Video Object Segmentation (VOS) in complex and long videos is increasingly important for real-world applications, where target objects often appear only intermittently within long temporal horizons. However, existing benchmarks largely focus on temporally salient objects that remain visible for most of the video. To address this gap, we introduce FaVOS (A Benchmark for Video Object Segmentation with Fractional Temporal Visibility), a benchmark designed to evaluate VOS methods under low temporal visibility. We show that, in this regime, the standard J&F metric can collapse VOS evaluation into absence classification, because empty predictions receive high rewards on target-absent frames. Consequently, even a trivial empty-mask predictor can outperform strong models such as SAM 3, revealing a fundamental mismatch between current metrics and practical VOS performance. To mitigate this issue, we propose Volumetric J&F, which evaluates mask sequences as spatio-temporal volumes and reduces the dominance of target-absence rewards while preserving sensitivity to segmentation quality and temporal structure. Project page: https://aidaslab.github.io/FaVOS.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Temporal absence ratio ( 1−τ ) across VOS benchmarks. Higher values indicate a larger fraction of frames where the target is absent, reflecting lower temporal visibility in recent datasets.
Figure 2: The standard VOS metric, J&F , assigns perfect scores to empty predictions, allowing a trivial “predict nothing” baseline to outperform strong models under low temporal visibility.
Benchmark
Year
Videos
Objects
Duration (s)
Disappearance Rate
Avg. Temporal Visibility
Tracking benchmarks (VOT)
GOT-10k Huang et al. (2019)
2019
180
180
12.7
0.00%
1.00
LaSOT Fan et al. (2019)
2019
280
280
81.6
58.6%
0.97
VOT2022 Kristan et al. (2022)
2022
62
62
10.7
19.4%
1.00
DiDi Videnovic et al. (2025)
2025
180
180
254.5*
42.8%
0.97
Segmentation benchmarks (VOS)
Table 1: Comparison of video benchmarks in terms of scale and temporal dynamics. Metrics are computed on evaluation splits (test if available; otherwise validation). Disappearance rate Ding et al. (2023b) denotes the fraction of objects absent in at least one frame. * indicates values estimated with fps=6.
Figure 3: Example videos from the FaVOS benchmark. Each row shows sampled frames from a video with annotated target masks. The bars below each sequence indicate temporal visibility, where colored segments denote frames in which the target object is visible and gray segments denote absence. See Appendix A.1 for additional examples.
Figure 4: Contribution ratio of classification and segmentation terms in J&F as a function of temporal visibility τ .
Model
Venue
FaVOS-20
FaVOS-40
J&F
J&Fv
p0
p1
s
J&F
J&Fv
p0
p1
s
Empt. pred.
–
80.0
0.0
1.00
0.00
0.00
59.9
0.0
1.00
0.00
0.00
STM Oh et al. (2019)
ICCV’19
71.9
35.5
0.82
0.62
0.65
65.9
44.9
0.85
0.64
0.68
STCN Cheng et al. (2021)
NeurIPS’21
50.6
26.0
0.52
0.81
0.60
53.9
37.7
0.57
0.85
0.63
XMem Cheng and Schwing (2022)
ECCV’22
63.8
36.8
0.69
0.74
0.66
62.0
45.3
0.71
0.78
0.69
DeAOT-L Yang and Yang (2022)
NeurIPS’22
59.9
38.0
0.61
0.80
0.73
62.7
49.2
0.65
0.83
0.77
Table 2: Performance comparison on the FaVOS benchmark.
Figure 5: Object-level dependency of J&F and J&Fv on p0 , p1 , and s , across (a) FaVOS-20, (b) FaVOS-40, and (c) SA-V.
Model
FaVOS-full
SA-V test
J&F↑
J&Fv↑
tIoU↑
T↓
J&F˙d↑
J&F˙r↑
J&F↑
J&Fv↑
tIoU↑
T↓
J&F˙d↑
J&F˙r↑
Empt. pred.
