Despite the promising development of deep learning for video anomaly detection (VAD), explainability (XAI) of these models remains a challenge. Explainable and privacy-protecting VAD builds transparency and trust that facilitates adoption of computer vision systems, including safety and security monitoring. However, anomaly explainability in privacy-preserving VAD systems is underexplored. In this study, we present the XAVAD approach, a unified descriptive anomaly XAI for an anonymized VAD, that integrates flexible zero-shot anonymization, anomaly type categorization, visual localization, and scene context description. We provide empirical and qualitative assessments of multifaceted explanations integrated with full-body visual anonymization for privacy protection. We adopt a multimodal CLIP embedding for videos, using improved LLM-assisted prompting and pool-scoring mechanisms for anomaly-type identification. We enhance Grad-ECLIP for spatial anomaly heatmap localization, leveraging computation and accuracy through our novel prompt-guided patching autofocus mechanism. We employ VLMs to generate context and reasoning descriptions of detected anomalies through curated prompt engineering. We have evaluated the accuracy and computational cost of XAVAD on several publicly available CCTV and video datasets. Our experiments demonstrate substantial gains of our XAVAD over state-of-the-art benchmark approaches and provide insights into privacy protection trade-offs in XAI for VAD. We further present ablation studies and assessments across diverse configurations and modeling alternatives to demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed methods. Code: https://github.com/muleina/XAVAD}{https://github.com/muleina/XAVAD .
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : A unified explainable, full-body privacy-protecting VAD system. The raw CCTV footage is AI-generated.
Fig. 2 : System pipeline diagram of the XAVAD system. The Γ denotes the anonymized VAD system, and the Ω is the multifaceted anomaly explainer.
Fig. 3 : System diagrams of the XAI approach of XAVAD: a) one-time guidance configuration setup, and b) XAI inference engine, generating XAI for the alerts streamed from the VAD system. The prompts and embeddings, pre-computed in a), are stored and later employed for the XAI inference.
CLIP Model
Prompt Mode
mF1 @Top 1↑
mF1 @Top 2↑
mF1 @Top 3↑
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
ViT-B/32
Keyword-Prompt
0.469
0.442
-5.69%
0.597
0.561
-6.03%
0.696
0.669
-3.91%
ConceptNet-Prompt [ 25 ]
0.542
0.501
-7.66%
0.733
0.662
-9.75%
0.817
0.741
-9.29%
LLM-Prompt
0.569
0.516
-9.25%
0.739
0.666
-9.89%
0.826
0.763
-7.63%
ViT-B/16
Keyword-Prompt
0.474
0.450
-5.10%
0.593
0.575
-2.95%
0.668
0.672
0.55%
ConceptNet-Prompt [ 25 ]
0.577
0.518
-10.19%
0.713
0.626
-12.21%
0.805
0.699
-13.12%
TABLE I : Performance of ZSAC on the XD Violence Dataset [ 61 ] .
CLIP Model
Prompt Mode
mF1 @Top 1↑
mF1 @Top 3↑
mF1 @Top 5↑
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
ViT-B/32
Keyword-Prompt
0.242
0.216
-10.68%
0.423
0.410
-3.00
0.599
0.594
-0.81%
ConceptNet-Prompt [ 25 ]
0.244
0.237
-2.85
0.419
0.394
-6.17%
0.639
0.610
-4.56%
LLM-Prompt (Ours)
0.258
0.235
-8.90%
0.476
0.432
-9.17%
0.595
0.582
-2.06%
ViT-B/16
Keyword-Prompt
0.236
0.228
-3.40%
0.485
0.442
-8.97
0.627
0.611
-2.59%
ConceptNet-Prompt [ 25 ]
0.237
0.211
-10.95%
0.418
0.376
-9.96
0.568
0.544
-4.18%
TABLE II : Performance of ZSAC on the UCF-Crime Dataset [ 62 ] .
