Detecting subtle deviations in noisy acoustic environments is central to anomalous sound detection (ASD). A common training-free ASD pipeline temporally pools frame-level representations into a band-preserving feature vector and scores anomalies using a single nearest-neighbor match. However, this global matching can inflate normal-score variance through two effects. First, when normal sounds exhibit band-wise variability, a single global neighbor forces all bands to share the same reference, increasing band-level mismatch. Second, cosine-based matching is energy-coupled, allowing a few high-energy bands to dominate score computation under normal energy fluctuations and further increase variance. We propose BEAM, which stores temporally pooled sub-band vectors in a memory bank, retrieves neighbors per sub-band, and uniformly aggregates scores to reduce normal-score variability and improve discriminability. We further introduce a parameter-free adaptive fusion to better handle diverse temporal dynamics in sub-band responses. Experiments on multiple DCASE Task 2 benchmarks show strong performance without task-specific training, robustness to noise and domain shifts, and complementary gains when combined with encoder fine-tuning.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of BEAM and AdaBEAM . Normal audio is mapped to handcrafted or deep features, sliced into sub-bands, and stored in a shared memory bank. At test time, each query sub-band is matched within its band-aligned memory, and the resulting band scores are uniformly aggregated to produce the anomaly score. AdaBEAM adds Dynamic Mean–Max (DMM) fusion by building mean- and max-pooled sub-band memories, scoring both views, and combining the resulting clip scores with a simple parameter-free rule.
Dataset
Split
Source domain
Target domain
(sec-dev & sec-eval)
Normal
Anomalous
Normal
Anomalous
DCASE2020T2 [ 5 ]
Train
-
-
≤1000
-
Test
-
-
≤400
≤200
DCASE2023T2 [ 15 ]
Train
990
-
10
-
Test
50
50
50
50
DCASE2024T2 [ 16 ]
Train
990
-
10
-
TABLE I: Per-section statistics of each machine type in the considered ASD datasets.
Feature
Dataset
(C,s)
Nb
Log-Mel
DCASE2020T2
(38, 38)
4
DCASE2023T2
(38, 38)
4
DCASE2024T2
(76, 76)
2
MFCC
All
(20, 20)
5
LPC spectrum
All
(3200, 3200)
3
BEATs [ 19 ]
All
(768, 768)
8
TABLE II: BEAM windowing parameters ( C : window dim, s : stride, Nb : number of windows (bands)).
DCASE2020T2
DCASE2023T2 (DG)
DCASE2024T2 (DG)
Method
sec-dev (Amean)
sec-eval (Amean)
sec-dev (Hmean)
sec-eval (Hmean)
sec-dev (Hmean)
sec-eval (Hmean)
Systems requiring task-specific training
AE [ 5 , 15 , 16 ]
66.6
70.0
56.9
61.1
55.4
56.5
AE-IDNN [ 29 ]
71.5
-
-
-
-
-
ANP-IDNN [ 30 ]
71.8
75.6
-
-
-
-
PAE [ 31 ]
74.2
-
-
-
-
-
TABLE III: Comparison of our training-free frontend systems with previously reported results that do not use meta-information (auxiliary labels) for training or fine-tuning. This setting assumes access only to normal data from the same machine type (in both source and target domains); thus task-specific training on normal data (e.g., AE-style methods) is permitted, while methods that rely on auxiliary labels are excluded. Official scores are reported on DCASE2020T2, DCASE2023T2, and DCASE2024T2; we use the arithmetic mean (Amean) for DCASE2020T2 and the harmonic mean (Hmean) for DCASE2023T2 and DCASE2024T2.
Fig. 2: Quantitative results for the theoretical analysis using BEATs iter3 features, averaged across machine types for each benchmark (DCASE2020T2, DCASE2023T2, and DCASE2024T2). (Left) Variance ratio (no LDN). (Center-left) Mean gap ratio (no LDN). (Center-right) d′ ratio (no LDN). (Right) d′ ratio with Local Density Normalization (LDN), including additional results with DMM.
