Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University · School of Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Southwest Jiaotong University · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology
Training-free open-vocabulary semantic segmentation (OVSS) promises rapid adaptation to new label sets without retraining. Yet, many methods rely on heavy post-processing or handle text and vision in isolation, leaving cross-modal geometry underutilized. Others introduce auxiliary vision backbones or multi-model pipelines, which increase complexity and latency while compromising design simplicity. We present PEARL, Procrustes alignment with text-aware Laplacian propagation, a compact two-step inference that follows an align-then-propagate principle. The Procrustes alignment step performs an orthogonal projection inside the last self-attention block, rotating keys toward the query subspace via a stable polar iteration. The text-aware Laplacian propagation then refines per-pixel logits on a small grid through a confidence-weighted, text-guided graph solve: text provides both a data-trust signal and neighbor gating, while image gradients preserve boundaries. In this work, our method is fully training-free, plug-and-play, and uses only fixed constants, adding minimal latency with a small per-head projection and a few conjugate-gradient steps. Our approach, PEARL, sets a new state-of-the-art in training-free OVSS without extra data or auxiliary backbones across standard benchmarks, achieving superior performance under both with-background and without-background protocols.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Attention visualization at selected query points. We show an input resized to 512×512 using the CLIP ViT-B/16 vision encoder. For each colored query, we compare the attention maps produced by CLIP [ 51 ] , NACLIP [ 26 ] , and our PEARL. CLIP exhibits diffuse and background-biased responses, while NACLIP improves localization but often fragments objects into isolated peaks. By performing Procrustes alignment in the last self-attention block, PEARL yields compact and object-consistent attention, suppresses background spill, and better preserves thin parts, resulting in stable focus with reduced grid artifacts.
Figure 2: Our PEARL framework with align-then-propagate . Given an image I and a label set Y , a frozen ViT vision encoder yields patch tokens. Procrustes alignment is inserted in the last self-attention block: for each head ( J heads), queries and keys are weighted-centered and the keys are orthogonally rotated toward the query subspace, producing geometry-corrected patch features. A frozen text encoder maps Y to unit-norm prototypes T . Patch-text cosine similarity gives initial logits Z . Text-aware Laplacian propagation then refines Z on a compact grid using a class graph G induced by T and confidence weights, and the refined scores are upsampled to full resolution F . The final segmentation S is obtained by selecting, at each pixel, the class with the highest score.
Method
Pub. & Year
Extra data
Extra backbone
Training free
with background
without background
Avg.
V21
PC60
Object
V20
PC59
Stuff
City
ADE
(a) Trained + Extra data
GroupViT [ 69 ]
CVPR’22
CC12M+RedCaps
✗
✗
50.4
18.7
27.5
79.7
23.4
15.3
11.1
9.2
29.4
TCL [ 10 ]
CVPR’23
CC3M+CC12M
✗
✗
51.2
24.3
30.4
77.5
30.3
19.6
23.1
14.9
33.9
CoDe [ 64 ]
CVPR’24
CC3M+RedCaps
✗
✗
57.7
30.5
32.3
-
-
23.9
28.9
17.7
-
Trained + Extra data & backkbone
Table 1: Quantitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. “Extra data” denotes external datasets ( e.g . , CC3M [ 55 ] , CC12M [ 11 ] , RedCaps [ 20 ] , COCO Captions [ 14 , 40 ] , and ImageNet-1K [ 19 ] ), and “Extra backbone” lists auxiliary models. “Training-free” indicates no extra training. All metrics are mIoU (%). Best results are highlighted with bold , and second best with underlined .
Method
Pub. & Year
Extra backbone
with background
without background
Avg.
V21
PC60
Object
V20
PC59
Stuff
City
ADE
Training-free with extra backbone
LaVG [ 30 ]
ECCV’24
DINOv1 (ViT-B/8)
89.3
48.7
74.8
91.1
58.9
39.1
68.5
37.0
63.4
ProxyCLIP ∗ [ 35 ]
ECCV’24
DINOv2 † (ViT-B/14)
86.6
52.0
75.9
88.4
63.4
43.4
74.9
49.1
66.7
CASS ∗ [ 32 ]
CVPR’25
DINOv2 † (ViT-B/14)
85.6
50.9
70.9
92.2
60.1
41.1
72.5
41.0
64.3
CASS ∗ [ 32 ]
CVPR’25
DINOv3 (ViT-B/16)
88.1
53.6
75.5
93.8
62.3
42.0
75.2
45.6
67.0
Table 2: Quantitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation using average pixel accuracy (pAcc, %) . Rows are grouped by whether an extra vision backbone is used. Best results are highlighted with bold , and second best with underlined .
