Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 61 references

PB-IAD: Utilizing multimodal foundation models for semantic industrial anomaly detection in dynamic manufacturing environments

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A frozen multimodal foundation model, prompted only with semantic instructions and one reference image, matches or beats retrained classical detectors in data-sparse manufacturing.

desk verdict Plausible prompt-only industrial anomaly detection framework, but the central claim is undercut by test-set-informed prompt tuning and single-run metrics; worth review with a held-out prompt split. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14504 v1 pith:OIULIWVF submitted 2025-08-20 cs.CV cs.AI

Bernd Hofmann , Albert Scheck , Joerg Franke , Patrick Bruendl This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords industrialanomalydetectionmultimodalfoundationmodelsin-contextlearningpromptengineeringlow-shotqualitycontrolvisualinspectiontime-series
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

PB-IAD proposes that industrial anomaly detection can be initialized from zero or one example by treating a frozen multimodal foundation model as the detector and encoding all domain knowledge as prompt text. The paper tests this on three manufacturing scenarios—cable cross-section images, stripped-wire images with high variability, and crimp-force curve features—using GPT-4.1 and an ablation that adds context, expertise, and reference samples one at a time. In every scenario the fully instructed prompt reaches F1 scores around 91 to 96 percent, and classical detectors such as PatchCore and Isolation Forest need on the order of one hundred or more training samples to match it. The practical point is that a quality-control system could be deployed at ramp-up before defect data accumulates, and updated by plant experts editing natural-language instructions instead of retraining models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the PB-IAD prompt template, a modular instruction stack with five sections: task instruction, context instruction, expertise instruction, output instruction, and optional reference data. A separate prompt pre-processor turns a domain expert's natural-language input into those sections, so the template can be populated without data-science expertise. The detector is a frozen multimodal foundation model (GPT-4.1) doing pure in-context learning: no weights are updated, no training set is required, and the only data-dependent input is one or a few reference samples. The machinery's job is to convert tacit process knowledge into decision boundaries the model can apply; a cri

What would settle it

A clean test would start with a fresh product variant and a domain expert who writes the context and expertise instructions from a written quality specification before seeing any test images. Freeze those instructions, run PB-IAD on the new variant, and compare it with PatchCore trained on increasing numbers of normal samples. If the frozen prompt loses most of its advantage, or PatchCore matches it with far fewer than 100 samples, the reported gains depend on prompt refinement against benchmark images rather than on semantic instructions alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that semantic instruction depth substitutes for training data in industrial anomaly detection. Using a five-section prompt (task, context, expertise, output, optional reference images) and frozen GPT-4.1, the one-shot fully instructed configuration reaches F1 95.7% on MVTec Cable, 91.0% on a high-variability stripped-wire set, and 95.8% on crimp-force features; zero-shot with full instructions reaches 93.1% and 87.9% on the first two. The ablation shows each added section—general context, then expert rules—raises recall substantially, while a single reference image adds less when instructions are already detailed. PatchCore needs roughly 100

