Papers › Evaluation of Vision-LLMs in Surveillance Video
Evaluation of Vision-LLMs in Surveillance Video
Pascal Benschop, Cristian Meo, Justin Dauwels, Jelte P. Mense
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
The widespread use of cameras in our society has created an overwhelming amount of video data, far exceeding the capacity for human monitoring. This presents a critical challenge for public safety and security, as the timely detection of anomalous or criminal events is crucial for effective response and prevention. The ability for an embodied agent to recognize unexpected events is fundamentally tied to its capacity for spatial reasoning. This paper investigates the spatial reasoning of vision-language models (VLMs) by framing anomalous action recognition as a zero-shot, language-grounded task, addressing the embodied perception challenge of interpreting dynamic 3D scenes from sparse 2D video. Specifically, we investigate whether small, pre-trained vision--LLMs can act as spatially-grounded, zero-shot anomaly detectors by converting video into text descriptions and scoring labels via textual entailment. We evaluate four open models on UCF-Crime and RWF-2000 under prompting and privacy-preserving conditions. Few-shot exemplars can improve accuracy for some models, but may increase false positives, and privacy filters -- especially full-body GAN transforms -- introduce inconsistencies that degrade accuracy. These results chart where current vision--LLMs succeed (simple, spatially salient events) and where they falter (noisy spatial cues, identity obfuscation). Looking forward, we outline concrete paths to strengthen spatial grounding without task-specific training: structure-aware prompts, lightweight spatial memory across clips, scene-graph or 3D-pose priors during description, and privacy methods that preserve action-relevant geometry. This positions zero-shot, language-grounded pipelines as adaptable building blocks for embodied, real-world video understanding. Our implementation for evaluating VLMs is publicly available at: https://github.com/pascalbenschopTU/VLLM_AnomalyRecognition
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2510.23190")
Code
Syntology Ran 4 of 18 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 14 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 3 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 18 samples from 1 repository, 4 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
18 samples harvested; 4 ran; 3 honoured the contract we drafted; 14 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 18 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from pascalbenschopTU/VLLM_AnomalyRecognition. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
6e45201fa27cb24a · report
8155263d7ff19bb3 · report
6a518104eaabbf34 · report
e252767324188623 · report
75dcdcd29a42d46f · report
362b7c167b2601a4 · report
a07fe3430810a175 · report
33bd146854566447 · report
68158a83d47922e1 · report
bc96f2edb5191094 · report
f1dd9d7477ee72b0 · report
dfa7243049177010 · report
e82548cfd3e4cce7 · report
55f9245780bf59a2 · report
2f681ba57a745eb1 · report
2a441646adb71805 · report
621fa39193860ef2 · report
446dade60fab2aaa · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2510.23190, was issued in October 2025, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections