The prosperity of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has stimulated the demand for video reasoning segmentation, which aims to segment video objects based on human instructions. Previous studies rely on unidirectional and implicit text-trajectory alignment, which struggles with trajectory perception when faced with severe video dynamics. In this work, we propose TrajSeg, a simple and unified framework built upon MLLMs. Concretely, we introduce bidirectional text-trajectory alignment, where MLLMs accept grounding-intended (text-to-trajectory) and captioning-intended (trajectory-to-text) instructions. This way, MLLMs can benefit from enhanced correspondence and better perceive object trajectories in videos. The mask generation from trajectories is achieved via a frame-level content integration (FCI) module and a unified mask decoder. The former adapts the MLLM-parsed trajectory-level token to frame-specific information. The latter unifies segmentation for all frames into a single structure, enabling the proposed framework to be simplified and end-to-end trainable. Extensive experiments on referring and reasoning video segmentation datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of TrajSeg, which outperforms all video reasoning segmentation methods on all metrics. The code will be publicly available at https://github.com/haodi19/TrajSeg.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Comparison of existing diagram [ 10 , 11 ] and ours. (a) learns MLLM via unidirectional alignment (“text-to-trajectory”). Ours considers “text-to-trajectory” and “trajectory-to-text” to enhance their correspondence ( is the placeholder for trajectory features). Moreover, (b) uses a frame-content integration (FCI) module to refine trajectory tokenization with frame-specific clues. For mask generation, (a) segments key and non-key frames with separately optimized models. (b) supports flexible inputs and unifies all frame segmentation in a single structure, enabling a simplified and end-to-end trainable framework.
Fig. 2: Diagram of TrajSeg. (a) Overall framework; (b) Detailed structure of the unified mask generator; (c) Illustration of how the mask generator processes continuous key & non-key frames.
Fig. 3: Comparisons of TrajSeg and VISA-7B [ 10 ] on ReVOS. Blue boxes are Ground Truth objects.
Method
Backbone
Ref-YouTube-VOS
Ref-DAVIS
MeViS
J&F
J
F
J&F
J
F
J&F
J
F
Referring video segmentation methods
MTTR [ 15 ]
Video-Swin-T
55.3
54.0
56.6
-
-
-
30.0
28.8
31.2
ReferFormer [ 14 ]
Video-Swin-B
62.9
61.3
64.6
61.1
58.1
64.1
31.0
29.8
32.2
LMPM [ 37 ]
Swin-T
-
-
-
-
-
-
37.2
34.2
40.2
OnlineRefer [ 43 ]
Swin-L
63.5
61.6
65.5
64.8
61.6
67.7
-
-
-
TABLE I: Quantitative comparisons on referring video segmentation benchmarks (Ref-YouTube-VOS, Ref-DAVIS, and MeViS).
Method
Backbone
Referring
Reasoning
Overall
J&F
J
F
J&F
J
F
J&F
J
F
Referring video segmentation methods
MTTR [ 15 ]
Video-Swin-T
30.0
29.8
30.2
21.0
20.4
21.5
25.5
25.1
25.9
ReferFormer [ 14 ]
Video-Swin-B
32.7
31.2
34.3
23.4
21.3
25.6
28.1
26.2
29.9
LMPM [ 37 ]
Swin-T
34.1
29.0
39.1
18.8
13.3
24.3
26.4
21.2
31.7
Reasoning video segmentation methods
TABLE II: Quantitative comparisons on reasoning video segmentation benchmarks (ReVOS).
Fig. 4: Visualization of attention in the MLLM and corresponding masks. (a) masks w/ Bi-Align. (b) attention w/ Bi-Align. (c) masks w/o Bi-Align. (d) attention w/o Bi-Align.
Fig. 5: Visualization of captioning-intended instructions.
Bi-Align
FCI
ReVOS-referring
ReVOS-reasoning
J&F
J
F
J&F
J
F
✗
✗
53.0
50.9
55.1
42.8
41.0
44.6
✓
✗
54.4
52.7
56.1
43.5
41.3
45.6
✗
✓
53.5
51.6
55.4
43.2
41.2
45.2
✓
✓
55.0
53.1
57.0
45.5
43.5
47.4
TABLE III: Ablations on Bi-Align & FCI.
Stage
KF
Params
ReVOS-referring
ReVOS-reasoning
J&F
J
F
J&F
J
F
2
1
BASE+224MB
55.1
52.5
57.6
44.2
41.2
47.2
2
5
BASE+224MB
56.4
53.8
58.9
46.0
43.0
49.0
1
1
BASE
55.7
53.2
58.1
46.2
43.4
49.0
1
5
BASE
56.0
53.9
58.1
46.1
43.7
48.5
1
10
BASE
55.5
53.5
57.5
45.6
43.3
47.9
TABLE IV: Ablations on Unified Mask Generator. KF: Number of key frames. BASE: Number of parameters of TrajSeg.
KF
Avg-IoU t↔t+1
T-IoU-Var
J&F
1
67.9
3.2
50.9
5
62.6
4.2
51.0
10
58.8
4.2
50.7
TABLE V: Temporal robustness of unified mask generator on varying KF. KF: Number of key frames.
Fig. 6: Qualitative results of ours w/ (a) and w/o (b) Unified Mask Generator. (c) Failure case. Red boxes are GT objects.
Fig. 7: Qualitative ablations on the FCI module. (a) input video. (b) w/o FCI. (c) w/ FCI.
Fig. 8: Segmentation scores on different video lengths. Top: ReVOS-Referring; Bottom: ReVOS-Reasoning.