Audio-based Anomaly Detection in Industrial Machines Using Deep One-Class Support Vector Data Description

Cansu Celebioglu; Fahad Sohrab; Levent Eren; Mete Ahishali; Moncef Gabbouj; Murat Askar; Sertac Kilickaya; Turker Ince

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Audio-based Anomaly Detection in Industrial Machines Using Deep One-Class Support Vector Data Description

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deep SVDD with a 2-D subspace detects machine-sound anomalies more accurately than a dense autoencoder, using 7.4 times fewer trainable parameters.

desk verdict A clean but incremental deep SVDD application to MIMII whose headline AUC superiority is not a controlled comparison: the baseline appears quoted from the original paper, not re-run under the same feature pipeline. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10792 v1 pith:VUN3BELE submitted 2024-12-14 cs.SD cs.LGeess.AS

Sertac Kilickaya , Mete Ahishali , Cansu Celebioglu , Fahad Sohrab , Levent Eren , Turker Ince , Murat Askar , Moncef Gabbouj This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SDcs.LGeess.AS

keywords anomalydetectionacousticconditionmonitoringdeepSVDDone-classclassificationMIMIIdatasetlog-MelspectrogrammachinefaultAUC

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 claims that one-class deep Support Vector Data Description (deep SVDD), trained on log-Mel spectrograms of machine sounds, detects faults in industrial equipment more accurately than a standard dense autoencoder baseline while using far fewer trainable parameters. On the MIMII dataset across pumps, fans, valves, and slide rails, the paper reports average AUCs of 0.84, 0.80, and 0.69 for signal-to-noise ratios of 6 dB, 0 dB, and -6 dB with a subspace dimension of 2, compared to 0.82, 0.72, and 0.64 for the baseline. The reason this matters is that microphone-based monitoring is cheap and non-contact, and a smaller model that needs only about two seconds of audio could make real-time acoustic fault detection more practical in factories.

What carries the argument

Deep SVDD learns a neural-network mapping $\phi(x; W)$ from input windows into a low-dimensional subspace and trains a hypersphere around the mapped normal data, using the one-class objective that minimizes the average squared distance of all training representations from a fixed center $c$. At test time the anomaly score is the distance $\|\phi(x; W^*) - c\|^2$ from the hypersphere center. The network uses convolutional layers followed by a dense layer whose neuron count sets the subspace dimension, and the paper omits bias terms to avoid hypersphere collapse. The input is a 64x64 log-Mel spectrogram window, roughly two seconds of audio, which is what allows anomaly decisions from a short listening window.

What would settle it

Re-run both models over many more random seeds, say 20 or 30, on the MIMII dataset and compare the per-seed AUC distributions for each machine type and SNR; if the intervals for deep SVDD and the dense autoencoder overlap substantially at 6 dB SNR, the claimed superiority would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that mapping log-Mel spectrogram windows into a 2-dimensional learned feature space and measuring distance to a hypersphere center is a better anomaly detector for industrial machine sounds than the reconstruction-error-based dense autoencoder baseline. Averaged over machine types and three runs, the deep SVDD model with subspace dimension 2 reaches AUCs of 0.84, 0.80, and 0.69 at 6 dB, 0 dB, and -6 dB SNR, versus 0.82, 0.72, and 0.64 for the baseline, while using 6,848 trainable parameters compared with 50,760 for the autoencoder. The paper also reports that removing silent sections from valve recordings before computing spectrograms improves both methods, and that varying the subspace dimension among 2, 4, and 8 changes results only slightly.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three-run average AUC scores in Table I are stable enough to rank the methods; the paper gives no standard deviations or significance tests, so the small margins, such as 0.84 versus 0.82 at 6 dB SNR, might flip under different random seeds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported results hold, a model with 6,848 trainable parameters could be embedded in low-cost monitoring devices for pumps, fans, valves, and slide rails.
Anomaly detection can be run on two-second audio windows, enabling near-real-time acoustic condition monitoring.
The valve preprocessing step, isolating one-second segments around detected peaks, is a simple way to handle non-stationary machine sounds and improves both methods.
Because subspace dimension 2 performs as well as 4 or 8, practitioners can choose the smallest latent space for computational savings.

Reading between the lines

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

The reported gains, especially at 6 dB SNR (0.84 vs 0.82), are small relative to the three-run averaging, so the practical advantage of deep SVDD over the baseline may depend on the metric, the machine type, and the noise level; a reader should look for multi-seed uncertainty before committing to the model.
The distance-to-center anomaly score is a calibrated-like score that could be thresholded without retraining, which may simplify deployment compared to reconstruction error.
The same subspace dimension principle could transfer to other one-class acoustic tasks, such as detecting anomalies in vehicle or household appliance sounds, since the method does not rely on machine-specific features.
The authors' planned multimodal and graph-embedded variants could push the approach further by combining multiple microphone channels or machine relationships.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The paper applies deep SVDD to MIMII machine sounds with a compact CNN and a valve preprocessing step, reporting AUC gains over a dense AE baseline plus a 7.4x parameter reduction. The writing is clear, the method description is adequate, and the public dataset is appropriate. The valve silent-section removal and the 64x64 log-Mel window for shorter detection latency are genuinely useful, if incremental.

The big problem is that the headline comparison is not controlled. The “Baseline Dense AE [16]” row in Table I appears to be taken from the original MIMII publication, not re-run by the authors under their own protocol. The text says only that they “also trained” the dense AE with the preprocessed valve data, which implies the ordinary baseline was not reproduced. Meanwhile the deep SVDD models use 64x64 log-Mel windows while the original baseline uses 320-dimensional concatenated frames. So the overall “superiority” claim could reflect different feature representations and evaluation pipelines rather than algorithmic advantage. The valve-specific comparison, where both models used the same preprocessed data, is more meaningful—but that is one machine type.

The missing error bars are a secondary issue, not the load-bearing one. The subspace dimension was varied across 2, 4, and 8 with similar outcomes, so the post-hoc emphasis on dim 2 is not egregious. But with no variance or significance testing, a 0.02 AUC gap at 6 dB is within noise.

What this paper does well is document a plausible lightweight alternative and flag a real engineering trick (valve preprocessing). What it does not do is establish that deep SVDD beats the dense AE under matched conditions. A controlled re-run of the baseline, plus per-run numbers, would make the central claim credible.

For a reader interested in evaluation pitfalls in acoustic anomaly detection, this is a useful case study. For someone looking for a new method, it is not. I would send it to a workshop or conference with a request for a controlled re-run before trusting the numbers. A serious referee should engage because the question is empirical and the fix is straightforward.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares a baseline dense autoencoder and one-class deep SVDD for audio-based anomaly detection on the MIMII dataset. Log-Mel spectrograms are used as input; for valve data, a peak-based preprocessing step removes silent sections. The authors report that deep SVDD with a subspace (dense-layer) dimension of 2 achieves average AUCs of 0.84, 0.80, and 0.69 at 6 dB, 0 dB, and -6 dB SNR, respectively, versus 0.82, 0.72, and 0.64 for the baseline, while using 7.4 times fewer trainable parameters.

Significance. If the comparison were properly controlled, the result would be a useful empirical contribution: it confirms that deep SVDD with a small learned embedding can match or exceed a standard dense autoencoder on a public industrial audio benchmark while being parameter-efficient. The use of the external MIMII dataset and a published baseline are strengths, and the architectural details are described sufficiently for replication of the deep SVDD models. However, the central superiority claim is currently not verifiable as presented, because the baseline numbers may be taken from the original MIMII publication rather than recomputed in the same experimental pipeline, and no uncertainty estimates are provided for the small AUC differences.

major comments (3)

[Section IV, Table I] The main comparison is not controlled as reported. The row labeled 'Baseline Dense AE [16]' appears to be quoted from the original MIMII paper, because the text only states 'we also trained the dense AE with the preprocessed valve data' and does not say that the unprocessed baseline was re-trained by the authors. If these baseline AUCs come from a literature source, they may have been produced with a different log-Mel feature pipeline, normalization, train/test partition, early stopping criterion, or random seed than the deep SVDD models. Since the abstract and conclusion claim superiority over exactly this baseline, the authors must either re-run the dense AE under the identical experimental protocol and report those numbers, or explicitly label the literature values and downgrade the claim to a comparison against published results rather than a controlled experiment.
[Section IV, Table I] The headline differences (e.g., 0.844 vs 0.816 at 6 dB, 0.798 vs 0.723 at 0 dB) are averages over three runs, but the table provides no standard deviations, per-run values, or significance tests. Given that the deep SVDD dim-2 and dim-4 results differ by as little as 0.001 at 6 dB in the 'All Machines AVG' column, the three-run averages cannot by themselves establish that dim 2 is 'superior.' Please provide per-run results or error bars and state how many random seeds were used for each cell.
[Section IV, 'One-Class Deep SVDD' and Table I] The choice of subspace dimension 2 appears to have been made after inspecting test-set performance, but Table I does not consistently favor this choice: dim 4 achieves a higher average AUC at -6 dB (0.697 vs 0.689) and the same average at 6 dB (0.844). No validation-based selection of the dimension is described. Clarify the model-selection protocol, or temper the claim to state that all tested dimensions perform similarly and that dim 2 was selected for its parameter efficiency.

