Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Real-IAD D3: A Real-World 2D/Pseudo-3D/3D Dataset for Industrial Anomaly Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Real-IAD D3 adds photometric-stereo pseudo-3D views to RGB and micrometer point clouds and reports that the three-modality fusion beats every 2D-only and 2D+3D baseline on average.

desk verdict Real-IAD D3 is a potentially valuable dataset with a genuinely new pseudo-3D modality, but the paper overclaims the method's consistency and never validates the photometric-stereo output. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14221 v1 pith:TAUKEN7F submitted 2025-04-19 cs.CV

Wenbing Zhu , Lidong Wang , Ziqing Zhou , Chengjie Wang , Yurui Pan , Ruoyi Zhang , Zhuhao Chen , Linjie Cheng
show 9 more authors
Bin-Bin Gao Jiangning Zhang Zhenye Gan Yuxie Wang Yulong Chen Shuguang Qian Mingmin Chi Bo Peng Lizhuang Ma
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords industrialanomalydetectionmultimodaldatasetphotometricstereopseudo-3DpointcloudlocalizationD3MbenchmarkReal-IADD3
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 introduces Real-IAD D3, a multimodal industrial anomaly detection dataset with 8,450 samples across 20 product categories, each sample carrying synchronized high-resolution RGB images, micrometer-level point clouds (down to 0.002 mm precision), and a pseudo-3D depth/normal view computed from four photometric-stereo light directions. The central claim is that this third modality supplies surface-orientation information that 2D color alone and 2D-plus-3D combinations miss, especially for fine scratches, pits, and dents on small components. To demonstrate the claim, the paper builds D3M, a fusion benchmark that swaps 10% of RGB and pseudo-3D features, aligns 2D and 3D features contrastively, and scores anomalies against memory banks. On average D3M reaches 0.890 image-level AUROC and 0.937 pixel-level AUROC, above 2D-only, 3D-only, and 2D+3D baselines, while experiments with downsampled point clouds show fine defects vanish at coarser resolution. The dataset and code are released publicly so other groups can test multimodal anomaly detection under realistic industrial conditions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is photometric stereo: four directional light sources illuminate each part, and the pixel intensities $I(x,y)$ are converted to surface normals by solving $n(x,y) = (L^\top L)^{-1} L^\top I(x,y)$, where $L$ is the known light-direction matrix. The result is a pseudo-3D image of surface orientation that encodes shallow defects as sudden normal changes. On top of this, the D3M benchmark adds a Channel-Spatial Swapping module that exchanges 10% of RGB and pseudo-3D feature-map channels and spatial blocks, an unsupervised contrastive loss that aligns swapped 2D patches with point-cloud patches, and three memory banks scored by one-class SVMs to produce image-level and pixel-level anomaly maps. The 3D point clouds are captured on the same platform with a four-direction DLP structured-light system, which the paper credits for the strict RGB/3D/pseudo-3D alignment.

What would settle it

Take the glossy categories (for example ferrite bead, dc power connector, or knob cap), compute the photometric-stereo normal maps, and compare them against normals derived from the 0.002 mm point clouds; if the pseudo-3D normals deviate systematically in specular regions, rerun the D3M benchmark on only the matte categories and on only the glossy categories. The central claim would be settled by showing whether the pseudo-3D gain is present in the glossy subset or comes entirely from diffuse materials.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Real-IAD D3's core discovery is that a pseudo-3D modality obtained by photometric stereo is a usable third signal for unsupervised industrial anomaly detection, not just a substitute for measured 3D. The dataset contains 5,000 normal and 3,450 anomalous samples across 20 categories with 69 defect groups, covers defect areas as small as 0.46% of the part, and captures point clouds of up to 16.2 million points at 0.002 mm accuracy. The authors argue that pseudo-3D surface normals reveal shallow texture and orientation defects that are hard to see in RGB and too small for coarser point clouds, and their D3M benchmark backs this with average I-AUROC 0.890 and P-AUROC 0.937, outperforming the 2D+3D M3DM baseline and a 2D+pseudo-3D PatchCore combination. In their framing, strictly aligned multimodal capture on a single platform is what makes the fusion possible, and the additional modality raises the ceiling for fine-defect localization.

