AMLRIS: Alignment-aware Masked Learning for Referring Image Segmentation
Authors: Tongfei Chen, Shuo Yang, Yuguang Yang, Linlin Yang, Runtang Guo, Changbai Li, He Long, Chunyu Xie, +2 more
Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Beihang University, China · School of Electronic Information Engineering, Beihang University, China · AI Research, Qihoo 360, China · State Key Laboratory of Media Convergence and Communication, Communication University of China, China · School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering, Beihang University, China · Hangzhou International Innovation Institute, Beihang University
Referring Image Segmentation (RIS) aims to segment the object in an image uniquely referred to by a natural language expression. However, RIS training often contains hard-to-align and instance-specific visual signals; optimizing on such pixels injects misleading gradients and drives the model in the wrong direction. By explicitly estimating pixel-level vision-language alignment, the learner can suppress low-alignment regions, concentrate on reliable cues, and acquire more generalizable alignment features. In this paper, we propose Alignment-Aware Masked Learning (AML), a simple yet effective training strategy that quantifies region-referent alignment (PMME) and filters out unreliable pixels during optimization (AFM). Specifically, each sample first computes a similarity map between visual and textual features, and then masks out pixels falling below an adaptive similarity threshold, thereby excluding poorly aligned regions from the training process. AML does not require architectural changes and incurs no inference overhead, directing attention to the areas aligned with the textual description. Experiments on the RefCOCO (vanilla/+/g) datasets show that AML achieves state-of-the-art results across all 8 splits, and beyond improving RIS performance, AML also enhances the model's robustness to diverse descriptions and scenarios. Code is available at https://github.com/pipashu1/AMLRIS.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overall results of AMLRIS, including qualitative examples, benchmark comparisons (oIoU), and cross-dataset robustness evaluation, where the model is trained only on RefCOCO+ and evaluated on RefCOCOg and RefCOCO under seven perturbation scenarios.
Figure 2: Overview of Alignment-aware Masked Learning (AML) framework.
Figure 3: Architecture for PMME and AFM modules.
Figure 4: Qualitative and quantitative comparison with the Random Mask strategy.
Method
RefCOCO
RefCOCO+
RefCOCOg
Avg
val
testA
testB
val
testA
testB
val
test
Standard: Training on the training split of each dataset.
mIoU
CRIS ( Wang et al., 2022a )
70.47
73.18
66.10
62.27
68.08
53.68
59.87
60.36
64.3
ETRIS ( Xu et al., 2023 )
71.06
74.11
66.66
62.23
68.51
52.79
60.28
60.42
64.5
BarLeRIa ( Wang et al., 2024 )
72.40
75.90
68.30
65.00
70.80
56.90
-
-
-
Table 1: Comparison with SOTA methods. * denotes the reproduced results across all experiments. Bold and underline numbers indicate the best and the second best performance. The last column is the average score across all available splits. Gray texts denote large language model based methods.
Table 6Table 7
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: More comparison of prediction maps: Baseline , Random Mask (RM), and AML.
Figure 6: Contribution of similarity scores.
Dim ( Da )
oIoU
mIoU
Pr@50
Pr@90
JL Error Bound ( ϵ )
1024
66.82
70.83
80.15
36.27
0.2955
2048
67.37
71.33
80.82
36.35
0.2088
4096
67.08
71.21
80.85
36.22
0.1478
Appendix
Table 8: Performance of different projection dimensions Da and corresponding JL error bounds.
Method
Batch Size
Memory(MB)
Time/Epoch(min)
CARIS
16
35,168
30.16
CARIS+AML
16
36,902( +4.9% )
35.35( +17.2% )
DETRIS
16
12,206
27.03
DETRIS+AML
16
12,860 ( +5.3% )
32.34 ( +19.6% )
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison of training overhead.
Method
Memory (MB)
Time/Epoch (min)
10 epochs
30 epochs
50 epochs
CARIS
35,168
30.16
60.2 / 62.3
64.7 / 68.3
65.5 / 69.3
+AML / same time
36,902 ( +4.9% )
35.35 ( +17.2% )
61.8 / 64.2
65.3 / 69.5
66.7 / 70.8
+AML / same steps
63.8 / 65.4
66.1 / 70.1
67.4 / 71.3
Appendix
Table 10: Analysis of training overhead and fairness on CARIS. Memory and time are measured with batch size 16. Performance is reported as mIoU / oIoU on RefCOCO+.
Method
cIoU@5k
gIoU@5k
cIoU@150k
gIoU@150k
ReLA
28.49
17.33
62.50
63.25
ReLA + AML
30.86
21.08
62.61
63.52
Appendix
Table 11: Performance comparison on GRES dataset.