Figure 3: Qualitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. Results are shown on the Pascal VOC [ 23 ] , Pascal Context [ 44 ] , MS-COCO [ 40 ] , Cityscapes [ 54 ] , and ADE20K [ 79 ] datasets ( DS ), comparing PEARL ( ours ) with NACLIP [ 26 ] and SFP [ 28 ] . All methods use CLIP ViT-B/16 [ 51 ] , and no post-processing ( e.g . , PAMR [ 1 ] or DenseCRF [ 34 ] ) is applied for a fair comparison.
Component
with BG
without BG
Avg.
PA
TLP
V21
PC60
Object
V20
PC59
Stuff
City
ADE
✗
✗
18.6
7.8
6.5
49.1
11.2
7.2
6.7
3.2
13.8
✓
✗
59.2
33.0
34.3
85.0
35.3
24.5
35.0
17.9
40.6
✗
✓
35.4
22.4
23.4
79.3
25.0
16.9
20.5
11.7
29.3
✓
✓
64.1
35.1
37.3
86.9
38.6
26.3
37.6
19.4
43.2
Table 3: Ablation analysis of key components, i.e . , PA ( cf . § 3.2 ) and TLP ( cf . § 3.3 ). “BG” means the background class.
Table 5: Ablation analysis of using different input image sizes.
Method
CLIP
with BG
without BG
Avg.
V21
PC59
Stuff
ADE
SCLIP [ 62 ]
ViT-B/32
50.6
28.7
20.0
14.8
28.5
NACLIP [ 26 ]
51.1
32.4
21.2
14.9
29.9
SFP ∗ [ 28 ]
50.1
31.9
21.3
15.7
29.8
PEARL
54.5
34.7
23.3
16.6
32.3
SCLIP [ 62 ]
ViT-L/14
44.4
25.2
17.6
10.9
24.5
Table 6: Ablation analysis of using different CLIP backbones.
Figure 4: Ablation analysis of (a) grid size and (b) efficiency.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Config
τs
β
ϵ
κ
λ
τ
Value
0.5
10
10−6
5
1
1
Appendix
Table A7 : Fixed hyperparameter setting used for all datasets.
Solver
with BG
without BG
Avg.
V21
PC60
Object
V20
PC59
Stuff
City
ADE
SVD
64.2
35.2
37.2
86.7
38.6
26.3
37.9
19.2
43.2
N-S
64.1
35.1
37.3
86.9
38.6
26.3
37.6
19.4
43.2
Appendix
Table B8 : Ablation analysis of different alignment solvers ( cf . § 3.2 ). “N-S” denotes the Newton-Schulz iterative algorithm.
Latency
with BG
without BG
Avg.
V21
PC60
Object
V20
PC59
Stuff
City
ADE
SVD
60.9
199.7
239.3
59.6
198.8
212.1
975.9
192.3
267.3
N-S
48.7
111.7
149.4
47.1
111.2
120.7
498.5
115.4
150.3
Appendix
Table B9 : Inference latency (ms/img) comparison of alignment solvers. “N-S” denotes the Newton-Schulz iterative algorithm.
Figure B5 : Diagnostics of Procrustes Alignment on V21 [ 23 ] . (a) PCA projection of centered queries and keys before and after PA. (b) Distribution of the per-(image, head) rotation magnitude ∥R⋆−Id∥F . (c) Correlation between alignment-error reduction Δerr and mIoU gain ΔmIoU . (d) Component ablation of centering ( C ), whitening ( W ), rotation ( R ), full PA without weights ( F0 ), and full weighted PA ( FW ). (e) Stability of the Newton-Schulz iterations used in PA. (f) Stability of the conjugate-gradient iterations used in TLP.
key-key
with BG
without BG
Avg.
