Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

A Survey on Diffusion Models for Anomaly Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey proposes the first comprehensive taxonomy of diffusion models for anomaly detection, dividing the field into reconstruction-based, density-based, and hybrid methods and applying that map to image, time series, video, and…

desk verdict A useful curated survey of diffusion-based anomaly detection, but its central taxonomy is under-specified and the 'first comprehensive' claim needs softening. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11430 v5 pith:YZ7HETCN submitted 2025-01-20 cs.LG cs.AI

Jing Liu , Zhenchao Ma , Zepu Wang , Chenxuanyin Zou , Jiayang Ren , Zehua Wang , Liang Song , Bo Hu
show 2 more authors
Yang Liu Victor C.M. Leung
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords diffusionmodelsanomalydetectionreconstruction-baseddensity-basedhybridmethodstimeseriesvideomultimodal
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 survey tries to establish a structured map of an emerging field: diffusion models used for anomaly detection (DMAD). It argues that every notable method in this intersection can be sorted into one of three families — reconstruction-based, density-based, and hybrid — and that this sorting illuminates how different modalities (images, time series, video, multimodal data) are handled. If the map is right, a researcher moving into DMAD gets a ready-made orientation: which family to pick for a task, what the standard datasets and metrics are, and where the open problems lie. The survey also assembles a public collection of methods, implementations, datasets, and metrics to support that orientation.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a three-branch taxonomy with named sub-strategies. Under reconstruction-based methods sit basic reconstruction (error between input and rebuilt sample), latent space reconstruction (diffusion in an autoencoder-compressed space), and conditional reconstruction (auxiliary information such as labels, masks, or motion guides the denoising). Under density-based methods sit score-function scoring and diffusion time estimation, where a network predicts how many diffusion steps a sample would need, with longer estimated times marking outliers. Hybrid methods fuse these signals with other detectors. This taxonomy is the backbone that organizes the survey's tables and its per-modality discussion.

What would settle it

Locate a published DMAD method that uses both reconstruction error and a learned density score in a way that resists placement in the reconstruction, density, or hybrid buckets, or find an earlier survey that already covers the same intersection with a comparable taxonomy; either would refute the paper's organizing claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the intersection of diffusion models and anomaly detection has matured enough to support a systematic taxonomy, and that the right split is three-way. Reconstruction-based methods treat a test sample as anomalous when the diffusion process cannot faithfully rebuild it from learned normal patterns; density-based methods use the learned score function or the estimated diffusion time as a direct anomaly score; hybrid methods combine reconstruction signals with density estimates, conditioning, or other detectors. The paper applies this taxonomy across four task families and reports representative quantitative results for each, along with a discussion of computational cost, interpretability, robustness, edge-cloud collaboration, and integration with large language models.

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy is assumed to be exhaustive and faithful: every important DMAD method fits cleanly into one of the three categories, and the surveyed papers, datasets, and reported metrics are representative and correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A newcomer to DMAD can use the taxonomy to identify the method family most natural for their data modality and anomaly type.
  • Comparisons across methods become easier because the survey supplies consistent datasets, metrics, and results for image, time series, video, and multimodal tasks.
  • The explicit list of open challenges — computational cost, interpretability, robustness, edge-cloud collaboration, and LLM integration — gives the field a de facto research agenda.
  • The companion resource collection provides a starting point for reproducing or extending surveyed methods.
  • The taxonomy positions hybrid methods as the most flexible frontier, since they can combine reconstruction and density evidence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the taxonomy implies a design principle: for high-dimensional inputs, latent-space reconstruction should generally beat pixel-space reconstruction on cost, while density-based scoring may be better when anomalies are subtle and local.
  • The 'hybrid' category, which currently includes reconstructions combined with density estimates or conditioning, is likely to grow fastest if diffusion models merge with large language models, a direction the paper flags but does not develop.
  • A natural test of the taxonomy is whether new DMAD papers fit it without special pleading; the category boundaries could be tested by asking independent researchers to classify a fresh batch of methods.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a survey of diffusion models for anomaly detection (DMAD). It introduces a taxonomy that divides methods into reconstruction-based, density-based, and hybrid approaches, reviews the underlying DM machinery (DDPMs, DDIMs, score-based models), organizes existing work by data modality (image, time series, video, and multimodal), and provides tables of representative methods and reported metrics. The paper also discusses challenges such as computational cost, interpretability, robustness, edge-cloud collaboration, and LLM integration, and points to a GitHub resource repository. Its central claim is to offer the first comprehensive taxonomy and systematic review of DMAD.