Prompt Mode
Pooling Method
No-AN
MASKED-AN
No-AN
MASKED-AN
No-AN
MASKED-AN
XD Violence Dataset [ 61 ]
mF1 @Top 1↑
mF1 @Top 2↑
mF1 @Top 3↑
Keyword-Prompt
Average Pooling
0.515 (–)
0.496 (–)
0.633 (–)
0.616 (–)
0.705 (–)
0.701 (–)
Maximum Pooling
0.516 (0%)
0.498 (0%)
0.628 (-1%)
0.620 (1%)
0.697 (-1%)
0.710 (1%)
LLM-Prompt (Ours)
Average Pooling
0.673 (31%)
0.621 (25%)
0.798 (26%)
0.750 (22%)
0.859 (22%)
0.818 (17%)
Maximum Pooling
0.683 (33%)
0.633 (28%)
0.811 (28%)
0.754 (22%)
0.874 (24%)
0.825 (18%)
TABLE III : Comparison of Pooling Methods: ZSAC using the ViT-L/14 CLIP Model.
XAI MAP Method
AP↑
AP[10%]↑
AP[50%]↑
AR↑
AR[10%]↑
AR[50%]↑
APsmall↑
APmedium↑
APlarge↑
ARsmall↑
ARmedium↑
ARlarge↑
Grad-ECLIP [ 14 ]
No-AN
0.307
0.669
0.090
0.473
0.785
0.215
0.000
0.305
0.383
0.000
0.374
0.688
Grad-ECLIP + Norm (Ours)
No-AN
0.311
0.600
0.077
0.479
0.723
0.223
0.000
0.308
0.408
0.000
0.402
0.662
PPA + Grad-ECLIP + Norm (Ours)
No-AN
0.569
0.901
0.180
0.715
0.938
0.392
0.710
0.541
0.655
0.759
0.712
0.715
PPA + Grad-ECLIP + Norm (Ours)
MASKED-AN
0.318
0.656
0.088
0.460
0.754
0.208
0.159
0.374
0.277
0.352
0.528
0.366
Δ(%)
-44%
-27%
-51%
-36%
-20%
-47%
-78%
-31%
-58%
-54%
-26%
-49%
TABLE IV : Performance of ZSAM on the Simuletic CCTV Weapon Dataset [ 63 ] . The MASKED-AN uses the YOLO8-M Model.
XAI MAP Method
AP↑
AP[10%]↑
AP[50%]↑
AR↑
AR[10%]↑
AR[50%]↑
APsmall↑
APmedium↑
APlarge↑
ARsmall↑
ARmedium↑
ARlarge↑
Grad-ECLIP [ 14 ]
No-AN
0.098
0.245
0.015
0.185
0.354
0.061
–
0.113
0.142
–
0.145
0.278
Grad-ECLIP + Norm (Ours)
No-AN
0.136
0.299
0.021
0.208
0.404
0.071
–
0.167
0.147
–
0.224
0.170
PPA + Grad-ECLIP + Norm (Ours)
No-AN
0.589
0.952
0.088
0.697
0.970
0.253
–
0.579
0.684
–
0.702
0.685
PPA + Grad-ECLIP + Norm (Ours)
MASKED-AN
0.375
0.733
0.022
0.476
0.758
0.111
–
0.349
0.505
–
0.443
0.552
Δ(%)
-36%
-23%
-75%
-32%
-22%
-56%
–
-40%
-26%
–
-37%
-19%
TABLE V : Performance of ZSAM on the Simuletic CCTV Knife Dataset [ 64 ] . The MASKED-AN uses the YOLO8-M Model.