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the refined context and expertise instructions are general process knowledge rather than wording tuned against the benchmark images; if that premise fails, the 'solely through semantic instructions' advantage partly reflects prompt optimization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quality control can begin at ramp-up with zero or one reference sample, while memory-bank detectors like PatchCore need roughly 100-190 normal samples to match.
  • Domain experts can update the anomaly definition by editing the prompt, so new defect types or product variants do not require retraining.
  • Detailed semantic instructions matter more than additional reference images: the zero-shot to one-shot gap shrinks as instructions are enriched.
  • The same template covers both visual and time-series feature modalities, unifying product inspection and process monitoring in one configuration.
  • Adding an anomalous reference image can hurt recall compared with using only a normal reference, so more class examples are not automatically better.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open whether the AND-vs-OR rule it discovered ('not all criteria need to be met') is specific to GPT-4.1 or a general vision-language model bias; testing the same prompts on other models would settle that.
  • Because one-shot binary examples sometimes made the model compare too literally, the model's own reasoning text could be used to detect and correct over-reliance on reference images.
  • The practical value depends on prompt transferability; a direct test would freeze context and expertise text written from a written specification and run it on a new product variant without test-image feedback.
  • If the reasoning output is consistent, it could double as an audit log, letting quality teams cluster false alarms by stated reason instead of treating the detector as a black box.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 proposes PB-IAD, a prompt-based industrial anomaly detection framework that uses a frozen multimodal foundation model (GPT-4.1) with a structured prompt template (task, context, expertise, output instructions, and optional reference data). The framework is evaluated in three manufacturing scenarios—MVTec Cable visual inspection, a custom stripped-wire dataset with high variability, and crimp-force curve features—with an ablation study that adds context (Ci), expertise (Ei), and reference data (Rd) incrementally. The authors report F1 improvements with each added component, reaching one-shot F1 of 95.7% on MVTec Cable, 91.0% on Stripped Wire, and 95.8% on crimp-force features. They benchmark against PatchCore and Isolation Forest, finding that PB-IAD achieves comparable or higher F1 with one or three reference samples, whereas the classical models need roughly 100–190 training samples. The paper concludes that PB-IAD delivers superior, data-efficient anomaly detection in dynamic, data-sparse manufacturing environments using only semantic instructions and low-shot examples.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper makes a valuable empirical contribution: it provides evidence that a frozen multimodal foundation model, guided by structured natural-language instructions, can compete with retrained classical anomaly detectors in low-data industrial settings. The user-centric prompt template addresses a real gap in deploying IAD during ramp-up phases, and the authors have made the custom datasets publicly available, which supports reproducibility and follow-up work. The benchmarking design—plotting classical-model performance as a function of training-set size—is a useful way to quantify data efficiency. However, the central claim of 'superior performance achieved solely through semantic instructions' is weakened by the prompt-tuning procedure and the absence of repeated stochastic evaluations, as detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Scenario 1, ablation study] The core comparison is compromised by test-set-informed prompt refinement. The paper states: 'Preliminary tests revealed that it is crucial to instruct the model that not all anomaly criteria need to be met for a sample to be considered anomalous...' This rule appears in the final Ei prompt ('any single anomaly is grounds for a positive detection') and was added after observing model behavior on the benchmark images. The same test set was used both for prompt development and for the reported F1 scores, while PatchCore's threshold was selected on a separate 20% validation split. This asymmetry means that the incremental gains from Ci and Ei may partly reflect prompt overfitting to the test distribution rather than generalizable semantic knowledge. The headline claim of out-of-the-box 'superior performance... achieved solely through semantic instructions' therefore needs support from a hel
  2. [Table 2, ablation study] All reported metrics come from a single run of a stochastic API model (GPT-4.1). No temperature, sampling parameters, or number of repeated runs are reported. The differences between ablated configurations (e.g., F1 90.1% vs 93.1% in Scenario 1 zero-shot) may be within run-to-run variation, especially given the model's reasoning is sampled. The paper should report mean and standard deviation over multiple runs, and ideally a simple significance test, before claiming that each added instruction component consistently improves performance.
  3. [Benchmark comparisons, Figs. 9–11] The Isolation Forest benchmark selects the 'optimal contamination hyperparameter' from a discrete search space for each training-set size, apparently using the test set to choose the value. This is test-set leakage and gives IF an advantage that is not matched for PB-IAD (whose prompts were also tuned on the test set, but without an equivalent selection protocol). The PatchCore threshold selection on a 20% validation split is appropriate, but the IF protocol should be clarified. If contamination was selected on the test set, the comparison is not apples-to-apples: either use a validation split for IF or report performance across a fixed, pre-specified contamination grid.
  4. [Prompt pre-processing module, Section 3.3] The framework proposes a prompt pre-processor (GPT-4o) that translates domain-user input into structured prompts, but this module is never ablated or evaluated. The paper's user-centricity claim depends on this module's ability to generate prompts of comparable quality to the manually engineered prompts used in the experiments. Without any evaluation of the pre-processor—e.g., comparing its generated prompts to the hand-written Ci/Ei instructions on the same benchmarks—the framework-level claim is not supported. The authors should either provide such an evaluation or clearly state that the reported results pertain to manually crafted prompts only.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The table uses German decimal commas (e.g., '97,1 %') while the text uses English decimal points. Please unify the format for clarity.
  2. [Conclusion] The conclusion twice refers to 'Isolation Forrest' (typo for 'Isolation Forest'). Also, it states 'utilising GPT-4' while the experiments used GPT-4.1; please correct for consistency.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The phrase 'achieved solely through semantic instructions' is overstated because the one-shot and few-shot configurations also include reference data. The paper separately acknowledges the contribution of reference samples; the abstract should be reworded to 'semantic instructions and low-shot reference data'.
  4. [Scenario 3, experimental setup] The paper states that the model 'is capable of autonomously calculating these features' but the experiments pre-compute the features externally. This capability claim is not demonstrated in the reported results; either provide evidence or qualify the statement.
  5. [General presentation] Several figures are referenced with placeholder-like captions (e.g., Fig. 3, Fig. 5) and the images do not appear clearly in the manuscript text. Please ensure figure quality and captions are final.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No mathematical circularity; main caveat is test-set-informed prompt refinement that weakens the 'solely through semantic instructions' claim.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Scenario 1: Visual inspection in stable manufacturing conditions – MVTec subset cable (Evaluation and Table 1)]
    "Preliminary tests revealed that it is crucial to instruct the model that not all anomaly criteria need to be met for a sample to be considered anomalous, instead a single matching criterion is sufficient. In the absence of this clarification, the model wants the sample to match all anomaly descriptions to be classified as anomalous."