V21
PC60
Object
V20
PC59
Stuff
City
ADE
w/o
63.2
34.7
36.8
86.4
38.3
26.1
34.6
18.7
42.4
w/
64.1
35.1
37.3
86.9
38.6
26.3
37.6
19.4
43.2
Appendix
Table B10 : Ablation analysis of a key-key self-correlation term.
Iteration
Precision
Efficiency
PES
mIoU
pAcc
Latency (ms/img)
Memory (GB)
5
61.5
87.4
31.7
1.32
0.50
15
63.2
88.2
40.5
1.32
0.73
25
64.1
88.5
48.7
1.32
0.80
35
64.4
88.7
58.5
1.32
0.79
45
64.6
88.7
66.5
1.32
0.75
Appendix
Table B11 : Ablation analysis of CG iterations on V21 [ 23 ] ( cf . § 3.3 . “PES” denotes the precision-efficiency score.
Method
Pub. & Year
Extra data
Extra backbone
Training free
with background
without background
Avg.
V21
PC60
Object
V20
PC59
Stuff
City
ADE
w/ Mask Refinement
GroupViT [ 69 ]
CVPR’22
CC12M+RedCaps
✗
✗
51.1
19.0
27.9
81.5
23.8
15.4
11.6
9.4
30.0
TCL [ 10 ]
CVPR’23
CC3M+CC12M
✗
✗
55.0
30.4
31.6
83.2
33.9
22.4
24.0
17.1
37.2
CLIP - DINOiser [ 66 ]
ECCV’24
ImageNet-1K
DINOv1 (ViT-B/16)
✗
64.6
33.5
36.1
81.5
37.1
25.3
31.5
20.6
41.3
ReCo [ 57 ]
NeurIPS’22
ImageNet-1K
✗
✓
27.2
21.9
17.3
62.4
24.7
16.3
22.8
12.4
25.6
Appendix
Table B12 : Quantitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. “Extra data” denotes external datasets ( e.g . , CC3M [ 55 ] , CC12M [ 11 ] , RedCaps [ 20 ] , COCO Captions [ 14 , 40 ] , and ImageNet-1K [ 19 ] ), and “Extra backbone” lists auxiliary models. “Training-free” indicates no extra training. We evaluate prior methods using their default post-processing (official or re-implemented), while reporting PEARL without any post-processing. All metrics are mIoU (%). Best results are highlighted with bold , and second best with underlined .
Figure D6 : Qualitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. Results are shown on the V21 [ 23 ] dataset. Our PEARL use CLIP ViT-B/16 [ 51 ] , and no post-processing ( e.g . , PAMR [ 1 ] or DenseCRF [ 34 ] ) is applied for a fair comparison.
Figure D7 : Qualitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. Results are shown on the PC60 [ 44 ] dataset. Our PEARL use CLIP ViT-B/16 [ 51 ] , and no post-processing ( e.g . , PAMR [ 1 ] or DenseCRF [ 34 ] ) is applied for a fair comparison.
Figure D8 : Qualitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. Results are shown on the Object [ 40 ] dataset. Our PEARL use CLIP ViT-B/16 [ 51 ] , and no post-processing ( e.g . , PAMR [ 1 ] or DenseCRF [ 34 ] ) is applied for a fair comparison.
Figure D9 : Qualitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. Results are shown on the V20 [ 23 ] dataset. Our PEARL use CLIP ViT-B/16 [ 51 ] , and no post-processing ( e.g . , PAMR [ 1 ] or DenseCRF [ 34 ] ) is applied for a fair comparison.
Figure D10 : Qualitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. Results are shown on the PC59 [ 44 ] dataset. Our PEARL use CLIP ViT-B/16 [ 51 ] , and no post-processing ( e.g . , PAMR [ 1 ] or DenseCRF [ 34 ] ) is applied for a fair comparison.
Figure D11 : Qualitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. Results are shown on the Stuff [ 8 ] dataset. Our PEARL use CLIP ViT-B/16 [ 51 ] , and no post-processing ( e.g . , PAMR [ 1 ] or DenseCRF [ 34 ] ) is applied for a fair comparison.
Figure D12 : Qualitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. Results are shown on the City [ 17 ] dataset. Our PEARL use CLIP ViT-B/16 [ 51 ] , and no post-processing ( e.g . , PAMR [ 1 ] or DenseCRF [ 34 ] ) is applied for a fair comparison.
