TAU-Agent: An Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Framework for Traffic Anomaly Understanding
Organizations: University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK · University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
Abstract
Traffic Anomaly Understanding (TAU) requires models and systems to detect, reason about, and explain anomalous events in transportation videos. To address this challenge, we propose TAU-Agent, an agentic retrieval-augmented framework for traffic anomaly understanding. Given a task query, a central retrieval agent orchestrates two visual perception tools, namely a Video Captioning Tool and an Open-Vocabulary Tracking Tool, to retrieve and select query-relevant evidence, including captions, temporal intervals, and object trajectories. The selected evidence, together with sampled video frames and the input query, is provided to a supervised fine-tuned vision-language model for final reasoning and answer generation. We evaluate TAU-Agent on both the in-domain and the out-of-domain benchmarks from the AI City Challenge 2026. TAU-Agent achieves scores of 0.6779 on Track 3, 0.3998 on Track 7, and 67.9275 on Track 8, ranking second, twelfth, and fifth, respectively. Code is available at: https://github.com/siri-rouser/TAU-Agent.
Figures & tables
| Step and Operation | Description |
|---|---|
| 1. Query Interpretation | Analyze the input question to identify the referenced events, objects, interactions, anomaly, and temporal context. |
| 2. Video Caption Retrieval | Invoke the Video Captioning Tool to obtain a high-level understanding of the video and retrieve potentially relevant caption segments. |
| 3. Temporal Evidence Selection | Use the question and caption evidence to determine candidate frame ranges and select relevant caption segments. |
| 4. Object-Track Retrieval | If object-level evidence is required, invoke the Open-Vocabulary Tracking Tool to retrieve relevant tracks. |
| 5. Evidence Refinement | Jointly reason over the question, captions, and object tracks to refine the selected frame range, select supporting evidence, and assign a relevance score to each selected item. |
| 6. Iterative Retrieval | Perform additional tool calls if the retrieved evidence remains insufficient or ambiguous. |
| Rank | Team | Mean | BCQ | MCQ | BCQ OE | MCQ OE | Open QA | Causal | Scene | Temporal | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25 | 0.6788 | 1.0000 | 0.9500 | 0.6686 | 0.9693 | 0.4986 | 0.5310 | 0.4373 | 0.5137 | 0.5409 |
| 2 | Ours | 0.6779 | 1.0000 | 0.9500 | 0.6685 | 0.9176 | 0.5150 | 0.5503 | 0.4314 | 0.5164 | 0.5516 |
| 3 | 309 | 0.6748 | 0.9750 | 0.9500 | 0.6660 | 0.9520 | 0.5215 | 0.5253 | 0.4445 | 0.4975 | 0.5416 |
| 4 | 270 | 0.6741 | 0.9750 | 0.9500 | 0.6663 | 0.9530 | 0.5177 | 0.5181 | 0.4439 | 0.4980 | 0.5453 |
| 5 | 60 | 0.6703 | 0.9750 | 0.9500 | 0.6663 | 0.9530 | 0.5177 | 0.5181 | 0.4095 | 0.4980 | 0.5453 |
| Rank | Team | Final Score | Description | Categorical Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30 | 0.4891 | 0.4171 | 0.5612 |
| 2 | 219 | 0.4889 | 0.4166 | 0.5612 |
| 3 | 139 | 0.4884 | 0.4411 | 0.5358 |
| 12 | Ours | 0.3998 | 0.3513 | 0.4484 |
| 13 | 61 | 0.3997 | 0.3476 | 0.4518 |
| Rank | Team | Final | BCQ F1 | BCQ Acc. | Open QA F1 | MCQ Acc. | Temp. mIoU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 220 | 70.8947 | 0.7084 | 0.7273 | 0.5833 | 0.7912 | 0.7529 |
| 2 | 30 | 70.6397 | 0.7084 | 0.7273 | 0.5833 | 0.7912 | 0.7427 |
| 3 | 257 | 69.0698 | 0.6136 | 0.6182 | 0.6674 | 0.7912 | 0.6906 |
| 4 | 84 | 68.2765 | 0.7136 | 0.7273 | 0.6206 | 0.6813 | 0.7155 |
| 5 | Ours | 67.9275 | 0.6167 | 0.7091 | 0.7791 | 0.7253 | 0.5960 |