Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Few-shot Human Action Anomaly Detection via a Unified Contrastive Learning Framework

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single contrastively trained encoder detects anomalies in both seen and unseen human actions from a few normal examples, reaching 86.9% average AUC on HumanAct12.

desk verdict A real but untested idea: the few-shot HAAD contrastive framework is sensible and well-described, but the unseen-category evidence leaks through HumanMAC's pretraining on the same dataset, so the headline claim needs rework. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17726 v1 pith:22JQHJOC submitted 2025-08-25 cs.CV

Koichiro Kamide , Shunsuke Sakai , Shun Maeda , Chunzhi Gu , Chao Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords few-shotanomalydetectionhumanactioncontrastivelearninggenerativemotionaugmentationdiffusionmodelskeleton-basedrecognitionAct12category-agnosticrepresentation
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 human action anomaly detection can be done by a single, category-agnostic encoder trained once on several normal action categories, and then applied to any category — seen or unseen — using only a small support set of normal examples. Its aim is to replace the one-model-per-category paradigm, where each normal action needs its own model and large amounts of data, with a few-shot solution that scales to new or rare actions. The paper argues that a contrastive learning objective creates a shared representation space in which normal and anomalous actions are separable by a simple distance to the support set, and that augmenting training and support samples with a diffusion-based motion generator materially improves that separability. If the claim holds, anomaly detection for human actions becomes practical in data-scarce settings where novel categories appear frequently, because a new category requires only a handful of normal examples rather than a retrained model. The reported evidence is an average AUC of 86.9% on HumanAct12, 2.6 points above the prior per-category state of the art.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a contrastively trained action encoder paired with a frozen generative motion augmentor. Input motion sequences are transformed with the discrete cosine transform to keep low-frequency components, then passed through a residual graph convolutional network (Res-GCN) that outputs a compact vector per sequence. Training uses a SimCLR-style contrastive loss extended so that each anchor has multiple positive counterparts: the real samples of its category plus the generated variants produced by the generative model. The generative model — a diffusion model that frames motion prediction as masked completion in the frequency domain — observes the first 30 frames of a 60-frame sequence and generates the remaining 30 frames, producing semantically consistent but diverse samples that serve as extra positives in training and as expansions of the few-shot support set at inference. Anomaly scoring is a parameter-free step: the mean Euclidean distance from the test embedding to all support embeddings, with larger distances indicating anomalies.

What would settle it

Retrain the generative augmentation model on only the nine training categories, then rerun the few-shot evaluation on Phone, Boxing, and Throw; if their AUC drops materially from the reported 0.921, 0.883, and 0.824, the pretrained generator had leaked category-specific statistics into the supposedly unseen evaluation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that few-shot human action anomaly detection, including for action categories never seen during training, can be solved by one unified contrastive model rather than by per-category anomaly detectors. The model encodes motions into a shared space in which same-category actions cluster, and then scores a test sample by its average Euclidean distance to a small support set of normal samples from the target category at inference. The paper further claims that using a pretrained diffusion-based motion-completion model to generate additional plausible continuations of each sequence — both during contrastive training and when expanding the support set — increases inter-category discrimination and intra-category robustness. On the HumanAct12 dataset this yields a mean AUC of 0.869 across twelve categories, including three categories (Phone, Boxing, Throw) excluded from encoder training, which is 2.6 percentage points higher than the previous state-of-the-art per-category method.