Significance. If the taxonomy were consistently defined and the bibliographic coverage were verifiable, this survey would be a useful entry point for a rapidly growing area: it collects methods, organizes them by mechanism and modality, links to implementations, and identifies open problems. The GitHub repository is a concrete and helpful resource, and the survey correctly highlights that the field lacks standardized evaluation practices and systematic comparisons. However, the significance is currently limited by two issues: the proposed taxonomy is applied inconsistently to the paper's own method set, and the 'first comprehensive' claim is not backed by a reproducible search protocol. These are fixable within the scope of a survey revision, but they are load-bearing for the manuscript's main contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Section 3.3, and Figure 1] The top-level taxonomy is not applied consistently, which undermines the central 'comprehensive taxonomy' claim. MDPS and the DIC method of Tebbe and Tayyub are described as conditional-reconstruction methods in Section 3.1 and then reappear as hybrid methods in Section 3.3; DTE is introduced as a density-based method in Section 3.2 and is later cited in Section 3.3 as an example of combining reconstruction error with density estimation; GLAD is discussed under two separate reconstruction subcategories in Section 3.1. The paper never states whether the three top-level categories are mutually exclusive, what 'hybrid' means relative to 'reconstruction' and 'density', or which assignment rule is used when a method combines mechanisms. This is a checkable internal inconsistency: a reader cannot apply Figure 1 to the paper's own method list. Please define membership rules explicitly and re-assign every method to a single branch, or present the categories as intentionally overlapping with a separate decision rule for the figure.
  2. [Section 1 and GitHub repository] The claim of being 'the first comprehensive taxonomy of DMAD' is bibliographically load-bearing but is not supported by a reproducible search methodology. The manuscript does not state which databases were searched, which queries and time ranges were used, what inclusion/exclusion criteria selected the reviewed methods, or how many candidate papers were screened. Without this information, a reader cannot verify completeness or assess overlap with earlier surveys that touch on diffusion-based anomaly detection. Please add a short methodology paragraph or appendix documenting the search protocol, inclusion criteria, and screening counts.
  3. [Tables 1-4] The metric tables cannot currently serve as a reliable benchmark resource. As a concrete example, Table 3 lists 'Masked Diffusion[2023]' twice, once with DS='D' and once with DS='C', and the second row repeats 'CrossTask' with two different SR values (39.17% and 23.47%) for what appears to be the same method. More generally, entries in Tables 1-4 report point metrics without standard deviations, dataset splits, or the exact anomaly-detection protocol (e.g., image-level versus pixel-level evaluation for localization), so cross-method comparisons are not meaningful. Please correct the conflicting rows and add protocol and error-bar information, or clearly state that the numbers are unverified transcriptions from the original papers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is not typeset unambiguously: the term -log p_theta(x0|x1) appears outside the expectation, whereas the variational lower bound should place all terms inside a single expectation over the forward process. Please correct the equation or add brackets to show the intended expectation.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (6)] Equation (6) is underspecified: the simplified objective should include an average over uniformly sampled timesteps and an expectation over q(x_t|x0); the current notation omits the uniform timestep distribution and the 1/T prefactor.
  3. [Figure 1 and Section 5] Figure 1 contains the typo 'Dissusions', and the figure does not show how the task-level rows relate to the methodology-level branches; a short caption explaining the decision logic would help.
  4. [Section 4.4 and Table 4] The multimodal section discusses only a subset of the methods listed in Table 4; for example, MPDR and DIAG are absent from the text. Please either discuss them or state that the table is a partial resource.
  5. [References] Several citations appear mismatched to the claims they support; for instance, [Luo, 2023] is a survey on knowledge distillation of diffusion models but is cited for the diffusion-time-estimation intuition in Section 3.2. Please audit the reference-to-claim correspondence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning found: the survey organizes external methods and derives no predictive claim from its own taxonomy.

