Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

ROADS: Robust Prompt-driven Multi-Class Anomaly Detection under Domain Shift

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ROADS claims that class-aware prompts plus an AdaIN-based domain adapter let one multi-class anomaly detector stay accurate when the test distribution shifts.

desk verdict A useful new combination of prompt-conditioned reverse distillation and AdaIN-style domain alignment for multi-class anomaly detection, but the OOD robustness claim is undercut by undisclosed augmentation details. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16049 v1 pith:WVY5CVM2 submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CV

Hossein Kashiani , Niloufar Alipour Talemi , Fatemeh Afghah This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords multi-classanomalydetectiondomainshiftprompt-drivenreversedistillationadapterAdaINstylealignmentindustrialdefectout-of-distributionrobustness
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

This paper tries to establish that a single multi-class anomaly detector can resist both inter-class interference and distribution shift. ROADS extends a reverse-distillation teacher-student model with class-specific prompt tokens, injected through cross-attention into the student decoder, so that each class's normal patterns are reconstructed under its own semantic prior. It adds a domain adapter that predicts AdaIN style parameters to re-style out-of-distribution test images back to the source domain, trained with a style-consistency loss on synthetic perturbations. On MVTec-AD and VISA, the paper reports top image-level AUROC and pixel-level AUPRO in both in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings, with especially large margins under Gaussian noise and contrast changes. If the claim holds, unified anomaly detection becomes practical for deployment conditions that differ from training conditions.

What carries the argument

The machinery has two load-bearing parts. The class-aware prompt pool $Z = \{z_i\}$ stores learnable token sets for each class; the classifier $\zeta(x)$ picks $z_i$, which then acts as query against student features in a multi-head cross-attention block, producing posterior tokens that are fused back into the features (Eqs. 1-3), repeated at each of the $M$ scales. This is what separates class semantics and reduces inter-class interference. The domain adapter $\xi$ is a pre-trained ResNet that maps an image to style codes; those codes parameterize the scale $\gamma$ and shift $\beta$ of AdaIN layers inserted into student residual blocks. Training uses $$L_{\text{total}} = \eta L_{\text{KD}} + \delta L_{\text{CE}} + \mu L_{\text{CS}}$$, where the style-consistency term $$L_{\text{CS}} = 1 - \cos(\xi(x_{\text{ID}}), \xi(x_{\text{OOD}}))$$ pushes synthetic OOD style codes toward the source domain. At inference the adapter restyles each test image on the fly, without back-propagation, before the student decoder scores it.