minor comments (5)

[Section II, 'For feature extraction'] The valve preprocessing is described only as 'peak detection' followed by isolation of 1-second segments; the peak detection threshold and the window length are not specified, which prevents exact replication. Please provide these parameters.
[Section IV, first paragraph after Table I] The text refers to 'Table III' for the preprocessed-valve baseline results, but the presented table is numbered Table I; fix the cross-reference.
[Section IV, 'For deep SVDD'] There are minor typographical errors: 'flattaned' should be 'flattened', and 'spectogram' in Fig. 2 should be 'spectrogram'; also 'It included the time' should be 'This includes the time.'
[Table I caption] The caption says 'Average AUCs across 3 different runs,' while the text says 'average AUC scores across all model IDs.' Clarify whether each cell is an average over runs, over model IDs, or both, and state the number of model IDs per machine type.
[General] The paper does not include a data or code availability statement. Given the need for a controlled baseline re-run, releasing the training/evaluation code and per-run scores would greatly improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the evaluation is an empirical comparison against an external dataset and an external method, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison of one-class deep SVDD against a baseline dense AE on the MIMII audio dataset. The deep SVDD objective (Eqs. 4-6) is the standard formulation from Ruff et al. [13], an external reference, and the baseline is the dense AE from the MIMII dataset paper [16], also external. The AUC scores are computed on held-out test segments after training on normal samples only; no parameter fitted to the test data is later relabeled as a prediction. The valve-data preprocessing is an explicit experimental modification, not a quantity defined in terms of the target outcome. Self-citations appear only as background context ([11], [7]) or as future-work pointers ([17], [18]); none is load-bearing for the reported AUC comparison. The 'Baseline Dense AE [16]' row is attributed to the original MIMII paper, and if those numbers were quoted rather than re-run under the authors' exact protocol, the comparison would be a correctness/validity concern, not circularity. The absence of standard deviations or significance tests is a statistical robustness concern, also not circularity. No equation is shown to equal its own input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or prior author result is invoked to force the chosen architecture. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity, and the paper should be assessed on experimental validity rather than circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends mainly on the chosen subspace dimension and the valve preprocessing, both of which are hand-selected rather than derived. The remaining assumptions are standard domain assumptions about the dataset and feature representation, and standard mathematical formulations from prior work.

free parameters (3)

subspace dimension = 2
Deep SVDD was evaluated with 2, 4, and 8 neurons in the final dense layer; dimension 2 reported as best on average, a selection after observing Table I.
valve peak detection threshold and window length = unspecified
Preprocessing to remove silent sections uses peak detection and 1-second windows; parameters are not specified, hand-chosen.
weight decay lambda = 1e-5
Set as a fixed hyperparameter without sweeping, following the deep SVDD literature.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Log-Mel spectrogram with 64 mel filters is a sufficient representation for detecting machine anomalies.
Feature extraction choices in Section II are standard but not justified by comparison.
domain assumption The MIMII dataset's train/test split (all anomalies in test) is appropriate for one-class anomaly detection evaluation.
Follows [16], but the representativeness is assumed.
standard math SVDD objective and deep SVDD training procedure from [13] are correct.
Equations (1)-(5) are standard formulations from the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Audio-based Anomaly Detection in Industrial Machines Using Deep One-Class Support Vector Data Description." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUN3BELE

@misc{pith2026241210792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Audio-based Anomaly Detection in Industrial Machines Using Deep One-Class Support Vector Data Description},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUN3BELE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10792}
}