Load-bearing premise

The entire claim depends on the held-out action categories being unseen by every component of the pipeline; in particular, the pretrained motion generator used to create support and training samples was itself trained on the same dataset that contains those categories, so if it has memorized them, the reported 'unseen' results are not a test of genuine novelty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deployment can cover a new action category by collecting only a few normal clips and running them through the frozen encoder and generator; no retraining or per-category model is needed.
  • The same encoder can detect anomalies in categories it never saw during training as long as the support set defines the normal class, as shown for Phone, Boxing, and Throw.
  • Generative augmentation at training time is the main source of the accuracy gain, while augmenting the support set at inference mainly stabilizes results across random support-set choices.
  • Increasing the number of generated samples per real sample improves accuracy up to about 3–5 generations and then degrades it, so the benefit is a balance between diversity and redundancy rather than simply more data.
  • Distance-based scoring in the learned space removes the need for a per-category density model or reconstruction network, simplifying the inference pipeline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the category-agnostic space transfers as claimed, a single frozen encoder and generator could be evaluated on completely different skeleton datasets or on held-out action families (for example, excluding all part-body actions), which would test the boundary of 'unseen' generalization more sharply than leaving out three individual categories.
  • The ablation shows that training-time augmentation matters most, which raises the possibility that a simpler hand-designed skeleton augmentation — temporal cropping, joint masking, or speed perturbation — might capture a large share of the benefit at lower compute; the paper does not test this.
  • A testable deployment corollary is that the same pretrained encoder could be shipped as a common backend, with each new site or market adding only a support set of locally normal actions, turning few-shot human action anomaly detection into a configuration step rather than a training step.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified, category-agnostic framework for few-shot human action anomaly detection (HAAD). The method uses a Res-GCN encoder trained with contrastive learning on multiple seen categories, and a pretrained diffusion-based generative model (HumanMAC) to augment both the training data and the support set at inference. Anomaly scores are computed by average Euclidean distance between the test embedding and the augmented support-set embeddings. Experiments on HumanAct12 report an average AUC of 0.869, claimed to outperform prior one-model-per-category baselines, including on three action categories that are stated to be 'unseen' during training (Phone, Boxing, Throw). The paper also includes ablations of the generative augmentation and parameter sensitivity analyses.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would represent a meaningful step toward scalable, few-shot HAAD: a single encoder that handles multiple categories and novel categories without retraining is a practically valuable capability, and the use of generative motion completion as a contrastive augmentation is a sensible idea. The paper is clearly written, reports mean and standard deviation over multiple seeds, and includes both quantitative and qualitative analyses. However, the key evidence for generalization to unseen categories is compromised by the fact that the generative model used for augmentation was pretrained on the full evaluation dataset, and there are ambiguities about hyperparameter selection. These issues directly affect the significance of the contributions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4 and Table 2] The claim of generalization to unseen categories is circular. Section 4.1 states that Phone, Boxing, and Throw are 'excluded during training and used only for the testing phase' for the action encoder, but it also states that the motion generation module HumanMAC is 'pretrained on