Load-bearing premise

The pseudo-3D views are computed by assuming each surface scatters light evenly from a known direction, which is false for shiny metal and plastic parts; if that assumption breaks on enough categories, the third modality adds noise rather than signal and the reported gain over 2D+3D would not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Photometric-stereo pseudo-3D should be treated as a complementary third channel rather than a replacement for scanned 3D, since the full three-modality fusion gives the best scores.
  • The 2D+pseudo-3D combination already shows strong average scores in the paper's PatchCore-style comparison, so adding a four-light capture stage may yield a large part of the fusion gain even before measured 3D is included.
  • Resolution is decisive for small components: downsampling point clouds by 4x or 40x degrades detection of scratches and pits, so micrometer-level capture is necessary rather than optional in this regime.
  • The high native point-cloud density removes the need for post-backbone feature interpolation on Real-IAD D3, whereas on MVTec 3D-AD pixel-AUROC drops by 0.111 without it; practitioners can skip interpolation when raw resolution is high.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the pseudo-3D channel inherits photometric stereo's diffuse-reflection assumption; on shiny metal and plastic parts the normal equation can produce artifacts, so a material-wise breakdown of the 0.890 average could reveal categories where the third modality hurts.
  • Because RGB, pseudo-3D, and point clouds are captured by one fixed rig, part of the fusion gain may be specific to that alignment; running D3M on a different acquisition setup would test whether the benefit transfers.
  • The near-parity of the 2D+pseudo-3D result with the full three-modality result suggests measured 3D pays off mainly on larger geometric defects, so a per-defect-type analysis could tell practitioners when micrometer point-cloud hardware is worth the cost.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Real-IAD D3, a multimodal industrial anomaly detection dataset containing 8,450 samples across 20 product categories, with synchronized high-resolution RGB images, micrometer-level 3D point clouds (precision 0.002 mm), and a pseudo-3D modality computed via four-light photometric stereo. The authors also propose D3M, a benchmark method that fuses RGB, pseudo-3D, and point-cloud features using channel-spatial swapping, unsupervised contrastive alignment, and multi-bank decision fusion. Experiments report average I-AUROC 0.890 and P-AUROC 0.937 for D3M on the proposed dataset, outperforming single-modality and 2D+3D baselines on average. The paper also includes resolution-downsampling and feature-interpolation analyses to highlight the value of high-resolution point clouds.

