Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

3D-PNAS: 3D Industrial Surface Anomaly Synthesis with Perlin Noise

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 3D-PNAS claims that a PCA-projected Perlin noise field, applied as displacements along surface normals, can turn clean point clouds into realistic, controllable industrial surface defects.

desk verdict Simple, well-specified 3D anomaly synthesizer whose realism claim collapses on curved objects due to global PCA folding. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12856 v1 pith:GDB7RJYB submitted 2025-04-17 cs.GR cs.AIcs.CVcs.LGcs.RO

Yifeng Cheng , Juan Du This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GRcs.AIcs.CVcs.LGcs.RO
keywords 3DanomalysynthesisPerlinnoisepointcloudsindustrialinspectiondetectionsurfaceparameterizationPCAprojectionnormal-baseddeformation
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 3D-PNAS, a procedure that turns clean 3D point clouds of industrial objects into point clouds with synthetic surface defects. The procedure flattens the cloud onto a 2D plane using PCA, generates a multi-scale Perlin noise field on that plane, and displaces selected points along their local surface normals by an amount proportional to the noise. The paper's claim is that this simple, training-free recipe produces physically plausible anomalies, protrusions and intrusions that respect the surface rather than cutting through it, and that its parameters give fine-grained control from large dents to subtle texture. A sympathetic reader would care because real defect samples are scarce in manufacturing, and cheap, controllable synthetic anomalies could supply training data for 3D industrial anomaly detection without needing GANs or diffusion models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the continuous 2D Perlin noise field carried back onto the point cloud through a PCA-based surface parameterization. Perlin noise is a procedural gradient-noise function that yields smooth, natural-looking random patterns; sampled at multiple octaves with adjustable persistence and lacunarity, the field carries both large-scale structure and fine detail. The 2D field is overlaid on the PCA-projected points, each point gets a value by bilinear interpolation, a threshold $\tau$ converts the field into a mask with an exact target mask ratio $\rho$, and masked points are displaced along their local surface normals with magnitudes normalized so the anomaly boundary is smooth. This combination is what lets a cheap procedural noise source produce deformations that stay on the surface and look like industrial defects.

