← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2610.34610 · v1
Do Words Matter? What Text Contributes to Few and Full-Shot Vision-Language Anomaly Detection
首次提交 2026-10-26 06:17
版本更新 2026-10-26 06:17
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:36
摘要
Vision-language anomaly detectors describe normal and abnormal appearance with text, and their gains are commonly credited to the semantic content of these descriptions. This attribution is plausible in the zero-shot setting, but few- and full-shot detectors interpose a trained visual adapter, and in that setting it has not been isolated. Changing a description changes both its meaning and its geometry, so accuracy comparisons cannot separate the two. We ask what a fixed pair of text embeddings, or anchors, contributes to such a detector: semantic content, effective scale, or joint anchor geometry. For a single anchor pair, the answer is effective scale alone. The score reads the anchors only through their difference, and a trained adapter can rotate to follow any replacement direction, leaving that direction, and with it the linguistic content, unidentifiable. We prove that replacement anchors with the same difference-vector length permit exactly the same probability maps and attainable losses. Across seven medical datasets, three vision backbones, both supervision regimes, and three adapter families, scale-matched random and orthogonal anchors track correct prompts; breaking the scale match opens a gap that restoring it closes without text. The same pattern holds in MVFA and when MadCLIP's learned prompts are replaced by a text-free learned scale. When one adapter serves many categories, the answer expands to their joint arrangement. Rotating all category axes together changes nothing, as predicted. For the tested CLIP prompts, these axes are nearly collinear, and meaning-free rotations that spread them apart improve performance on both industrial benchmarks. Even under frozen zero-shot transfer, a random anchor frame transfers as well as the prompt frame: coordinate consistency, not meaning. What these detectors read from their prompts is scale and arrangement, not semantic content.
作者备注：36 pages, 1 figure, 28 tables
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-10-26 06:17 · 最新观测版本
Do Words Matter? What Text Contributes to Few and Full-Shot Vision-Language Anomaly Detection
Vision-language anomaly detectors describe normal and abnormal appearance with text, and their gains are commonly credited to the semantic content of these descriptions. This attribution is plausible in the zero-shot setting, but few- and full-shot detectors interpose a trained visual adapter, and in that setting it has not been isolated. Changing a description changes both its meaning and its geometry, so accuracy comparisons cannot separate the two. We ask what a fixed pair of text embeddings, or anchors, contributes to such a detector: semantic content, effective scale, or joint anchor geometry. For a single anchor pair, the answer is effective scale alone. The score reads the anchors only through their difference, and a trained adapter can rotate to follow any replacement direction, leaving that direction, and with it the linguistic content, unidentifiable. We prove that replacement anchors with the same difference-vector length permit exactly the same probability maps and attainable losses. Across seven medical datasets, three vision backbones, both supervision regimes, and three adapter families, scale-matched random and orthogonal anchors track correct prompts; breaking the scale match opens a gap that restoring it closes without text. The same pattern holds in MVFA and when MadCLIP's learned prompts are replaced by a text-free learned scale. When one adapter serves many categories, the answer expands to their joint arrangement. Rotating all category axes together changes nothing, as predicted. For the tested CLIP prompts, these axes are nearly collinear, and meaning-free rotations that spread them apart improve performance on both industrial benchmarks. Even under frozen zero-shot transfer, a random anchor frame transfers as well as the prompt frame: coordinate consistency, not meaning. What these detectors read from their prompts is scale and arrangement, not semantic content.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