Significance. If the dataset is released as described, it would be a substantial resource for the IAD community: it is larger and higher-resolution than MVTec 3D-AD and Real3D-AD, covers 69 defect groups across diverse real-world materials, and provides synchronized 2D/pseudo-3D/3D data with public access. The pseudo-3D modality is a novel contribution that could aid detection of subtle surface defects, though its validity on glossy and textured materials is not yet demonstrated. The D3M benchmark is a useful baseline but is largely composed of existing components (DINO, PointMAE, M3DM-style contrastive fusion and decision layers); its methodological novelty is limited. The average performance gains over M3DM are real, but the paper's stronger claim of 'consistently surpassing' all 2D+3D methods is contradicted by the per-category numbers, and the ablations do not isolate the pseudo-3D contribution. The paper would become publishable after a major revision that validates the pseudo-3D modality and corrects or qualifies the performance claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Table 2] The claim that D3M 'consistently surpasses' 2D+3D methods is contradicted by the per-category results. For example, on miniature_lifting_motor the I-AUROC drops from 0.975 (M3DM) to 0.823 (D3M), and on power_jack it drops from 0.996 to 0.973. In addition, D3M is worse than M3DM on P-AUROC in at least eight categories (connector_housing_female 0.951 vs 0.979, dc_power_connector 0.947 vs 0.950, ethernet_connector 0.970 vs 0.978, fork_crimp_terminal 0.946 vs 0.964, fuse_holder 0.915 vs 0.948, lattice_block_plug 0.941 vs 0.958, miniature_lifting_motor 0.961 vs 0.991, purple_clay_pot 0.922 vs 0.953). The paper should be revised to state that D3M achieves the best average performance, not consistent per-category superiority, and the authors should discuss the categories where the additional pseudo-3D modality degrades performance.
  2. [§5.2, Table 3] The experimental design does not isolate the contribution of the pseudo-3D modality. D3M differs from M3DM in several architectural components (CSS swapping, contrastive fusion with swapped 2D features, and a triple memory bank), so the improvement of D3M over M3DM in Table 2 cannot be attributed to the pseudo-3D input alone. Moreover, Table 3 reports M3DM(2D+3D) with I-AUROC 0.752 and P-AUROC 0.687, which is inconsistent with the M3DM averages in Table 2 (0.841 I-AUROC, 0.922 P-AUROC) and is not explained in the text. The authors should provide a controlled ablation that runs the same architecture with and without the pseudo-3D modality, and they must reconcile the M3DM numbers between Table 2 and Table 3.
  3. [§3.1, photometric stereo equation] The pseudo-3D modality is generated by solving n = (L^T L)^{-1} L^T I under the assumption of Lambertian reflectance, known fixed light directions, and no shadows or interreflections. Many of the 20 categories are glossy metals and plastics (ferrite_bead, power_jack, headphone_jack_socket, dc_power_connector), where specularities violate the Lambertian assumption. The paper provides no calibration details for the light directions, no albedo normalization, and, critically, no validation of the recovered normal maps against the co-captured micrometer-level point clouds. Without such validation, the pseudo-3D modality could be a corrupted signal, and the headline claim that this modality improves detection is not established. I request that the authors add either a quantitative comparison of the photometric-stereo normals against the 3D scans on representative categories or an ablation in which the pseudo-3D channel is replaced by a noise or constant signal, to demonstrate that the performance gain is specifically due to meaningful surface-orientation information.
  4. [Throughout (Sec. 3.1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3)] The paper interchangeably calls the photometric-stereo output 'pseudo-3D depth' and 'pseudo-3D surface normals', but Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) estimate a surface normal field, not depth. This is a conceptual mismatch that affects how readers and downstream methods interpret the modality. The authors should consistently describe the modality as surface normals (or, if they truly intend depth, explain how depth is integrated from normals) and adjust the text, captions, and figures accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistencies: 'Pesudo-3D' in Table 3 and Figure 7, 'Tabel' in Table 3 caption, and inconsistent category names (e.g., 'common-mode-filter' vs 'commonmodefilter', 'connector_housing-female' vs 'connectorhousing-female'). These should be standardized.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The URL in the abstract contains a space ('realiad4ad.github.io/Real-IAD D3'); it should be corrected to a proper link, e.g., 'https://realiad4ad.github.io/Real-IAD-D3'.
  3. [Table 1] The table lists '3D Point-Cloud Resolution' as 0.01 mm and 'Point Precision' as 0.002 mm, but the text in Sec. 3 says 'accuracy of 0.002 mm' and 'four-point cloud resolutions'. The relationship between resolution, precision, and accuracy should be defined clearly to avoid confusion.
  4. [Sec. 5.3, Table 4] Table 4 reports PointMAE at Original vs 4x resolution but does not include the 40x condition shown in Fig. 8; the text and figure should be consistent about which downsampling factors are evaluated quantitatively.
  5. [Fig. 8] The figure labels 'Zoom in=15', 'Zoom in=10', and 'Zoom in=3' are not explained in the text or caption; please clarify what these values represent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dataset construction and D3M benchmark are self-contained, and self-citations to Real-IAD and M3DM are lineage/method borrowings rather than load-bearing derivations.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain from dataset construction (Sec. 3.1) through the D3M benchmark (Sec. 4) to the experimental claims (Sec. 5), no load-bearing step reduces to its inputs by construction. The pseudo-3D modality is produced by a standard photometric-stereo least-squares solve n=(L^T L)^{-1} L^T I from four directional images; this is an independent data-generation formula, not a target-valued fit. The D3M benchmark borrows the M3DM contrastive fusion idea and one-class SVM decision layer, with the only hand-set fusion ratio alpha=0.1; alpha is not fitted to I-AUROC/P-AUROC, and the reported averages are measured on a held benchmark rather than derived from the dataset statistics. Self-citations to Real-IAD [28] and M3DM [30] are lineage and method attribution, not uniqueness theorems or assumptions that entail the D3M results. Concerns that the Lambertian assumption may be violated on glossy categories, or that per-category numbers (e.g., connector_housing_female P-AUROC 0.951 vs M3DM 0.979) weaken the claim of consistent improvement, are empirical validity and robustness issues, not circularity. I therefore find no significant circularity; the minimal score reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the validity of the photometric stereo reconstruction, the transferability of pretrained features, and the correctness of annotations. No new physical entities or forces are introduced. The free parameters are limited to hand-set hyperparameters in the proposed D3M module.