HumanAct12 for 1000 epochs.' Since HumanAct12 includes Phone, Boxing, and Throw, HumanMAC has seen these categories during its pretraining. At inference, Algorithm 2 applies HumanMAC to every support sample (lines 2–7), so the few-shot reference set for each 'unseen' category is augmented with plausible continuations that carry category-specific statistics learned from those exact categories. The reported unseen-category AUCs in Table 2 (Phone 0.921, Boxing 0.883, Throw 0.824) can therefore be explained by HumanMAC's prior knowledge rather than by the contrastive encoder's category-agnostic generalization. A valid evaluation would require HumanMAC to be pretrained without the held-out categories (e.g., on the 9 training categories only) or on a completely different dataset, and the paper should report seen-only and unseen-only results separately. This issue is load-bearing for Contribution 3 and for the abstract's claim of novelty in unseen-category settings.
  2. [Section 4.4 and Table 2] The support set size Ns and the number of generated samples Ng appear to be selected using the test set. Figure 5 shows how performance varies with Ns and Ng and marks the best-performing configuration with a star. The paper does not specify whether a validation set was used to choose these hyperparameters, nor does it state the exact Ns and Ng used for the main results in Table 2. If Ns (and possibly Ng) are chosen by maximizing AUC on the same test set used for final evaluation, the reported mean AUC of 0.869 is an optimistically biased estimate and the comparisons in Table 2 are not reliable. The authors need to clearly predefine the evaluation protocol, report the specific Ns and Ng used in Table 2, and justify that no test-set information is used for configuration selection.
  3. [Tables 1–2] The comparison with baselines is not protocol-matched. STG-NF, MoCoDAD, and MultiLevel-NF are trained per-category on the full normal training data, while the proposed method is trained on a subset of categories and evaluated with a few-shot support set. Although one can argue that the proposed method faces a harder setting, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, and calling the method 'state-of-the-art' based on a 2.6% improvement over MultiLevel-NF is not fully justified. At minimum, the paper should clarify that the baselines use full-shot data while the proposed method uses few-shot data, and ideally it should include few-shot baselines (e.g., k-NN with the same support set, or a backbone trained on seen categories only) to enable a controlled comparison. This affects the interpretation of the central quantitative claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3] The notation in Eq. (5) is ambiguous: the expression appears to write \(\ell(i) = P_{j \in P(i)} -\log\cdots\), which should be a sum over the positive set \(P(i)\). Please write it explicitly as \(\sum_{j \in P(i)} -\log\frac{...}{...}\).
  2. [Table 3] The ablation study reports only the mean AUC over all 12 categories. Since the unseen-category claim is central, the table should also show average AUC split into seen and unseen categories to demonstrate that the benefit of generative augmentation is not driven solely by leakage.
  3. [Section 4.2] The qualitative examples in Fig. 3 would be more informative if the number of support samples and generated samples used in the visualization were stated, as the score distributions depend on the support set composition.
  4. [Section 4.4] Minor language issues: 'The number of generations Ng do not impose noticeable influence' should be 'does not impose'; the sentence would benefit from revision for clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Unseen-category generalization claim is partly circular: HumanMAC, used to augment support samples for Phone/Boxing/Throw, was pretrained on HumanAct12, so those categories are not novel to the full pipeline.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Implementation details) and Algorithm 2 (Inference)]
    "To assess the model's generalization ability to unseen categories, three action categories (Phone, Boxing, and Throw) are excluded during training and used only for the testing phase. ... The motion generation module (i.e., HumanMAC [28]) is pretrained on HumanAct12 for 1000 epochs ..."