DCASE2020T2
DCASE2023T2 (DG)
DCASE2024T2 (DG)
Method
sec-dev (Amean)
sec-eval (Amean)
sec-dev (Hmean)
sec-eval (Hmean)
sec-dev (Hmean)
sec-eval (Hmean)
Prior work with global matching design
SSL4ASD w/ LDN [ 12 , 13 ]
90.7
90.2
68.4
68.0
62.0
54.7
+ 10 ensembles
94.2
93.3
71.3
72.4
65.2
56.5
AnoPatch [ 8 ] (BEATs Full FT)
90.9
94.3
64.2
74.2
62.5 ± 0.8
65.6 ± 1.1
+ pseudo labeling [ 54 ]
-
-
-
-
64.1 ± 0.6
66.0 ± 0.7
TABLE IV: Comparison of fine-tuned frontend systems that use meta-information (auxiliary labels) during task-specific training, together with previously reported results from the literature. Official scores are reported on DCASE2020T2, DCASE2023T2, and DCASE2024T2; scores for our approach are averaged over five independent trials. We use the arithmetic mean (Amean) for DCASE2020T2 and the harmonic mean (Hmean) for DCASE2023T2 and DCASE2024T2.
Fig. 3: Comparison of sub-band window sizes of BEAM on handcrafted and deep features (BEATs) in terms of AUC across DCASE2020T2, DCASE2023T2, and DCASE2024T2. Window size is reported as a fraction of the feature length along the windowed axis. For handcrafted features, we use non-overlapping windows for 10%–40% (stride equals window length); for 50%–90%, we use a two-window full-coverage rule with an end-aligned final window (equivalently, stride =F−C ), which may overlap with the first window. For BEATs, windows are formed by grouping a fixed number of patch embeddings (8 patches total), thus only window sizes aligned to the patch grid are meaningful. Dotted horizontal lines show the baseline Tmean result.
Fig. 4: Effect of varying K in sub-band density normalization on Official Scores across DCASE2020T2, DCASE2023T2, and DCASE2024T2. Results are shown for Tmean, Tmax, and DMM variants using BEATs features.
DCASE2020T2
DCASE2023T2 (DG)
DCASE2024T2 (DG)
Method
sec-dev
sec-eval
sec-dev
sec-eval
sec-dev
sec-eval
Baseline w/o Local Density Normalization (apply [ 9 ] )
Tmean
75.8
77.5
62.6
71.7
56.3
59.0
w/ Sub-Band
Average
77.5
80.3
63.1
72.7
59.4
60.0
Maximum
78.0
80.7
62.7
69.9
57.3
59.4
TABLE V: Comparison of different BEAM sub-band scoring approaches using BEATs features. Higher Official Scores indicate better performance.
Fig. 5: Comparison of features on the MIMII dataset.
Frontend
Output dim
Feat. (ms)
E2E (ms)
MACs/Params (G/M)
Log-Mel (Tmean)
128
3.95±0.21
6.20±0.25
N/A
MFCC (Tmean)
90
3.95±0.01
7.95±1.08
N/A
LPC spectrum
8000
31.34±0.05
41.11±0.15
N/A
BEATs iter3 (Tmean, CPU)
6144
271.15±6.06
494.02±6.19
45.01/90.71
BEATs iter3 (Tmean, GPU)
6144
13.60±0.14
17.91±0.14
45.01/90.71
TABLE VI: Computational cost per 10 s clip (mean ± std over nruns=5 ). Feature-extraction time measures waveform → f, and end-to-end (E2E) time measures waveform → anomaly score, including 1 -NN scoring against a memory bank of 500 normal clips. Handcrafted frontends are computed on CPU only in this benchmark. CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X. GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090. For BEATs, the encoder complexity is reported as MACs/Params (G/M).