What would settle it

Run the same ROADS training and evaluation with a fifth corruption that is neither among the four test corruptions nor among the stated training augmentations, such as impulse noise or fog at severity 3; if the domain adapter gives no improvement over the no-adapter ablation on that corruption, the style-consistency mechanism is not learning a general domain-invariant representation, only memorizing the augmentation family.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ROADS claims that the standard weakness of multi-class unified anomaly detection under domain shift is fixable with two targeted mechanisms. The first is a hierarchical class-aware prompt integration: a pool of learnable tokens encodes one prior per class, an anomaly classifier selects the token for the current image, and cross-attention modules exchange information between the prompt tokens and the student decoder features at multiple scales, separating the semantic spaces of different classes. The second is a domain adapter: a ResNet-based module outputs style codes that set the scale and shift parameters of AdaIN layers inside the student decoder, and a style-consistency loss maximizes cosine similarity between the style codes of source-domain images and their synthetically corrupted counterparts. With these components, ROADS reports 98.83% image-level AUROC in-distribution on MVTec-AD and 96.0%, 97.1%, 97.8%, and 93.2% under brightness, contrast, blur, and Gaussian noise respectively, outperforming the compared unified and single-class baselines on the chosen metrics, and the pattern repeats on VISA.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthetic augmentations used to train the domain adapter (color adjustments, posterization, solarization) are genuinely disjoint from the four test corruptions (brightness, contrast, defocus blur, Gaussian noise); if the augmentations overlap with the test corruptions, the OOD gains could reflect augmentation overlap rather than domain-invariant learning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single multi-class model can be deployed across differing visual conditions without retraining or target-domain labels, since the adapter restyles each test image at inference.
  • Class-specific prompt tokens raise localization accuracy in both settings: removing them costs 2.46% P-AUPRO in-distribution and 4.06% out-of-distribution on MVTec-AD.
  • Removing the domain adapter costs 5.52% average OOD P-AUPRO, so the style-alignment loss is what carries the reported robustness.
  • The same recipe transfers to a second industrial dataset, VISA, where ROADS reports the highest I-AUROC and P-AUPRO under all four corruptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the adapter models domain shift as a change in AdaIN style statistics, ROADS would likely help most for shifts in illumination, noise, and blur, and would need a different mechanism for geometric or content-level shifts such as rotation or occlusion.
  • The class-prompt pool is fixed after training; adding a new anomaly class would normally require retraining, though the architecture suggests a testable incremental variant where new prompts are appended and the classifier updated.
  • The reported no-overlap between augmentations and corruptions is not verifiable without releasing the exact augmentation recipe; if overlap exists, the OOD numbers would overstate real robustness.
  • Per-image restyling at inference introduces a latency cost that the paper does not quantify; a batched or one-shot adapter update would be a natural efficiency extension.
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 ROADS, a multi-class unified anomaly detection (MUAD) framework built on reverse distillation. It augments a teacher–student detector with two mechanisms: a hierarchical class-aware prompt integration module that selects per-class learnable prompt tokens through an anomaly classifier and fuses them into the student decoder via cross-attention, and a domain adapter that encourages style consistency between in-distribution images and synthetically perturbed images so that, at test time, it can adjust AdaIN parameters in the student decoder to handle unseen corruptions. The method is evaluated on MVTec-AD and VISA under in-distribution and four corruption-based out-of-distribution settings (brightness, contrast, defocus blur, Gaussian noise), reporting state-of-the-art results. The paper claims that ROADS outperforms existing MUAD methods in both ID and OOD settings and that the gains come from the prompt mechanism and the domain adapter.