AN Method (Seg. Method)
AP↑
Δ(%)↑
AP[10%]↑
Δ(%)↑
AP[50%]↑
Δ(%)↑
AR↑
Δ(%)↑
AR[10%]↑
Δ(%)↑
AR[50%]↑
Δ(%)↑
No-AN (–)
0.569
–
0.901
–
0.180
–
0.715
–
0.938
–
0.392
–
MASKED-AN (YOLO8-M)
0.318
-44%
0.656
-27%
0.088
-51%
0.460
-36%
0.754
-20%
0.208
-47%
MASKED-AN (YOLO8-X)
0.328
-42%
0.639
-29%
0.095
-47%
0.478
-33%
0.746
-20%
0.223
-43%
MASKED-AN (YOLO11-M)
0.340
-40%
0.624
-31%
0.126
-30%
0.491
-31%
0.731
-22%
0.262
-33%
MASKED-AN (YOLO11-X)
0.370
-35%
0.647
-28%
0.105
-42%
0.529
-26%
0.769
-18%
0.246
-37%
MASKED-AN (YOLO26-M)
0.366
-36%
0.653
-28%
0.087
-52%
0.516
-28%
0.769
-18%
0.238
-39%
TABLE VI : Performance of ZSAM with PPA + Grad-ECLIP + Norm (Ours) with Different Segmentation Methods on the Simuletic CCTV Weapon Dataset [ 63 ] . The YOLO models employ SAHI [ 51 ] with a window size of [640×640] to handle high-resolution images.
AN Method (Seg. Method)
AP↑
Δ(%)↑
AP[10%]↑
Δ(%)↑
AP[50%]↑
Δ(%)↑
AR↑
Δ(%)↑
AR[10%]↑
Δ(%)↑
AR[50%]↑
Δ(%)↑
No-AN (–)
0.589
–
0.952
–
0.088
–
0.697
–
0.970
–
0.253
–
MASKED-AN (YOLO8-M)
0.375
-36%
0.733
-23%
0.022
-75%
0.476
-32%
0.758
-22%
0.111
-56%
MASKED-AN (YOLO8-X)
0.367
-38%
0.705
-26%
0.017
-81%
0.473
-32%
0.747
-23%
0.111
-56%
MASKED-AN (YOLO11-M)
0.358
-39%
0.671
-30%
0.024
-73%
0.468
-33%
0.727
-25%
0.131
-48%
MASKED-AN (YOLO11-X)
0.410
-30%
0.786
-17%
0.018
-80%
0.523
-25%
0.818
-16%
0.101
-60%
MASKED-AN (YOLO26-M)
0.375
-36%
0.742
-22%
0.023
-74%
0.496
-29%
0.788
-19%
0.121
-52%
TABLE VII : Performance of ZSAM with PPA + Grad-ECLIP + Norm (Ours) with Different Segmentation Methods on the Simuletic CCTV Knife Dataset [ 63 ] . The YOLO models employ SAHI [ 51 ] with a window size of [640×640] to handle high-resolution images.
VLM Model (Params)
BLUE ↑
ROUGE_L ↑
ROUGE ↑
BERTScore ( P ) ↑
BERTScore ( F1 ) ↑
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
HIVAU-70k [XD Violence + UCF-Crime] Dataset
Video-ChatGPT (7B) [ 71 ] *
0.068
–
–
0.048
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Video-LLaMA (7B) [ 72 ] *
0.079
–
–
0.067
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Video-LLaVA (7B) [ 49 ] *
0.046
–
–
0.023
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
LLaVA-Next-Video (7B) [ 73 ] *
0.091
–
–
0.080
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
TABLE VIII : Performance of ZSAD on the HIVAU-70k-Event Dataset [ 6 ] . BLEU refers to the cumulative values from BLEU-(1…4), and ROUGE is the cumulative of ROUGE-(1,2, and L). The BERTScore utilizes RoBERTa-base embedder, and is rescaled as in Ref. [ 70 ] .
Methods
Peak GPU Memory (MB) ↓
GPU Time (s) ↓
AN Method (Seg. Model)
Simuletic CCTV Datasets
Avg. Image Size= [920×1358]
YOLO8-M*
195
0.095
YOLO8-M
231
0.310
YOLO8-X
471
0.315
YOLO11-M
244
0.335
TABLE IX : Computational Cost Analysis on AN and XAI Inference. We employed parallel multi-core processing for Multi-Frame and Patch Inference. The N, S, M, L, and X denote tiny, small, medium, large, and extra-large models.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method Name
VAD Approach
XAI
Training-Free
AN
Category
Description
Spatial
TEVAD [ 76 ]
VLM
No
Yes*
No
No
No
Enhanced TEVAD [ 77 ]
VLM
No
Yes*+
No
No
No
Interpretable VAD [ 10 ]
YOLO + CNN
Yes*+
No
BBox*
No
No
VadCLIP [ 59 ]
CLIP + GCN
Yes*
No
No
No
No
LLAVA-1.5 [ 15 , 30 ]
MLLM
No
Yes*
No
Yes
No
Appendix
TABLE X: Review Summary on XAI-VAD Methods and Comparison.
