TraceVision: Trajectory-Aware Vision-Language Model for Human-Like Spatial Understanding
Authors: Fan Yang, Shurong Zheng, Hongyin Zhao, Yufei Zhan, Xin Li, Yousong Zhu, Chaoyang Zhao Ming Tang, Jinqiao Wang
Organizations: Foundation Model Research Center, Institute of Automation · Peng Cheng Laboratory, Shenzhen, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, China University of Mining and Technology-Beijing, Beijing, China · Wuhan AI Research, Wuhan, China
Recent Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities in image understanding and natural language generation. However, current approaches focus predominantly on global image understanding, struggling to simulate human visual attention trajectories and explain associations between descriptions and specific regions. We propose TraceVision, a unified vision-language model integrating trajectory-aware spatial understanding in an end-to-end framework. TraceVision employs a Trajectory-aware Visual Perception (TVP) module for bidirectional fusion of visual features and trajectory information. We design geometric simplification to extract semantic keypoints from raw trajectories and propose a three-stage training pipeline where trajectories guide description generation and region localization. We extend TraceVision to trajectory-guided segmentation and video scene understanding, enabling cross-frame tracking and temporal attention analysis. We construct the Reasoning-based Interactive Localized Narratives (RILN) dataset to enhance logical reasoning and interpretability. Extensive experiments on trajectory-guided captioning, text-guided trajectory prediction, understanding, and segmentation demonstrate that TraceVision achieves state-of-the-art performance, establishing a foundation for intuitive spatial interaction and interpretable visual understanding.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Multi-modal capabilities of TraceVision across image, video, and segmentation tasks. The model processes traditional captioning, trajectory-guided interpretation and grounding, video sequence analysis, and precise segmentation, demonstrating its versatility in handling diverse visual understanding scenarios with trajectory-based spatial reasoning.
Figure 2: TraceVision architecture overview. The model processes trajectory, image, and text inputs through a unified framework. The TVP module performs bidirectional fusion between visual and trajectory features via cross-attention, enabling trajectory-conditioned captioning, text-guided trajectory prediction tasks.
Figure 3: Trajectory simplification: Geometric Simplification algorithm reduces 410 original points to 37 keypoints while preserving spatial structure.
Figure 4: RILN dataset construction pipeline showing the generation of diverse trajectory-based tasks from image-trajectory pairs. The pipeline creates four main task types: referential trajectory interpretation, grounding, interactive reasoning Q&A, and multi-turn dialogue synthesis, with hierarchical reasoning trees spanning from global scene understanding to fine-grained object-level spatial reasoning.
Contrlled Caption Generation
Controlled Trace Generation
Method
BLUE-1↑
BLUE-4↑
METEOR↑
ROUGE_L↑
CIDEr↑
SPICE↑
LBM(k=0)↓
LBM(k=1)↓
LN ( Pont-Tuset et al., 2020 )
0.522
0.246
-
0.483
1.065
0.365
-
-
MITR ( Meng et al., 2021 )
0.607
0.292
0.263
0.487
1.485
0.317
0.163
0.154
PIxelLLM ( Xu et al., )
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.153
-
LLaVA 1.5-13B ( Liu et al., 2023b )
0.590
0.280
0.250
0.480
1.450
0.310
-
-
Ferret-13B ( You et al., 2023 )
0.600
0.283
0.255
0.482
1.470
0.315
0.160
0.170
Table 1: Quantitative results for trajectory-aware vision-language tasks on the COCO test set of Localized Narratives dataset. Controlled Caption Generation refers to generating descriptions given trajectory input, while Controlled Trajectory Generation refers to predicting trajectories given text input. Note: smaller values of LBM are better. Best results are in bold and second-best results are underlined.
Model
VG
RefCOCOg
Ref-L4
Ferret Bench
MDVP Bench
METEOR
CIDEr
METEOR
CIDEr
ROUGE-L
METEOR
CIDEr
Refer. Desc.
Avg.
PixelLLM
19.9
148.9
14.3
82.3
-
-
-
-
-
GLaMM-7B ( Rasheed et al., 2024 )
17.0
127.0
15.7
104.0
23.8
10.1
51.1
-
-
Osprey-7B ( Yuan et al., 2024 )
-
-
16.6
108.3
-
-
-
72.2
44.3
Ferret-7B ( You et al., 2023 )
-
-
-
-
22.3
10.7
39.7
68.7
47.6
VP-LLaVA-8B ( Lin et al., 2024 )
-
-
22.4
153.6
-
-
-
75.2
70.6
Table 2: Performance comparison on trajectory-aware regional captioning across multiple benchmarks. TraceVision demonstrates competitive performance on Visual Genome (VG), RefCOCOg, and Ref-L4 datasets, as well as benchmarks including Ferret-Bench and MDVP-Bench for spatial understanding evaluation.