free parameters (2)
  • CSS swapping ratio alpha = 0.1
    In Sec. 4, alpha = 0.1 controls the fraction of channel and spatial features swapped between RGB and pseudo-3D. It is set by hand with no ablation or sensitivity analysis.
  • CSS block size k = unspecified
    The k x k block granularity in the spatial exchange (Sec. 4) is not given a numeric value, so an essential detail of the proposed module is undefined.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Photometric stereo under Lambertian reflectance with calibrated four-light directions recovers true surface normals
    Section 3.1 defines n = (L^T L)^{-1} L^T I, which assumes diffuse shading and no shadows, interreflections, or specularities. Many dataset materials are glossy metals, so this assumption is likely violated for some categories.
  • domain assumption Pretrained DINO and PointMAE features transfer well to industrial defect detection
    The D3M benchmark in Sec. 5 uses off-the-shelf DINO ViT-b/8 and PointMAE without fine-tuning on the target domain. The paper provides no analysis showing these features capture the fine surface defects in the dataset.
  • domain assumption Pixel-level annotations are accurate and consistent across all samples
    The appendix asserts high annotation precision, but no inter-annotator agreement, validation protocol, or quality-control statistics are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-IAD D3: A Real-World 2D/Pseudo-3D/3D Dataset for Industrial Anomaly Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TAUKEN7F

@misc{pith2026250414221,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-IAD D3: A Real-World 2D/Pseudo-3D/3D Dataset for Industrial Anomaly Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TAUKEN7F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14221}
}
read the original abstract

The increasing complexity of industrial anomaly detection (IAD) has positioned multimodal detection methods as a focal area of machine vision research. However, dedicated multimodal datasets specifically tailored for IAD remain limited. Pioneering datasets like MVTec 3D have laid essential groundwork in multimodal IAD by incorporating RGB+3D data, but still face challenges in bridging the gap with real industrial environments due to limitations in scale and resolution. To address these challenges, we introduce Real-IAD D3, a high-precision multimodal dataset that uniquely incorporates an additional pseudo3D modality generated through photometric stereo, alongside high-resolution RGB images and micrometer-level 3D point clouds. Real-IAD D3 features finer defects, diverse anomalies, and greater scale across 20 categories, providing a challenging benchmark for multimodal IAD Additionally, we introduce an effective approach that integrates RGB, point cloud, and pseudo-3D depth information to leverage the complementary strengths of each modality, enhancing detection performance. Our experiments highlight the importance of these modalities in boosting detection robustness and overall IAD performance. The dataset and code are publicly accessible for research purposes at https://realiad4ad.github.io/Real-IAD D3

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14221 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pseudo-3D enhances defect localization over 2D and 3D. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Material preparation and defect creation across 20 product categories; (b) Image acquisition setup using a single camera, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of the 20 materials in the Real-IAD D³ dataset. Each group of images represents a specific material, with the first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Statistical overview of the Real-IAD D³ dataset in comparison to MVTec 3D-AD and Real3D-AD, illustrating sample counts, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The D³M framework architecture for IAD, illustrating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of the effect of adding pseudo-3D to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of segmentation map across different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of point cloud data at original, 4x, and 40x [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anomaly detection in 3d point clouds using deep geometric descriptors

    Paul Bergmann and David Sattlegger. Anomaly detection in 3d point clouds using deep geometric descriptors. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applica- tions of Computer Vision, pages 2613–2623, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    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. 1, 2

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Uninformed students: Student-teacher anomaly detection with discriminative latent embeddings

    Paul Bergmann, Michael Fauser, David Sattlegger, and Carsten Steger. Uninformed students: Student-teacher anomaly detection with discriminative latent embeddings. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 4183–4192, 2020. 2

    2020

  4. [4]

    The mvtec 3d-ad dataset for unsupervised 3d anomaly detection and localization

    Paul Bergmann, Xin Jin, David Sattlegger, and Carsten Ste- ger. The mvtec 3d-ad dataset for unsupervised 3d anomaly detection and localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09045,

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    The eyecandies dataset for unsupervised multimodal anomaly detection and local- ization

