3D anomaly detection targets the detection and localization of defects in 3D point clouds trained solely on normal data. While a unified model improves scalability by learning across multiple categories, it often suffers from Inter-Category Entanglement (ICE)-where latent features from different categories overlap, causing the model to adopt incorrect semantic priors during reconstruction and ultimately yielding unreliable anomaly scores. To address this issue, we propose the Semantically Disentangled Unified Model for 3D Anomaly Detection, which reconstructs features conditioned on disentangled semantic representations. Our framework consists of three key components: (i) Coarse-to-Fine Global Tokenization for forming instance-level semantic identity, (ii) Category-Conditioned Contrastive Learning for disentangling category semantics, and (iii) a Geometry-Guided Decoder for semantically consistent reconstruction. Extensive experiments on Real3D-AD and Anomaly-ShapeNet demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art for both unified and category-specific models, improving object-level AUROC by 2.8% and 9.1%, respectively, while enhancing the reliability of unified 3D anomaly detection.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: T-SNE visualization and quantitative analysis of semantic disentanglement. MC3D-AD exhibits entangled feature clusters across similar categories ( e.g . , chicken, duck, gemstone ), where samples with low category classification scores are reconstructed under uncertain semantic priors, yielding high reconstruction errors on normal data and increased false positives. Our model instead forms well-separated, semantically aligned manifolds with higher classification scores and lower reconstruction errors, enabling reliable category-conditioned reconstruction.
Figure 3: The overview of the proposed method. Our method consists of two main stages: Semantically Disentangled Representation Learning and Semantically Disentangled Reconstruction. Given an input point cloud, CFGT encodes multi-resolution geometric features into a category-aware global token, C3L disentangles the latent semantics, and GGD reconstructs the object conditioned on these disentangled semantics and geometric priors.
Figure 4: Overview of the Geometry-Guided Decoder (GGD). Geometric priors Bgeo guide the attention mechanism to refine semantic features, and the results are aggregated through a feed-forward network.
O-AUROC( ↑ )
Method
Airplane
Car
Candybar
Chicken
Diamond
Duck
Fish
Gemstone
Seahorse
Shell
Starfish
Toffees
Mean
Category-Specific Method
BTF(Raw)
73.0
64.7
53.9
78.9
70.7
69.1
60.2
68.6
59.6
39.6
53.0
70.3
63.5
BTF(FPFH)
52.0
56.0
63.0
43.2
54.5
78.4
54.9
64.8
77.9
75.4
57.5
46.2
60.3
M3DM
43.4
54.1
55.2
68.3
60.2
43.3
54.0
64.4
49.5
69.4
55.1
45.0
59.4
PatchCore(FPFH)
88.2
59.0
54.1
83.7
57.4
54.6
67.5
37.0
50.5
58.9
44.1
56.5
59.3
Table 1: Quantitative comparison of AUROC (%) at the object levels on Real3D-AD across 12 categories. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underline , respectively. Methods in the upper block are trained and evaluated in the single-category setting, while methods in the lower block use a unified model for the multi-category setting across all 12 categories.
O-AUROC( ↑ )
Method
ashtray0
bag0
bottle0
bottle1
bottle3
bowl0
bowl1
bowl2
bowl3
bowl4
bowl5
bucket0
bucket1
cap0
cap3
cap4
cap5
cup0
cup1
eraser0
Category-Specific Method
BTF(Raw)
57.8
41.0
59.7
51.0
56.8
56.4
26.4
52.5
38.5
66.4
41.7
61.7
32.1
66.8
52.7
46.8
37.3
40.3
52.1
52.5
BTF(FPFH)
42.0
54.6
34.4
54.6
32.2
50.9
66.8
51.0
49.0
60.9
69.9
40.1
63.3
61.8
52.2
52.0
58.6
58.6
61.0
71.9
M3DM
57.7
53.7
57.4
63.7
54.1
63.4
66.3
68.4
61.7
46.4
40.9
30.9
50.1
55.7
42.3
77.7
63.9
53.9
55.6
62.7
PatchCore(FPFH)
58.7
57.1
60.4
66.7
57.2
50.4
63.9
61.5
53.7
49.4
55.8
46.9
55.1
58.0
45.3
75.7
79.0
60.0
58.6
65.7
Table 2: Comparison of object-level AUROC (%) of various methods on the Anomaly-ShapeNet.