Models
RefCOCO
RefCOCO+
RefCOCOg
val
testA
testB
val
testA
testB
val
test
bounding box P @ 0.5
VisionLLM ( Wang et al., 2023 )
86.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Shikra-7B ( Chen et al., 2023 )
87.0
90.6
80.2
81.6
87.4
71.1
82.3
82.2
Ferret-7B
87.5
91.4
82.5
80.8
87.4
73.1
83.9
84.8
PixelLLM-7B
89.8
92.2
86.4
83.2
87.0
78.9
84.6
86.0
Table 3: Performance comparison on referring localization and segmentation across RefCOCO datasets. TraceVision achieves state-of-the-art performance on both bounding box localization ([email protected]) and segmentation (cIoU) tasks. ∗ indicates zero-shot results without task-specific fine-tuning.
Figure 5: Performance analysis visualization comparing trajectory-aware methods across different evaluation metrics and datasets.
Table 9
Figure 6: Qualitative trajectory visualization results showing original images (left), baseline Qwen2.5-VL-7B heatmaps (center), and TraceVision heatmaps (right). Compared to the baseline, TraceVision generates broader, semantically aligned attention patterns that accurately focus on salient objects mentioned in descriptions and better capture human visual attention mechanisms.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Overview of the TraceVision framework. The model takes images or multi-frame videos as input and supports multiple interaction modalities (query, caption, click, trajectory) to perform various tasks including trajectory-guided caption generation, trajectory prediction, trajectory-guided segmentation, referential trajectory interpretation, referential trajectory grounding, and interactive trajectory reasoning through QA and multi-turn dialogue.
Stage
Number
Task
Source
Stage 1: Trajectory-Aware Pretraining
252K
Localized Narratives
COCO
Stage 1.5: End-to-End Joint Training
885K
Localized Narratives
COCO, ADE20K
Flickr30k, OpenImage
50K
Localized Narrative Video
OVIS, UVO
Oops
118K
Panoptic Narrative Grounding
COCO
Appendix
Table 7: Dataset distribution across training stages in TraceVision
Figure 8: Dataset distribution across the three training stages of TraceVision. Stage 1 (0.25M samples) focuses solely on trajectory-aware pretraining with COCO Localized Narratives. Stage 1.5 (1.33M samples) incorporates diverse multimodal tasks including localized narratives (66%), video understanding (4%), panoptic grounding (9%), video narrative grounding (3%), video QA (1%), and REC/RES (17%). Stage 2 (1.3M samples) emphasizes instruction fine-tuning with reasoning-based interactive tasks (25%), reasoning segmentation (37%), and interactive editing (38%).
Model
HC-STVG ( Tang et al., 2021 )
VideoRefer-Bench-D ( Yuan et al., 2025 )
METEOR
CIDEr
SC
AD
TD
HD
Avg.
Elysium-7B ( Wang et al., 2024 )
–
–
2.35
0.30
0.02
3.59
1.57
Merlin-7B ( Yu et al., 2024 )
11.3
10.5
–
–
–
–
–
Artemis-7B ( Qiu et al., 2024 )
18.0
53.2
3.42
1.34
1.39
2.90
2.26
VideoRefer-7B ( Yuan et al., 2025 )
18.7
68.6
4.44
3.27
3.10
3.04
3.46
DAM-8B
21.0
91.0
4.69
3.61
3.34
3.09
3.68
Appendix
Table 8: Performance comparison on video understanding benchmarks. TraceVision demonstrates competitive performance across HC-STVG and VideoRefer-Bench-D datasets.
Table 10: Ablation study on trajectory compression rate. Our semantic-guided DP at 91% compression achieves optimal balance between performance and efficiency.
Method
RefCOCO
LBM(k=0) ↓
Uniform Sampling
88.5
0.145
Standard DP (geometric only)
89.7
0.128
Semantic-Guided DP (ours)
90.4
0.117
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison of trajectory simplification methods with identical compression rate (37 keypoints). Semantic-guided DP significantly outperforms geometric-only baselines.
Figure 9: Overview of TraceVision architecture. The model consists of three main components: (1) Vision Encoder that processes images/videos, (2) Trajectory Visual Perceiver (TVP) that integrates trajectory information through bidirectional cross-attention with visual features, and (3) Large Language Model (Qwen 2.5) that performs joint trajectory-text generation. The Trajectory Visual Perceiver Module uses bidirectional attention mechanisms for Visually-Informed Trajectory Refinement (VTR) and Trajectory-Aware Visual Feature Enhancement (TVF). A lightweight Mask Decoder generates segmentation masks from trajectory-conditioned tokens.
Decoder Type
Parameters
RefCOCO IoU
Latency (ms)
SAM decoder
636M
84.2
245
Mask2Former
223M
82.7
198
Ours (2-layer conv)
12M
83.4
107
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison of segmentation decoder architectures. Our lightweight 2-layer decoder achieves competitive performance with dramatically reduced parameters and latency.
# Tokens
RefCOCO IoU
Parameters
3
80.8
6M
6 (ours)
83.4
12M
12
83.9
24M
Appendix
Table 13: Ablation study on segmentation codebook size. 6 tokens provide optimal balance between performance and parameter efficiency.