read the original abstract

The frequent breakdowns and malfunctions of industrial equipment have driven increasing interest in utilizing cost-effective and easy-to-deploy sensors, such as microphones, for effective condition monitoring of machinery. Microphones offer a low-cost alternative to widely used condition monitoring sensors with their high bandwidth and capability to detect subtle anomalies that other sensors might have less sensitivity. In this study, we investigate malfunctioning industrial machines to evaluate and compare anomaly detection performance across different machine types and fault conditions. Log-Mel spectrograms of machinery sound are used as input, and the performance is evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) score for two different methods: baseline dense autoencoder (AE) and one-class deep Support Vector Data Description (deep SVDD) with different subspace dimensions. Our results over the MIMII sound dataset demonstrate that the deep SVDD method with a subspace dimension of 2 provides superior anomaly detection performance, achieving average AUC scores of 0.84, 0.80, and 0.69 for 6 dB, 0 dB, and -6 dB signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), respectively, compared to 0.82, 0.72, and 0.64 for the baseline model. Moreover, deep SVDD requires 7.4 times fewer trainable parameters than the baseline dense AE, emphasizing its advantage in both effectiveness and computational efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10792 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Examples of initial and preprocessed time-domain waveforms with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[16]

Mimii dataset: Sound dataset for malfunction- ing industrial machine investigation and inspection,

H. Purohit, R. Tanabe, K. Ichige, T. Endo, Y . Nikaido, K. Suefusa, and Y . Kawaguchi, “Mimii dataset: Sound dataset for malfunction- ing industrial machine investigation and inspection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09347, 2019

arXiv 1909
[1]

A survey of mechanical fault diagnosis based on audio signal analysis,

L. Tang, H. Tian, H. Huang, S. Shi, and Q. Ji, “A survey of mechanical fault diagnosis based on audio signal analysis,” Measurement, p. 113294, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

First- shot anomaly sound detection for machine condition monitoring: A do- main generalization baseline,

N. Harada, D. Niizumi, Y . Ohishi, D. Takeuchi, and M. Yasuda, “First- shot anomaly sound detection for machine condition monitoring: A do- main generalization baseline,” in 2023 31st European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO). IEEE, 2023, pp. 191–195

2023
[3]

Smartphone-based bearing fault diagnosis in rotating machinery using audio data and 1d convolu- tional neural networks,

C. Celebioglu, S. Kilickaya, and L. Eren, “Smartphone-based bearing fault diagnosis in rotating machinery using audio data and 1d convolu- tional neural networks,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies 2024 , 2024, pp. 149–154

work page 2024
[4]

Description and discussion on dcase2020 challenge task2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring,

Y . Koizumi, Y . Kawaguchi, K. Imoto, T. Nakamura, Y . Nikaido, R. Tan- abe, H. Purohit, K. Suefusa, T. Endo, M. Yasuda et al. , “Description and discussion on dcase2020 challenge task2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.05822, 2020

arXiv 2006
[5]

Description and discussion on dcase 2021 challenge task 2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring under domain shifted conditions,

Y . Kawaguchi, K. Imoto, Y . Koizumi, N. Harada, D. Niizumi, K. Dohi, R. Tanabe, H. Purohit, and T. Endo, “Description and discussion on dcase 2021 challenge task 2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring under domain shifted conditions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04492 , 2021

arXiv 2021
[6]

Description and discussion on dcase 2022 challenge task 2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring applying domain generalization techniques,

K. Dohi, K. Imoto, N. Harada, D. Niizumi, Y . Koizumi, T. Nishida, H. Purohit, T. Endo, M. Yamamoto, and Y . Kawaguchi, “Description and discussion on dcase 2022 challenge task 2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring applying domain generalization techniques,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05876 , 2022

arXiv 2022
[7]

Subspace support vector data description,

F. Sohrab, J. Raitoharju, M. Gabbouj, and A. Iosifidis, “Subspace support vector data description,” in 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 722–727

work page 2018

Show all 18 references

[8]

Support vector data description,

D. M. Tax and R. P. Duin, “Support vector data description,” Machine learning, vol. 54, pp. 45–66, 2004

2004
[9]

One-class support vector machines—an application in machine fault detection and classification,

H. J. Shin, D.-H. Eom, and S.-S. Kim, “One-class support vector machines—an application in machine fault detection and classification,” Computers & Industrial Engineering , vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 395–408, 2005

2005
[10]

Boosting rare benthic macroinvertebrates taxa identification with one-class classification,

F. Sohrab and J. Raitoharju, “Boosting rare benthic macroinvertebrates taxa identification with one-class classification,” in 2020 IEEE Sympo- sium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 928–933

2020
[11]

Hy- perspectral image analysis with subspace learning-based one-class clas- sification,

S. Kilickaya, M. Ahishali, F. Sohrab, T. Ince, and M. Gabbouj, “Hy- perspectral image analysis with subspace learning-based one-class clas- sification,” in 2023 Photonics & Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 953–959

2023
[12]

