How Far Can Untrained Neural Networks Go in Anomaly Detection? From Tables to Pixels
Authors: Hyojun Yi, Geunyoung Kim, Hogeon Seo, Seunghyoung Ryu
Organizations: Department of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea · Applied AI Section, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Anomaly detection (AD) is often framed as a representation-learning problem, where strong performance is expected to require learned features or AD-specific optimization. However, this view can overlook the intrinsic separability of anomalies from normal references, even in the absence of learned representations. We therefore investigate how far untrained neural networks can go in anomaly detection. To this end, we propose PRISM, a framework combining fixed random nonlinear features with normal-reference Mahalanobis scoring for tabular detection and dense visual localization. Across 47 tabular datasets in ADBench, PRISM-T achieves the highest mean AUROC (86.4%) and the second-highest mean AUPRC (65.9%) among the compared methods. On MVTec AD and VisA, covering 27 visual categories, PRISM-V achieves mean image-level and pixel-level AUROCs of 90.4% and 96.4%, respectively. Notably, both models achieve these results without neural weight optimization or pretrained representations. A theoretical analysis further characterizes how nonlinear transformations affect the mean and covariance contributions to the Mahalanobis score gap, while empirical analyses examine the resulting score separability. These findings establish PRISM as both a competitive anomaly detector and a prior-to-learning baseline for assessing the added value of learned representations in anomaly detection.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: PRISM framework. (a) Each PRISM block (PB) is randomly initialized once and kept fixed. (b) PRISM-T uses a single PB, and scores global Mahalanobis deviation from the closed-form reference statistics. (c) PRISM-V interleaves five PBs with BlurPool downsampling, aligns and concatenates PBs 2–5, and produces a dense anomaly map.
Setting
PRISM-T
PRISM-V
Linear operator
Fully connected
Convolution
Number of PBs
1
5
Feature dimension
512
512
Kernel size
-
[3,3,3,1,1]
Initialization
Uniform
He normal
Normalization
Instance + Batch
Instance
TABLE I: Architecture and configuration of PRISM-T and PRISM-V .
Method
Description
NN
Tr.
Sc.
Tabular baselines
KDE
Kernel density estimation of normal data.
–
–
LIK
AE
Autoencoder trained on normal data.
✓
T
REC
OCSVM
Maximum-margin one-class decision boundary.
–
–
DIST
IForest
Random isolation trees with path-length scoring.
–
–
ISO
DSVDD
Distance to a learned hypersphere center.
✓
T
DIST
TABLE II: Summary of the compared anomaly detection methods, neural network requirements, and scoring mechanisms.
AUROC
AUPRC
Method
Mean
Std
pH
Top-2
Mean
Std
pH
Top-2
PRISM-T
86.4
± 0.9
–
17
65.9
± 2.5
–
12
KDE †
84.2
± 0.7
.315
10
62.3
± 2.5
1
9
AE
82.9
± 1.2
< .001
6
59.4
± 3.5
.004
4
OCSVM †
79.6
± 0.7
.002
6
55.0
± 2.2
.003
3
IForest
79.8
± 1.6
< .001
5
49.3
± 3.4
< .001
4
TABLE III: Tabular AD results on ADBench datasets in AUROC and AUPRC (%).
Fig. 2: Per-dataset AUROC on ADBench. Cell values show AUROC (%), and colors indicate the gap from the best-performing method.
Fig. 3: Per-dataset AUPRC on ADBench. Cell values show AUPRC (%), and colors indicate the gap from the best-performing method.
Fig. 4: Critical-difference diagrams of average ranks on ADBench: (a) AUROC and (b) AUPRC. Numbers indicate average rank and mean score (%) of each method. Horizontal bars connect methods with no significant difference (Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Holm correction).
Fig. 5: Construction–inference efficiency on ADBench. Diamonds denote means and dots denote per-dataset runtimes; labels show average AUROC and parameter count. All deep learning baselines ran on GPU, and p denotes the average number of neural network parameters.
MVTec AD
VisA
Image-level
Pixel-level
Image-level
Pixel-level
Method
Parameters
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRO
PRR
AUROC
AUPRC
AUROC
AUPRO
PRR
PRISM-V
0.33 M
92.9
±0.2
97.2
±0.1
96.2
±0.1
85.9
±0.2
94.1
87.3
±0.1
89.1
±0.1
96.7
±0.0
73.1
±0.3
87.8
VAE
11.1 M
69.1
±0.6
86.1
±0.4
76.8
±0.6
54.3
±0.5
72.3
78.0
±2.1
81.2
±1.6
84.4
±0.4
59.1
±0.8
76.8
GANomaly
9.06 M
57.9
±3.3
81.2
±1.5
–
–
69.7
61.7
±4.2
69.3
±3.3
–
–
66.3
SPADE †
68.9 M
79.9
90.4
96.8
92.4
91.0
79.7
82.6
97.5
85.9
87.7
TABLE IV: Image-level AD and pixel-level anomaly localization on MVTec AD and VisA benchmarks.
