Organizations: National Taiwan University Taipei, Taiwan · Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (MERL) Cambridge, MA, USA · National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan · National Taiwan University Taipei, Taiwan VinUniversity Hanoi, Vietnam · Microsoft Taiwan Corporation, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology Taipei, Taiwan
In multi-view anomaly detection, more cross-view information can actually hurt. When multiple inspection views are naively fused in a reconstruction-based pipeline, normal cues from intact views propagate to the decoder, which faithfully reconstructs anomalous regions, collapsing the reconstruction gap the detector depends on. We call this failure mode cross-view information leakage and show that effective multi-view fusion must explicitly restrict the information reaching the decoder. Building on this insight, we present GLAD(Global-Local Attention Driven framework), the first framework combining vision foundation model features with local and global cross-view fusion for multi-view anomaly detection. The Multi-view Merging Attention (MMA) module performs local cross-view fusion at linear complexity with learnable view importance weighting and token-wise gating, letting each view selectively incorporate fine-grained evidence from other views at O(N) cost. The Object-Guided Attention (OGA) module captures global context by aggregating class tokens from all views into a single object-level representation and broadcasting it back to patch tokens via temperature-scaled sigmoid gating, replacing the original patch representations rather than adding a residual to preserve the reconstruction gap. Experiments on Real-IAD and MANTA-Tiny show that GLAD outperforms state-of-the-art methods across sample-, image-, and pixel-level metrics, confirming that principled information restriction is key to multi-view anomaly reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Cross-view information leakage in multi-view anomaly detection. Unconstrained fusion obscures anomalies by collapsing the normal–abnormal reconstruction gap. GLAD restores this gap through information-restricted fusion. <short description> <long description>
AD Method Conditions
AD Categories
G0
G1
G2
IDIF [ Mao et al., 2025 ]
MVAD [ He et al., 2025 ]
GLAD
Single model for all classes
✗
✓
✓
✗
✓
✓
Multi-view input
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
✓
Vision foundation model
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
✓
Token-Level cross-view fusion
✗
✗
✗
✓
✓
✓
Object-Level cross-view fusion
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
✓
Table 1. Characteristic comparison between GLAD (ours) and prior anomaly detection (AD) works ( G0 : [ Li et al., 2021 , Liu et al., 2023 , Hu et al., 2024 , Roth et al., 2022 , Defard et al., 2021 , Deng and Li, 2022 , Zavrtanik et al., 2021 , Chen et al., 2025 ] , G1 : [ You et al., 2022 , He et al., 2024b , Kashiani et al., 2025 , Wei et al., 2025 , He et al., 2024a , Zhang et al., 2025b ] , G2 : [ Zhang et al., 2025a , Guo et al., 2025 ] ).
Figure 2. Overview of GLAD . Multi-view images are encoded by a frozen pre-trained Transformer. The resulting tokens pass through the Object-Guided Attention (OGA) module for global object-level fusion and the Multi-view Merging Attention (MMA) module for local token-level cross-view fusion, before entering the MLP bottleneck and Transformer decoder for reconstruction. Right panels detail the MMA (middle) and OGA (right) architectures. <short description> <long description>
Method
Venue
S-AUROC
S-AP
S-F1
I-AUROC
I-AP
I-F1
P-AUROC
P-AP
P-F1
P-AUPRO
RD4AD [ Deng and Li, 2022 ]
CVPR’22
85.7
92.4
87.7
83.0
79.6
74.4
97.3
25.8
33.5
90.4
UniAD [ You et al., 2022 ]
NeurIPS’22
87.3
93.1
88.9
83.0
83.4
74.6
97.4
23.7
31.4
87.3
RD++ [ Tien et al., 2023 ]
CVPR’23
87.0
93.3
88.2
83.7
80.9
74.9
97.7
25.8
33.5
90.0
SimpleNet [ Liu et al., 2023 ]
CVPR’23
61.2
77.9
82.1
82.6
79.2
74.1
76.3
3.4
6.9
42.5
DeSTSeg [ Zhang et al., 2023 ]
CVPR’23
89.0
94.6
89.2
82.3
79.2
73.2
94.6
37.9
41.7
40.6
RealNet [ Zhang et al., 2024a ]
CVPR’24
72.0
87.1
82.5
65.2
65.4
62.7
60.5
27.2
24.9
28.7
Table 2. Average performance comparison on Real-IAD dataset. The best and second-best results are marked in bold and underlined . All methods except MVAD are reproduced under the multi-view setting.
