No Need For Real Anomaly: MLLM Empowered Zero-Shot Video Anomaly Detection

Zunkai Dai, Ke Li, Jiajia Liu, Jie Yang, Yuanyuan Qiao · Feb 22, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

The collection and detection of video anomaly data has long been a challenging problem due to its rare occurrence and spatio-temporal scarcity. Existing video anomaly detection (VAD) methods under perform in open-world scenarios. Key contributing factors include limited dataset diversity, and inadequate understanding of context-dependent anomalous semantics. To address these issues, i) we propose LAVIDA, an end-to-end zero-shot video anomaly detection framework. ii) LAVIDA employs an Anomaly Exposure Sampler that transforms segmented objects into pseudo-anomalies to enhance model adaptability to unseen anomaly categories. It further integrates a Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM) to bolster semantic comprehension capabilities. Additionally, iii) we design a token compression approach based on reverse attention to handle the spatio-temporal scarcity of anomalous patterns and decrease computational cost. The training process is conducted solely on pseudo anomalies without any VAD data. Evaluations across four benchmark VAD datasets demonstrate that LAVIDA achieves SOTA performance in both frame-level and pixel-level anomaly detection under the zero-shot setting. Our code is available in https://github.com/VitaminCreed/LAVIDA.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.