    HumanAct12 includes Phone, Boxing, and Throw. Algorithm 2 passes every support sample through HumanMAC (g(Xi), lines 2-7) to build the augmented normal reference set. Because HumanMAC was pretrained on the full dataset, its generated completions for these 'unseen' categories can encode category-specific motion statistics learned before the few-shot evaluation. The reported Phone/Boxing/Throw AUCs are therefore not clean evidence that the contrastive encoder generalizes to novel categories; they can be explained by HumanMAC having memorized those categories. The paper's claim to 'enable generalization to novel action categories without retraining' is load-bearing and rests on a train/test separation that is only enforced for the encoder, not for the generative support-set augmenter.

full rationale

The core derivation of the contrastive encoder and anomaly score is self-contained: a Res-GCN encoder is trained with SimCLR-style contrastive loss on seen categories, and inference computes mean Euclidean distance to augmented support embeddings. No fitted target values are renamed as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citation chain appears. The significant circularity is in the unseen-category evaluation: HumanMAC is pretrained on the entire HumanAct12 dataset, including the three categories later treated as unseen, and Algorithm 2 uses HumanMAC to generate the support-set normal reference at inference. This makes the unseen-category rows of Table 2, and contribution 3 built on them, dependent on category-specific information from pretraining rather than purely category-agnostic generalization. The ablation in Table 3 reports only mean AUC over all categories, so it cannot isolate whether the leakage is concentrated in the unseen rows. The seen-category results and the contrastive framework itself are not circular; the issue is confined to the novelty claim. For that reason the score is 6 (partial circularity) rather than 0-2.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard architecture choices plus three load-bearing assumptions: HumanMAC is pretrained on the same dataset used for evaluation, the three held-out categories are treated as unseen despite that pretraining, and hyperparameters are selected using test-set sensitivity analyses. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Contrastive temperature tau = 1
    Set by hand in Section 4.1; controls the sharpness of the contrastive loss in Eq. (5) and affects the geometry of the learned embedding space.
  • DCT basis count M for the action encoder = 10
    Chosen in Section 4.1; determines how many low-frequency components are retained and directly defines the input to the Res-GCN.
  • Number of generated samples Ng at inference = 10 in the default protocol used in Table 4
    Selected through sensitivity analysis in Section 4.4; increasing Ng beyond small values gives only marginal AUC gains.
  • Number of generated samples Ng during training = 3 to 5 optimal, based on Figure 7
    Chosen by test-set sensitivity analysis; larger values degrade AUC because of redundant contrastive pairs.
  • Observed to predicted frame split O:P = 30:30
    Selected from Table 4 by test AUC; longer prediction horizons such as P=50 degrade performance.
  • Support set size Ns = Not explicitly stated for the main results; 3 real samples per category are used in Section 4.4
    The main protocol does not specify Ns for the headline AUC, and sensitivity analysis shows AUC improves as Ns increases.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption HumanAct12 provides reliable 3D skeleton sequences with correct category labels for all 12 action classes.
    All training, augmentation, and evaluation are performed on this dataset as described in Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption Retaining 10 low-frequency DCT bases preserves enough motion information for action discrimination.
    The encoder input is fixed to 10 DCT bases in Section 4.1, with no validation that this preserves all discriminative details.
  • domain assumption HumanMAC-generated motion continuations are semantically consistent augmentations that preserve the action category and add realistic intra-category diversity.
    This assumption underlies both training-time and inference-time augmentation in Sections 3.2 and 3.4.
  • domain assumption A contrastive space trained on nine seen categories transfers to unseen categories, making Euclidean distance to a support set a valid anomaly score.
    This is the core generalization assumption behind the unseen-category experiments in Section 4.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Pretraining HumanMAC on HumanAct12 does not compromise the 'unseen category' evaluation.
    The paper trains HumanMAC on HumanAct12 for 1000 epochs (Section 4.1) but treats Phone, Boxing, and Throw as unseen without discussing the generative model's exposure to them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Few-shot Human Action Anomaly Detection via a Unified Contrastive Learning Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/22JQHJOC

@misc{pith2026250817726,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Few-shot Human Action Anomaly Detection via a Unified Contrastive Learning Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/22JQHJOC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17726}
}
read the original abstract

Human Action Anomaly Detection (HAAD) aims to identify anomalous actions given only normal action data during training. Existing methods typically follow a one-model-per-category paradigm, requiring separate training for each action category and a large number of normal samples. These constraints hinder scalability and limit applicability in real-world scenarios, where data is often scarce or novel categories frequently appear. To address these limitations, we propose a unified framework for HAAD that is compatible with few-shot scenarios. Our method constructs a category-agnostic representation space via contrastive learning, enabling AD by comparing test samples with a given small set of normal examples (referred to as the support set). To improve inter-category generalization and intra-category robustness, we introduce a generative motion augmentation strategy harnessing a diffusion-based foundation model for creating diverse and realistic training samples. Notably, to the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to introduce such a strategy specifically tailored to enhance contrastive learning for action AD. Extensive experiments on the HumanAct12 dataset demonstrate the state-of-the-art effectiveness of our approach under both seen and unseen category settings, regarding training efficiency and model scalability for few-shot HAAD.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Uninformed students: Student-teacher anomaly detection with discriminative latent embeddings

    Paul Bergmann, Michael Fauser, David Sattlegger, and Carsten Steger. Uninformed students: Student-teacher anomaly detection with discriminative latent embeddings. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 4183–4192, 2020. 1, 3

    work page 2020

  2. [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 (CVPR), June 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    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. 3

    2021

  4. [4]

    Anomaly detection for industrial surface inspection: applica- tion in maintenance of aircraft components

    Falko K ¨ahler, Ole Schmedemann, and Thorsten Sch¨uppstuhl. Anomaly detection for industrial surface inspection: applica- tion in maintenance of aircraft components. Procedia CIRP, 107:246–251, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Supervised anomaly detection for complex indus- trial images