full rationale

This paper is a literature survey whose central claim is taxonomic: it proposes a three-way categorization of diffusion-model anomaly-detection methods (reconstruction-based, density-based, hybrid) and reviews existing works under that organization. There is no derivation chain in which an output quantity is constructed from a fitted input, no parameter is estimated from a subset of data and then reported as a prediction, and no central result is justified solely by a self-citation. The taxonomy is an organizing framework applied to externally published methods, not a mathematical result that validates itself; the paper reports metrics and methods from other papers, and its GitHub resource collection is ancillary rather than load-bearing. The strongest internal concern, raised by the skeptic headline, is that some methods (e.g., GLAD, MDPS, DIC, DTE) are discussed under multiple branches without an explicit rule for mutual exclusivity. That is a consistency and precision issue in the taxonomy, but it is not circularity: assigning a method to overlapping categories does not make the survey's conclusion equivalent to its input. No step in the paper defines one claimed result in terms of another claimed result, and no prediction reduces by construction to the data used to make it. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with score 0.

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

The survey introduces no fitted parameters, no mathematical postulates, and no new entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are bibliographic and taxonomic: the selected papers are representative, their reported numbers are correctly transcribed, and the three-way categorization covers the field. These assumptions are stated in the text only implicitly.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The reconstruction-based, density-based, and hybrid categories are exhaustive and mutually exclusive for DMAD methods.
    Section 3 introduces the trichotomy without a formal definition that proves every method falls into exactly one category; the taxonomy's completeness depends on this.
  • domain assumption The metrics reported in Tables 1-4 are faithful transcriptions from the original papers.
    The tables are presented as representative results, but the paper does not provide the underlying runs, hyperparameters, or verification procedure; the central resource value depends on accuracy.
  • domain assumption The reviewed literature is representative of the field.
    Section 1 claims comprehensiveness, but no search strategy, inclusion criteria, or date cutoff is specified, so representativeness is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Survey on Diffusion Models for Anomaly Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZ7HETCN

@misc{pith2026250111430,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Survey on Diffusion Models for Anomaly Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZ7HETCN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11430}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion models (DMs) have emerged as a powerful class of generative AI models, showing remarkable potential in anomaly detection (AD) tasks across various domains, such as cybersecurity, fraud detection, healthcare, and manufacturing. The intersection of these two fields, termed diffusion models for anomaly detection (DMAD), offers promising solutions for identifying deviations in increasingly complex and high-dimensional data. In this survey, we review recent advances in DMAD research. We begin by presenting the fundamental concepts of AD and DMs, followed by a comprehensive analysis of classic DM architectures including DDPMs, DDIMs, and Score SDEs. We further categorize existing DMAD methods into reconstruction-based, density-based, and hybrid approaches, providing detailed examinations of their methodological innovations. We also explore the diverse tasks across different data modalities, encompassing image, time series, video, and multimodal data analysis. Furthermore, we discuss critical challenges and emerging research directions, including computational efficiency, model interpretability, robustness enhancement, edge-cloud collaboration, and integration with large language models. The collection of DMAD research papers and resources is available at https://github.com/fdjingliu/DMAD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11430 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Taxonomy of diffusion models for anomaly detection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline illustration of reconstruction-based AD methods: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pipeline illustration of density-based AD methods: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Toxicity Assessment in Preclinical Histopathology via Class-Aware Mahalanobis Distance for Known and Novel Anomalies

    cs.CV 2026-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A class-specific Mahalanobis-distance OOD detector on top of a DINOv2/LoRA segmentation model flags known and novel lesions in mouse liver WSIs, with 0.16% FNR and 0.35% FPR when the threshold is chosen on the test set.

