ReVision: Reprogramming Image Generators for Dense Visual Perception
Organizations: Tencent Hy · Shanghai University of Finance and Economics
Abstract
Recent image generators exhibit rich visual priors that can support dense visual perception. However, existing approaches typically encode multiple perception tasks into a shared parameterization, making joint training sensitive to the mixture and weighting of heterogeneous data and prone to cross-task interference. To address this issue, we introduce ReVision, an instruction-conditioned parameter generation framework built on a frozen multimodal understanding model and a frozen image generator. Given an image and a free-form instruction, the understanding model jointly encodes them into a multimodal image--instruction representation, which a trainable parameter generator maps to transient low-rank updates for the generator. Each image--instruction pair induces a distinct set of transient prediction parameters, enabling instance-specific adaptation while both pretrained backbones remain unchanged. ReVision requires no task-specific heads, explicit task identifiers, or stored adapters. A shared RGB output interface unifies segmentation, depth estimation, and surface-normal prediction. Across diverse dense prediction benchmarks, ReVision achieves competitive performance with state-of-the-art methods while supporting flexible task specification through natural-language instructions. Our analysis further reveals substantial gradient disagreement across tasks, highlighting the conflict introduced when heterogeneous objectives share a single parameterization. Meanwhile, the generated updates exhibit structured task- and input-dependent organization in weight space, further validating instance-level parameter generation for multi-task perception.
Figures & tables
| Method | Zero-shot | mIoU |
| SegMan-L ( Fu et al., 2025b ) | ✗ | 84.2 |
| SenseNova-Vision ( Han et al., 2026 ) | ✗ | 71.2 |
| APE-D ( Shen et al., 2024 ) | ✓ | 44.2 |
| OpenSeeD ( Zhang et al., 2023 ) | ✓ | 47.8 |
| X-Decoder ( Zou et al., 2023 ) | ✓ | 52.0 |
| SAM 3 ( Carion et al., 2026 ) | ✓ | 65.2 |
| Model | Zero-shot | IL_MCC | ||
| SAM 3 ( Carion et al., 2026 ) | ✗ | 54.1 | 0.82 | 66.1 |
| SAM 3 ( Carion et al., 2026 ) + Llama 3.2 (ft) | ✗ | 61.2 | 0.86 | 70.8 |
| gDino-T ( Liu et al., 2024 ) | ✓ | 3.3 | 0.15 | 16.2 |
| LLMDet-L ( Fu et al., 2025a ) | ✓ | 6.5 | 0.21 | 27.3 |
| Gemini 2.5 ( Comanici et al., 2025 ) | ✓ | 13.0 | 0.29 | 46.1 |
| APE-D ( Shen et al., 2024 ) | ✓ | 16.4 | 0.40 | 36.9 |
| Model | Zero-shot | cIoU |
| HyperSeg-Phi2-2.7B ( Wei et al., 2025 ) | ✗ | 79.4 |
| X-SAM-Phi3-3.8B ( Wang et al., 2026a ) | ✗ | 83.8 |
| SenseNova-Vision ( Han et al., 2026 ) | ✗ | 80.3 |
| HybridGL ( Liu and Li, 2025 ) | ✓ | 51.3 |
| LocalizationHeads-LLaVA-1.5-13B ( Kang et al., 2025 ) | ✓ | 67.7 |
| SAM 3 ( Carion et al., 2026 ) + Gemini 2.5 Pro | ✓ | 73.4 |
| Method | Zero-shot | AbsRel / | |||||
| NYUv2 | KITTI | ETH3D | ScanNet | DIODE | iBims1 | ||
| Marigold ( Ke et al., 2024 ) | ✓ | 5.5 / 96.4 | 9.9 / 91.6 | 6.5 / 95.9 | 6.4 / 95.2 | 30.8 / 77.3 | - / - |