69.2
0.0
0.00
–
100.0
0.0
25.3
0.0
0.00
–
100.0
0.0
STM Oh et al. (2019)
68.6
40.5
0.45
0.57
82.3
16.3
46.6
34.4
0.50
0.56
82.9
21.1
STCN Cheng et al. (2021)
52.4
32.3
0.40
0.56
54.4
36.4
60.4
55.1
0.70
0.51
70.8
43.5
XMem Cheng and Schwing (2022)
62.8
41.4
0.47
0.56
68.8
28.5
58.0
48.9
0.63
0.52
81.6
28.4
DeAOT-L Yang and Yang (2022)
61.4
44.0
0.44
0.54
61.2
35.7
62.2
55.9
0.75
0.51
63.2
44.7
Table 3: Performance comparison on FaVOS-full and SA-V Ravi et al. (2025) test split.
Figure 6: Relationship between temporal overlap (tIoU) and segmentation metrics on (a) FaVOS-full and (b) SA-V test.
FaVOS-20
FaVOS-40
SA-V test
Model
Linear
Sqrt
Log
Uniform
Linear
Sqrt
Log
Uniform
Linear
Sqrt
Log
Uniform
SAM 3
56.0
55.5
55.8
54.5
72.7
71.7
72.1
70.0
82.6
82.3
82.5
81.2
SeC
55.7
55.2
55.4
54.1
70.9
70.5
70.8
69.4
77.8
77.6
77.8
76.7
SAM2Long-L
49.8
49.4
49.7
48.5
64.8
64.5
64.7
63.7
76.4
76.3
76.5
75.5
Cutie-B
49.0
48.5
48.7
47.2
58.6
58.4
58.6
57.6
53.4
53.2
53.4
52.6
SAM 2.1-L
46.7
45.7
46.0
44.2
60.5
60.3
60.5
59.6
74.3
74.4
74.5
73.8
Table 4: J&Fv under different frame weightings w(ut) . Arrows mark rank changes from the shaded linear weighting used in our main experiments, computed from unrounded scores. Rows are sorted by the linear-weighting score on FaVOS-20.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Additional examples from the FaVOS benchmark.
Figure 8: Temporal visibility distributions of different VOS benchmarks. The center value indicates the average temporal visibility, and n denotes the number of annotated objects. Since MOSEv2 test annotations are not publicly available, we report statistics on the training split for MOSEv2. Compared to existing benchmarks, FaVOS contains substantially more low-visibility objects.
Statistic
FaVOS-20
FaVOS-40
Videos
100
100
Objects
129
152
Objects per video
1.29
1.52
Videos from YFCC100M / self-collected
67 / 33
66 / 34
Mean temporal visibility τ
0.21
0.42
Mean disappearance intervals per object
1.54
1.90
Appendix
Table 5: Statistics of the FaVOS-20 and FaVOS-40 splits.
Figure 9: Relative contributions of the absence and segmentation terms in J&F across different p0 , p1 , and s settings. The dashed line marks the crossover visibility τ∗ where the two contributions are equal.
Model
DAVIS17 val
OVOS val
J&F↑
J&Fv↑
Δ
J&F↑
J&Fv↑
Δ
SAM 3 [ 4 ]
91.47
93.15
+1.68
86.67
87.00
+0.33
SeC [ 47 ]
89.87
91.28
+1.42
81.62
81.81
+0.19
SAM 2.1-L [ 35 ]
89.80
91.38
+1.58
80.98
81.22
+0.24
SAM2Long-L [ 14 ]
89.80
91.35
+1.55
81.45
81.77
+0.32
SAMURAI-L [ 43 ]
89.57
91.19
+1.62
79.68
80.29
+0.61
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of J&F and J&Fv on high-temporal-visibility benchmarks. Δ denotes J&Fv−J&F . Rows are sorted by J&F on DAVIS17.
FaVOS-full
SA-V test
Single score
Two-number
Single score
Two-number
Model
J&F
Bal.
J&Fv
Present
F1
J&F
Bal.