Significance. If the results are valid, ROADS would be a solid step forward for MUAD under distribution shift: it reports consistent improvements over strong baselines on both benchmarks, uses both image-level AUROC and pixel-level AUPRO, and includes ablations that isolate the contributions of the prompt mechanism and the domain adapter. The problem is timely and the two proposed components are conceptually coherent. However, the central OOD robustness claim is currently not fully verifiable because the domain adapter is trained on augmentations that are not specified precisely and that may overlap with the corruption types used for OOD evaluation. Several architectural components, notably the anomaly classifier and the AdaIN integration, are also under-specified. These are load-bearing issues for reproducibility and for the claim that the observed OOD gains reflect generalization to unseen domains rather than overlap between training augmentations and test corruptions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] The 'no overlap between our data augmentation and these corruptions' claim is unverifiable as stated. The domain adapter is trained with 'standard augmentations like color adjustments, posterization, and solarization,' while the OOD test corruptions are brightness, contrast, defocus blur, and Gaussian noise. In common augmentation libraries, 'color adjustments' typically include brightness and contrast, which are two of the four test corruptions. The paper does not specify the augmentation functions, their parameter ranges, or the procedure used to ensure disjointness. Since Table 4 attributes a +5.52 P-AUPRO OOD gain to the style-consistency loss, the reported OOD improvements in Tables 2 and 3 could be partly an artifact of augmentation overlap rather than genuine robustness to unseen domains. Please provide a precise augmentation specification and, ideally, evaluate on corruptions that are provably disjoint from the training augmentations.
  2. [Section 3.3] The anomaly classifier ζ(x) is load-bearing for the class-aware prompt mechanism, but it is never described. The paper states that class-specific prompt tokens are selected 'via an anomaly classifier ζ(x)', yet it does not specify ζ's architecture, training objective, or the supervision signal used. This is especially problematic because the training set contains only normal images; it is unclear how an 'anomaly classifier' is trained, or whether ζ is instead a product-class classifier trained with class labels. The cross-entropy loss LCE in Eq. (6) also assumes labels yi, but the paper does not state whether these are product-class labels or anomaly-class labels. Please clarify the role and training procedure of ζ, the meaning of the labels, and how prompt selection is performed during inference.
  3. [Section 3.4] The integration of the domain adapter with the AdaIN layers is under-specified. The text says the domain adapter dynamically controls the scale (γ) and shift (β) parameters of AdaIN layers in the student decoder's residual blocks, and that the adapter is a pre-trained ResNet, but it does not explain how the ResNet's output is projected to γ and β for each AdaIN layer, which layers are equipped with AdaIN, whether the ResNet is frozen or fine-tuned, or how the style-consistency loss in Eq. (4) relates to the parameters actually injected into the decoder. Without these details, the proposed domain alignment mechanism cannot be reproduced or fully assessed.
  4. [Table 4 / Section 4.4] The ablation interpretation is not yet conclusive because the OOD gain from LCS may depend on the specific augmentation distribution. The paper interprets the +5.52 P-AUPRO difference between ROADS-2 and ROADS-3 as evidence that the domain adapter learns domain-invariant representations. However, since LCS is trained only on synthetic OOD data generated by the unspecified augmentations, this gain demonstrates sensitivity to those augmentations, not necessarily robustness to unseen corruptions. A disjoint-corruption experiment, or an additional evaluation setting with corruptions never used in training, is needed to support the generalization claim made throughout the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.1] The VISA dataset is referred to with citation [2] (MVTec-AD) in the abstract and contributions; the correct reference appears to be [40]. Please correct the citation.
  2. [Section 4.1] The corruption implementation is only described as following [3] and using severity level 3. Specify the exact corruption library and parameters (e.g., the specific functions from the robustness benchmark) to ensure comparability with prior work.
  3. [Section 3.2 / Section 3.5] The anomaly score computation is said to follow the baseline RD framework, but the exact aggregation of multi-scale cosine distances and the role of the posterior tokens in the score are not described. Please state the inference-time scoring formula explicitly.
  4. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is not referenced in the main text, and the diagram does not clarify how the anomaly classifier ζ, the prompt pool, and the domain adapter interact during training versus inference. A reference and a more detailed caption would help.
  5. [Section 4.4] The hyperparameter analysis reports single numbers without any indication of variance or number of seeds. Reporting mean and standard deviation over multiple runs, or at least stating that results are from one seed, would strengthen the claims about which hyperparameter settings are optimal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ROADS is an empirical benchmark evaluation whose reported numbers come from held-out test sets, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain doing the derivational work.

full rationale

ROADS is an empirical method paper. Its central claims are benchmark comparisons on MVTec-AD and VISA under ID and OOD corruptions, and the method is trained with the stated losses LKD, LCE, and LCS on normal training data. All reported I-AUROC and P-AUPRO numbers are measured on held-out test sets; there is no equation in the paper that defines a prediction in terms of a fitted parameter, and no quantity is fit to the test corruptions. The domain adapter is trained on synthetic normal samples produced by augmentations, but the test corruptions are not used as training targets, and the style-consistency loss is a regularizer rather than an objective directly optimized on the OOD test set. The paper cites external prior work for the RD baseline, MVTec-AD, and the corruption benchmark, and there are no load-bearing self-citations by the authors. The concern that 'color adjustments' might overlap brightness or contrast test corruptions is a possible evaluation-contamination or external-validity issue, not a circularity: even if true, it would not make the reported improvements equal to the training loss by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the benchmarks, and no significant circularity is present.