  2. Is Hyperbolic Space All You Need for Medical Anomaly Detection?

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Projecting pre-trained image features into hyperbolic space and classifying them with a learned hyperplane improves medical anomaly detection AUROC over Euclidean baselines on BMAD benchmarks.

  3. Privacy-Preserving Video Anomaly Detection: A Survey

    cs.CV 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A new survey organizes privacy-preserving video anomaly detection into a three-branch taxonomy (NIE, DIM, ECI) and catalogs datasets, metrics, and future directions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [2023]

    Timedit: General-purpose diffusion transformers for time series foundation model

    [Cao et al., 2024] Defu Cao, Wen Ye, and Yan Liu. Timedit: General-purpose diffusion transformers for time series foundation model. In ICMLW,

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Bercea, Michael Neumayr, Daniel Rueckert, and Julia A

    [Bercea et al., 2023] Cosmin I. Bercea, Michael Neumayr, Daniel Rueckert, and Julia A. Schnabel. Mask, stitch, and re-sample: Enhancing robustness and generalizability in anomaly detection through automatic diffusion models. arXiv:2305.19643,

    arXiv 2023

  3. [4]

    Denoising diffusion-augmented hybrid video anomaly detection via reconstructing noised frames

    [Cheng et al., 2024] Kai Cheng, Yaning Pan, Yang Liu, Xin- hua Zeng, and Rui Feng. Denoising diffusion-augmented hybrid video anomaly detection via reconstructing noised frames. In IJCAI, volume 2, pages 695–703,

    work page 2024

  4. [5]

    Perception prioritized training of diffusion models

    [Choi et al., 2022] Jooyoung Choi, Jungbeom Lee, Chaehun Shin, Sungwon Kim, Hyunwoo Kim, and Sungroh Yoon. Perception prioritized training of diffusion models. In CVPR, pages 11472–11481,

    work page 2022

  5. [7]

    A high-quality robust diffusion framework for cor- rupted dataset,

    [Dao et al., 2024] Quan Dao, Binh Ta, Tung Pham, and Anh Tran. A high-quality robust diffusion framework for cor- rupted dataset,

    work page 2024

  6. [8]

    Closing the ode-sde gap in score-based diffusion models through the fokker-planck equation

    [Deveney et al., 2023] Teo Deveney, Jan Stanczuk, Lisa Maria Kreusser, Chris Budd, and Carola-Bibiane Sch¨onlieb. Closing the ode-sde gap in score-based diffusion models through the fokker-planck equation. arXiv:2311.15996,

    arXiv 2023

  7. [9]

    Masked diffusion with task- awareness for procedure planning in instructional videos

    [Fang et al., 2023] Fen Fang, Yun Liu, Ali Koksal, Qianli Xu, and Joo-Hwee Lim. Masked diffusion with task- awareness for procedure planning in instructional videos. arXiv:2309.07409,

    arXiv 2023

  8. [10]

    Multimodal motion conditioned diffusion model for skeleton-based video anomaly detection

    [Flaborea et al., 2023] Alessandro Flaborea, Luca Col- lorone, Guido Maria D’Amely Di Melendugno, Stefano D’Arrigo, Bardh Prenkaj, and Fabio Galasso. Multimodal motion conditioned diffusion model for skeleton-based video anomaly detection. In ICCV, pages 1–9,

    work page 2023

Show all 45 references
  1. [11]

    Diffusion models for counterfactual generation and anomaly detection in brain images

    [Fontanella et al., 2024] Alessandro Fontanella, Grant Mair, Joanna Wardlaw, Emanuele Trucco, and Amos Storkey. Diffusion models for counterfactual generation and anomaly detection in brain images. IEEE TMC,

    2024

  2. [12]

    Graham, Walter Hugo Lopez Pinaya, Paul Wright, Petru-Daniel Tudosiu, Yee H

    [Graham et al., 2023] Mark S. Graham, Walter Hugo Lopez Pinaya, Paul Wright, Petru-Daniel Tudosiu, Yee H. Mah, James T. Teo, H. Rolf J ¨ager, David Werring, Parashkev Nachev, Sebastien Ourselin, and M. Jorge Cardoso. Unsu- pervised 3d out-of-distribution detection with latent ...