Fig. 6: Per-category image-level detection performance on MVTec AD and VisA. Cell values show image AUROC (AUC) and AUPRC (AUP) (%), and colors indicate the gap from the best-performing method.
Fig. 7: Per-category pixel-level localization performance on MVTec AD and VisA. Cell values show pixel AUROC (AUC) and AUPRO (PRO) (%), and colors indicate the gap from the best-performing method.
Fig. 8: Critical-difference diagrams of average ranks across the 27 categories (MVTec AD and VisA combined) for each metric: (a) image-level AUROC, (b) image-level AUPRC, (c) pixel-level AUROC, and (d) AUPRO. Numbers indicate average rank and mean score (%) of each method. Horizontal bars connect methods with no significant difference (Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Holm correction).
Tabular
Visual
Variant
AUC
AUP
G
I-AUC
P-AUC
PRO
Gimg/Gpix
Raw
82.4
56.8
0.78
77.7
84.1
62.4
0.47/0.50
w/o Act.
83.2
59.3
0.77
87.9
95.0
75.4
0.58/0.71
PRISM
86.4
65.9
0.80
90.4
96.4
80.2
0.74 / 0.78
TABLE V: Effect of random transformation and nonlinear activation in PRISM .
(a) Feature map
(b) Scoring rule
Map
AUROC
AUPRC
Scorer
AUROC
AUPRC
Fourier
85.9±0.7
63.8±2.5
Euclidean
78.6±1.5
52.6±3.0
Maclaurin
84.4±0.7
61.1±2.5
IForest
81.1±2.3
52.4±4.8
ReLU
86.0±0.7
64.5±2.4
k NN
85.4±0.9
63.9±2.7
PRISM
86.4±0.9
65.9±2.5
Mahal.
86.4±0.9
65.9±2.5
TABLE VI: Comparison of feature maps and scoring rules on ADBench datasets.
Mean (median)
Increase count
Quantity
Raw
w/o Act.
PRISM
vs. Raw
vs. w/o Act.
G
0.78 (0.39)
0.77 (0.36)
0.80 (0.45)
34
35
Gcov
0.24 (0.18)
0.28 (0.20)
0.49 (0.34)
40
39
Gmean
0.55 (0.15)
0.49 (0.09)
0.31 (0.11)
19
25
Δ
46.88 (0.06)
114.82 (0.42)
91.50 (4.11)
41
36
Δcov
45.18 (0.04)
110.56 (0.21)
60.58 (3.12)
38
35
TABLE VII: Decomposition of score-level separability on ADBench datasets.
Fig. 9: Score-level separability across 47 ADBench datasets. Crosses and circles indicate w/o Act. and PRISM-T , respectively; arrows show changes induced by nonlinear activation. The dashed line denotes Gr=Go .
Fig. 10: Changes in separability and detection performance relative to Raw on 47 datasets: (a) AUROC and (b) AUPRC. Large markers and ellipses indicate the mean and ± one standard deviation across datasets, excluding http due to its outlying ΔG .
Method
Backbone
I-AUROC
AUPRO
PRISM-V
Proposed Backbone
90.4±0.1
80.2±0.1
SPADE
WRN-50-2
60.8±0.7
52.0±1.0
PaDiM
79.5±0.1
55.5±0.5
PatchCore
76.6±1.5
51.3±1.2
WinCLIP+
V: CLIP ViT-B/16+ L: CLIP Transformer
73.0±0.9
43.5±4.5
AnomalyDINO
DINOv2 ViT-S/14
77.3±0.4
60.2±0.6
TABLE VIII: Comparison with randomly initialized baselines.
Scorer
I-AUROC
I-AUPRC
P-AUROC
AUPRO
Euclidean
71.2±0.3
81.0±0.3
89.0±0.1
59.9±0.4
IForest
79.3±0.2
85.9±0.1
89.4±0.2
58.0±0.2
k NN
81.2±0.3
88.0±0.2
94.2±0.1
74.5±0.2
Mahalanobis
90.4±0.1
93.6±0.0
96.4±0.0
80.2±0.1
TABLE IX: Comparison of scoring rules for PRISM-V.
Mean (median)
Increase count
Quantity
Raw
w/o Act.
PRISM-V
vs. Raw
vs. w/o Act.
Gimg
0.47 (0.44)
0.58 (0.52)
0.74 (0.63)
22
22
Gpix
0.50 (0.48)
0.71 (0.69)
0.78 (0.77)
22
16
Δimg
0.05 (0.02)
2.26 (1.44)
6.63 (3.51)
27
26
Δpix
0.04 (0.01)
1.79 (1.13)
4.68 (2.40)
27
25
Vimg
0.14 (0.06)
3.70 (2.56)
8.23 (5.51)
27
24
TABLE X: Score-level separability of PRISM-V on MVTec AD and VisA.
Fig. 11: Score-level separability across 27 categories of MVTec AD and VisA. Crosses and circles indicate w/o Act. and PRISM-V , respectively; arrows show changes induced by nonlinear activation. The dashed line denotes Gr=Go .
