CLIP-guided anomaly detection for power line inspection with multi-scale attention


Abstract

The inspection of power line infrastructure is essential for maintaining the safety and reliability of electrical grids, yet traditional manual ground patrols and helicopter-based surveys remain labor-intensive, costly, and often ineffective at detecting subtle defects. Recent advances in unmanned aerial vehicles and artificial intelligence have improved automation, but many existing approaches are limited to identifying asset types rather than detecting defects across multiple components. This study introduces a novel anomaly detection framework that enhances power line inspection by integrating a pre-trained CLIP image encoder with efficient channel attention modules and a normalizing flow-based density estimator. The CLIP image encoder extracts robust visual features without fine-tuning, while attention modules recalibrate multi-scale features to emphasize semantically salient regions. The normalizing flow module then models the distribution of normal features to detect anomalies via likelihood estimation. Evaluated on two challenging real-world datasets, InsPLAD and PTL-AI, the proposed method achieved state-of-the-art performance, with average AUC scores of 0.9566 and 0.8554, respectively, outperforming existing methods across various asset categories and defect types. The results demonstrate the efficacy and generalizability of the approach in complex inspection scenarios. The framework offers a scalable, annotation-efficient solution for real-world applications, with potential for extension to video-based monitoring and other infrastructure inspection domains.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].