What would settle it

Apply the method to a high-curvature object such as a sphere or torus with pronounced parameters and inspect whether the anomaly pattern stays smooth or shows discontinuities where the PCA projection folds distant surface regions onto the same 2D coordinates. Quantitatively, a fold can be detected by finding two points far apart on the object that land close together in the 2D projection; if their noise values are nearly equal for many such pairs, the displacement field is not locally consistent, contradicting the claim that anomalies respect surface geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a continuous noise field mapped through a surface parameterization is sufficient to synthesize realistic 3D surface anomalies. Each valid point receives a noise value via bilinear interpolation on a PCA-projected grid; a self-adjusting threshold selects a prescribed fraction of points; and the selected points move along their estimated normals, with magnitudes locally re-scaled so the anomaly boundary is smooth. The authors argue this respects local geometry and surface continuity, unlike cut-paste-style adaptations that paste patches from elsewhere and break geometric consistency. Their visualization results show that noise scale $s$ controls the size and frequency of the defects, perturbation strength $\alpha$ controls their amplitude, and octaves $o$ control fine detail, and that the same parameter profiles remain visually consistent across categories such as bagels, tires, peaches, and cables from the MVTec 3D-AD dataset. The intended upshot is that a few hand-selected parameters, rather than learned generative models, can populate the scarce-defect regime with diverse, controllable training samples.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the PCA projection flattens the surface without folding it, so nearby points on the 2D plane correspond to nearby points on the object; if the plane folds distinct surface regions together, the noise-sampled displacements no longer describe smooth, geometry-respecting deformations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, defect-free 3D scans can be converted into labeled anomalous scans in seconds, giving anomaly-detection models training pairs without collecting real defective parts.
  • Tuning noise scale $s$, perturbation strength $\alpha$, and octaves $o$ yields a continuous spectrum from pronounced deformations to subtle surface variations, so defect type and severity can be matched to the inspection task.
  • Because the method needs only PCA, k-nearest-neighbor normals, bilinear interpolation, and Perlin noise, it runs without GPU training and should transfer to organized or unorganized point clouds.
  • The cross-category visualizations imply that a fixed parameter profile can be reused across object shapes while still producing anomalies that follow each object's local geometry.
  • The included codebase, visualization toolkit, and grid-search GUI let practitioners and researchers reproduce the parameter studies and generate custom anomaly profiles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direction the paper does not develop is using the same Perlin field to drive a 2D image generator, which would produce perfectly aligned RGB-depth anomaly pairs for multimodal inspection models.
  • A testable extension beyond this paper is spatially masking the noise field to place defects at chosen locations, turning the method from appearance-based synthesis into a tool for fault-localization benchmarks.
  • Building on the paper's own note that the current evidence is visual, one could train a 3D anomaly detector on 3D-PNAS anomalies and measure detection performance on real MVTec 3D-AD defects.
  • On strongly curved objects the planar PCA parameterization may fold distinct surface regions together; a natural comparison would replace it with a geodesic or mesh-based parameterization and see whether anomalies remain smooth on high-curvature shapes.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes 3D-PNAS, a method for synthesizing surface anomalies on 3D point clouds by combining a global PCA-based 2D parameterization with Perlin noise sampling, k-nearest-neighbor normal estimation, and threshold-based displacement along surface normals. The authors claim that this simple, parameter-controllable approach generates realistic and physically plausible anomalies that respect local surface geometry, and they support the claim with qualitative visualizations on the MVTec 3D-AD dataset, along with a released codebase and visualization toolkit. The paper also includes parameter-exploration experiments and a grid-search visualization of noise scale versus octaves.