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Band size
Var(Sub)/Var(Uni)
Var(Uni)/Var(Glob)
Var(Sub)/Var(Glob)
ΔμGlob
ΔμSub
dGlob′
dSub′
BEATs iter3
DCASE2020
768
0.485
1.023
0.496
0.009
0.008
2.023
2.398
1536
0.609
1.011
0.616
0.009
0.008
2.023
2.314
2304
0.686
1.002
0.686
0.009
0.009
2.023
2.258
3072
0.766
1.006
0.770
0.009
0.009
2.023
2.183
6144 (global)
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.009
0.009
2.023
2.023
Appendix
TABLE VII: Variance-ratio measures, mean-gap terms, and sensitivity index ( d′ ) across band sizes for band-preserved features; all methods are compared without LDN.
Training-free anomalous sound detection (ASD) scores a test clip against a memory bank of normal embeddings from a frozen pretrained audio encoder. Recent work attributes domain-shift robustness mainly to how frame-level features are pooled over time; the scoring backend applied on top of the pooled embedding has received far less systematic attention. Using a single frozen BEATs encoder on the DCASE 2023 Task 2 development set (all seven machine types), we cross four classical backends -- nearest-neighbor cosine distance, Mahalanobis distance, locally density-normalized kNN, and PCA-subspace reconstruction residual -- with three temporal poolings (mean, GeM, max). Switching the backend moves target-domain AUC by 13.8 points on average (up to 53.8), whereas switching the pooling moves it by only 3.2 points: in this training-free regime, the backend, not the pooling, dominates domain-shift robustness. No backend wins everywhere, but the machine-dependent pattern reproduces on the DCASE 2025 development data (fan, bearing). Exploiting this, we propose a label-free score fusion that z-normalizes each backend with its training-bank self-scores and takes the minimum; it reaches a harmonic-mean target AUC of 63.3% versus 64.4% for the per-machine oracle, surpassing every fixed single backend while preserving source-domain accuracy. We also report a negative result: selecting a backend by source-domain pseudo-validation with proxy outliers fails, because all backends saturate on the proxy task.
Training-free anomalous sound detection (ASD) based on pre-trained audio embedding models has recently garnered significant attention, as it enables the detection of anomalous sounds using only normal reference data without task-specific model training or fine-tuning. However, existing embedding-based approaches almost exclusively rely on temporal mean pooling, leaving temporal pooling in training-free ASD largely unexplored. In this paper, we present the first systematic evaluation of temporal pooling strategies for training-free ASD with pre-trained audio embeddings. We propose relative deviation pooling (RDP), an adaptive pooling method that assigns larger weights to embeddings with stronger temporal deviations, investigate feature-wise non-linear aggregation using generalized mean (GeM) pooling, and examine a hybrid combination of both strategies. Experiments on five benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed pooling strategies consistently outperform mean pooling and achieve state-of-the-art performance for training-free ASD, including results that surpass previously reported trained systems and ensembles on the DCASE2025 ASD dataset.
Kevin Wilkinghoff, Sarthak Yadav, Zheng-Hua Tan
Department of Electronic Systems, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark · Pioneer Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Denmark
Anomalous sound detection (ASD) has long been dominated by k-nearest-neighbor (KNN) based detectors, which essentially perform implicit likelihood estimation over normal samples. In this work, we investigate whether generative models can better serve this role. We propose Relative Mismatch, a generative ASD backend powered by flow matching, which learns a velocity field that transports Gaussian noise to a representative feature space of normality. During inference, it measures the mismatch between the oracle and predicted path velocities and aggregates them through a two-level design. To mitigate the inherent mismatch offsets incurred by domain shift, each query is further calibrated with the mismatch of its local normal reference, thereby exposing only its deviation beyond normality. Extensive experiments on DCASE 2020--2025 demonstrate that Relative Mismatch outperforms state-of-the-art backends with the highest score of 71.01, along with strong robustness and training stability. Furthermore, we show that curating a compact and discriminative feature space is the key to unleash the power of generative models for ASD.
Anbai Jiang, Xinhu Zheng, Lvxin Xu +6
Tsinghua University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · North China Electric Power University +1