    2023

  3. [13]

    An- odode: Anomaly detection with diffusion ode,

    [Hu and Jin, 2023] Xianyao Hu and Congming Jin. An- odode: Anomaly detection with diffusion ode,

    2023

  4. [14]

    Anomalyxfusion: Multi-modal anomaly synthesis with diffusion

    [Hu et al., 2024a] Jie Hu, Yawen Huang, Yilin Lu, Guoyang Xie, Guannan Jiang, Yefeng Zheng, and Zhichao Lu. Anomalyxfusion: Multi-modal anomaly synthesis with diffusion. arXiv:2404.19444,

    arXiv

  5. [15]

    Unsupervised anomaly detection in medical images using masked diffusion model

    [Iqbal et al., 2024] Hasan Iqbal, Umar Khalid, Chen Chen, and Jing Hua. Unsupervised anomaly detection in medical images using masked diffusion model. In MLMI, pages 372–381,

    2024

  6. [16]

    Webb, Irwin King, and Shirui Pan

    [Jin et al., 2024] Ming Jin, Huan Yee Koh, Qingsong Wen, Daniele Zambon, Cesare Alippi, Geoffrey I. Webb, Irwin King, and Shirui Pan. A survey on graph neural networks for time series: Forecasting, classification, imputation, and anomaly detection. IEEE TPAMI, 46(12):1–20,

    2024

  7. [17]

    Diffender: Diffusion-based adversarial defense against patch attacks

    [Kang et al., 2025] Caixin Kang, Yinpeng Dong, Zhengyi Wang, Shouwei Ruan, Yubo Chen, Hang Su, and Xingx- ing Wei. Diffender: Diffusion-based adversarial defense against patch attacks. In ECCV, pages 130–147,

    2025

  8. [19]

    Self-supervised diffusion model for anomaly segmentation in medical imaging

    [Kumar et al., 2023] Komal Kumar, Snehashis Chakraborty, and Sudipta Roy. Self-supervised diffusion model for anomaly segmentation in medical imaging. In PRMI, vol- ume 14301, pages 359–368,

    2023

  9. [20]

    Perfect density models cannot guarantee anomaly detec- tion

    [Le Lan and Dinh, 2021] Charline Le Lan and Laurent Dinh. Perfect density models cannot guarantee anomaly detec- tion. Entropy, 23:1690,

    2021

  10. [21]

    Fast non-markovian diffusion model for weakly super- vised anomaly detection in brain mr images

    [Li et al., 2023] Jinpeng Li, Hanqun Cao, Jiaze Wang, Fu- rui Liu, Qi Dou, Guangyong Chen, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Fast non-markovian diffusion model for weakly super- vised anomaly detection in brain mr images. In MICCAI, volume 14224, pages 579–589,

    2023

  11. [22]

    Self-supervised enhanced denoising diffusion for anomaly detection

    [Li et al., 2024] Shu Li, Jiong Yu, Yi Lu, Guangqi Yang, Xusheng Du, and Su Liu. Self-supervised enhanced denoising diffusion for anomaly detection. Inf. Sci. , 669:120612,

    2024

  12. [23]

    On diffusion modeling for anomaly detection

    [Livernoche et al., 2023] Victor Livernoche, Vineet Jain, Yashar Hezaveh, and Siamak Ravanbakhsh. On diffusion modeling for anomaly detection. In ICLR,

    2023

  13. [24]

    A comprehensive survey on knowledge distillation of diffusion models,

    [Luo, 2023] Weijian Luo. A comprehensive survey on knowledge distillation of diffusion models,

    2023

  14. [25]