Method
Real3D-AD
Anomaly-ShapeNet
Category-Specific Method
BTF(Raw)
57.1
55.0
BTF(FPFH)
73.3
62.8
M3DM
62.0
61.6
PatchCore(FPFH)
68.2
58.0
PatchCore(PointMAE)
62.0
57.7
Table 3: Comparison of mean point-level AUROC (%) on Real3D-AD and Anomaly-ShapeNet datasets. The detailed per-category results are provided in the supplementary.
CFGT
C3L
GGD
O-AUROC ( ↑ )
P-AUROC ( ↑ )
75.1
78.1
✓
76.4
78.4
✓
✓
79.2
79.0
✓
✓
✓
81.0
80.6
Table 4: Ablation studies on the effectiveness of core components.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison with MC3D-AD across various object categories in Real3D-AD dataset. Red colored regions indicate abnormalities ( e.g . , bulge, sink). MC3D-AD often misses true anomalies or yields false positives, whereas our method delivers more accurate and complete localization aligned with the ground truth.
Lscl
Lcls
Lcos
O-AUROC ( ↑ )
P-AUROC ( ↑ )
✓
79.1
78.8
✓
✓
80.0
79.3
✓
✓
✓
81.0
80.6
Table 5: Ablation studies on the contribution of each loss in C3L.
Method
O-AUROC ( ↑ )
P-AUROC ( ↑ )
Masking
79.8
79.6
Gating
79.7
78.9
Bias (Ours)
81.0
80.6
Table 6: Comparison of different guidance strategies in GGD.
Method
O-AUROC ( ↑ )
P-AUROC ( ↑ )
ACT
78.5
78.5
Max
76.4
75.5
Mean
78.2
78.7
CFGT (Ours)
81.0
80.6
Table 7: Comparison of different global token strategies.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Parameters (M)
FLOPs (G)
MC3D-AD
34.16
439.21
Ours
33.25
508.25
Appendix
Table S1 : Comparison of computational cost.
CFGT
Lscl
Lcos
Lcls
O-AUROC ( ↑ )
P-AUROC ( ↑ )
✓
78.8
79.0
✓
77.9
78.7
✓
✓
80.5
78.6
✓
✓
80.0
79.1
✓
✓
79.1
78.8
✓
✓
79.3
79.6
Appendix
Table S2 : Ablation studies on the CFGT and C3L losses.
Ratios
O-AUROC ( ↑ )
P-AUROC ( ↑ )
{k, 4k, k/4}
80.3
79.4
{k, 3k, k/3}
80.9
79.8
{k, 1.5k, 2k/3}
79.9
79.8
{k, 2k, k/2}
81.0
80.6
Appendix
Table S3 : Comparison of different coarse-to-fine neighborhood ratios.
Size
O-AUROC ( ↑ )
P-AUROC ( ↑ )
{256, 512 , 1024}
77.5
78.5
{64, 128 , 256}
79.9
79.6
{128, 256 , 512}
81.0
80.6
Appendix
Table S4 : Comparison of different base neighborhood sizes k .
N
O-AUROC ( ↑ )
P-AUROC ( ↑ )
512
75.7
77.4
2048
77.7
78.4
1024
81.0
80.6
Appendix
Table S5 : Comparison of different numbers of groups.
L
O-AUROC ( ↑ )
P-AUROC ( ↑ )
32
79.6
79.8
128
80.3
80.3
10,000
80.5
79.2
64
81.0
80.6
Appendix
Table S6 : Comparison of different buffer sizes in C3L.