Metric / Epoch
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
sim<0.20↓
0.0041
0.0010
0.0008
0.0007
0.0008
0.0008
0.0007
0.0008
0.0007
0.0008
sim≥0.50↑
0.8021
0.8464
0.8620
0.8656
0.8650
0.8700
0.8720
0.8769
0.8836
0.8863
sim≥0.90↑
0.4192
0.4543
0.4667
0.4779
0.5022
0.5079
0.5076
0.5178
0.5196
0.5252
mean(sim)↑
0.7542
0.7821
0.7917
0.7963
0.8031
0.8061
0.8142
0.8117
0.8182
0.8211
std(sim)↓
0.2393
0.2230
0.2171
0.2161
0.2097
0.2075
0.2051
0.2044
0.2053
0.2041
Appendix
Table 12: Evolution of cross-modal alignment metrics across training epochs 1–10. Arrows indicate desired optimization direction: ↓ for minimization, ↑ for maximization.
τ / Epoch
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.20
0.0021
0.0007
0.0004
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0004
0.0005
0.0004
0.30
0.0097
0.0057
0.0058
0.0053
0.0052
0.0051
0.0049
0.0044
0.0046
0.0043
0.0043
0.40
0.0259
0.0178
0.0157
0.0139
0.0135
0.0129
0.0130
0.0125
0.0121
0.0122
0.0120
0.60
0.0726
0.0628
0.0571
0.0559
0.0558
0.0543
0.0537
0.0526
0.0523
0.0519
0.0520
Appendix
Table 13: Mask-on-ground-truth coverage rates across different threshold configurations during epochs 0–10. Lower values indicate better masking precision.
Early Training Phase (Epochs 1–17)
Epoch
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
CARIS
0.3114
0.2060
0.1636
0.1413
0.1237
0.1109
0.1002
0.0919
0.0846
AML
0.2903
0.1803
0.1434
0.1209
0.1060
0.0928
0.0816
0.0742
0.0669
Improvement
6.8%
12.5%
12.3%
14.4%
14.3%
16.3%
18.6%
19.3%
20.9%
Mid Training Phase (Epochs 18–34)
Epoch
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
Appendix
Table 14: Training loss comparison between CARIS baseline and AML across 50 epochs.
Figure 7: Visualization of the seven visual transformations used to simulate diverse visual conditions. From left to right: Original, Haze, Highlight, Lowlight, Contrast, Occlusion Box, Patch Masking, and Color Jittering.
Transformation
RefCOCO
RefCOCOg
Baseline
Ours (AML)
Baseline
Ours (AML)
Haze
59.33 / 57.85 / 70.18
62.54 / 60.63 / 73.32
51.23 / 48.69 / 58.66
53.38 / 50.60 / 60.99
Highlight
57.81 / 59.65 / 69.76
62.28 / 59.85 / 72.76
51.74 / 48.98 / 59.74
53.66 / 50.83 / 61.50
Lowlight
58.32 / 56.81 / 69.07
61.63 / 59.81 / 72.46
50.46 / 48.02 / 58.03
52.07 / 49.43 / 60.13
Contrast
60.05 / 58.15 / 70.29
63.05 / 60.58 / 73.62
52.03 / 49.09 / 59.82
54.68 / 51.83 / 62.85
Occlusion Box
57.20 / 55.78 / 67.23
61.94 / 60.26 / 72.62
49.40 / 47.20 / 56.47
53.11 / 50.89 / 60.99
Appendix
Table 15: Cross-dataset robustness under various visual transformations. We train on RefCOCO+ and evaluate on the validation splits of RefCOCO and RefCOCOg. Results are reported as mIoU/oIoU/pr@50. Our method (AML) consistently outperforms the baseline.
Figure 8: Visual segmentation results on the Flickr30k dataset, where models trained on RefCOCO+.
Setting
mIoU
oIoU
Pr@50
Pr@70
Pr@90
Avg. Metric
Gain over Baseline
Baseline
62.69
57.97
70.24
62.41
31.27
56.92
—
τ=0.3,ρ=1/2
63.79
59.19
71.69
63.69
33.42
58.36
+1.44
τ=0.3,ρ=1/4
64.82
59.74
72.65
65.23
34.77
59.44
+2.52
τ=0.3,ρ=1/6
64.61
59.41
72.18
64.41
34.73
59.07
+2.15
τ=0.4,ρ=1/2
64.15
58.95
72.08
63.98
34.77
58.59
+1.67
τ=0.4,ρ=1/4
64.61
59.51
72.04
64.63
34.26
59.01
+2.09
Appendix
Table 16: Performance on RefCOCO+ testB with different dropout ratios ρ . We report individual metrics, their average (Avg. Metric), and the average gain over the baseline.
