Generalized Video Anomaly Event Detection: Systematic Taxonomy and Comparison of Deep Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video Anomaly Detection (VAD) serves as a pivotal technology in the intelligent surveillance systems, enabling the temporal or spatial identification of anomalous events within videos. While existing reviews predominantly concentrate on conventional unsupervised methods, they often overlook the emergence of weakly-supervised and fully-unsupervised approaches. To address this gap, this survey extends the conventional scope of VAD beyond unsupervised methods, encompassing a broader spectrum termed Generalized Video Anomaly Event Detection (GVAED). By skillfully incorporating recent advancements rooted in diverse assumptions and learning frameworks, this survey introduces an intuitive taxonomy that seamlessly navigates through unsupervised, weakly-supervised, supervised and fully-unsupervised VAD methodologies, elucidating the distinctions and interconnections within these research trajectories. In addition, this survey facilitates prospective researchers by assembling a compilation of research resources, including public datasets, available codebases, programming tools, and pertinent literature. Furthermore, this survey quantitatively assesses model performance, delves into research challenges and directions, and outlines potential avenues for future exploration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it