Significance. If the method works as claimed, it offers a lightweight, training-free, controllable anomaly generator for 3D industrial inspection, which could be a useful data-augmentation tool for 3D anomaly detection research. The explicit release of a codebase and visualization toolkit is a practical contribution, and the method has no circular dependence on fitted constants: the parameters are user-set generation controls and the adaptive threshold targets a user-specified mask ratio. However, the central claims of realism and geometric plausibility currently rest only on visual inspection, which the paper itself acknowledges in the conclusion, and the global PCA parameterization is not validated for the non-planar objects used in the experiments. The paper is therefore a useful starting point but needs substantial additional evidence before its main claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-A and Section IV-B] The global PCA projection P2D = Pc M is not guaranteed to be injective for non-planar surfaces, and the paper itself states in Section II-C that the approach 'assumes only planar surfaces.' Yet the cross-category experiments in Figure 6 apply the method to strongly curved objects such as bagels, peaches, tires, and ropes. For such objects, distinct surface patches in 3D can map to identical or nearby 2D PCA coordinates, so bilinear interpolation in the Perlin noise grid gives correlated noise values to points that are far apart in 3D. The resulting displacement field is then not local on the surface, which contradicts the Figure 1(a) claim that the method 'maintains surface continuity and considers local geometry.' Please either restrict the method to planar or nearly planar surfaces, replace the global projection with a locally injective parameterization, or provide an empirical verification, such as a visualization of the 2D projection colored by 3D position plus a quantitative fold-over measure, for each object category used.
  2. [Section V (Conclusion) and Section IV] The central claim of the paper is that the method generates 'realistic' and 'physically plausible' anomalies, but the only evidence is qualitative visualization, and the Conclusion explicitly states that the results are 'currently limited to visual demonstrations.' No quantitative evaluation, no comparison with existing 3D anomaly synthesis methods such as DAS3D, Keep DRÆMing, or PO3AD, and no downstream anomaly-detection experiment is provided. Because the abstract and Figure 1 present physical plausibility as the main advantage over cut-paste style approaches, this claim is not yet substantiated. Please add quantitative validation, for example measuring geometric distortion or surface continuity of the deformed point clouds, comparing generated anomalies with real ones, or showing that training a 3D anomaly detector on the synthesized data improves detection/localization performance, or alternatively significantly weaken the realism claims to match the evidence presented.
  3. [Section III-D, Eq. (displacement) and Figure 6] The displacement δi = bνi α ni mi is applied to each masked point independently using normals computed on the original point cloud, with no recomputation of normals and no check for self-intersection or non-local overlap after deformation. For the pronounced-defect profile in Figure 6, which uses α = 0.1, the displacement magnitude can exceed the local point spacing, so the deformed point cloud may become non-manifold or contain colliding surface regions. This directly affects the physical-plausibility claim. The authors should either enforce or verify local injectivity of the deformed surface, or restrict the claimed plausibility to parameter regimes where such artifacts are provably or empirically absent.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 7 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'grid serach tool' should be 'grid search tool.'
  2. [Section III-D] The description of the adaptive threshold is incomplete: if the initial avgMask is already at or below ρ, the text does not say whether τ is left unchanged or adjusted. Please specify the behavior in both cases.
  3. [Section III-C] The statement 'we additionally enforce outward orientation by ensuring ni points consistently relative to its local neighborhood' is underspecified. For non-closed surfaces, 'outward' is not uniquely defined; please provide the precise orientation rule.
  4. [Section III-D] The handling of invalid points is ambiguous: the text says invalid points are 'reintegrated ... as zero coordinates,' but if the output is reshaped to H×W×3, zero coordinates may be indistinguishable from valid points near the origin. Please define an explicit validity mask for the output.
  5. [Section IV-C] In the sentence beginning 'Each plot in the matrix contains ...,' the phrase 'despite due to the limitations of the research paper format' is grammatically incomplete. Please rephrase.
  6. [Section I, contributions] The second bullet says 'provide a comprehensive codebase and visualization toolkit to use of our method'; 'to use of' should be 'for the use of' or 'to support the use of.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the method's derivation is self-contained with user-set generation parameters and no fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's pipeline is fully specified by its own equations: PCA-based surface parameterization (Section III-A), continuous Perlin noise sampling on the 2D grid (Section III-B), local normal estimation via k-nearest-neighbor covariance (Section III-C), and displacement delta_i = b_nu_i * alpha * n_i * m_i with adaptive thresholding (Section III-D). All parameters, including noise scale, octaves, persistence, lacunarity, perturbation strength, and target mask ratio, are user-set generation controls rather than quantities fitted to data and later relabeled as predictions. The adaptive threshold adjustment only enforces the user-specified mask ratio rho and is not a statistical fit. The only author self-citations are [15], used as a contrasting 3D cut-paste baseline in Figure 1, and [16], used as a survey reference for the importance of 3D sensing; neither is load-bearing for the central generation mechanism. The claim that alpha controls deformation magnitude is true by construction because delta_i is explicitly proportional to alpha, but this is a description of the algorithm's behavior, not a prediction derived from fitted inputs. A separate correctness concern remains: the paper itself states in Section II-C that the approach 'assumes only planar surfaces' while Section IV-B demonstrates strongly curved objects such as bagels, peaches, and tires, where the global PCA map may not be injective. That is an assumption-validity issue, not circular reasoning. No step in the derivation reduces by definition or by self-citation to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard tools (SVD, Perlin noise, k-NN normal estimation) plus two domain assumptions: that the PCA parameterization is locally faithful, and that normal-direction displacement of points by smooth noise produces plausible defects. No new entities are postulated and no constants are fitted to data; all listed numbers are user controls or standard hyperparameters.