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

No physically invented entities are introduced. The paper's contribution is a combination of known components (reverse distillation, prompts, AdaIN) plus two learned modules, the class-prior prompt pool and the domain adapter, whose hyperparameters and training details are incompletely specified.

free parameters (4)
  • Loss weights eta, delta, mu = 0.95, 0.025, 0.025
    Selected via small ablation in Table 4; no search procedure or validation split reported.
  • Prompt token length l and dimension M_t = Not stated
    Architecture hyperparameters of the class-prior pool Z (Sec. 3.3); the paper does not report their values or sensitivity.
  • Corruption severity level = 3
    Evaluation choice for OOD benchmark from Hendrycks and Dietterich [17], affects all comparisons.
  • Domain adapter augmentations = color adjustments, posterization, solarization (not specified in detail)
    Used to synthesize OOD normal data for style consistency loss; exact operations and magnitudes are not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A pre-trained ImageNet teacher encoder extracts features that are sufficient for anomaly detection in industrial images
    Adopted from RD baseline [6,11,27] and used throughout; standard in the field but untested for the target domains.
  • ad hoc to paper Aligning style codes from a pre-trained ResNet via cosine similarity reduces domain shift for anomaly detection
    The style-consistency loss L_CS (Eq. 4) assumes that matching global style codes makes the student decoder robust to corruptions; no theoretical or empirical justification beyond the reported scores.
  • domain assumption The anomaly classifier zeta can correctly select the class-specific prompt tokens at test time
    Motivated in Sec. 3.3; if zeta misclassifies the class, the wrong prompts are injected, potentially degrading detection; no analysis of classifier accuracy is provided.
  • domain assumption AdaIN affine parameters represent image style and adjusting them via the domain adapter can transfer features across domains
    Inherited from style transfer literature [8,18] and cited in Sec. 3.4; the paper does not validate this mechanism independently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ROADS: Robust Prompt-driven Multi-Class Anomaly Detection under Domain Shift." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVY5CVM2

@misc{pith2026241116049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ROADS: Robust Prompt-driven Multi-Class Anomaly Detection under Domain Shift},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVY5CVM2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16049}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in anomaly detection have shifted focus towards Multi-class Unified Anomaly Detection (MUAD), offering more scalable and practical alternatives compared to traditional one-class-one-model approaches. However, existing MUAD methods often suffer from inter-class interference and are highly susceptible to domain shifts, leading to substantial performance degradation in real-world applications. In this paper, we propose a novel robust prompt-driven MUAD framework, called ROADS, to address these challenges. ROADS employs a hierarchical class-aware prompt integration mechanism that dynamically encodes class-specific information into our anomaly detector to mitigate interference among anomaly classes. Additionally, ROADS incorporates a domain adapter to enhance robustness against domain shifts by learning domain-invariant representations. Extensive experiments on MVTec-AD and VISA datasets demonstrate that ROADS surpasses state-of-the-art methods in both anomaly detection and localization, with notable improvements in out-of-distribution settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of multi-class anomaly detection meth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed ROADS framework. First, the domain adapter aligns the features of the OOD target domain. Then, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison between the proposed ROADS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

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. MoViAD: A Modular Library for Visual Anomaly Detection

    cs.CV 2025-07 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A modular visual anomaly detection library is described, but without code, benchmarks, or experimental validation of its capabilities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [30]

    Anomaly detection with domain adaptation

    Ziyi Yang, Iman Soltani, and Eric Darve. Anomaly detection with domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 2023. 1, 3

    work page 2023

  2. [3]

    Anomaly de- tection under distribution shift

    Tri Cao, Jiawen Zhu, and Guansong Pang. Anomaly de- tection under distribution shift. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 6511–6523, 2023. 1, 6, 7

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Ganomaly: Semi-supervised anomaly detection via adversarial training

    Samet Akcay, Amir Atapour-Abarghouei, and Toby P Breckon. Ganomaly: Semi-supervised anomaly detection via adversarial training. In Asian Conference on Computer Vision, pages 622–637, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  4. [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 Pat- tern Recognition, pages 9592–9600, 2019. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    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. 2

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    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. 6, 7

