Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study critically evaluates the reliability of automated anomaly detection in surveillance video by conducting a cross-dataset audit of off-the-shelf features. The authors find that while models achieve high frame-level ROC-AUC scores within the same dataset, their performance drastically declines when tested across different datasets, averaging only 0.499 AUC, which is effectively chance-level performance. Notably, the strongest model, DINOv2, exhibits the most significant drop in cross-dataset performance, highlighting the misleading nature of benchmark results in real-world applications.
High benchmark scores in video anomaly detection are misleading, with cross-dataset performance often reduced to chance levels, revealing a critical gap in deployable reliability.
Automated "suspicious behavior" flagging is a headline promise of AI surveillance, and the field reports high frame-level ROC-AUC on standard video anomaly detection benchmarks. Those numbers are measured by training and testing on the same camera and scene. We audit what happens when that assumption is dropped. We build an unsupervised normality model from the all-normal training frames of one dataset, using frozen off-the-shelf embeddings (CLIP, DINOv2, ResNet-50, EfficientNet-B0) and a nearest-neighbour distance, and score the test frames of the same and of other datasets. Across 4 real datasets (UCSD Ped1, UCSD Ped2, CUHK Avenue, ShanghaiTech) and 4 backbones, same-dataset AUC averages 0.704 but cross-dataset AUC averages 0.499, which is chance: a detector calibrated on one scene is no better than a coin flip on another, and in several pairs it is below chance. The strongest backbone makes this worse, not better: DINOv2 has the best same-dataset AUC (up to 0.901 on Ped2) and the largest cross-dataset drop. The collapse is not an artefact of the scoring rule: replacing the nearest-neighbour detector with a PaDiM-style Mahalanobis detector reproduces it almost exactly (cross-dataset gap 0.202 versus 0.208). Even at a favourable operating point the false-alarm rate is on the order of 31,931 per hour. We conclude that the benchmark numbers quoted for surveillance anomaly detection describe a calibrated laboratory setting and overstate deployable reliability by a wide margin, and we release the code that reproduces every number.