    The final Ei prompt used for the reported F1=95.7% includes the rule 'any single anomaly is grounds for a positive detection' (Table 1). The paper states this rule was added after observing model behavior in preliminary tests on the benchmark scenario. Thus the measured gain from Ei is partly a result of tuning the instruction to the evaluation distribution rather than applying fixed, pre-existing semantic knowledge. This is asymmetric with PatchCore, whose decision threshold was selected on a separate 20% validation split before reporting on the remaining 80% hold-out test data. The headline claim 'achieved solely through semantic instructions' is therefore somewhat overstated as an out-of-the-box result; the instruction is, in part, fitted to the test benchmark. This is an evaluation-con

full rationale

The paper is an empirical framework paper, not a mathematical derivation: there are no equations whose outputs reduce to their inputs by construction, and there is no load-bearing self-citation chain. Self-references [53,54,56,57] provide datasets and prior applied work but do not force the reported results. The only circularity-adjacent issue is prompt refinement: the decisive Ei rule ('a single matching criterion is sufficient') was added after preliminary tests on the benchmark, and the final F1 scores were obtained with that prompt on the same benchmark scenario. This means the ablation increments partly measure prompt editing against the test distribution rather than strictly transferable semantic knowledge, and the comparison with PatchCore is uneven because PatchCore's threshold uses a separate validation split while PB-IAD's prompts do not. However, this does not make the F1 scores statistically forced or mathematically circular, and the central empirical result—low-shot performance of a frozen multimodal model with structured prompts—retains independent content. Score 2 reflects a minor, non-load-bearing evaluation caveat rather than structural circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The ledger captures the components the results rest on that are not themselves computed: the off-the-shelf model's reliability, the hand-crafted prompts and reference choices, the hand-picked time-series features, and the unevaluated pre-processor. The most consequential item is the assumption that the prompt texts contain only domain knowledge and not test-set information, which the 'preliminary tests' disclosure weakens.