| DICEPTION ( Zhao et al., 2025 ) | ✓ | 6.1 / 96.0 | 6.9 / 94.9 | 5.0 / 97.5 | 7.2 / 94.4 | 28.9 / 72.2 | - / - |
| FE2E ( Wang et al., 2026b ) | ✓ | 4.1 / 97.7 | 6.6 / 96.0 | 3.8 / 98.7 | 4.4 / 97.5 | 22.8 / 81.2 | - / - |
| Lotus-2 ( He et al., 2025a ) | ✓ | 4.1 / 97.6 | 6.7 / 94.5 | 4.6 / 98.1 | 4.2 / 97.6 | 22.1 / 75.2 | - / - |
| Vision Banana ‡ ( Gabeur et al., 2026 ) | ✓ | 8.1 / 94.8 | 10.7 / 91.5 | 10.3 / 93.5 | - / - | - / - | 7.8 / 93.4 |
| Methods | Zero-shot | Indoor | Outdoor | ||||||||
| Average | NYUv2 | DIODE-indoor | ScanNet | VKitti | |||||||
| mean | median | mean | median | mean | median | mean | median | mean | median | ||
| Marigold ( Ke et al., 2024 ) | ✓ | 19.606 | 11.828 | 20.864 | 11.134 | 16.671 | 12.084 | 21.284 | 12.268 | – | – |
| DSINE ( Bae and Davison, 2024 ) | ✓ | 17.017 | 10.190 | 16.4 | 8.4 | 18.453 | 13.871 | 16.2 | 8.3 | 28.9 | 9.9 |
| StableNormal ( Ye et al., 2024 ) | ✓ | 17.168 | 10.028 | 19.707 | 10.527 | 13.701 | 9.46 | 18.098 | 10.097 | – | – |
| Lotus-2-Normal ( He et al., 2025a ) | ✗ ∗ | 16.558 | – | 16.9 | N/A | 18.575 | N/A | 14.2 | N/A | 28.894 | 9.677 |
| Method | Cityscapes | SA-Co/Gold | RefCOCOg | Depth | Normal | ||||
| mIoU | mAcc | pixAcc | cIoU | AbsRel | mean | med. | |||
| Base Image Generator | 20.29 | 36.79 | 59.91 | 4.32 | 7.64 | 0.5522 | 0.4662 | 105.84 | 109.21 |
| Shuffled Text (within task) | 67.74 | 79.19 | 94.20 | - | 46.9 | - | - | - | - |
| Shuffled Image (within task) | 68.03 | 79.34 | 94.21 | 48.5 | 51.7 | 0.062 | 0.950 | 18.83 | 11.83 |
| Shuffled condition (cross task) | 22.16 | 42.65 | 51.71 | 19.6 | 15.7 | 5.85 | 0.286 | 93.61 | 96.00 |
| ReVision (Ours) | 70.27 | 81.36 | 94.79 | 51.1 | 54.2 | 0.049 | 0.971 | 17.99 | 11.02 |
| Sem. | Inst. | Ref. | Depth | Normal | All | |
| Centroid norm | 359.9 | 380.2 | 392.8 | 352.7 | 330.2 | 316.9 |
| Mean distance | 8.6 | 25.1 | 13.4 | 75.2 | 92.6 | 181.6 |
| Dispersion | 0.024 | 0.066 | 0.034 | 0.213 | 0.281 | 0.573 |
| Offset / spread | 14.8 | 5.5 | 11.9 | 2.8 | 2.5 | – |
| Participation ratio | 2.12 | 3.08 | 5.85 | 2.48 | 1.84 | 1.91 |
| Effective rank (mean) | 13.20 | 13.20 | 13.14 | 13.61 | 13.65 | 13.36 |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| stage 1 | stage 2 | |
| resolution | ||
| steps | 10 000 | 20 000 |
| micro-batch / GPU | 24 | 8 |
| gradient accumulation | 1 | 1 |
| optimizer | AdamW, , weight decay | |
| peak learning rate | ||
| Task | Training sources | ||
| Semantic seg. | ADE20K, COCO-Stuff-164K, Mapillary Vistas v2, BDD100K | 0.69M | 1.0M |
| Instance seg. | LVIS, Open Images V7, GranD | 2.28M | 7.6M |
| Referring seg. | GranD | 0 | 3.0M |
| Relative depth | Omnidata (Hypersim, BlendMVS, Replica, Replica-GSO, Taskonomy), TartanAir | 1.7M | 2.7M |
| Surface normals | Omnidata (Hypersim, BlendMVS, Replica, Replica-GSO, Taskonomy), TartanAir | 1.8M | 2.9M |
| Total | 6.47M | 17.2M |
| Module | Shape | Params |
| Instruction bridge | 6.3M | |
| Learnable queries | 5.5M | |
| Transformer blocks | 306.7M | |
| Per-site decode heads | 599.8M | |
| Total | 918.3M |
Multi-Task Learning
Multi-task learning trains models to solve related tasks together by sharing representations, parameters, or supervision.
See all 389 papers