    Ensembled cold-diffusion restorations for unsupervised anomaly detection

    [Naval Marimont et al., 2024] Sergio Naval Marimont, Vasilis Siomos, Matthew Baugh, Christos Tzelepis, Bernhard Kainz, and Giacomo Tarroni. Ensembled cold-diffusion restorations for unsupervised anomaly detection. In MICCAI, pages 243–253,

    2024

  15. [26]

    Deep learning for anomaly detection: A review

    [Pang et al., 2021] Guansong Pang, Chunhua Shen, Long- bing Cao, and Anton Van Den Hengel. Deep learning for anomaly detection: A review. ACM CSUR , 54(2):38:1– 38:38, March

    2021

  16. [28]

    Surface anomaly detection and localization with diffusion-based reconstruction

    [Sheng et al., 2024] Xinyu Sheng, Shande Tuo, and Lu Wang. Surface anomaly detection and localization with diffusion-based reconstruction. In IJCNN, pages 1–8,

    2024

  17. [29]

    Anomaly detection for telemetry time series using a denoising diffusion probabilistic model

    [Sui et al., 2024] Jialin Sui, Jinsong Yu, Yue Song, and Jian Zhang. Anomaly detection for telemetry time series using a denoising diffusion probabilistic model. IEEE Sens. J. , 24:16429–16439,

    2024

  18. [30]

    Dynamic addition of noise in a diffusion model for anomaly detection

    [Tebbe and Tayyub, 2024] Justin Tebbe and Jawad Tayyub. Dynamic addition of noise in a diffusion model for anomaly detection. In CVPR, pages 3940–3949,

    2024

  19. [31]

    [Wang and Vastola, 2023] Binxu Wang and John J. Vastola. The hidden linear structure in score-based models and its application. arXiv:2311.10892,

    2023 arXiv

  20. [32]

    Unsu- pervised anomaly detection via masked diffusion posterior sampling

    [Wu et al., 2024] Di Wu, Shicai Fan, Xue Zhou, Li Yu, Yuzhong Deng, Jianxiao Zou, and Baihong Lin. Unsu- pervised anomaly detection via masked diffusion posterior sampling. arXiv:2404.17900,

    2024 arXiv

  21. [33]

    Schmon, and Chris G

    [Wyatt et al., 2022] Julian Wyatt, Adam Leach, Sebastian M. Schmon, and Chris G. Willcocks. Anoddpm: Anomaly de- tection with denoising diffusion probabilistic models using simplex noise. In CVPR, pages 650–656,

    2022

  22. [34]

    Imputation-based time-series anomaly detection with conditional weight- incremental diffusion models

    [Xiao et al., 2023] Chunjing Xiao, Zehua Gou, Wenxin Tai, Kunpeng Zhang, and Fan Zhou. Imputation-based time-series anomaly detection with conditional weight- incremental diffusion models. In KDD, pages 1–9,

    2023

  23. [35]

    Unsupervised industrial anomaly detection with diffusion models

    [Xu et al., 2023] Haohao Xu, Shuchang Xu, and Wenzhen Yang. Unsupervised industrial anomaly detection with diffusion models. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. , 97:103983,

    2023

  24. [36]

    Feature prediction diffusion model for video anomaly detection

    [Yan et al., 2023] Cheng Yan, Shiyu Zhang, Yang Liu, Guansong Pang, and Wenjun Wang. Feature prediction diffusion model for video anomaly detection. In ICCV, pages 5504–5514,

    2023

  25. [37]

    Hybrid sd: Edge-cloud collaborative infer- ence for stable diffusion models

    [Yan et al., 2024] Chenqian Yan, Songwei Liu, Hongjian Liu, Xurui Peng, Xiaojian Wang, Fangmin Chen, Lean Fu, and Xing Mei. Hybrid sd: Edge-cloud collaborative infer- ence for stable diffusion models. arXiv:2408.06646,

    2024 arXiv

  26. [38]

    Glad: To- wards better reconstruction with global and local adaptive diffusion models for unsupervised anomaly detection