free parameters (3)
  • Scenario 3 feature intervals = slope: datapoints 150-190; AUC: datapoints 250-300
    Hand-chosen quality features for crimp-force curves; the intervals are domain knowledge inputs, not fitted, but they directly determine the input representation and are not justified by any analysis.
  • Reference sample choices = Scenario 1: first training image; Scenario 2: one red-white insulation image per class; Scenario 3: three non-anomalous
    The reference examples are picked ad hoc; no analysis of how this choice affects performance, and in Scenario 2 the reference represents only one of several visual conditions in the test set.
  • Isolation Forest contamination = selected as optimal from a discrete grid per training-set size
    In the benchmark, contamination is tuned per data size, which is a fitted hyperparameter that favors the baseline; its selection protocol is not fully specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-4.1's zero-shot and few-shot classifications are reliable and stable enough to serve as the anomaly detector and to benchmark against other methods
    The entire framework is centered on a proprietary foundation model; the paper reports no repeated runs, temperature settings, or variance, yet treats its outputs as deterministic evaluation results.
  • domain assumption The hand-crafted context and expertise instructions contain only general or domain knowledge and no information derived from the test images
    The paper discloses that preliminary tests guided the design of the expertise instruction (e.g., 'not all anomaly criteria need to be met'), which suggests the prompts were tuned on the evaluation data; this assumption is load-bearing for the 'solely through semantic instructions' claim.
  • domain assumption The custom Stripped Wire and Crimp Force datasets represent realistic dynamic manufacturing conditions
    The conclusions about dynamic environments generalize from these two self-collected datasets, with the stripped-wire set covering only two defect types and one reference insulation type.
  • ad hoc to paper The proposed prompt pre-processor module would generate prompts of comparable quality to the manually engineered prompts
    The pre-processor is part of the presented framework but is never tested; the experiments rely on manually written prompts, so no evidence supports this assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • Prompt pre-processing module
    purpose: Translates a domain expert's natural-language instructions into the structured prompt template, so users without data science expertise can configure the system
    The module is described in the framework but not evaluated in any experiment; no evidence shows it produces prompts as effective as the hand-written ones used in the study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PB-IAD: Utilizing multimodal foundation models for semantic industrial anomaly detection in dynamic manufacturing environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OIULIWVF

@misc{pith2026250814504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PB-IAD: Utilizing multimodal foundation models for semantic industrial anomaly detection in dynamic manufacturing environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OIULIWVF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14504}
}
read the original abstract

The detection of anomalies in manufacturing processes is crucial to ensure product quality and identify process deviations. Statistical and data-driven approaches remain the standard in industrial anomaly detection, yet their adaptability and usability are constrained by the dependence on extensive annotated datasets and limited flexibility under dynamic production conditions. Recent advances in the perception capabilities of foundation models provide promising opportunities for their adaptation to this downstream task. This paper presents PB-IAD (Prompt-based Industrial Anomaly Detection), a novel framework that leverages the multimodal and reasoning capabilities of foundation models for industrial anomaly detection. Specifically, PB-IAD addresses three key requirements of dynamic production environments: data sparsity, agile adaptability, and domain user centricity. In addition to the anomaly detection, the framework includes a prompt template that is specifically designed for iteratively implementing domain-specific process knowledge, as well as a pre-processing module that translates domain user inputs into effective system prompts. This user-centric design allows domain experts to customise the system flexibly without requiring data science expertise. The proposed framework is evaluated by utilizing GPT-4.1 across three distinct manufacturing scenarios, two data modalities, and an ablation study to systematically assess the contribution of semantic instructions. Furthermore, PB-IAD is benchmarked to state-of-the-art methods for anomaly detection such as PatchCore. The results demonstrate superior performance, particularly in data-sparse scenarios and low-shot settings, achieved solely through semantic instructions.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Markatos, A

    N.G. Markatos, A. Mousavi, Manufacturing quality assessment in the industry 4.0 era: a review, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 34 (2023) 1655–1681. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2023.2194524

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Montgomery, Introduction to statistical quality control, Eighth edition, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2019

    D.C. Montgomery, Introduction to statistical quality control, Eighth edition, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Chandola, A

    V. Chandola, A. Banerjee, V. Kumar, Anomaly detection, ACM Comput. Surv. 41 (2009) 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/1541880.1541882

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Chatterjee, R

    S. Chatterjee, R. Chaudhuri, D. Vrontis, T. Papadopoulos, Examining the impact of deep learning technology capability on manufacturing firms: moderating roles of technology turbulence and top management support, Ann. Oper. Res. (2022) 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021- 04505-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10479-021- 2022

  5. [5]

    Y. Wang, H. Wu, J. Dong, Y. Liu, M. Long, J. Wang, Deep Time Series Models: A Comprehensive Survey and Benchmark, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.13278

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.13278 2024

  6. [6]

    Juerging, P.M

    J. Juerging, P.M. Milling, Manufacturing start-ups in the automobile industry, The twenty- fourthth International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Greco, B