    Luca Bonfiglioli, Marco Toschi, Davide Silvestri, Nicola Fioraio, and Daniele De Gregorio. The eyecandies dataset for unsupervised multimodal anomaly detection and local- ization. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 3586–3602, 2022. 2, 3

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    A sur- vey on visual anomaly detection: Challenge, approach, and prospect

    Yunkang Cao, Xiaohao Xu, Jiangning Zhang, Yuqi Cheng, Xiaonan Huang, Guansong Pang, and Weiming Shen. A sur- vey on visual anomaly detection: Challenge, approach, and prospect. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16402, 2024. 1, 2, 3

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Easynet: An efficient network for 3d industrial anomaly detection

    Ruitao Chen, Guoyang Xie, Jiaqi Liu, Jinbao Wang, Ziqi Luo, Jinfan Wang, and Feng Zheng. Easynet: An efficient network for 3d industrial anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 7038–7046, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    A zero-/few- shot anomaly classification and segmentation method for cvpr 2023 vand workshop challenge tracks 1&2: 1st place on zero-shot ad and 4th place on few-shot ad

    Xuhai Chen, Yue Han, and Jiangning Zhang. A zero-/few- shot anomaly classification and segmentation method for cvpr 2023 vand workshop challenge tracks 1&2: 1st place on zero-shot ad and 4th place on few-shot ad. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17382, 2023. 3

    arXiv 2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Shape-guided dual-memory learning for 3d anomaly detection

    Yu-Min Chu, Chieh Liu, Ting-I Hsieh, Hwann-Tzong Chen, and Tyng-Luh Liu. Shape-guided dual-memory learning for 3d anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the 40th Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning , pages 6185–6194,

  2. [10]

    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

    2021

  3. [11]

    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. 1

    2022

  4. [12]

    Cflow-ad: Real-time unsupervised anomaly detection with compact neural flow

    Denis Gudovskiy et al. Cflow-ad: Real-time unsupervised anomaly detection with compact neural flow. IEEE Transac- tions on Artificial Intelligence, page 2022, 2022. 1, 2, 3

    2022

  5. [13]

    A diffusion-based framework for multi-class anomaly detection

    Haoyang He, Jiangning Zhang, Hongxu Chen, Xuhai Chen, Zhishan Li, Xu Chen, Yabiao Wang, Chengjie Wang, and Lei Xie. A diffusion-based framework for multi-class anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, pages 8472–8480, 2024. 3

    2024

  6. [14]

    Learning unified reference rep- resentation for unsupervised multi-class anomaly detection

    Liren He, Zhengkai Jiang, Jinlong Peng, Liang Liu, Qian- gang Du, Xiaobin Hu, Wenbing Zhu, Mingmin Chi, Yabiao Wang, and Chengjie Wang. Learning unified reference rep- resentation for unsupervised multi-class anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11561, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Back to the feature: clas- sical 3d features are (almost) all you need for 3d anomaly detection

    Eliahu Horwitz and Yedid Hoshen. Back to the feature: clas- sical 3d features are (almost) all you need for 3d anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2967– 2976, 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [16]

    Winclip: Zero- /few-shot anomaly classification and segmentation

    Jongheon Jeong, Yang Zou, Taewan Kim, Dongqing Zhang, Avinash Ravichandran, and Onkar Dabeer. Winclip: Zero- /few-shot anomaly classification and segmentation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19606–19616, 2023. 3

    2023

  9. [17]

    Pyramid- flow: High-resolution defect contrastive localization using pyramid normalizing flow

    Jiarui Lei, Xiaobo Hu, Yue Wang, and Dong Liu. Pyramid- flow: High-resolution defect contrastive localization using pyramid normalizing flow. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 14143–14152, 2023. 2

    2023

  10. [18]

    Promptad: Learn- ing prompts with only normal samples for few-shot anomaly detection

    Xiaofan Li, Zhizhong Zhang, Xin Tan, Chengwei Chen, Yanyun Qu, Yuan Xie, and Lizhuang Ma. Promptad: Learn- ing prompts with only normal samples for few-shot anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 16838– 1...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Real3d- ad: A dataset of point cloud anomaly detection

    Jiaqi Liu, Guoyang Xie, Ruitao Chen, Xinpeng Li, Jinbao Wang, Yong Liu, Chengjie Wang, and Feng Zheng. Real3d- ad: A dataset of point cloud anomaly detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 3