Method
Venue
S-AUROC
S-AP
S-F1
I-AUROC
I-AP
I-F1
P-AUROC
P-AP
P-F1
P-AUPRO
RD4AD [ Deng and Li, 2022 ]
CVPR’22
78.3
63.7
68.3
80.5
59.5
62.4
91.8
29.1
34.7
78.8
UniAD [ You et al., 2022 ]
NeurIPS’22
74.9
59.7
65.2
82.7
64.3
65.1
90.7
26.1
32.4
79.6
DeSTSeg [ Zhang et al., 2023 ]
CVPR’23
62.4
49.3
56.5
62.3
37.8
45.5
54.8
12.0
9.0
23.4
RealNet [ Zhang et al., 2024a ]
CVPR’24
55.1
40.9
51.7
57.3
31.8
41.3
50.0
10.3
4.4
15.1
ViTAD [ Zhang et al., 2025a ]
CVIU’25
87.3
80.5
75.9
87.7
75.3
71.0
94.7
39.4
43.1
80.2
MVAD [ He et al., 2025 ]
TMM’25
85.0
76.5
73.8
85.2
69.9
67.9
93.7
32.7
38.5
80.7
Table 3. Average performance comparison on MANTA dataset. The best and second-best results are marked in bold and underlined . All methods except MVAD are reproduced under the multi-view setting.
Dataset
MMA
OGA
S-AUROC
S-AP
S-F1
I-AUROC
I-AP
I-F1
P-AUROC
P-AP
P-F1
P-AUPRO
Real-IAD
✗
✗
90.3
96.2
91.7
89.4
86.8
80.3
98.9
43.1
47.3
94.0
✓
✗
92.5
96.3
91.6
89.8
87.2
80.8
98.9
42.7
47.0
94.4
✓
✓
92.4
96.3
91.4
89.7
87.2
80.3
98.9
44.7
48.2
94.9
MANTA
✗
✗
92.3
87.9
83.4
91.3
82.3
77.7
94.8
44.8
48.3
84.2
✓
✗
92.8
88.3
83.4
91.8
82.8
77.9
94.9
44.6
47.6
85.1
✓
✓
92.7
88.5
83.6
92.0
83.5
78.1
95.2
47.6
49.6
85.9
Table 4. Ablation study on the contribution of each proposed module. MMA primarily improves sample-level detection, while OGA further boosts pixel-level localization. The best results per dataset are marked in bold .
Approach
Params (M)
Fwd (MB)
Fwd+Bwd (MB)
Time (ms)
Deformable Attention
2.37
2208.1
3091.1
17.38
MVAS Block [ He et al., 2025 ]
3.86
1318.1
9276.0
47.51
Linear Attention (ours)
2.66
528.5
1312.9
12.04
Table 5. Efficiency comparison of cross-view fusion alternatives in the MMA module.
Approach
S-AUROC
I-AUROC
P-AUROC
P-AP
P-F1
P-AUPRO
Deformable Attention
92.4
89.7
98.9
43.3
46.7
94.4
Linear Attention (ours)
92.5
89.8
98.9
42.7
47.0
94.4
Table 6. Accuracy comparison of cross-view fusion alternatives in the MMA module.
TR.
SG.
NoG.
Temp.
S-AUROC
I-AUROC
P-AUROC
P-AP
P-F1
P-AUPRO
✗
✗
✗
✗
92.2
91.3
94.7
43.7
46.9
84.0
✓
✗
✗
✗
92.4
91.7
95.0
47.0
49.4
85.4
✓
✓
✗
✗
92.3
91.8
95.1
46.8
49.3
85.4
✓
✗
✓
✗
92.4
91.7
95.1
47.7
50.0
86.0
✓
✓
✓
✗
92.6
91.9
95.3
47.7
49.8
85.7
✓
✓
✗
✓
92.4
91.8
95.2
47.8
50.1
85.9
Table 7. Ablation study on OGA information-restriction mechanisms. All variants include MMA and OGA. TR.: token replacement; SG.: sigmoid gating; NoG.: no global token feedback to per-view CLS tokens; Temp.: sharpened temperature. The best results are marked in bold .
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of anomaly maps on (A) Real-IAD and (B) MANTA. We show the ground-truth (G.T.) annotation and the anomaly maps produced by MVAD, Dinomaly, and GLAD (ours). Warmer colors indicate higher anomaly scores. <short description> <long description>
Setting
S-AUROC
S-AP
I-AUROC
I-AP
P-AUROC
P-AP
P-F1
P-AUPRO
Baseline (all 5)
92.37
96.28
89.73
87.25
98.93
44.67
48.26
94.89
w/o C2
91.13
94.84
89.44
87.00
98.92
44.74
48.38
94.80
w/o C2,C3
90.57
93.11
89.10
86.50
98.91
44.55
48.18
94.78
w/o C2,C3,C4
90.12
89.81
88.99
85.66
98.83
44.02
47.84
94.58
Table 8. Missing-view experiment. We mask out C2, C3, and C4 and renormalize view-importance weights over the remaining views without retraining.