    Aimira Baitieva, David Hurych, Victor Besnier, and Olivier Bernard. Supervised anomaly detection for complex indus- trial images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17754– 17762, 2024. 1

    2024

  6. [6]

    f-anogan: Fast unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks

    Thomas Schlegl, Philipp Seeb ¨ock, Sebastian M Waldstein, Georg Langs, and Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth. f-anogan: Fast unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks. Medical image analysis, 54:30–44, 2019. 1

    2019

  7. [7]

    Madgan: Unsupervised medical anomaly detection gan us- ing multiple adjacent brain mri slice reconstruction

    Changhee Han, Leonardo Rundo, Kohei Murao, Tomoyuki Noguchi, Yuki Shimahara, Zolt ´an ´Ad´am Milacski, Saori Koshino, Evis Sala, Hideki Nakayama, and Shin’ichi Satoh. Madgan: Unsupervised medical anomaly detection gan us- ing multiple adjacent brain mri slice reconstruction. BMC bioinformatics, 22(Suppl 2):31, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Unsupervised deep anomaly detection for medical images using an improved adversarial autoen- coder

    Haibo Zhang, Wenping Guo, Shiqing Zhang, Hongsheng Lu, and Xiaoming Zhao. Unsupervised deep anomaly detection for medical images using an improved adversarial autoen- coder. Journal of Digital Imaging, 35(2):153–161, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Unsu- pervised anomaly detection for posteroanterior chest x-rays using multiresolution patch-based self-supervised learning

    Minki Kim, Ki-Ryum Moon, and Byoung-Dai Lee. Unsu- pervised anomaly detection for posteroanterior chest x-rays using multiresolution patch-based self-supervised learning. Scientific Reports, 13(1):3415, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  2. [10]

    When ev- ery millisecond counts: Real-time anomaly detection via the multimodal asynchronous hybrid network

    Dong Xiao, Guangyao Chen, Peixi Peng, Yangru Huang, Yi- fan Zhao, Yongxing Dai, and Yonghong Tian. When ev- ery millisecond counts: Real-time anomaly detection via the multimodal asynchronous hybrid network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.17457, 2025. 1

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Scaling out-of- distribution detection for real-world settings

    Steven Basart, Mazeika Mantas, Mostajabi Mohammadreza, Steinhardt Jacob, and Song Dawn. Scaling out-of- distribution detection for real-world settings. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Spotting the unexpected (stu): A 3d lidar dataset for anomaly segmenta- tion in autonomous driving

    Alexey Nekrasov, Malcolm Burdorf, Stewart Worrall, Bas- tian Leibe, and Julie Stephany Berrio Perez. Spotting the unexpected (stu): A 3d lidar dataset for anomaly segmenta- tion in autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , p...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Frequency-guided multi-level hu- man action anomaly detection with normalizing flows.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17381, 2024

    Shun Maeda, Chunzhi Gu, Jun Yu, Shogo Tokai, Shangce Gao, and Chao Zhang. Frequency-guided multi-level hu- man action anomaly detection with normalizing flows.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17381, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 7

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Multimodal motion con- ditioned diffusion model for skeleton-based video anomaly detection

    Alessandro Flaborea, Luca Collorone, Guido Maria D’Amely Di Melendugno, Stefano D’Arrigo, Bardh Prenkaj, and Fabio Galasso. Multimodal motion con- ditioned diffusion model for skeleton-based video anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Co...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Normalizing flows for human pose anomaly detection

    Or Hirschorn and Shai Avidan. Normalizing flows for human pose anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 13545– 13554, 2023. 1, 3, 6, 7

    2023

  8. [16]

    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. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 35:4571–4584, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  9. [17]

    Registration based few-shot anomaly detection

    Chaoqin Huang, Haoyan Guan, Aofan Jiang, Ya Zhang, Michael Spratling, and Yan-Feng Wang. Registration based few-shot anomaly detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 303–319. Springer, 2022. 2, 4

