WinCLIP: Zero-/Few-Shot Anomaly Classification and Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual anomaly classification and segmentation are vital for automating industrial quality inspection. The focus of prior research in the field has been on training custom models for each quality inspection task, which requires task-specific images and annotation. In this paper we move away from this regime, addressing zero-shot and few-normal-shot anomaly classification and segmentation. Recently CLIP, a vision-language model, has shown revolutionary generality with competitive zero-/few-shot performance in comparison to full-supervision. But CLIP falls short on anomaly classification and segmentation tasks. Hence, we propose window-based CLIP (WinCLIP) with (1) a compositional ensemble on state words and prompt templates and (2) efficient extraction and aggregation of window/patch/image-level features aligned with text. We also propose its few-normal-shot extension Win-CLIP+, which uses complementary information from normal images. In MVTec-AD (and VisA), without further tuning, WinCLIP achieves 91.8%/85.1% (78.1%/79.6%) AU-ROC in zero-shot anomaly classification and segmentation while WinCLIP + does 93.1%/95.2% (83.8%/96.4%) in 1-normal-shot, surpassing state-of-the-art by large margins.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".