Multi-view anomaly detection (MvAD) detects defects by exploiting complementary observations from multiple camera viewpoints. The central challenge is to fuse views with sufficient geometric awareness while remaining scalable to multi-class industrial settings. Existing methods typically fall into two extremes: voxel-based fusion provides explicit geometric alignment but requires costly 3D construction and class-specific assumptions, whereas lightweight patch-based fusion is efficient but relies on discrete candidate matching and lacks continuous cross-view correspondence. In this paper, we propose GeoMAD, a unified multi-view, multi-class AD framework that addresses both geometric correspondence deficiency and distributional inconsistency. Our Cross-view Deformable Fusion Module (CDFM) learns content-adaptive, view-pair-specific sampling offsets directly on 2D feature maps and arranges them across a multi-scale window pyramid with image-global reference sampling, enabling hierarchical cross-view correspondence without camera calibration, voxel construction, or class-specific 3D supervision. We further introduce Distributional View Alignment (DVA), a self-supervised cross-view regularization loss that aligns each view's bottleneck distribution against a per-instance view-centric target, enforcing global consistency without pixel-level correspondence. Together, CDFM and DVA bridge local geometric correspondence and global distributional consistency, providing geometry-aware and distribution-consistent fusion while preserving the efficiency of 2D feature-space learning. Extensive experiments on Real-IAD and MANTA-Tiny show that GeoMAD achieves strong detection and localization performance in unified MvAD.
Shang-Fu Chen, Jhih-Ciang Wu, Kuan-Chuan Peng +2
National Taiwan University Taipei, Taiwan · National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan · Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (MERL) Cambridge, MA, USA +3
Existing Multi-view Anomaly Detection (MAD) methods assume that all views are completely available and model each view separately. However, in real industrial scenarios, information in the view may be missing due to faults such as occlusion, which leads to the performance degradation of existing methods due to the lack of a multi-view consistency prior. To address this, we explored a more challenging task: Incomplete Multi-View Anomaly Detection (IMVAD), in which some areas of each view were masked. We proposed a pipeline for automatically generating the IMVAD dataset and generated the RIMAD dataset based on the Real-IAD dataset through this pipeline. In addition, in order to effectively utilize the information of multiple views in the absence of view information, we propose IMMoE, which consists of two key modules: (1) Multi-View Expert Fusion (MVEF) effectively fuses multi-view information through a multi-view expert network and guides the reconstruction of a single view; (2) Local Anomaly Enhancement Encoder (LAEE) effectively prevents the model from overfitting the mask region by applying dropout to local features. Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on both the RIMAD and Real-IAD datasets, especially on RIMAD, we have increased the pixel-level and image-level metrics by 11.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Our source code is available at https://github.com/HULEI7/IMMoE
Lei Hu
South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
Multi-view anomaly detection aims to identify surface defects on complex objects using observations captured from multiple viewpoints. However, existing unsupervised methods often suffer from feature inconsistency arising from viewpoint variations and modality discrepancies. To address these challenges, we propose a Semantic and Geometric Alignment Network (SGANet), a unified framework for multimodal multi-view anomaly detection that effectively combines semantic and geometric alignment to learn physically coherent feature representations across viewpoints and modalities. SGANet consists of three key components. The Selective Cross-view Feature Refinement Module (SCFRM) selectively aggregates informative patch features from adjacent views to enhance cross-view feature interaction. The Semantic-Structural Patch Alignment (SSPA) enforces semantic alignment across modalities while maintaining structural consistency under viewpoint transformations. The Multi-View Geometric Alignment (MVGA) further aligns geometrically corresponding patches across viewpoints. By jointly modeling feature interaction, semantic and structural consistency, and global geometric correspondence, SGANet effectively enhances anomaly detection performance in multimodal multi-view settings. Extensive experiments on the SiM3D and Eyecandies datasets demonstrate that SGANet achieves state-of-the-art performance in both anomaly detection and localization, validating its effectiveness in realistic industrial scenarios.
Letian Bai, Chengyu Tao, Juan Du
Smart Manufacturing Thrust, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, 511453, China · College of Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, 410082, China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, 999077, China