    2022

  10. [18]

    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 (CVPR), pages 3924–3933, June 2023. 4

    2023

  11. [19]

    Hierarchical vector quantized transformer for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection, 2023

    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, 2023. 4 10

    2023

  12. [20]

    Karls- son, Biqing Huang, and Chin Yew Lin

    Haonan Yin, Guanlong Jiao, Qianhui Wu, Borje F. Karls- son, Biqing Huang, and Chin Yew Lin. Lafite: Latent diffu- sion model with feature editing for unsupervised multi-class anomaly detection, 2023. 4

    2023

  13. [21]

    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. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Learning to detect multi-class anomalies with just one normal image prompt

    Bin-Bin Gao. Learning to detect multi-class anomalies with just one normal image prompt. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 454–470. Springer, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Dinomaly: The less is more philosophy in multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection

    Jia Guo, Shuai Lu, Weihang Zhang, Fang Chen, Huiqi Li, and Hongen Liao. Dinomaly: The less is more philosophy in multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 20405–20415, 2025. 4

    2025

  16. [24]

    Correcting deviations from normality: A reformulated diffusion model for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection

    Farzad Beizaee, Gregory A Lodygensky, Christian Desrosiers, and Jose Dolz. Correcting deviations from normality: A reformulated diffusion model for multi-class unsupervised anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 19088...

    2025

  17. [25]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Ge- offrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on ma- chine learning, pages 1597–1607. PMLR, 2020. 2, 5

    2020

  18. [26]

    Exploring simple siamese rep- resentation learning

    Xinlei Chen and Kaiming He. Exploring simple siamese rep- resentation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 15750–15758, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Boosting contrastive self- supervised learning with false negative cancellation

    Tri Huynh, Simon Kornblith, Matthew R Walter, Michael Maire, and Maryam Khademi. Boosting contrastive self- supervised learning with false negative cancellation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 2785–2795, 2022. 2

    2022

  20. [28]

    Humanmac: Masked motion completion for human motion prediction

    Ling-Hao Chen, JiaWei Zhang, Yewen Li, Yiren Pang, Xi- aobo Xia, and Tongliang Liu. Humanmac: Masked motion completion for human motion prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 9544–9555, October 2023. 2, 5, 6

    2023

  21. [29]

    Ac- tion2motion: Conditioned generation of 3d human motions

    Chuan Guo, Xinxin Zuo, Sen Wang, Shihao Zou, Qingyao Sun, Annan Deng, Minglun Gong, and Li Cheng. Ac- tion2motion: Conditioned generation of 3d human motions. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 2021–2029, 2020. 2, 6

    2021

  22. [30]

    Anomaly detection and localization in crowded scenes.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 36(1):18–32, 2013

    Weixin Li, Vijay Mahadevan, and Nuno Vasconcelos. Anomaly detection and localization in crowded scenes.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 36(1):18–32, 2013. 2

    2013

  23. [31]

    Deep-anomaly: Fully convolutional neural network for fast anomaly detection in crowded scenes

    Mohammad Sabokrou, Mohsen Fayyaz, Mahmood Fathy, Zahra Moayed, and Reinhard Klette. Deep-anomaly: Fully convolutional neural network for fast anomaly detection in crowded scenes. Computer Vision and Image Understand- ing, 172:88–97, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Video anomaly detection and localization by local motion based joint video representation and ocelm

    Siqi Wang, En Zhu, Jianping Yin, and Fatih Porikli. Video anomaly detection and localization by local motion based joint video representation and ocelm. Neurocomputing, 277:161–175, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Learning regular- ity in skeleton trajectories for anomaly detection in videos

    Romero Morais, Vuong Le, Truyen Tran, Budhaditya Saha, Moussa Mansour, and Svetha Venkatesh. Learning regular- ity in skeleton trajectories for anomaly detection in videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 11996–12004, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    A survey of single-scene video anomaly detection

    Bharathkumar Ramachandra, Michael J Jones, and Ranga Raju Vatsavai. A survey of single-scene video anomaly detection. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(5):2293–2312, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Anomaly detection in video via self- supervised and multi-task learning

    Mariana-Iuliana Georgescu, Antonio Barbalau, Radu Tu- dor Ionescu, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Marius Popescu, and Mubarak Shah. Anomaly detection in video via self- supervised and multi-task learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognitio...