free parameters (5)
  • perturbation strength alpha = 0.01, 0.02, 0.05 in experiments
    User-chosen control for displacement magnitude; not fitted to data.
  • mask ratio rho = 0.03, 0.05, 0.08 in experiments
    User specifies the target fraction of points to deform; the threshold tau is self-adjusted to meet it.
  • grid resolution r = 64
    Chosen by hand; controls Perlin noise discretization.
  • neighborhood size k = 10
    Chosen by hand for normal estimation.
  • perlin parameters (scale, octaves, persistence, lacunarity) = s in {1,2,3,4}, o in {1,2,3,4}, p in {0.4,0.5,0.7}, l=2.0
    Standard Perlin noise controls that let users tune anomaly size, detail, and texture; not fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PCA projection onto the top two principal components yields a valid local parameterization of the point cloud surface.
    Invoked in Section III-A. This holds for near-planar patches but folds curved or volumetric surfaces, which can invalidate noise coherence.
  • standard math The eigenvector of the smallest eigenvalue of the local covariance matrix is a reliable outward surface normal.
    Used in Section III-C; standard PCA-based normal estimation.
  • domain assumption Displacing points along local normals by smooth Perlin noise produces geometrically plausible industrial defects.
    Core modeling assumption in Sections III-D and III-E; not tested against real defect geometry.
  • standard math Perlin noise fields are an established way to model anomaly textures in industrial data.
    Borrowed from prior 2.5D methods [15], [17], [18] cited in Section II-B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D-PNAS: 3D Industrial Surface Anomaly Synthesis with Perlin Noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GDB7RJYB

@misc{pith2026250412856,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D-PNAS: 3D Industrial Surface Anomaly Synthesis with Perlin Noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GDB7RJYB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12856}
}
read the original abstract

Large pretrained vision foundation models have shown significant potential in various vision tasks. However, for industrial anomaly detection, the scarcity of real defect samples poses a critical challenge in leveraging these models. While 2D anomaly generation has significantly advanced with established generative models, the adoption of 3D sensors in industrial manufacturing has made leveraging 3D data for surface quality inspection an emerging trend. In contrast to 2D techniques, 3D anomaly generation remains largely unexplored, limiting the potential of 3D data in industrial quality inspection. To address this gap, we propose a novel yet simple 3D anomaly generation method, 3D-PNAS, based on Perlin noise and surface parameterization. Our method generates realistic 3D surface anomalies by projecting the point cloud onto a 2D plane, sampling multi-scale noise values from a Perlin noise field, and perturbing the point cloud along its normal direction. Through comprehensive visualization experiments, we demonstrate how key parameters - including noise scale, perturbation strength, and octaves, provide fine-grained control over the generated anomalies, enabling the creation of diverse defect patterns from pronounced deformations to subtle surface variations. Additionally, our cross-category experiments show that the method produces consistent yet geometrically plausible anomalies across different object types, adapting to their specific surface characteristics. We also provide a comprehensive codebase and visualization toolkit to facilitate future research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12856 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between cut-paste based approach and our approach in 3D anomaly synthesis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our 3D anomaly synthesis method: (a) Original point cloud with PCA directions; (b) Projected points on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of the effect of varying the noise scale ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the effect of varying the perturbation strength ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of the effect of varying the octaves ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of our method’s adaptability across various object categories from the MVTec 3D-AD dataset [27]. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Grid search matrix visualization generated by our grid serach tool showing the coupling effects of noise scale ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Examining the Source of Defects from a Mechanical Perspective for 3D Anomaly Detection

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    MC4AD predicts per-point internal and external corrective force vectors from point clouds and uses their magnitude as an anomaly score, reporting state-of-the-art detection and segmentation on five benchmarks plus a n...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Deep industrial image anomaly detection: A survey,

    J. Liu, G. Xie, J. Wang, S. Li, C. Wang, F. Zheng, and Y . Jin, “Deep industrial image anomaly detection: A survey,” Machine Intelligence Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 104–135, Feb. 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    A survey on industrial anomalies synthesis,

    X. Xu, Y . Wang, Y . Huang, J. Liu, X. Lei, G. Xie, G. Jiang, and Z. Lu, “A survey on industrial anomalies synthesis,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.16412