    [Yao et al., 2025] Hang Yao, Ming Liu, Zhicun Yin, Zifei Yan, Xiaopeng Hong, and Wangmeng Zuo. Glad: To- wards better reconstruction with global and local adaptive diffusion models for unsupervised anomaly detection. In ECCV, pages 1–17,

    2025

  27. [39]

    Energy-based models for anomaly detection: A manifold diffusion recovery ap- proach

    [Yoon et al., 2023] Sangwoong Yoon, Young-Uk Jin, Yung- Kyun Noh, and Frank Park. Energy-based models for anomaly detection: A manifold diffusion recovery ap- proach. In NeurIPS, volume 36, pages 1–21,

    2023

  28. [40]

    Enhanc- ing multi-class anomaly detection via diffusion refinement with dual conditioning

    [Zhan et al., 2024] Jiawei Zhan, Jinxiang Lai, Bin-Bin Gao, Jun Liu, Xiaochen Chen, and Chengjie Wang. Enhanc- ing multi-class anomaly detection via diffusion refinement with dual conditioning. arXiv:2407.01905,

    2024 arXiv

  29. [41]

    Analyzing neural network-based generative diffu- sion models through convex optimization,

    [Zhang and Pilanci, 2024] Fangzhao Zhang and Mert Pi- lanci. Analyzing neural network-based generative diffu- sion models through convex optimization,

    2024

  30. [42]

    Diffusionad: Norm-guided one-step denoising diffusion for anomaly detection,

    [Zhang et al., 2023] Hui Zhang, Zheng Wang, Zuxuan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Diffusionad: Norm-guided one-step denoising diffusion for anomaly detection,

    2023

  31. [43]

    Safeguarding sustainable cities: Unsuper- vised video anomaly detection through diffusion-based la- tent pattern learning

    [Zhang et al., 2024] Menghao Zhang, Jingyu Wang, Qi Qi, Pengfei Ren, Haifeng Sun, Zirui Zhuang, Lei Zhang, and Jianxin Liao. Safeguarding sustainable cities: Unsuper- vised video anomaly detection through diffusion-based la- tent pattern learning. In IJCAI, volume 8, pages 7572– 7580,

    2024

  32. [44]

    Flow-guided diffusion autoencoder for unsupervised video anomaly detection

    [Zhu et al., 2024] Aoni Zhu, Wenjun Wang, and Cheng Yan. Flow-guided diffusion autoencoder for unsupervised video anomaly detection. In PRCV, volume 14430, pages 183– 194,

    2024

  33. [45]

    Unsupervised diffusion based anomaly detection for time series

    [Zuo et al., 2024] Haiwei Zuo, Aiqun Zhu, Yanping Zhu, Yinping Liao, Shiman Li, and Yun Chen. Unsupervised diffusion based anomaly detection for time series. APIN, 54:8968–8981, 2024

    2024

  34. [2021]

    Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion mod- els

    [Salimans and Ho, 2021] Tim Salimans and Jonathan Ho. Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion mod- els. In ICLR,

    2021

  35. [2022]

    Elucidating the solution space of ex- tended reverse-time sde for diffusion models,

    [Cui et al., 2023] Qinpeng Cui, Xinyi Zhang, Zongqing Lu, and Qingmin Liao. Elucidating the solution space of ex- tended reverse-time sde for diffusion models,

    2023

  36. [2024]

    Exploiting multimodal latent diffusion models for accurate anomaly detection in industry 5.0

    [Capogrosso et al., 2024] Luigi Capogrosso, Alvise Vivenza, Andrea Chiarini, Francesco Setti, and Marco Cristani. Exploiting multimodal latent diffusion models for accurate anomaly detection in industry 5.0. In xAI, volume 3762, pages 230–235,

    2024

  37. [2025]

    Statistical test on diffusion model-based anomaly detection by selective inference,

    [Katsuoka et al., 2024] Teruyuki Katsuoka, Tomohiro Shi- raishi, Daiki Miwa, V o Nguyen Le Duy, and Ichiro Takeuchi. Statistical test on diffusion model-based anomaly detection by selective inference,

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.