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    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, 2, 3, 4, 6

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009. 2, 4

    work page 2009

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    A learned representation for artistic style

    Vincent Dumoulin, Jonathon Shlens, and Manjunath Kudlur. A learned representation for artistic style. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. 2

    2017

  2. [9]

    Deep learning for medical anomaly detection–a survey

    Tharindu Fernando, Harshala Gammulle, Simon Denman, Sridha Sridharan, and Clinton Fookes. Deep learning for medical anomaly detection–a survey. ACM Computing Sur- veys, 54(7):1–37, 2021. 1

    2021

  3. [10]

    Understanding the dif- ficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks

    Xavier Glorot and Yoshua Bengio. Understanding the dif- ficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 249–256. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010. 4

    2010

  4. [11]

    Recon- trast: Domain-specific anomaly detection via contrastive re- construction

    Jia Guo, Lize Jia, Weihang Zhang, Huiqi Li, et al. Recon- trast: Domain-specific anomaly detection via contrastive re- construction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 6

    2024

  5. [12]

    Dino- maly: The less is more philosophy in multi-class unsuper- vised anomaly detection

    Jia Guo, Shuai Lu, Weihang Zhang, and Huiqi Li. Dino- maly: The less is more philosophy in multi-class unsuper- vised anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14325,

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    MambaAD: Exploring state space models for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detec- tion

    Haoyang He, Yuhu Bai, Jiangning Zhang, Qingdong He, Hongxu Chen, Zhenye Gan, Chengjie Wang, Xiangtai Li, Guanzhong Tian, and Lei Xie. MambaAD: Exploring state space models for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detec- tion. 2024. 1, 2, 3

    2024

  7. [14]

    DiAD: 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. DiAD: a diffusion-based framework for multi-class anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 8472–8480,

  8. [15]

    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 Arti- ficial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 8472–8480, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  9. [16]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 5

    2016

  10. [17]

    Benchmarking neu- ral network robustness to common corruptions and perturba- tions

    Dan Hendrycks and Thomas Dietterich. Benchmarking neu- ral network robustness to common corruptions and perturba- tions. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2019. 6

    2019

  11. [18]

    Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization

    Xun Huang and Serge Belongie. Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 1501–1510, 2017. 2

    2017

  12. [19]

    Omni-frequency channel- selection representations for unsupervised anomaly detec- tion

    Yufei Liang, Jiangning Zhang, Shiwei Zhao, Runze Wu, Yong Liu, and Shuwen Pan. Omni-frequency channel- selection representations for unsupervised anomaly detec- tion. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2023. 2

    2023

  13. [20]

    Simplenet: A simple network for image anomaly detection and localization

    Zhikang Liu, Yiming Zhou, Yuansheng Xu, and Zilei Wang. Simplenet: A simple network for image anomaly detection and localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 20402–20411, 2023. 1, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  14. [21]

    Hierarchical vector quantized transformer for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection

    Ruiying Lu, YuJie Wu, Long Tian, Dongsheng Wang, Bo Chen, Xiyang Liu, and Ruimin Hu. Hierarchical vector quantized transformer for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 8487–8500, 2023. 1, 3

    2023

  15. [22]

    OCGAN: One-class novelty detection using GANs with constrained latent representations

    Pramuditha Perera, Ramesh Nallapati, and Bing Xiang. OCGAN: One-class novelty detection using GANs with constrained latent representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2898–2906, 2019. 2

    2019

  16. [23]

    Self-supervised predictive convo- lutional attentive block for anomaly detection

    Nicolae-C ˘at˘alin Ristea, Neelu Madan, Radu Tudor Ionescu, Kamal Nasrollahi, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Thomas B Moes- lund, and Mubarak Shah. Self-supervised predictive convo- lutional attentive block for anomaly detection. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi...