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Anomalycontrol: Few-shot anomaly generation by controlnet inpainting,

    M. Ali, N. Fioraio, S. Salti, and L. Di Stefano, “Anomalycontrol: Few-shot anomaly generation by controlnet inpainting,” IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions , vol. 12, pp. 192 903–192 914, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Anomalyxfusion: Multi-modal anomaly synthesis with diffusion,

    J. Hu, Y . Huang, Y . Lu, G. Xie, G. Jiang, Y . Zheng, and Z. Lu, “Anomalyxfusion: Multi-modal anomaly synthesis with diffusion,”

    work page

  5. [5]

    Anomalydiffusion: Few-shot anomaly image generation with diffusion model,

    T. Hu, J. Zhang, R. Yi, Y . Du, X. Chen, L. Liu, Y . Wang, and C. Wang, “Anomalydiffusion: Few-shot anomaly image generation with diffusion model,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, Mar. 2024, pp. 8526–8534

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Cagen: Controllable anomaly generator using diffusion model,

    B. Jiang, Y . Xie, J. Li, N. Li, Y . Jiang, and S.-T. Xia, “Cagen: Controllable anomaly generator using diffusion model,” in ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). Seoul, Korea, Republic of: IEEE, Apr. 2024, pp. 3110–3114

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Dualanodiff: Dual-interrelated diffusion model for few-shot anomaly image generation,

    Y . Jin, J. Peng, Q. He, T. Hu, H. Chen, J. Wu, W. Zhu, M. Chi, J. Liu, Y . Wang, and C. Wang, “Dualanodiff: Dual-interrelated diffusion model for few-shot anomaly image generation,” arXiv.org, 2024. a b c Fig. 3: Visualization of the effect of varying the noise scale ( s) on the generated anomalies in a 3D point cloud: (a) s = 1.0 produces large, smooth,...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Cut: A controllable, universal, and training-free visual anomaly generation framework,

    H. Sun, Y . Cao, and O. Fink, “Cut: A controllable, universal, and training-free visual anomaly generation framework,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01078

    arXiv 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Anomalyclip: Object- agnostic prompt learning for zero-shot anomaly detection,

    Q. Zhou, G. Pang, Y . Tian, S. He, and J. Chen, “Anomalyclip: Object- agnostic prompt learning for zero-shot anomaly detection,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , Oct. 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

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

    J. Jeong, Y . Zou, T. Kim, D. Zhang, A. Ravichandran, and O. Dabeer, “Winclip: Zero-/few-shot anomaly classification and segmentation,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR) . Vancouver, BC, Canada: IEEE, Jun. 2023, pp. 19 606– 19 616

    2023

  3. [11]

    Clip3d-ad: Extending clip for 3d few-shot anomaly detection with multi-view images generation,

    Z. Zuo, J. Dong, Y . Wu, Y . Qu, and Z. Wu, “Clip3d-ad: Extending clip for 3d few-shot anomaly detection with multi-view images generation,”

  4. [12]

    Pointad: Comprehending 3d anomalies from points and pixels for zero-shot 3d anomaly detec- tion,

    Q. Zhou, J. Yan, S. He, W. Meng, and J. Chen, “Pointad: Comprehending 3d anomalies from points and pixels for zero-shot 3d anomaly detec- tion,” in The Thirty-Eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18941

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18941

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cutpaste: Self-supervised learning for anomaly detection and localization,

    C.-L. Li, K. Sohn, J. Yoon, and T. Pfister, “Cutpaste: Self-supervised learning for anomaly detection and localization,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.04015

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever, “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine...

