan, D., Dollár, P., Zitnick, C.L.: Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In: Computer Vision– ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13. pp. 740–755...

    2014

  18. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Liu, Z., Zhou, Y., Xu, Y., Wang, Z.: Simplenet: A simple network for image anomaly detection and localization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 20402–20411 (2023) 4

    2023

  19. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01760 (2020) 10

    Liznerski, P., Ruff, L., Vandermeulen, R.A., Franks, B.J., Kloft, M., Müller, K.R.: Explainable deep one-class classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01760 (2020) 10

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14297 (2022) 1, 4, 9, 10, 12

    Mirzaei, H., Salehi, M., Shahabi, S., Gavves, E., Snoek, C.G., Sabokrou, M., Ro- hban, M.H.: Fake it till you make it: Near-distribution novelty detection by score- based generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14297 (2022) 1, 4, 9, 10, 12

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03064 (2021) 1

    Perera, P., Oza, P., Patel, V.M.: One-class classification: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03064 (2021) 1

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Reiss, T., Cohen, N., Bergman, L., Hoshen, Y.: Panda: Adapting pretrained fea- tures for anomaly detection and segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 2806–2814 (2021) 4, 10

    2021

  23. [31]

    In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    Reiss, T., Hoshen, Y.: Mean-shifted contrastive loss for anomaly detection. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 37, pp. 2155– 2162 (2023) 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 13

    2023

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Roth, K., Pemula, L., Zepeda, J., Schölkopf, B., Brox, T., Gehler, P.: Towards total recall in industrial anomaly detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 14318–14328 (2022) 4 A Novel Object-Level Approach for Multi-...

    2022

  25. [33]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Ruff, L., Vandermeulen, R., Goernitz, N., Deecke, L., Siddiqui, S.A., Binder, A., Müller, E., Kloft, M.: Deep one-class classification. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 4393–4402. PMLR (2018) 1

    2018

  26. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.12959 (2020) 4

    Salehi, M., Eftekhar, A., Sadjadi, N., Rohban, M.H., Rabiee, H.R.: Puzzle-ae: Nov- elty detection in images through solving puzzles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.12959 (2020) 4

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Salehi, M., Gavves, E., Snoek, C.G., Asano, Y.M.: Time does tell: Self-supervised time-tuning of dense image representations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 16536–16547 (2023) 3

    2023

  28. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14051 (2021) 1

    Salehi, M., Mirzaei, H., Hendrycks, D., Li, Y., Rohban, M.H., Sabokrou, M.: A unified survey on anomaly, novelty, open-set, and out-of-distribution detection: Solutions and future challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14051 (2021) 1

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Salehi, M., Sadjadi, N., Baselizadeh, S., Rohban, M.H., Rabiee, H.R.: Mul- tiresolution knowledge distillation for anomaly detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 14902–14912 (June 2021) 2, 4, 7, 10, 11

    2021

  30. [38]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 12 (1999) 1

    Schölkopf, B., Williamson, R.C., Smola, A., Shawe-Taylor, J., Platt, J.: Support vector method for novelty detection. Advances in neural information processing systems 12 (1999) 1

    1999

  31. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Siméoni,O.,Sekkat,C.,Puy,G.,Vobeck` y,A.,Zablocki,É.,Pérez,P.:Unsupervised object localization: Observing the background to discover objects. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 3176–3186 (2023) 2

    2023

  32. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12427 (2024) 2

    Sträter, L.P., Salehi, M., Gavves, E., Snoek, C.G., Asano, Y.M.: Generalad: Anomaly detection across domains by attending to distorted features. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12427 (2024) 2

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 11839–11852 (2020) 2, 3, 4

    Tack, J., Mo, S., Jeong, J., Shin, J.: Csi: Novelty detection via contrastive learning on distributionally shifted instances. Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 11839–11852 (2020) 2, 3, 4

    2020

  34. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747 (2017) 8

    Xiao, H., Rasul, K., Vollgraf, R.: Fashion-mnist: a novel image dataset for bench- marking machine learning algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07747 (2017) 8

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    ACM Computing Surveys (2022) 10

    Yang,L.,Zhang,Z.,Song,Y.,Hong,S.,Xu,R.,Zhao,Y.,Zhang,W.,Cui,B.,Yang, M.H.: Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications. ACM Computing Surveys (2022) 10

    2022

  36. [44]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 4571–4584 (2022) 10, 13

    You, Z., Cui, L., Shen, Y., Yang, K., Lu, X., Zheng, Y., Le, X.: A unified model for multi-class anomaly detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 4571–4584 (2022) 10, 13

    2022

  37. [45]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Zavrtanik, V., Kristan, M., Skočaj, D.: Draem-a discriminatively trained re- construction embedding for surface anomaly detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 8330–8339 (2021) 4

    2021

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Zhang, X., Li, S., Li, X., Huang, P., Shan, J., Chen, T.: Destseg: Segmentation guided denoising student-teacher for anomaly detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 3914– 3923 (2023) 4

    2023

  39. [47]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Ziegler, A., Asano, Y.M.: Self-supervised learning of object parts for semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 14502–14511 (2022) 2, 3, 6 2 M. Salehi et al. 6 Additional Experiments Table 6: Pascal VOC p...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.