Feature
ViT-B/32
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14
ViT-L/14@336px
Encoder Transformer
Base
Base
Large
Large
Model Parameters (M)
∼ 150
∼ 150
∼ 427
∼ 427
Input Resolution (Pixels)
224×224
224×224
224×224
336×336
Patch Size
32×32
16×16
14×14
14×14
Embedding Dim
512
512
768
768
Complexity (GFLOPs)
∼ 15
∼ 41
∼ 175
∼ 395
Appendix
TABLE XI: Description of CLIP Models for Zero-Shot Prediction [ 61 ] .
Fig. 4 : Performance of ZSAC on the XD Violence Dataset [ 61 ] . Complexity of the CLIP models increases from left to right.
Fig. 5 : Performance of the ZSAC on the UCF-Crime Dataset [ 62 ] . CLIP model complexity increases from left to right.
Fig. 6 : Confusion matrices of ZSAC using LLM-prompt and ViT-L/14 CLIP model on the XD Violence Dataset [ 61 ] : a) No-AN, and b) MASKED-AN.
Fig. 7 : Confusion matrices of ZSAC using LLM-prompt and ViT-L/14 CLIP model on the UCF-Crime Dataset [ 62 ] : a) No-AN, and b) MASKED-AN.
CLIP Model
Prompt Mode
F1 @Top 1↑
F1 @Top 2↑
F1 @Top 3↑
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
ViT-B/32
Keyword-Prompt
0.650
0.659
1.30
0.747
0.755
1.05
0.823
0.840
2.06
ConceptNet-Prompt [ 25 ]
0.798
0.784
-1.68
0.919
0.888
-3.37
0.951
0.926
-2.72
LLM-Prompt (ours)
0.789
0.726
-7.98
0.912
0.857
-6.11
0.957
0.927
-3.18
ViT-B/16
Keyword-Prompt
0.642
0.633
-1.44
0.730
0.744
1.91
0.798
0.826
3.58
ConceptNet-Prompt [ 25 ]
0.853
0.814
-4.57
0.921
0.866
-5.92
0.956
0.901
-5.77
Appendix
TABLE XII : Sample Size Weighted Score: ZSAC on the XD Violence Dataset [ 61 ] .
CLIP Model
Prompt Mode
F1 @Top 1↑
F1 @Top 3↑
F1 @Top 5↑
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
No-AN
MASKED-AN
Δ(%)
ViT-B/32
Keyword-Prompt
0.861
0.855
-0.79
0.899
0.895
-0.39
0.937
0.936
-0.08
ConceptNet-Prompt [ 25 ]
0.860
0.858
-0.15
0.895
0.890
-0.54
0.938
0.931
-0.80
LLM-Prompt (ours)
0.861
0.856
-0.60
0.901
0.890
-1.23
0.924
0.918
-0.67
ViT-B/16
Keyword-Prompt
0.858
0.855
-0.38
0.910
0.900
-1.11
0.942
0.940
-0.20
ConceptNet-Prompt [ 25 ]
0.855
0.850
-0.57
0.894
0.885
-0.99
0.925
0.921
-0.43
Appendix
TABLE XIII : Sample Size Weighted Score: ZSAC on the UCF-Crime Dataset [ 62 ] .
Fig. 8 : Performance of ZSAM using different heatmap-to-bounding-box thresholds ξˉbb on Simuletic CCTV a) Weapon [ 63 ] and b) Knife datasets [ 64 ] . The plots demonstrate the superiority of our Grad-ECLIP with PPA (PPA + Grad-ECLIP + Norm) and GDSN approaches. Optimal performance at ξˉbb=0.5 .