J&Fv
Present
F1
SAM 3
81.8 (2)
81.3 (1)
65.0 (1)
78.4
74.5
84.7 (1)
82.9 (1)
82.6 (1)
81.5
94.0
SeC
82.4 (1)
81.2 (2)
63.9 (2)
74.6
72.7
81.7 (2)
81.3 (2)
77.8 (2)
76.1
91.2
SAM2Long-L
76.3 (5)
76.2 (4)
57.9 (3)
73.1
70.3
80.4 (3)
79.2 (4)
76.4 (4)
75.7
91.3
DAM4SAM-L
74.1 (6)
75.8 (5)
54.5 (4)
75.4
66.8
80.1 (4)
79.6 (3)
76.6 (3)
74.9
90.5
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison with alternative evaluation protocols on FaVOS-full and SA-V [ 35 ] test split. Single-score protocols: standard J&F , visibility-balanced J&F (Bal.), and J&Fv , with ranks in parentheses. Two-number protocol: J&F on target-present frames only (Present) and frame-level presence F1. Higher is better for all columns. Rows are sorted by J&Fv on FaVOS-full.
Long videos challenge open-world segmentation systems to continually discover objects and preserve their identities through disappearance and reappearance. Savvy, a zero-shot, semi-online, class-agnostic system for persistent object discovery and identity maintenance, and OGA, an evaluation suite that credits coherent part-level predictions when their granularity differs from the reference annotations. Savvy combines modular mask discovery, deferred admission based on accumulated evidence, and track consolidation to maintain an evolving object set. OGA allows multiple predictions to support one reference while preserving prediction IDs, pairing granularity-aware fidelity with diagnostics of identity bleeding and fragmented support. Across 142 ScanNet videos and 106 HM3D trajectories, evaluated using adaptively sampled prefixes capped at 1,500 source frames, Savvy outperforms DEVA+SAM and EntitySAM in VPQ_inf, STQ, and AQ under both conventional and OGA evaluation. Conventional VPQ_inf reaches 18.44 versus DEVA+SAM's 11.52 on ScanNet and 17.31 versus 6.58 on HM3D. VIPSeg comparisons reveal conventional one-to-one VPQ's sensitivity to annotation granularity. Controlled identity-severing and flicker tests show that OGA detects temporal failures even when frame-level masks remain unchanged. Together, these results demonstrate complementary advances: Savvy improves long-horizon segmentation and association, and OGA distinguishes coherent part-level support from temporal identity failures. Project website: https://github.com/QingSuML/savvy
We present SAM3Dual, our third-place solution to the MOSEv2 track of the 8th Large-scale Video Object Segmentation (LSVOS) Challenge at ECCV 2026. SAM3Dual is a training-free inference extension of pretrained SAM 3 that explicitly separates temporal memory into a short-term branch for recent observations and a long-term branch for interval-sampled historical representations. The two memory responses are combined using a deterministic sequence-relative fusion schedule and conservatively modulated by the previous-frame object confidence. All pretrained SAM 3 parameters remain frozen, requiring no task-specific training, fine-tuning, test-time training, or online parameter optimization. The complete system achieved an official J&F score of 64.37 and ranked third in the MOSEv2 track. This result highlights the potential of reorganizing temporal memory entirely at inference time to obtain competitive long-term VOS performance while preserving the pretrained model.
Complex video object segmentation requires robust target propagation under severe occlusion, disappearance and reappearance. Although SAM3 provides strong promptable mask propagation, a uniform inference path remains unreliable for tiny targets with insufficient visual evidence and semantic-dominated targets whose identities depend on explicit attributes. To this end, we present VOS-Agent, a collaborative framework that retains SAM3 as the shared dense segmentation module and conditionally activates specialized agents according to target characteristics. A Target Perception and Routing Agent assigns each sequence to a regular, tiny, or semantic-dominated route. Tiny targets are supported by a Visual Tracking Agent through confidence-aware box prompts, while semantic-dominated targets are handled by an MLLM-based Semantic Agent through description-guided localization and candidate verification. On the MOSEv2 test set, VOS-Agent achieves 69.82% on the official J&F˙ metric and ranks first in the MOSEv2 Track of the 8th LSVOS Challenge at ECCV 2026.
Canyang Wu, Jinrong Zhang, Xusheng He +3
Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen · Nanyang Technological University · Shenzhen Loop Area Institute