Understanding anomaly detection
Anomaly detection sits at the heart of many monitoring systems in security, industry, and earth observation. In video surveillance it flags unusual behaviours, in industrial monitoring it highlights failing equipment, and in remote sensing it reveals environmental changes. Traditional methods often focus on single inputs, so they miss context that humans use naturally. For this reason, multimodal approaches combine vision and text to improve results, and vision-language models play a central role here. For example, systems that combine computer vision and pattern recognition with textual metadata can separate routine motion from true incidents. Also, when an operator must review alarms, contextual descriptions reduce cognitive load and speed response.
Compared with unimodal systems, a multimodal pipeline can detect subtle anomalies that depend on semantics, timing, or unusual object interactions. For instance, an unattended bag in a busy station can look normal in pixels but reads as suspicious when paired with a timed human absence. In such cases, systems that leverage both modalities will perform better. A recent survey highlights the broad potential of multimodal approaches across tasks and sectors (survey). The survey shows how textual grounding and visual context reduce false positives and improve operator trust.
To make these systems practical, teams must also address operational constraints. For example, visionplatform.ai converts existing cameras and VMS systems into AI-assisted operations and adds a reasoning layer on top of video. This approach turns raw detections into contextualized events that an operator can act on. In airports, features like people detection and object-left-behind detection link raw video to human-readable descriptions, which helps triage alarms quickly. For more on those capabilities see our people detection in airports page people detection.
Finally, while the term anomaly appears in many papers, the practical goal is simple. Operators need fewer false alarms and faster, clearer signals about what matters. Thus research now focuses on combining signals, improving robustness, and refining how models present findings so humans can decide with confidence.
Types of anomaly
Not all anomalies look the same. Researchers typically categorise them as point, contextual, or collective. A point anomaly is an isolated event. For example, an unattended object left on a platform is a point anomaly. A contextual anomaly depends on surrounding conditions. For example, unusual speed on a highway becomes anomalous because of the traffic context. Finally, collective anomalies require patterns over time or across agents. A crowd slowly forming at an odd location can be a collective anomaly.
Video streams reveal many forms of anomalous behaviour. For example, an object-left-behind detector will flag a bag, and a loitering detector will flag a person who remains in one place past a threshold. Both appear in airport operations, and our object-left-behind-detection-in-airports page explains how context helps triage events object-left-behind detection. Data scarcity compounds the problem. Rare events like a specific kind of intrusion or an unusual equipment fault appear few times in training data. When training data lacks variety, models fail to generalize and will suffer from poor generalization. For this reason, teams augment data and use clever validation on small samples.
In practice, many systems compute an anomaly score per clip or frame to rank suspicious events. That score helps operators focus on the top candidates. However, scoring only helps when the underlying model understands context. For complex and ambiguous scenes you need techniques that capture semantics and timing. Also, industrial anomaly detection often requires combining sensor logs with video. In those settings the system must support domain-specific rules and learnable components, so it adapts to site realities. Lastly, scarce examples mean teams must design evaluation on challenging benchmarks and create synthetic variations so the learner sees edge cases.
AI vision within minutes?
With our no-code platform you can just focus on your data, we’ll do the rest
Leveraging vision-language models
Vision-language models bring together a visual encoder and a language encoder to form a joint understanding of images and text. The architecture often includes an image encoder and a text encoder, and a fusion stage aligns embeddings so that visual patterns map to textual descriptions. Typical builds use CLIP-based backbones and transformer fusion layers. Teams use pre-trained weights from large image–text corpora, and they then fine-tune or adapt for downstream tasks. This pre-training allows for zero-shot transfer on some tasks, which proves useful when labels are scarce. A benchmark study reports that VLM-based approaches can improve detection accuracy by up to 15–20% compared to vision-only systems (arXiv).