Threshold τ
RefCOCO
RefCOCO+
RefCOCOg
val
testA
val
testA
val
0.2
75.00
78.14
66.99
58.05
65.78
0.3
75.81
78.09
66.82
59.19
65.13
0.4
75.45
78.33
67.37
59.51
65.67
Appendix
Table 17: Performance with different threshold τ values across multiple datasets. Best performance on each dataset is bolded .
Method
val
testA
testB
Avg.
Baseline
65.54
71.86
57.97
65.12
+ Feature Mask
66.34 (+0.80)
71.21 (-0.65)
58.32 (+0.35)
65.29 (+0.17)
+ AML
67.37 (+1.83)
73.19 (+1.33)
59.51 (+1.54)
66.69 (+1.57)
Appendix
Table 18: Comparison of different masking strategies on RefCOCO+ dataset using oIoU metric.
Recent advances in vision foundation models (VFMs) have shown remarkable capabilities across diverse unimodal visual tasks. However, adapting VFMs to referring image segmentation (RIS) typically necessitates precise vision-language alignment via full fine-tuning, incurring substantial computational overhead and risking catastrophic forgetting. While existing parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods enable safe knowledge transfer with minimal training costs, they predominantly operate independently within individual modalities or focus exclusively on unidirectional guidance from language to vision, overlooking progressive cross-modal interaction and visual feedback for textual refinement. To address these limitations, we propose Bidirectional Reciprocal Learning (BRL), a novel adapter-based PEFT framework that facilitates hierarchical, bidirectional information flow within both token-mixing and channel-mixing layers of frozen foundation models. Specifically, BRL introduces two complementary lightweight modules. The Reciprocal Attention Adapter (RAA) performs cross-modal query-key exchanges at the token level, enabling visual and linguistic tokens to mutually attend to each other for fine-grained spatial grounding. The Reciprocal Gate Adapter (RGA) generates cross-modal gating signals at the channel level, allowing global semantic context from one modality to adaptively recalibrate channel activations of the other. Extensive experiments on RefCOCO, RefCOCO+, and RefCOCOg benchmarks demonstrate the superiority of BRL over prior RIS methods, achieving state-of-the-art performance while requiring less than 0.5% backbone parameter updates. Code and models will be released at https://github.com/xiaoqiang-lu/BRL.
Xiaoqiang Lu, Licheng Jiao, Lingling Li +5
Key Laboratory of Intelligent Perception and Image Understanding of Ministry of Education, International Research Center for Intelligent Perception and Computation, School of Artificial Intelligence, Xidian University, Xi’an, Shaanxi Province, 710071, China
Referring image segmentation (RIS) requires accurate segmentation of target regions in images according to language descriptions, which is a cross-modal task integrating vision and language. Existing RIS methods typically employ large-scale vision and language encoding models to improve performance, but their enormous parameter size severely restricts deployment in scenarios with limited computing resources. To solve this problem, this paper proposes a channel attention-guided cross-modal knowledge distillation method, which transfers the high-order fine-grained correlations between vision and language learned by the teacher network, as well as the correlations between semantic components represented by each channel, to the student network. Compared with the traditional pixel-wise relational distillation, this method not only enables the student to learn the knowledge of the teacher, but also retains part of its independent learning ability, alleviating the transfer of learning bias. Experimental results on two public datasets show that the proposed distillation method does not introduce additional parameters during inference and can achieve significant performance improvement for the student model.
Chen Yang
School of Information Science and Technology, TaiShan University, Taian, China
Referring Image Segmentation (RIS) requires identifying objects from images based on textual descriptions. We observe that existing methods significantly underperform on motion-related queries compared to appearance-based ones. To address this, we first introduce an efficient data augmentation scheme that extracts motion-centric phrases from original captions, exposing models to more motion expressions without additional annotations. Second, since the same object can be described differently depending on the context, we propose Multimodal Radial Contrastive Learning (MRaCL), performed on fused image-text embeddings rather than unimodal representations. For comprehensive evaluation, we introduce a new test split focusing on motion-centric queries, and introduce a new benchmark called M-Bench, where objects are distinguished primarily by actions. Extensive experiments show our method substantially improves performance on motion-centric queries across multiple RIS models, maintaining competitive results on appearance-based descriptions. Codes are available at https://github.com/snuviplab/MRaCL