Fig. 9: Performance of the ZSAM on the Simuletic CCTV Weapon and Knife datasets [ 63 , 64 ] using the ViT-L/14 CLIP model with LLM-enhanced prompt embedding for gun holding and knife holding, respectively. The segmentation model for the MASKED-AN is YOLO8-M.
Fig. 10: Weapon occlusion after AN with different person segmentation models: ZSAM with PPA + Grad-ECLIP + Norm on Simuletic CCTV Weapon and Knife datasets [ 63 , 64 ] . The YOLO and RF-DETR models conceal objects, such as weapons (which are not in their training MS-COCO datasets), when they overlap with the person’s body. Our GDSN with negative segmentation mitigates the overlapping challenge. The images are cropped to enhance visualization.
Fig. 11 : Ground truth (yellow) vs. ZSAM-predicted bounding boxes (red) on Simuletic CCTV datasets [ 63 , 64 ] . The yellow boxes cover extended areas, including occluded regions, while the red boxes focus on high-saliency regions.
Fig. 12 : Performance of ZSAD using VLM InternVL3.5 (8B) model with different hyperparameters: a) HIVAU-70k Dataset [XD Violence] and b) HIVAU-70k Dataset [UCF-Crime].
Video Anomaly Detection (VAD) has traditionally been framed as binary classification or outlier detection, providing neither interpretable reasoning nor precise spatial localization of anomalous events. While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) offer rich scene understanding, they struggle with reliable spatial grounding - often producing hallucinated or geometrically invalid bounding boxes when asked to localize objects. We propose VANGUARD (Video Anomaly Understanding through Reasoning and Grounding), a framework that unifies anomaly classification, spatial grounding, and chain-of-thought reasoning within a single VLM. VANGUARD introduces a three-stage curriculum that progressively layers training objectives: (1) classifier warmup on frozen backbone features, (2) LoRA-adapted spatial grounding, and (3) chain-of-thought generation. To overcome the sparse annotation typical of VAD benchmarks, we employ a teacher-student annotation pipeline in which a VLM (Qwen3-VL-4B) generates structured per-subclip reasoning trajectories based on manual annotations available from the UCA Dataset. Further, GroundingDINO provides bounding box supervision. On UCF-Crime, VANGUARD achieves 94% ROC-AUC with 84% F1 while simultaneously producing interpretable chain-of-thought explanations and spatial grounding of anomalous objects - capabilities absent from prior VAD methods. Ablations confirm that staged training outperforms monolithic optimization, and that structured reasoning acts as an implicit regularizer yielding more balanced predictions than classification-only fine-tuning. Zero-shot transfer to XD-Violence and ShanghaiTech demonstrates cross-domain generalization without target-domain adaptation.
Vision-language models (VLMs) have recently emerged as a promising paradigm for video anomaly detection (VAD) due to their strong visual reasoning ability and natural language-based explainability. In this paper, we aim to address a key limitation of such pipelines, which perform segment-level inference independently owing to token constraints and reason without structured temporal context, allowing VLMs to interpret anomalies as deviations from evolving video dynamics rather than producing fragmented predictions and explanations. To specify, we propose a context-aware framework named LATERN, which reformulates VAD as a temporal evidence aggregation process. LATERN consists of two complementary modules: Context-Aware Anomaly Scoring (CEA) and Recursive Evidence Aggregation (REA). CEA introduces a novel image-grounded memory mechanism, which selectively chooses historical content via frame diversity and visual-textual alignment as expanded context to help generate reliable anomaly scores. Building upon these scores, REA performs recursive temporal aggregation to identify coherent anomaly intervals and produce event-level decisions and explanations grounded in visual-textual evidence. Extensive experiments on challenging benchmarks, including UCF-Crime and XD-Violence, show that LATERN enhances detection accuracy and explanation consistency for frozen VLMs during test time, while generating temporally coherent and semantically grounded event-level explanations.
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.
Zunkai Dai, Ke Li, Jiajia Liu +2
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Northwestern Polytechnical University