mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Knowledge-based anomaly detection for identifying network-induced shape artifacts

arXiv 2511.04729 ↗First posted 6 Nov 2025cs.CV cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Synthetic data provides a promising approach to address data scarcity for training machine learning models; however, adoption without proper quality assessments may introduce artifacts, distortions, and unrealistic features that compromise model performance and clinical utility. This work introduces a novel knowledge-based anomaly detection method for detecting network-induced shape artifacts in synthetic images. The introduced method utilizes a two-stage framework comprising (i) a novel feature extractor that constructs a specialized feature space by analyzing the per-image distribution of angle gradients along anatomical boundaries, and (ii) an isolation forest-based anomaly detector. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the method for identifying network-induced shape artifacts in two synthetic mammography datasets from models trained on CSAW-M and VinDr-Mammo patient datasets respectively. Quantitative evaluation shows that the method successfully concentrates artifacts in the most anomalous partition (1st percentile), with AUC values of 0.97 (CSAW-syn) and 0.91 (VMLO-syn). In addition, a reader study involving three imaging scientists confirmed that images identified by the method as containing network-induced shape artifacts were also flagged by human readers with mean agreement rates of 66% (CSAW-syn) and 68% (VMLO-syn) for the most anomalous partition, approximately 1.5-2 times higher than the least anomalous partition. Kendall-Tau correlations between algorithmic and human rankings were 0.45 and 0.43 for the two datasets, indicating reasonable agreement despite the challenging nature of subtle artifact detection. This method is a step forward in the responsible use of synthetic data, as it allows developers to evaluate synthetic images for known anatomic constraints and pinpoint and address specific issues to improve the overall quality of a synthetic dataset.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Nov 2025.

Builds on

15 of 48 references.

References · 15

  1. 2019Analyzing and Improving the Image Quality of StyleGANcited by 3,580
  2. 2016Improved Techniques for Training GANscited by 2,938
  3. 2022Diffusion Models for Medical Image Analysis: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 269
  4. 2017Are GANs Created Equal? A Large-Scale Studycited by 267
  5. 2021Pros and Cons of GAN Evaluation Measures: New Developmentscited by 121
  6. 2022Diffusion Probabilistic Models beat GANs on Medical Imagescited by 77
  7. 2023Generative AI for Medical Imaging: extending the MONAI Frameworkcited by 68
  8. 2021On the Frequency Bias of Generative Modelscited by 60
  9. 2022Assessing the ability of generative adversarial networks to learn canonical medical image statisticscited by 11
  10. 2023Using Diffusion Models to Generate Synthetic Labelled Data for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 10
  11. 2021CSAW-M: An Ordinal Classification Dataset for Benchmarking Mammographic Masking of Cancercited by 9
  12. 2023Knowledge-based in silico models and dataset for the comparative evaluation of mammography AI for a range of breast characteristics, lesion conspicuities and dosescited by 8
3 more
  1. 2024Synthetic Data in Radiological Imaging: Current State and Future Outlookcited by 7
  2. 2024S-SYNTH: Knowledge-Based, Synthetic Generation of Skin Imagescited by 6
  3. 2024Report on the AAPM Grand Challenge on deep generative modeling for learning medical image statisticscited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.