λscl
λcos
λcls
O-AUROC ( ↑ )
P-AUROC ( ↑ )
0.01
0.001
0.01
79.3
79.6
0.001
0.01
0.01
78.6
78.3
0.001
0.001
0.1
77.0
78.9
0.001
0.001
0.01
81.0
80.6
Appendix
Table S7 : Comparison of different loss weights in C3L.
Method
Accuracy (%)
Mean
78.1
Max
77.3
ACT
97.3
Appendix
Table S8 : Category prediction accuracy with different global representations.
Figure S1 : t-SNE visualization of the learned global tokens on (a) Real3D-AD (12 categories) and (b) Anomaly-ShapeNet (40 categories). The embeddings form well-structured clusters, indicating that the proposed method learns coherent and category-aware global representations across both datasets.
P-AUROC( ↑ )
Method
Airplane
Car
Candybar
Chicken
Diamond
Duck
Fish
Gemstone
Seahorse
Shell
Starfish
Toffees
Mean
Category-Specific Method
BTF(Raw)
56.4
64.7
73.5
60.9
56.3
60.1
51.4
59.7
52.0
48.9
39.2
62.3
57.1
BTF(FPFH)
73.8
70.8
86.4
73.5
88.2
87.5
70.9
89.1
51.2
57.1
50.1
81.5
73.3
M3DM
54.7
60.2
67.9
67.8
60.8
66.7
60.6
67.4
56.0
73.8
53.2
68.2
62.0
PatchCore(FPFH)
56.2
75.4
78.0
42.9
82.8
26.4
82.9
91.0
73.9
73.9
60.6
74.7
68.2
Appendix
Table S9 : Comparison of point-level AUROC (%) of various methods on the Real3D-AD dataset.
P-AUROC( ↑ )
Method
ashtray0
bag0
bottle0
bottle1
bottle3
bowl0
bowl1
bowl2
bowl3
bowl4
bowl5
bucket0
bucket1
Category-Specific Method
BTF(Raw)
51.2
43.0
55.1
49.1
72.0
52.4
46.4
42.6
68.5
56.3
51.7
61.7
68.6
BTF(FPFH)
62.4
74.6
64.1
54.9
62.2
71.0
76.8
51.8
59.0
67.9
69.9
40.1
63.3
M3DM
57.7
63.7
66.3
63.7
53.2
65.8
66.3
69.4
65.7
62.4
48.9
69.8
69.9
PatchCore(FPFH)
59.7
57.4
65.4
68.7
51.2
52.4
53.1
62.5
32.7
72.0
35.8
45.9
57.1
Appendix
Table S10 : Comparison of point-level AUROC (%) of various methods on the Anomaly-ShapeNet dataset.
O-AUPR( ↑ )
Method
ashtray0
bag0
bottle0
bottle1
bottle3
bowl0
bowl1
bowl2
bowl3
bowl4
bowl5
bucket0
bucket1
Category-Specific Method
BTF(Raw)
57.8
45.8
46.6
57.3
54.3
58.8
46.4
57.6
65.4
60.1
61.5
65.2
62.0
BTF(FPFH)
65.1
55.1
64.4
62.5
60.2
57.6
64.8
51.5
49.9
63.2
69.9
48.3
64.8
M3DM
63.2
64.2
76.3
67.4
45.1
52.5
51.5
63.0
63.5
57.1
60.1
60.9
50.7
PatchCore(FPFH)
44.5
60.8
61.5
67.7
57.9
54.8
54.5
61.1
62.0
57.5
54.1
60.4
56.5
Appendix
Table S11 : Comparison of object-level AUPR (%) of various methods on the Anomaly-ShapeNet dataset.
Figure S2 : Additional qualitative comparison with MC3D-AD on the Anomaly-ShapeNet dataset.