    2022

  17. [24]

    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, 6, 7

    2022

  18. [25]

    Same same but differnet: Semi-supervised defect detection with normalizing flows

    Marco Rudolph, Bastian Wandt, and Bodo Rosenhahn. Same same but differnet: Semi-supervised defect detection with normalizing flows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Win- 9 ter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 1907–1916, 2021. 2

    1907

  19. [26]

    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 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 14902–14912, 2021. 7

    2021

  20. [27]

    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

  21. [28]

    Generalizing to unseen domains: A survey on domain generalization

    Jindong Wang, Cuiling Lan, Chang Liu, Yidong Ouyang, Tao Qin, Wang Lu, Yiqiang Chen, Wenjun Zeng, and S Yu Philip. Generalizing to unseen domains: A survey on domain generalization. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(8):8052–8072, 2022. 3

    2022

  22. [29]

    Synthesize then compare: Detecting failures and anomalies for semantic segmentation

    Yingda Xia, Yi Zhang, Fengze Liu, Wei Shen, and Alan L Yuille. Synthesize then compare: Detecting failures and anomalies for semantic segmentation. In European Confer- ence on Computer Vision , pages 145–161. Springer, 2020. 1

    2020

  23. [31]

    Hierarchical gaussian mixture normal- izing flow modeling for unified anomaly detection

    Xincheng Yao, Ruoqi Li, Zefeng Qian, Lu Wang, and Chongyang Zhang. Hierarchical gaussian mixture normal- izing flow modeling for unified anomaly detection. In Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision, 2024. 2

    2024

  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, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2022

  25. [33]

    Visual tuning

    Bruce XB Yu, Jianlong Chang, Haixin Wang, Lingbo Liu, Shijie Wang, Zhiyu Wang, Junfan Lin, Lingxi Xie, Haojie Li, Zhouchen Lin, et al. Visual tuning. ACM Computing Surveys, 2023. 2

    2023

  26. [34]

    DRAEM - a discriminatively trained reconstruction embed- ding for surface anomaly detection

    Vitjan Zavrtanik, Matej Kristan, and Danijel Sko ˇcaj. DRAEM - a discriminatively trained reconstruction embed- ding for surface anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 8330–8339, 2021. 1, 6, 7

    2021

  27. [35]

    Prototypical residual networks for anomaly detection and localization

    Hui Zhang, Zuxuan Wu, Zheng Wang, Zhineng Chen, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Prototypical residual networks for anomaly detection and localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 16281–16291, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  28. [36]

    Exploring plain ViT reconstruction for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection

    Jiangning Zhang, Xuhai Chen, Yabiao Wang, Chengjie Wang, Yong Liu, Xiangtai Li, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Dacheng Tao. Exploring plain ViT reconstruction for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07495, 2023. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    ADer: A comprehensive benchmark for multi-class visual anomaly detection

    Jiangning Zhang, Haoyang He, Zhenye Gan, Qingdong He, Yuxuan Cai, Zhucun Xue, Yabiao Wang, Chengjie Wang, Lei Xie, and Yong Liu. ADer: A comprehensive benchmark for multi-class visual anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03262, 2024. 2, 3

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Learning feature inversion for multi-class anomaly de- tection under general-purpose COCO-AD benchmark

    Jiangning Zhang, Chengjie Wang, Xiangtai Li, Guanzhong Tian, Zhucun Xue, Yong Liu, Guansong Pang, and Dacheng Tao. Learning feature inversion for multi-class anomaly de- tection under general-purpose COCO-AD benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10760, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Omnial: A unified cnn framework for unsuper- vised anomaly localization

    Ying Zhao. Omnial: A unified cnn framework for unsuper- vised anomaly localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3924–3933, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7

    2023

  32. [40]

    SPot-the-Difference self-supervised pre- training for anomaly detection and segmentation

    Yang Zou, Jongheon Jeong, Latha Pemula, Dongqing Zhang, and Onkar Dabeer. SPot-the-Difference self-supervised pre- training for anomaly detection and segmentation. In Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision , pages 392–408. Springer, 2022. 6, 8 10

    2022

Pith tools

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