Cross-Scale Sparse Attention for Referring Segmentation in Remote Sensing
Authors: Yuxi Li, Lu Si, Xia Liao, Yidong Shen, Zheng Wei, Jun Zhang, Xin Yuan
Organizations: Westlake Institute for Advanced Study, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China · School of Engineering, Westlake University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China · Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology (BNRist), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · School of Computer Science, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China · Department of Automation, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
High-resolution remote sensing (RS) imagery provides fine spatial detail over large areas, making it essential for fine-grained scene understanding. Referring Remote Sensing Image Segmentation (RRSIS) aims to segment regions described by natural language, yet many existing methods rely on sequential alignment--fusion pipelines with limited joint modeling of cross-scale visual hierarchies and linguistic dependencies. Moreover, dense attention mechanisms struggle with the sparsity and wide spatial dispersion of RS targets, while current datasets offer limited structured evaluation of multi-target references, multi-hop relational reasoning, and multi-granularity descriptions, limiting both model development and evaluation. To address these challenges, we propose a Cross-Scale Sparse Attention Model (CSSAM), which aligns multiscale visual features with complex referring expressions through two key modules. The Cross-scale Modality-aligned Fusion Module (CMFM) performs unified cross-scale cross-modal fusion, while the Dynamic Multimodal Sparse Hybrid Attention (DMSHA) selectively attends to informative visual--textual tokens, reducing dense visual interactions. Furthermore, we introduce M3RRSIS-D, a RRSIS dataset explicitly designed around three core reasoning dimensions: multi-target (M1), reference-dependent multi-hop (M2), and multi-granularity (M3) expressions. Extensive experiments on M3RRSIS-D and two public RRSIS benchmarks demonstrate that CSSAM achieves competitive performance across accuracy, fine-grained reasoning, and high-IoU localization metrics, validating its effectiveness for complex semantic reasoning in realistic RS scenarios. Code, dataset, and model weights will be released upon acceptance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the motivation and model design. Top: cross-scale dependency and sparse target distribution in RRSIS. Bottom: schematic comparison of LGCE, FIANet, and RMSIN with CSSAM’s cross-scale fusion and sparse attention.
Figure 2: M 3 RRSIS-D dataset. Left: data contribution, showcasing three semantic dimensions in the M 3 RRSIS-D dataset—multi-target (M 1 ), multi-hop (M 2 ), and multi-granularity (M 3 )—that capture the complexity of real-world remote sensing data. Right: top categories and descriptive keywords of M 3 RRSIS-D.
Figure 3: Data sources and annotation workflow of M 3 RRSIS-D.
Dataset
# Images
# Expressions
M 1
M 2
M 3
RefSegRS [ 7 ]
4,420
4,420
∘
∘
✗
RRSIS-D [ 8 ]
17,402
17,402
✗
∘
✗
M 3 RRSIS-D (Ours)
5,603
66,305
✓
✓
✓
Table 1: Comparison of RRSIS datasets in terms of dataset scale and semantic annotation structure, where “ ✓ ” indicates the dimension is annotated, “ ∘ ” indicates the dimension may be present but is not annotated, and “✗” indicates that the dimension is absent.
Figure 4: CSSAM architecture: (1) visual and textual encoders, (2) CMFM, (3) DMSHA, (4) a fusion gate, and (5) a segmentation head. The encoders and CMFM attention operations follow established designs; DMSHA introduces query-dependent, text-conditioned cross-scale sampling.
Figure 5: Architecture of the DMSHA module, consisting of three components: (1) projection and offset prediction, (2) cross-scale key–value sampling, and (3) sparse cross-modal attention integration.
Figure 6: Architecture of (a) the fusion gate and (b) the segmentation head.
Table 2: Comparison of CSSAM with state-of-the-art methods on M 3 RRSIS-D. CMPC/CMPC+ use R-101 and LSTM; LAVT, RMSIN, FIANet, and CSSAM use Swin-B and BERT; RSRefSeg uses CLIP+SAM.
Figure 7: Visualization examples on M 1 (multi-target), M 2 (multi-hop reasoning), and M 3 (multi-granularity) queries.
Table 3: Fine-grained comparison on M 3 RRSIS-D: (a) the three reasoning dimensions; (b) M 3 granularity levels, with each cell reporting mIoU/oIoU. Rankings are within each dimension in (a), and within each metric and level in (b).
Figure 8: Validation IoU distribution and illustrative failures. (a) Counts for 8,585 queries in left-inclusive, right-exclusive bins; the last bin includes 100%. (b–c) M 1 and M 2 failures. (d–e) M 3 expressions sharing the same image and ground truth. Each example shows the image, ground truth, and CSSAM prediction.
Table 4: Component and design ablations on M 3 RRSIS-D. ✓/✗ denote enabled/disabled modules. Each ablation is compared with the shared default from Table 2 . Bold and underlined values mark the best and second best in groups with multiple variants. Internal-design, loss, head, and allocation variants use final epoch-20 weights and all 8,585 validation expressions.
Table 5: Sampling-budget accuracy and inference efficiency. Memory is in GB, latency in ms/query, and throughput in queries/s. Arrows indicate the preferred direction. OOM indicates out-of-memory.
School of Artificial Intelligence, Optics and Electronics (iOPEN), Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, P.R. China · School of Computer Science, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, P.R. China · department of Software, Northwest Institute of Nuclear Technology, Xi’an 710072, P.R. China