MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947705258 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.13147

Anomaly Detection in Images

2019· preprint· en· W2947705258 on OpenAlexaff
Manpreet Singh Minhas, John Zelek

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnomaly detectionAnomaly (physics)GeologyComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual defect assessment is a form of anomaly detection. This is very relevant in finding faults such as cracks and markings in various surface inspection tasks like pavement and automotive parts. The task involves detection of deviation/divergence of anomalous samples from the normal ones. Two of the major challenges in supervised anomaly detection are the lack of labelled training data and the low availability of anomaly instances. Semi-supervised methods which learn the underlying distribution of the normal samples and then measure the deviation/divergence from the estimated model as the anomaly score have limitations in their overall ability to detect anomalies. This paper proposes the application of network-based deep transfer learning using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for the task of anomaly detection. Single class SVMs have been used in the past with some success, however we hypothesize that deeper networks for single class classification should perform better. Results obtained on established anomaly detection benchmarks as well as on a real-world dataset, show that the proposed method clearly outperforms the existing state-of-the-art methods, by achieving a staggering average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of 0.99 for the tested data-sets which is an average improvement of 41% on the CIFAR10, 20% on MNIST and 16% on Cement Crack data-sets.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.142 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207