    S. Greco, B. Vacchetti, D. Apiletti, T. Cerquitelli, Unsupervised Concept Drift Detection from Deep Learning Representations in Real-time, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2025.3593123

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Z. Chen, H. Chen, M. Imani, F. Imani, Can Multimodal Large Language Models be Guided to Improve Industrial Anomaly Detection?, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.15795

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.15795 2025

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Eloundou, S

    T. Eloundou, S. Manning, P. Mishkin, D. Rock, GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.10130

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Alzarooni, E

    A. Alzarooni, E. Iqbal, S.U. Khan, S. Javed, B. Moyo, Y. Abdulrahman, Anomaly Detection for Industrial Applications, Its Challenges, Solutions, and Future Directions: A Review, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.11310

    2025 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Abdullahi, K

    S. Abdullahi, K. Usman Danyaro, A. Zakari, I. Abdul Aziz, N. Amila Wan Abdullah Zawawi, S. Adamu, Time-Series Large Language Models: A Systematic Review of State-of-the-Art, IEEE Access 13 (2025) 30235–30261. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3535782

    2025

  4. [12]

    E. Fons, R. Kaur, S. Palande, Z. Zeng, T. Balch, M. Veloso, S. Vyetrenko, Evaluating Large Language Models on Time Series Feature Understanding: A Comprehensive Taxonomy and Benchmark, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.16563

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Raiaan, M.S.H

    M.A.K. Raiaan, M.S.H. Mukta, K. Fatema, N.M. Fahad, S. Sakib, M.M.J. Mim, J. Ahmad, M.E. Ali, S. Azam, A Review on Large Language Models: Architectures, Applications, Taxonomies, Open Issues and Challenges, IEEE Access 12 (2024) 26839–26874. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3365742

    2024

  6. [14]

    Bordes, R.Y

    F. Bordes, R.Y. Pang, A. Ajay, A.C. Li, A. Bardes, S. Petryk, O. Mañas, Z. Lin, A. Mahmoud, B. Jayaraman, M. Ibrahim, M. Hall, Y. Xiong, J. Lebensold, C. Ross, S. Jayakumar, C. Guo, D. Bouchacourt, H. Al-Tahan, K. Padthe, V. Sharma, H. Xu, X.E. Tan, M. Richards, S. Lavoie, P. ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Z. Gu, B. Zhu, G. Zhu, Y. Chen, M. Tang, J. Wang, AnomalyGPT: Detecting Industrial Anomalies Using Large Vision-Language Models, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2308.15366

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Wood (Ed.), Principles of quality costs: Financial measures for strategic implementation of quality management, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2013

    D.C. Wood (Ed.), Principles of quality costs: Financial measures for strategic implementation of quality management, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Qiu, Statistical Process Control Charts as a Tool for Analyzing Big Data, in: S.E

    P. Qiu, Statistical Process Control Charts as a Tool for Analyzing Big Data, in: S.E. Ahmed (Ed.), Big and Complex Data Analysis, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017, pp. 123–138

    2017

  10. [18]

    International Organization for Standardization, Control charts – Part 2: Shewhart control charts, ISO, Geneva 03.120.30, 2013 (accessed 23 June 2025)

    2013

  11. [19]

    A. Géron, Hands-on machine learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow: Concepts, tools, and techniques to build intelligent systems, Second edition, O'Reilly, Beijing, Boston, Farnham, Sebastopol, Tokyo, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774

    OpenAI, GPT-4 Technical Report, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774

    2023 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Jiang, J

    X. Jiang, J. Li, H. Deng, Y. Liu, B.-B. Gao, Y. Zhou, J. Li, C. Wang, F. Zheng, MMAD: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models in Industrial Anomaly Detection, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.09453

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Surbier, G

    L. Surbier, G. Alpan, E. Blanco, A comparative study on production ramp-up: state-of-the-art and new challenges, Production Planning & Control 25 (2014) 1264–1286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2013.817624

    2014

  15. [23]

    Kernan Freire, LLM-Powered Cognitive Assistants for Knowledge Sharing among Factory Operators, 2025