For video tasks, models add temporal modelling so that events across video frames form coherent narratives. Architects feed short clips into the encoder, aggregate embeddings, and then fuse with natural language queries. In some systems teams also apply instruction tuning to adapt the language model for operational prompts and queries. A well-designed pipeline can perform video understanding while remaining efficient. That efficiency matters because computational resources often limit what can run on-prem or at the edge. Visionplatform.ai’s on-prem VLM approach keeps video and models inside the environment to protect user data privacy and reduce cloud dependencies.
Research introduces a verbalized learning framework that helps align visual features with natural language. In fact, some papers introduce a verbalized learning framework named vera that converts visual patterns into utterances the language model can reason over. This framework named vera that enables vlms to perform vad in a more interpretable way. Further, a framework named vera that enables vlms to perform vad without heavy fine-tuning has been proposed in recent work. The idea is to keep most model weights frozen while adding a small, learnable module that adapts to the task. This two-stage strategy reduces the need for large labelled training sets. It also reduces the computation load during adaptative tuning and helps teams refine the detection without exhaustive re-training.
To make the pipeline practical, teams tune hyperparameters like learning rate and optimizer carefully. They also manage embeddings to keep retrieval and localization accurate. Taken together, these components let VLMS and vlms provide a semantic bridge between pixels and operational language.
Applying video anomaly detection
Researchers commonly evaluate systems on established dataset collections such as UCSD Pedestrian, Avenue, and ShanghaiTech. For crime and security domains they also use the ucf-crime dataset to test behaviour-level alarms. Benchmarks measure detection rates, false positives, and localization accuracy. A recent MDPI study reports a roughly 10% drop in false positives when language grounding is added to visual pipelines (MDPI). Those experimental results demonstrate superior performance in complex scenes where pixels alone mislead classifiers.
In practice, video anomaly detection systems extract frame-level features and then aggregate them into clip-level or video-level representations. Frame-level embeddings capture instantaneous cues, and temporal pooling captures sequences. The pipeline may use two-stage detectors: first a binary classification or reconstruction-based filter, and then a semantic verifier that refines the detection. This two-stage setup reduces alarms to a manageable set for human review. Also, modern approaches include attention maps that localize the suspicious region, so teams get both a score and a visual cue for why the model raised the alarm. That localization improves forensic search, and our forensic search in airports page explains how textual descriptions make video searchable across hours of footage forensic search.
When integrating temporal context into pipelines, teams must balance latency and accuracy. For example, longer clip windows help detect collective anomalies but increase processing time and the need for computational resources. Researchers therefore explore sliding windows and adaptive sampling. A practical system will also allow domain-specific calibration so an industrial site can set thresholds that match its safety policies. In industrial anomaly detection, additional telemetry often fuses with video content to detect subtle equipment drift. Fine-grained temporal reasoning can spot patterns that precede failure, and this early warning helps avoid costly downtime and refines the detection.
AI vision within minutes?
With our no-code platform you can just focus on your data, we’ll do the rest
Zero-shot inference
Zero-shot setups let models generalize to new scenarios without task-specific labels. In a zero-shot pipeline a pre-trained model evaluates visual inputs against semantic descriptions at runtime. For video tasks the runtime process often follows three steps: visual feature extraction, prompt-guided scoring, and anomaly index generation. The system extracts embeddings from a frame or clip, it then scores them against candidate descriptions, and it outputs an anomaly score. This makes it possible to perform vad without model parameter re-training in many cases. As a result teams can deploy detection quickly, and they can reduce labeling costs.
The use of a single prompt per query helps the language side focus on the expected behaviour. For example, a system might score “person running against traffic flow” against extracted embeddings. The framework named vera that enables vlms to perform vad uses small adapters to refine alignment, and it keeps the main model frozen. This approach enables vlms to perform vad without heavy retraining and minimizes the need for new training data. In some research the authors show that vlm-based systems can perform vad without model parameter modifications by relying on a learnable adapter and careful prompting. In other words, they perform vad without model parameter tuning while still improving recall.