    2021

  28. [36]

    A background-agnostic framework with adversarial training for abnormal event detection in video

    Mariana Iuliana Georgescu, Radu Tudor Ionescu, Fa- had Shahbaz Khan, Marius Popescu, and Mubarak Shah. A background-agnostic framework with adversarial training for abnormal event detection in video. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(9):4505–4523,

  29. [37]

    Hierarchical recur- rent neural network for skeleton based action recognition

    Yong Du, Wei Wang, and Liang Wang. Hierarchical recur- rent neural network for skeleton based action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1110–1118, 2015. 2

    2015

  30. [38]

    Spatial tempo- ral graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition

    Sijie Yan, Yuanjun Xiong, and Dahua Lin. Spatial tempo- ral graph convolutional networks for skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on arti- ficial intelligence, volume 32, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Skeleton-based action recognition with directed graph neu- ral networks

    Lei Shi, Yifan Zhang, Jian Cheng, and Hanqing Lu. Skeleton-based action recognition with directed graph neu- ral networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7912–7921, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Revisiting skeleton-based action recognition

    Haodong Duan, Yue Zhao, Kai Chen, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Revisiting skeleton-based action recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 2969–2978, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    A survey on 3d skeleton-based action recognition using learn- ing method

    Bin Ren, Mengyuan Liu, Runwei Ding, and Hong Liu. A survey on 3d skeleton-based action recognition using learn- ing method. Cyborg and Bionic Systems, 5:0100, 2024. 2

    2024

  34. [42]

    Explainable deep one-class classification

    Philipp Liznerski, Lukas Ruff, Robert A Vandermeulen, Billy Joe Franks, Marius Kloft, and Klaus-Robert M ¨uller. Explainable deep one-class classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01760, 2020. 3

    2007 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Adtr: Anomaly detection transformer with feature reconstruction

    Zhiyuan You, Kai Yang, Wenhan Luo, Lei Cui, Yu Zheng, and Xinyi Le. Adtr: Anomaly detection transformer with feature reconstruction. In International Conference on Neu- ral Information Processing, pages 298–310. Springer, 2022

  36. [44]

    Draem- a discriminatively trained reconstruction embedding for sur- face anomaly detection

    Vitjan Zavrtanik, Matej Kristan, and Danijel Skoˇcaj. Draem- a discriminatively trained reconstruction embedding for sur- face anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 8330– 8339, 2021. 3 11

    2021

  37. [45]

    Learning trajectory dependencies for human motion pre- diction

    Wei Mao, Miaomiao Liu, Mathieu Salzmann, and Hongdong Li. Learning trajectory dependencies for human motion pre- diction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international con- ference on computer vision, pages 9489–9497, 2019. 4, 6

    2019

  38. [46]

    Nonrigid structure from motion in trajectory space

    Ijaz Akhter, Yaser Sheikh, Sohaib Khan, and Takeo Kanade. Nonrigid structure from motion in trajectory space. In D. Koller, D. Schuurmans, Y . Bengio, and L. Bottou, ed- itors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 21. Curran Associates, Inc., 2008. 4

    2008

  39. [47]

    Semi-supervised classi- fication with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classi- fication with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016. 5

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 5

    2020

  41. [49]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 ,

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 6

    2010 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Alexander Quinn Nichol and Prafulla Dhariwal. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8162–8171. PMLR,

  44. [52]

    Visualiz- ing data using t-sne

    Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualiz- ing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research, 9(Nov):2579–2605, 2008. 8 12

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.