    S. Kernan Freire, LLM-Powered Cognitive Assistants for Knowledge Sharing among Factory Operators, 2025. 10.4233/uuid:733e10e7-890c-48a7-86d3-fa782ffd65c8

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    J. Wang, Y. Ma, L. Zhang, R.X. Gao, D. Wu, Deep learning for smart manufacturing: Methods and applications, Journal of Manufacturing Systems 48 (2018) 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.01.003

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Weiss, T.M

    K. Weiss, T.M. Khoshgoftaar, D. Wang, A survey of transfer learning, J Big Data 3 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-016-0043-6

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Johnson, S.R

    T.L. Johnson, S.R. Fletcher, W. Baker, R.L. Charles, How and why we need to capture tacit knowledge in manufacturing: Case studies of visual inspection, Appl. Ergon. 74 (2019) 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.07.016

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    C. Li, Z. Gan, Z. Yang, J. Yang, L. Li, L. Wang, J. Gao, Multimodal Foundation Models: From Specialists to General-Purpose Assistants, FNT in Computer Graphics and Vision 16 (2024) 1–

    2024

  20. [28]

    H. Chen, H. Chen, Z. Zhao, K. Han, G. Zhu, Y. Zhao, Du Ying, W. Xu, Q. Shi, An overview of domain-specific foundation model: key technologies, applications and challenges, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.04267

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Z. Han, C. Gao, J. Liu, J. Zhang, S.Q. Zhang, Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Large Models: A Comprehensive Survey, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.14608

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Houlsby, A

    N. Houlsby, A. Giurgiu, S. Jastrzebski, B. Morrone, Q.d. Laroussilhe, A. Gesmundo, M. Attariyan, S. Gelly, Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLP, 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1902.00751

    2019 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    E.J. Hu, Y. Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y. Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, W. Chen, LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models, 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.09685

    2021 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    L. Xu, H. Xie, S.-Z.J. Qin, X. Tao, F.L. Wang, Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning Methods for Pretrained Language Models: A Critical Review and Assessment, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.12148

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    Brown, B

    T.B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D.M. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Ch...

    2020 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Schulhoff, M

    S. Schulhoff, M. Ilie, N. Balepur, K. Kahadze, A. Liu, C. Si, Y. Li, A. Gupta, H. Han, S. Schulhoff, P.S. Dulepet, S. Vidyadhara, D. Ki, S. Agrawal, C. Pham, G. Kroiz, F. Li, H. Tao, A. Srivastava, H. Da Costa, S. Gupta, M.L. Rogers, I. Goncearenco, G. Sarli, I. Galynker, D. P...

    2024 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    H.A.A.M. Qaid, B. Zhang, D. Li, S.-K. Ng, W. Li, FD-LLM: Large Language Model for Fault Diagnosis of Machines, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.01218

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. Chen, R. Huang, Z. Lv, J. Tang, W. Li, FaultGPT: Industrial Fault Diagnosis Question Answering System by Vision Language Models, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.15481

    2025 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y. Li, H. Wang, S. Yuan, M. Liu, D. Zhao, Y. Guo, C. Xu, G. Shi, W. Zuo, Myriad: Large Multimodal Model by Applying Vision Experts for Industrial Anomaly Detection, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.19070

    2023 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. Yang, Y. Chen, S. Lee, V. Montes, Refining Time Series Anomaly Detectors using Large Language Models, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.21833

    2025 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Singh, J

    M. Singh, J. Challagundla, P. Karnal, G. Ganapathy, V. Shah, R. Arora, LLMs as Master Forgers: Generating Synthetic Time Series Data for Manufacturing, in: 2024 International Conference on Image Processing, Computer Vision and Machine Learning (ICICML), Shenzhen, China, IEEE, ...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Jeong, Y

    J. Jeong, Y. Zou, T. Kim, D. Zhang, A. Ravichandran, O. Dabeer, WinCLIP: Zero-/Few-Shot Anomaly Classification and Segmentation, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.14814

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Radford, J.W

    A. Radford, J.W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, I. Sutskever, Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision, 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.00020