Figure 10: Qualitative segmentation and description results. Examples showing color-coded segmentation masks and corresponding natural language descriptions across diverse scenarios including outdoor scenes, indoor workspaces, urban settings, transportation, architecture, and action scenes. The model accurately identifies objects (highlighted in different colors) and generates detailed descriptions with correct spatial relationships and object attributes.
Figure 11: Attention heatmap visualization. Visualization of the Trajectory Visual Perceiver’s attention mechanism across four examples. Each row shows the original image (left), attention heatmap with red-to-yellow gradient indicating attention intensity (middle), and overlay visualization (right). The heatmaps reveal that the model focuses on semantically salient objects and regions relevant for scene understanding.
Vision language models (VLMs) excel at many tasks but still struggle with spatial reasoning when critical information is not directly observable. Many such problems require imaginative perception: inferring what would be seen from an unseen viewpoint, tracing paths through occluded spaces, or integrating partial observations into a coherent spatial representation. We introduce Imaginative Perception Tokens (IPT), intermediate perceptual representations that externalize what a VLM would perceive under alternative spatial configurations while remaining consistent with the observed input. To study this capability, we formulate three tasks, Perspective Taking (PET), Path Tracing (PT), and Multiview Counting (MVC), and construct datasets of approximately 20K examples with ground truth imaginations, answers, and evaluation benchmarks. Using the unified VLM BAGEL as the backbone, IPT supervision consistently improves spatial reasoning and often outperforms textual chain of thought training, even without generating images at inference time. On MVC, IPT improves accuracy by 3.4% and achieves competitive performance with strong closed-source models on PT. We further find that combining IPT and label-only supervision yields additional gains, whereas textual chain of thought can substantially degrade performance, suggesting a modality mismatch when spatial computation is forced through language. Overall, IPT provides a principled supervision signal for reasoning about unobserved spatial structure, improving generalization while producing interpretable intermediate representations.
Mahtab Bigverdi, Linjie Li, Weikai Huang +8
University of Washington · 2Allen Institute for AI · 3Microsoft +1
Spatial tracing, as a fundamental embodied interaction ability for robots, is inherently challenging as it requires multi-step metric-grounded reasoning compounded with complex spatial referring and real-world metric measurement. However, existing methods struggle with this compositional task. To this end, we propose RoboTracer, a 3D-aware VLM that first achieves both 3D spatial referring and measuring via a universal spatial encoder and a regression-supervised decoder to enhance scale awareness during supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Moreover, RoboTracer advances multi-step metric-grounded reasoning via reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT) with metric-sensitive process rewards, supervising key intermediate perceptual cues to accurately generate spatial traces. To support SFT and RFT training, we introduce TraceSpatial, a large-scale dataset of 30M QA pairs, spanning outdoor/indoor/tabletop scenes and supporting complex reasoning processes (up to 9 steps). We further present TraceSpatial-Bench, a challenging benchmark filling the gap to evaluate spatial tracing. Experimental results show that RoboTracer surpasses baselines in spatial understanding, measuring, and referring, with an average success rate of 79.1%, and also achieves SOTA performance on TraceSpatial-Bench by a large margin, exceeding Gemini-2.5-Pro by 36% accuracy. Notably, RoboTracer can be integrated with various control policies to execute long-horizon, dynamic tasks across diverse robots (UR5, G1 humanoid) in cluttered real-world scenes. Please see the project page at https://zhoues.github.io/RoboTracer.
Enshen Zhou, Yibo Li, Jingkun An +12
School of Software, Beihang University · Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence · State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University +2
Spatial reasoning is essential for vision-language models (VLMs) to understand and act in the physical world. Reasoning in dynamic environments requires VLMs to perceive local state transitions caused by object motion and viewpoint changes and integrate them over long trajectories to maintain an updated spatial state, yet existing VLMs remain limited in both capabilities. Current spatial training primarily focuses on static questions about object attributes and spatial relations, providing limited direct supervision for state transitions; in contrast, interaction trajectories naturally connect a preceding observation, an action, and a subsequent observation, offering direct supervision for local state transitions, while complete trajectories reveal dependencies among consecutive transitions. We therefore introduce Spatial-Interactor, a framework that trains VLMs to model physical-world state transitions through interaction, organizing this learning process into a three-level curriculum covering L1 passive world-state transitions, L2 active self-state transitions, and L3 long-horizon interaction trajectories. Accordingly, we construct the Learning from Spatial Interaction dataset (LSI-108K) from simulated and real interaction trajectories, with tasks aligned with the objective of each level. Our two-stage training strategy applies Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) to L1 and L2 for local transition modeling, and On-Policy Distillation (OPD) then uses privileged self-distillation: a teacher branch given segment-level transition descriptions supervises the student's on-policy CoT, helping the student learn to integrate consecutive transitions over L3 long trajectories. Experiments across multiple VLMs and spatial benchmarks show consistent gains in local transition modeling and long-horizon integration.