Fig. 12: Changes in separability and detection performance relative to Raw on the 27 categories of MVTec AD and VisA: (a) image-level AUROC versus ΔGimg and (b) AUPRO versus ΔGpix . Large markers and ellipses indicate the mean and ± one standard deviation over the 27 categories, and the arrow connects the two means.
Fig. 13: Illustrative comparison of anomaly localization using PRISM-V , PaDiM, and SubspaceAD. Examples from the five highest- and lowest-performing categories ranked by PRISM-V ’s AUPRO. GT denotes ground-truth anomaly regions. For each sample, values in the upper-left and upper-right corners indicate pixel AUROC and AUPRO (%), respectively.
Tabular
Visual
AUROC
AUPRC
I-AUROC
AUPRO
Base
86.2(−)
64.4(−)
Base
82.0(−)
69.5(−)
+IN
80.5(−5.7)
54.4(−10)
+IN
83.3(+1.3)
72.4(+2.9)
+BN
86.1(−0.1)
64.2(−0.2)
+BP
83.8(+1.8)
75.8(+6.3)
+IBN
86.4(+0.2)
65.9(+1.5)
+Full
90.4(+8.4)
80.2(+10.7)
TABLE XI: Modality-specific component ablations for PRISM .
PRISM-T
Factor
Configuration
AUROC
AUPRC
Width
128
85.61
62.83
256
86.01
64.83
512∗
86.40
65.90
1024
86.60
66.64
Depth
1∗
86.40
65.90
TABLE XII: Ablations of feature extractor configurations in PRISM .
While deep features have transformed anomaly detection in images and video, their impact on tabular data has been less substantial, partly due to the limited availability of strong deep representations. Recently, prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) have emerged as a promising source of such representations for tabular data. In this work, we investigate how PFN representations can be adapted and leveraged for anomaly detection. The question is harder than it looks. No anomalies are available before deploy- ment, so model parameters cannot be tuned with supervision, and the reference set that defines normal behavior may itself contain the very anomalies it is supposed to reveal. We begin our study using frozen TabPFN features. Scoring each sam- ple by its distance to its nearest neighbors in feature space already gives strong results. We identify which layers to use and a feature-extraction procedure suited to the task. Next, to further improve performance, we use the reference set to fine- tune the model, so that the resulting features better separate normal samples from anomalies. On the ADBench benchmark, our fine-tuning free approach (ZEN) reaches a higher mean AUROC than every baseline, and our fine-tuned method (FOCUS) improves on it further. Our approach also generalizes across PFN models.
Maximilian Bershtman, Niv Cohen
Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering Technion – Israel Institute of Technology Haifa, Israel
Anomaly detection systems are often trained using normal data alone, while model selection and evaluation typically require labeled anomalies. We study whether anomaly detection performance can be predicted without access to anomalous data. For kNN-based detectors, we derive a lower bound on the area under the ROC curve (AUC) that relates detection performance to the separation between inlier and outlier scores and to their respective variances. Under a local scaling model, we use this bound to characterize how density variation, intrinsic-dimensional heterogeneity, and cross-domain mismatch contribute to score variability. We then investigate anomaly-free model selection and show that inlier score variance alone does not reliably predict performance across different representations. To address this limitation, we introduce simple pseudo-anomaly probes that provide a reference for estimating relative score separation. Experiments on the DCASE 2022-2025 benchmarks, spanning four embedding models and 208 candidate systems, show that pseudo-anomaly-based estimators substantially improve anomaly-free model selection. In particular, diverse pseudo-anomalies enable anomaly-free model selection to outperform conventional development-set selection under domain shift. These results show that embedding-space geometry contains predictive information about anomaly detection performance while also highlighting the representation-dependent nature of inlier-only performance estimates.
Kevin Wilkinghoff, Zheng-Hua Tan
Department of Electronic Systems, Aalborg University, Denmark · Pioneer Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Denmark
This paper considers a practical few-shot anomaly detection (FSAD) setting, termed discriminative FSAD, where a limited number of both normal and anomalous examples are available as references during inference. Existing FSAD methods rely on normal-only references through normality matching, ignoring the discriminative clues in anomalous references, while directly fitting both references can overfit to the seen anomalies. We introduce IDEAL, an intrinsic deviation learning framework that leverages both reference types to learn intrinsic deviation patterns characterizing generalizable abnormality as deviations from normality. IDEAL decomposes the learning process into two novel components: 1) a Normal Variation Eraser to suppress nuisance normal variations that may lead to noisy deviations from normality, thereby highlighting anomaly-relevant deviation representations; 2) an Intrinsic Deviation Encoder to decompose these denoised deviation representations into intrinsic deviation vectors capturing the most discriminative orthogonal deviation directions. At inference, IDEAL scores query-to-normal deviations preserved after projection onto the learned intrinsic deviation vectors, enabling generalization for both seen and unseen anomalies. Extensive experiments on eight real-world datasets show that IDEAL generalizes effectively to unseen anomalies and consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art FSAD methods. Code and data are available at https://github.com/mala-lab/IDEAL.
Huan Wang, Jun Shen, Jun Yan +1
Singapore Management University, Singapore · University of Wollongong, Australia