    2021 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. Zhu, S. Cai, F. Deng, B.C. Ooi, J. Wu, Do LLMs Understand Visual Anomalies? Uncovering LLM's Capabilities in Zero-shot Anomaly Detection, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.09654

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    X. Xu, Y. Cao, H. Zhang, N. Sang, X. Huang, Customizing Visual-Language Foundation Models for Multi-modal Anomaly Detection and Reasoning, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.11083

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    Schiele, D

    T. Schiele, D. Kern, A. DeSilva, U. Klauck, Low-shot Visual Anomaly Detection with Multimodal Large Language Models, Procedia Computer Science 246 (2024) 2587–2596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.439

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Russell-Gilbert, S

    A. Russell-Gilbert, S. Mittal, S. Rahimi, M. Seale, J. Jabour, T. Arnold, J. Church, RAAD-LLM: Adaptive Anomaly Detection Using LLMs and RAG Integration, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.02800

    2025 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.12948

    DeepSeek-AI, DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.12948

    2025 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    S. Geng, H. Cooper, M. Moskal, S. Jenkins, J. Berman, N. Ranchin, R. West, E. Horvitz, H. Nori, JSONSchemaBench: A Rigorous Benchmark of Structured Outputs for Language Models, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.10868

    2025 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/text?api-mode=responses (accessed 28 May 2025)

    OpenAI Inc., Text generation and prompting: Learn how to prompt a model to generate text. https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/text?api-mode=responses (accessed 28 May 2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/overview (accessed 28 May 2025)

    Anthropic PCB, Prompt engineering: Prompt engineering overview. https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/overview (accessed 28 May 2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Meier, S

    S. Meier, S. Klarmann, N. Thielen, C. Pfefferer, M. Kuhn, J. Franke, A process model for systematically setting up the data basis for data-driven projects in manufacturing, Journal of Manufacturing Systems 71 (2023) 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2023.08.024

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Bergmann, K

    P. Bergmann, K. Batzner, M. Fauser, D. Sattlegger, C. Steger, The MVTec Anomaly Detection Dataset: A Comprehensive Real-World Dataset for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection, Int J Comput Vis 129 (2021) 1038–1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-020-01400-4

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    Heckler-Kram, J.-H

    L. Heckler-Kram, J.-H. Neudeck, U. Scheler, R. König, C. Steger, The MVTec AD 2 Dataset: Advanced Scenarios for Unsupervised Anomaly Detection, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.21622

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    Scheck, Stripped Wire Dataset, Zenodo, 2025

    A. Scheck, Stripped Wire Dataset, Zenodo, 2025. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16686806

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WBDKN6

    Hofmann, B., Bründl, P., & Franke, J., Crimp Force Curve Dataset, Zenodo, 2025. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WBDKN6

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    Bruhin US 2010/0139351 A1, 2009

    L. Bruhin US 2010/0139351 A1, 2009

    2010

  48. [56]

    Hofmann, P

    B. Hofmann, P. Bruendl, H.G. Nguyen, J. Franke, Towards transparent and data-driven fault detection in manufacturing: A case study on univariate, discrete time series, 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.00102

    2025 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hofmann, A

    B. Hofmann, A. Scheck, H.G. Nguyen, M. Meiners, J. Franke, Enhancing Crimp Curve Monitoring in Wiring Harness Production: A Machine Learning Approach with Emphasis on Diverse Data, in: L.C. Tang (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Industrial Engineering ...

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    K. Roth, L. Pemula, J. Zepeda, B. Schölkopf, T. Brox, P. Gehler, Towards Total Recall in Industrial Anomaly Detection, 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.08265

    2021 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    Liu, K.M

    F.T. Liu, K.M. Ting, Z.-H. Zhou, Isolation Forest, in: 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, Pisa, Italy, IEEE, 2008, pp. 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2008.17

    2008 doi

  52. [60]

    https://scikit- learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.ensemble.IsolationForest.html (accessed 23 June 2025)

    scikit-learn developers, IsolationForest. https://scikit- learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.ensemble.IsolationForest.html (accessed 23 June 2025). Supplementary Material A. Scenario specific context and expertise instruction prompts �������� Context instruction of Sce...

    2025

  53. [214]

    https://doi.org/10.1561/0600000110

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.