    2021

  8. [16]

    3d vision-based anomaly detection in manufacturing: A survey,

    J. Du, C. Tao, X. Cao, and F. Tsung, “3d vision-based anomaly detection in manufacturing: A survey,” Frontiers of Engineering Management , Apr. 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    G²sf-miad: Geometry-guided score fusion for multimodal industrial anomaly detection,

    C. Tao, X. Cao, and J. Du, “G²sf-miad: Geometry-guided score fusion for multimodal industrial anomaly detection,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10091

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Das3d: Dual-modality anomaly synthesis for 3d anomaly detection,

    K. Li, B. Dai, J. Fu, and X. Hou, “Das3d: Dual-modality anomaly synthesis for 3d anomaly detection,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09821

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Keep dræming: Discriminative 3d anomaly detection through anomaly simulation,

    V . Zavrtanik, M. Kristan, and D. Skoˇcaj, “Keep dræming: Discriminative 3d anomaly detection through anomaly simulation,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 181, pp. 113–119, May 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    R3d-ad: Reconstruction via diffusion for 3d anomaly detection,

    Z. Zhou, L. Wang, N. Fang, Z. Wang, L. Qiu, and S. Zhang, “R3d-ad: Reconstruction via diffusion for 3d anomaly detection,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2024 , A. Leonardis, E. Ricci, S. Roth, O. Russakovsky, T. Sattler, and G. Varol, Eds., vol. 15094. Cham: Springer Nature Switze...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Po3ad: Predicting point offsets toward better 3d point cloud anomaly detection,

    J. Ye, W. Zhao, X. Yang, G. Cheng, and K. Huang, “Po3ad: Predicting point offsets toward better 3d point cloud anomaly detection,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.12617

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Reconstruction by inpainting for visual anomaly detection,

    V . Zavrtanik, M. Kristan, and D. Sko ˇcaj, “Reconstruction by inpainting for visual anomaly detection,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 112, p. 107706, Apr. 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Natural synthetic anomalies for self-supervised anomaly detection and localization,

    H. M. Schl ¨uter, J. Tan, B. Hou, and B. Kainz, “Natural synthetic anomalies for self-supervised anomaly detection and localization,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2022, S. Avidan, G. Brostow, M. Ciss´e, G. M. Farinella, and T. Hassner, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022...

    2022

  16. [24]

    Simplenet: A simple network for image anomaly detection and localization,

    Z. Liu, Y . Zhou, Y . Xu, and Z. Wang, “Simplenet: A simple network for image anomaly detection and localization,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . IEEE, Jun. 2023, pp. 20 402–20 411

    2023

  17. [25]

    Progressive bound- ary guided anomaly synthesis for industrial anomaly detection,

    Q. Chen, H. Luo, H. Gao, C. Lv, and Z. Zhang, “Progressive bound- ary guided anomaly synthesis for industrial anomaly detection,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 1193–1208, Feb. 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Realnet: A feature selection net- work with realistic synthetic anomaly for anomaly detection,

    X. Zhang, M. Xu, and X. Zhou, “Realnet: A feature selection net- work with realistic synthetic anomaly for anomaly detection,” in 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Seattle, W A, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2024, pp. 16 699–16 708

    2024

  19. [27]

    Defect-gan: High-fidelity defect synthesis for automated defect inspection,

    G. Zhang, K. Cui, T.-Y . Hung, and S. Lu, “Defect-gan: High-fidelity defect synthesis for automated defect inspection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 2524–2534

    2021

  20. [28]

    Towards scalable 3d anomaly detection and localization: A benchmark via 3d anomaly synthesis and a self-supervised learning network,

    W. Li, X. Xu, Y . Gu, B. Zheng, S. Gaol, and Y . Wu, “Towards scalable 3d anomaly detection and localization: A benchmark via 3d anomaly synthesis and a self-supervised learning network,” in 2024 a b c Fig. 4: Visualization of the effect of varying the perturbation strength ( ...

    2024

  21. [29]

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

    P. Bergmann, X. Jin, D. Sattlegger, and C. Steger, “The mvtec 3d- ad dataset for unsupervised 3d anomaly detection and localization,” in Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications , vol. 5, 2...

    2022

  22. [2024]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19444

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19444

    arXiv

Pith tools

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