Operational benefits come from reduced labeling and from faster inference. Because the core model remains pre-trained and frozen, teams only add a tiny, learnable module. The module has few learnable parameters and optimizes on small site-specific samples. That design cuts compute and lets on-prem systems run with constrained computational resources. The net result is a practical, low-cost path from proof-of-concept to production. For teams that need to detect anomalies in many camera feeds, this design is a clear advantage.
Qualitative analysis
Qualitative inspection matters as much as numeric metrics. Natural language outputs let operators read a short explanation of why a clip looks suspicious. For example, a system might say: “Person loitering near a restricted door for four minutes.” Those textual descriptions let operators verify context quickly and decide on action. Tools such as attention visualisations reveal which pixels influenced the decision, which adds to explainability. In fact, explainability improves trust and operator uptake in security and healthcare workflows. The arXiv paper on explainable AI for LLM-based anomaly detection shows how visualising attention helps teams understand model reasoning (arXiv).
Practitioners also value qualitative evidence when models flag anomalous behaviours. For instance, when an alarm includes localization, a short natural language caption, and a highlighted image region, operators can confirm or close the case faster. Our VP Agent Reasoning feature uses such enriched outputs to verify and explain alarms so that the operator sees what was detected, what related systems confirm the event, and why it matters. This reduces false alarms and cognitive load. In addition, forensic search benefits from textual grounding because you can find past incidents with conversational queries.
Research highlights other practical points. First, models must handle context-dependent scenes and complex reasoning required for vad when many agents interact. Second, teams must guard user data privacy by running on-prem when regulations or corporate policy require it. Third, experimental results across challenging benchmarks show that vlm-based pipelines often outperform vision-only baselines when semantics matter. Finally, future work must continue to address these challenges by improving robustness, reducing computational cost, and expanding domain-specific coverage. Readers who want to view a pdf of the paper titled on benchmark evaluations can follow the survey link here. Overall, qualitative outputs make detections actionable and auditable in live operations.
FAQ
What is the difference between anomaly detection and regular classification?
Anomaly detection focuses on finding rare or unexpected events rather than assigning inputs to fixed classes. It often treats anomalies as outliers and uses scoring or reconstruction methods to highlight unusual behaviour.
How do vision-language models help reduce false alarms?
Vision-language models ground visual cues in descriptive text, which adds semantic checks that reduce spurious triggers. For example, adding language verification can lower false positives by around 10% in published studies (MDPI).
Can these systems run without cloud connectivity?
Yes. On-prem deployments keep video and models inside the site, which supports compliance and user data privacy. Solutions like visionplatform.ai are designed for on-prem operation and edge scaling.
What datasets are commonly used to evaluate video anomaly systems?
Common choices include UCSD Pedestrian, Avenue, and ShanghaiTech, and for crime-focused tasks the ucf-crime dataset is often used. These datasets help researchers compare performance on established scenarios.
What does zero-shot inference mean for video anomaly detection?
Zero-shot means a model can handle new tasks or classes without explicit labels for that task. In practice, a pre-trained model compares visual embeddings to natural language descriptions at runtime and flags mismatches as anomalies.
How important is temporal context in detecting anomalies?
Temporal context is essential for many anomalies that unfold over time, such as loitering or gradual equipment failure. Systems use frame-level features and clip aggregation to capture these patterns.
Do vision-language approaches improve explainability?
Yes. They produce textual descriptions and attention maps that explain why a clip looks suspicious. This qualitative output speeds verification and helps build operator trust.
Are there privacy concerns with running VLMs on video feeds?
Privacy concerns arise when video leaves an organization. On-prem VLMs and restricted data flows mitigate those risks and align with privacy and regulatory requirements.
How much labelled training data do these systems need?
They typically need less labelled anomaly examples because pre-trained models and zero-shot techniques provide strong priors. Still, some site-specific samples help the small adapters or learnable modules tune behaviour.
Where can I learn more about applying these systems in airports?
visionplatform.ai documents several airport-focused solutions such as people detection, forensic search, and object-left-behind detection. Those pages explain how multimodal descriptions help operators triage and act faster people detection, forensic search, object-left-behind detection.