Early myocar- dial infarction detection with one-class classification over multi-view echocardiography,

A. Degerli, F. Sohrab, S. Kiranyaz, and M. Gabbouj, “Early myocar- dial infarction detection with one-class classification over multi-view echocardiography,” in 2022 Computing in Cardiology (CinC) , vol. 498. IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–4

2022
[13]

Deep one-class classification,

L. Ruff, R. Vandermeulen, N. Goernitz, L. Deecke, S. A. Siddiqui, A. Binder, E. M ¨uller, and M. Kloft, “Deep one-class classification,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2018, pp. 4393–4402

2018
[14]

Dasvdd: Deep autoencoding support vector data descriptor for anomaly detection. arxiv 2021,

H. Hojjati and N. Armanfard, “Dasvdd: Deep autoencoding support vector data descriptor for anomaly detection. arxiv 2021,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05410

2021 arXiv
[15]

Semi-supervised machine condition monitoring by learning deep discriminative audio features,

I. Thoidis, M. Giouvanakis, and G. Papanikolaou, “Semi-supervised machine condition monitoring by learning deep discriminative audio features,” Electronics, vol. 10, no. 20, p. 2471, 2021

2021
[17]

Multimodal subspace support vector data description,

F. Sohrab, J. Raitoharju, A. Iosifidis, and M. Gabbouj, “Multimodal subspace support vector data description,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 110, p. 107648, 2021

2021
[18]

Graph-embedded subspace support vector data description,

F. Sohrab, A. Iosifidis, M. Gabbouj, and J. Raitoharju, “Graph-embedded subspace support vector data description,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 133, p. 108999, 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [16]

Mimii dataset: Sound dataset for malfunction- ing industrial machine investigation and inspection,

H. Purohit, R. Tanabe, K. Ichige, T. Endo, Y . Nikaido, K. Suefusa, and Y . Kawaguchi, “Mimii dataset: Sound dataset for malfunction- ing industrial machine investigation and inspection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09347, 2019

arXiv 1909

[2] [1]

A survey of mechanical fault diagnosis based on audio signal analysis,

L. Tang, H. Tian, H. Huang, S. Shi, and Q. Ji, “A survey of mechanical fault diagnosis based on audio signal analysis,” Measurement, p. 113294, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [2]

First- shot anomaly sound detection for machine condition monitoring: A do- main generalization baseline,

N. Harada, D. Niizumi, Y . Ohishi, D. Takeuchi, and M. Yasuda, “First- shot anomaly sound detection for machine condition monitoring: A do- main generalization baseline,” in 2023 31st European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO). IEEE, 2023, pp. 191–195

2023

[4] [3]

Smartphone-based bearing fault diagnosis in rotating machinery using audio data and 1d convolu- tional neural networks,

C. Celebioglu, S. Kilickaya, and L. Eren, “Smartphone-based bearing fault diagnosis in rotating machinery using audio data and 1d convolu- tional neural networks,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies 2024 , 2024, pp. 149–154

work page 2024

[5] [4]

Description and discussion on dcase2020 challenge task2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring,

Y . Koizumi, Y . Kawaguchi, K. Imoto, T. Nakamura, Y . Nikaido, R. Tan- abe, H. Purohit, K. Suefusa, T. Endo, M. Yasuda et al. , “Description and discussion on dcase2020 challenge task2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.05822, 2020

arXiv 2006

[6] [5]

Description and discussion on dcase 2021 challenge task 2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring under domain shifted conditions,

Y . Kawaguchi, K. Imoto, Y . Koizumi, N. Harada, D. Niizumi, K. Dohi, R. Tanabe, H. Purohit, and T. Endo, “Description and discussion on dcase 2021 challenge task 2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring under domain shifted conditions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04492 , 2021

arXiv 2021

[7] [6]

Description and discussion on dcase 2022 challenge task 2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring applying domain generalization techniques,

K. Dohi, K. Imoto, N. Harada, D. Niizumi, Y . Koizumi, T. Nishida, H. Purohit, T. Endo, M. Yamamoto, and Y . Kawaguchi, “Description and discussion on dcase 2022 challenge task 2: Unsupervised anomalous sound detection for machine condition monitoring applying domain generalization techniques,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05876 , 2022

arXiv 2022

[8] [7]

Subspace support vector data description,

F. Sohrab, J. Raitoharju, M. Gabbouj, and A. Iosifidis, “Subspace support vector data description,” in 2018 24th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 722–727

work page 2018