Figure D13 : Qualitative results of open-vocabulary semantic segmentation. Results are shown on the ADE [ 79 ] dataset. Our PEARL use CLIP ViT-B/16 [ 51 ] , and no post-processing ( e.g . , PAMR [ 1 ] or DenseCRF [ 34 ] ) is applied for a fair comparison.
Training-free open-vocabulary semantic segmentation (OVSS) partitions an image into semantically distinct regions based on arbitrary text descriptions, without learning any additional parameters. However, existing methods typically focus on improving visual representations while treating text embeddings that encode only generic category concepts as fixed classification references. The resulting semantic gap between these generic concepts and the visual representations that capture the specific appearances of target instances often causes incomplete masks and erroneous predictions in non-target regions. Inspired by the symbol-percept correspondence underlying perceptual anchoring, we propose Prototype-Guided Text Calibration (PTC) for training-free OVSS. In the Perceiving stage, PTC selects reliable visual evidence based on initial matching scores to construct category-specific visual prototypes. In the Anchoring stage, PTC uses these prototypes to calibrate their corresponding text embeddings, with the calibration strength adaptively adjusted based on the amount of visual evidence. Consequently, the calibrated text embeddings align more accurately with instance-specific visual representations while preserving generic category semantics and open-vocabulary generalization. Moreover, PTC requires neither additional training nor external models and can serve as a plug-and-play module for existing methods. Extensive experiments across eight benchmarks show that PTC significantly enhances the performance of six representative methods and yields more complete and accurate segmentation results. These results validate PTC as a simple and effective approach to improving visual-text alignment.
Wanli Ma, Jiangwen Lu, Qinmu Peng +1
School of Electronic Information and Communications, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China · National Anti-counterfeit Engineering Research Center, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China · School of Automation, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou 310018, China
Open-vocabulary semantic segmentation (OVSS) aims to segment arbitrary category regions in images using open-vocabulary prompts, necessitating that existing methods possess pixel-level vision-language alignment capability. Typically, this capability involves computing the cosine similarity, \ie, logits, between visual and linguistic features, and minimizing the distribution discrepancy between the logits and the ground truth (GT) to generate optimal logits that are subsequently used to construct segmentation maps, yet it depends on time-consuming iterative training or model-specific attention modulation. In this work, we propose a more direct approach that eschews the logits-optimization process by directly deriving an analytic solution for the segmentation map. We posit a key hypothesis: the distribution discrepancy encodes semantic information; specifically, this discrepancy exhibits consistency across patches belonging to the same category but inconsistency across different categories. Based on this hypothesis, we directly utilize the analytic solution of this distribution discrepancy as the semantic maps. In other words, we reformulate the optimization of the distribution discrepancy as deriving its analytic solution, thereby eliminating time-consuming iterative training, freeing us from model-specific attention modulation, and achieving state-of-the-art performance on eight benchmark datasets.
Jiahao Li, Yang Lu, Yachao Zhang +3
Key Laboratory of Multimedia Trusted Perception and Efficient Computing, Ministry of Education of China, Xiamen University. · Hanjiang National Laboratory. · East China Normal University.
Open-vocabulary segmentation (OVS) extends the zero-shot recognition capabilities of vision-language models (VLMs) to pixel-level prediction, enabling segmentation of arbitrary categories specified by text prompts. Despite recent progress, OVS lags behind fully supervised approaches due to two challenges: the coarse image-level supervision used to train VLMs and the semantic ambiguity of natural language. We address these limitations by introducing a few-shot setting that augments textual prompts with a support set of pixel-annotated images. Building on this, we propose a retrieval-augmented test-time adapter that learns a lightweight, per-image classifier by fusing textual and visual support features. Unlike prior methods relying on late, hand-crafted fusion, our approach performs learned, per-query fusion, achieving stronger synergy between modalities. The method supports continually expanding support sets, and applies to fine-grained tasks such as personalized segmentation. Experiments show that we significantly narrow the gap between zero-shot and supervised segmentation while preserving open-vocabulary ability.
Tilemachos Aravanis, Vladan Stojnić, Bill Psomas +2
VRG, FEE, Czech Technical University in Prague · University of Crete · Archimedes, Athena RC +1