    2024

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    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 (CVPR), pages 14318–14328, 2022. 2, 7

    2022

  14. [22]

    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. 2

    2022

  15. [23]

    Asymmetric student-teacher networks for indus- trial anomaly detection

    Marco Rudolph, Tom Wehrbein, Bodo Rosenhahn, and Bas- tian Wandt. Asymmetric student-teacher networks for indus- trial anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 2592–2602, 2023. 2

    2023

  16. [24]

    Multiresolution knowledge distillation for anomaly detection

    Mohammadreza Salehi, Niousha Sadjadi, Soroosh Baselizadeh, Mohammad H Rohban, and Hamid R Ra- biee. Multiresolution knowledge distillation for anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF confer- ence on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 14902–14912, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Revisiting reverse distillation for anomaly detection

    Tran Dinh Tien, Anh Tuan Nguyen, Nguyen Hoang Tran, Ta Duc Huy, Soan Duong, Chanh D Tr Nguyen, and Steven QH Truong. Revisiting reverse distillation for anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 24511–24520...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Position encoding enhanced feature mapping for image anomaly detection

    Qian Wan, Yunkang Cao, Liang Gao, Weiming Shen, and Xinyu Li. Position encoding enhanced feature mapping for image anomaly detection. In 2022 IEEE 18th Interna- tional Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pages 876–881. IEEE, 2022. 3

    2022

  19. [27]

    Pspu: Enhanced positive and unlabeled learning by leveraging pseudo super- vision

    Chengjie Wang, Chengming Xu, Zhenye Gan, Yuxi Li, Jian- long Hu, Wenbing Zhu, and Lizhuang Ma. Pspu: Enhanced positive and unlabeled learning by leveraging pseudo super- vision. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Multime- dia and Expo (ICME), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2024. 2

    2024

  20. [28]

    Real-iad: A real-world multi-view dataset for benchmarking versatile industrial anomaly detec- tion

    Chengjie Wang, Wenbing Zhu, Bin-Bin Gao, Zhenye Gan, Jiangning Zhang, Zhihao Gu, Shuguang Qian, Mingang Chen, and Lizhuang Ma. Real-iad: A real-world multi-view dataset for benchmarking versatile industrial anomaly detec- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com-...

  21. [29]

    Softpatch+: Fully un- supervised anomaly classification and segmentation

    Chengjie Wang, Xi Jiang, Bin-Bin Gao, Zhenye Gan, Yong Liu, Feng Zheng, and Lizhuang Ma. Softpatch+: Fully un- supervised anomaly classification and segmentation. Pattern Recognition, 161:111295, 2025. 2

    2025

  22. [30]

    Multimodal industrial anomaly detection via hybrid fusion

    Yue Wang, Jinlong Peng, Jiangning Zhang, Ran Yi, Yabiao Wang, and Chengjie Wang. Multimodal industrial anomaly detection via hybrid fusion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 8032–8041, 2023. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  23. [31]

    Pushing the limits of fewshot anomaly detection in industry vision: Graphcore

    Guoyang Xie et al. Pushing the limits of fewshot anomaly detection in industry vision: Graphcore. International Con- ference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022. 3

    2022

  24. [32]

    A unified model for multi-class anomaly detection

    Zhiyuan You, Lei Cui, Yujun Shen, Kai Yang, Xin Lu, Yu Zheng, and Xinyi Le. A unified model for multi-class anomaly detection. In Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, pages 4571–4584. Curran Associates, Inc.,

  25. [33]

    Cheat- ing depth: Enhancing 3d surface anomaly detection via depth simulation

    Vitjan Zavrtanik, Matej Kristan, and Danijel Sko ˇcaj. Cheat- ing depth: Enhancing 3d surface anomaly detection via depth simulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Confer- ence on Applications of Computer Vision, pages 2164–2172,

  26. [34]

    Lingrui Zhang et al. What makes a good data augmentation for few-shot unsupervised image anomaly detection? InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4344–4353, 2023. 3

    2023

  27. [35]

    Spot-the- difference: A novel benchmark for image anomaly detection in industrial inspection

    Zongyi Zou, Qiang Qiu, and Weiming Shen. Spot-the- difference: A novel benchmark for image anomaly detection in industrial inspection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2608– 2616, 2022. 1, 2 A. Expanded Details of the Real-IAD D...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.