3D anomaly detection (3DAD) aims to identify defective regions in point cloud data, serving as a critical component in industrial inspection systems. Existing methods are normality-centered -- learning the distribution of normal samples and treating deviations as anomalies -- without explicitly modeling what constitutes a defect. This leads to ambiguous decision boundaries with increased false positives and negatives, particularly in unified and cross-domain settings where diverse normal distributions further blur the boundaries. We propose a relational inconsistency modeling framework that characterizes defects as violations of geometric consistency among neighboring structures. Our approach learns category-agnostic defect cues through pseudo-anomalies designed as controlled relational violations, instantiated by two key modules: Edge-aware Graph Refinement (EGR) for encoding geometric relationships among local regions, and Cluster-Deviation Modeling (CDM) for identifying regions that are relationally incompatible within their structural peer group. Extensive experiments on Anomaly-ShapeNet and Real3D-AD demonstrate consistent improvements over prior state-of-the-art methods in both in-domain and cross-domain settings, validating the effectiveness of learning an explicit, relation-based defect criterion for 3D anomaly detection. Project page: https://visualsciencelab-khu.github.io/GRIM_project/.
Detecting and localizing 3D point-cloud defects is essential for industrial inspection. However, existing methods often suffer from imprecise localization due to the lack of anomaly supervision and reliance on single-granularity representations. To address these limitations, we propose Anomaly Type-Aware 3D Anomaly Detection (AT3D-AD), a unified framework for joint detection, localization, and classification. Specifically, we first design the Physics-Driven Parametric Anomaly Synthesis (PDPAS) module employing multiple parametric functions to generate synthetic anomalies, providing explicit anomaly supervision. Then, we propose the Hierarchical Global-Local Anomaly Alignment (HiGLA) module to align global and local representations within the normal and anomalous groups. Finally, we propose the Semantic-Geometric Anomaly Classification (SGAC) module to jointly learn localization and classification, yielding spatially precise and type-discriminative anomaly representations. Extensive experiments establish new state-of-the-art performance on all four benchmarks. AT3D-AD achieves Object/Point AUROC scores of 98.1%/98.9% on Anomaly-ShapeNet and 95.0%/95.2% on Real3D-AD, while reaching 74.2% Macro-F1 for anomaly-type recognition on Real3D-AD.
Jingyu Zeng, Haoquan Lu, Can Gao
College of Computer Science and Software Engineering and the Guangdong Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
Zero-shot 3D anomaly detection aims to identify anomalies without access to training data from target categories. However, existing methods mainly rely on projecting 3D observations into multi-view representations that primarily capture geometric cues rather than realistic visual semantics and process them with vision encoders pretrained on RGB data, leading to a significant domain gap between the encoder and the projected representations. To address this issue, we propose Align3D-AD, a unified two-stage framework that leverages the RGB modality from auxiliary categories as cross-modal guidance for zero-shot 3D anomaly detection. First, we introduce a cross-modal feature alignment paradigm that maps rendering features into the RGB semantic space. Unlike prior works that implicitly rely on pretrained encoders, our method enables direct semantic transfer from RGB observations. A semantic consistency reweighting strategy is further introduced to refine feature alignment by reweighting local regions according to holistic semantic consistency. Second, we propose a modality-aware prompt learning framework with dual-prompt contrastive alignment. By assigning independent prompts to RGB-aligned and rendering features, our method captures complementary semantics across modalities, while the contrastive alignment further enhances prompt representations to improve discriminability. Extensive experiments on MVTec3D-AD, Eyecandies, and Real3D-AD demonstrate that Align3D-AD consistently outperforms existing zero-shot methods under both one-vs-rest and cross-dataset settings, highlighting its generalization capability and robustness. Code and the dataset will be made available once our paper is accepted.
Letian Bai, Xuanming Cao, Juan Du +1
Smart Manufacturing Thrust, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering, Hunan University