PSGAgent: Enhancing MLLMs' Dynamic Visual Perception for Panoptic Scene Graph Generation via Agentic Reasoning
Organizations: Peking University Beijing, China · AlignBase Beijing, China
Abstract
Panoptic Scene Graph generation (PSG) requires holistic yet fine-grained reasoning over complex relations among objects. However, current Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) applied to PSG suffer from a perception bottleneck: they function as static observers limited by fixed-resolution views. As a result, models often overlook critical relations involving small or peripheral objects and struggle to differentiate ambiguous predicates in complex scenes. To address these limitations, we propose PSGAgent, an agentic framework that enhances visual perception for PSG through a think-act-observe loop. PSGAgent allows MLLMs to dynamically refine their visual perception using two tools: a Region Zoom-In Tool for local exploration of small or boundary relations and a Visual Highlight Tool for relation-focused segmentation that filters out irrelevant contextual noise. To optimize decision-making, we construct a two-stage training pipeline. First, we create a high-quality, error-aware Multimodal Chain-of-Thought (M-CoT) dataset that provides robust supervision for cold-start learning. Then, we design a novel hierarchical reward mechanism integrated with Group Sequence Policy Optimization (GSPO) to enable strategic and adaptive tool usage. Extensive experiments on the PSG benchmark show that PSGAgent achieves SOTA performance, demonstrating strong capability in both holistic and fine-grained scene understanding.
Figures & tables
| Model | Params | SGDet | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AP@50 | Recall | mRecall | Mean | ||
| Specialized PSG Models | |||||
| IMP ( Xu et al., 2017 ) | – | – | 18.60 | 7.23 | 12.92 |
| MOTIFS ( Zellers et al., 2018 ) | – | – | 22.00 | 9.69 | 15.85 |
| VCTree ( Tang et al., 2019 ) | – | – | 22.50 | 10.20 | 16.35 |
| GPSNet ( Lin et al., 2020 ) | – | – | 20.10 | 7.69 | 13.90 |
| Model | Params | PredCls | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recall | mRecall | Mean | ||
| Specialized PSG Models | ||||
| IMP ( Xu et al., 2017 ) | – | 38.90 | 11.60 | 25.25 |
| GPSNet ( Lin et al., 2020 ) | – | 44.70 | 18.30 | 31.50 |
| C-SCC ( Jin et al., 2023 ) | – | 46.50 | 36.40 | 41.45 |
| MOTIFS ( Zellers et al., 2018 ) | – | 52.40 | 22.90 | 37.65 |
| Model | Params | zs- | Open-Set (OvR) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recall | Recall | mRecall | Mean | ||
| Specialized PSG Models | |||||
| PSGFormer ( Yang et al., 2022 ) | – | 4.90 | 3.10 | 2.70 | 2.90 |
| PSGTR ( Yang et al., 2022 ) | – | 6.40 | 3.30 | 2.00 | 2.65 |
| SGTR ( Li et al., 2022 ) | – | 5.80 | – | – | – |
| PairNet ( Wang et al., 2024b ) | – | – | 6.50 | 5.10 | 5.80 |
| Model | Params | Bottleneck Sets | Frequency Sets | All | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head | Tail | |||||
| Qwen2.5-VL-3B-Instruct | 3B | 0.27 | 0.03 | 0.58 | 0.41 | 0.57 |
| + SFT | 3B | 7.91 | 6.58 | 21.90 | 5.93 | 21.67 |
| Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct* | 72B | 5.89 | 3.69 | 12.39 | 11.01 | 12.37 |
| + ZM.T. HL.T.* | 72B | 8.98 | 6.26 | 14.50 | 13.23 | 14.48 |
| R1-SGG ( Chen et al., 2025 ) | 7B | 28.53 | 24.82 | 43.72 | 26.85 | 43.48 |
| Model | Pre- | Zm. | Hl. | Failure | PSG Metrics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| train | T. | T. | Rate | AP@50 | Recall | mRecall | |
| SFT | – | 0.82 | 30.10 | 21.67 | 10.37 | ||
| SFT | – | 0.22 | 38.49 | 25.26 | 18.70 | ||
| SFT | – | 0.20 | 38.95 | 25.47 | 19.74 | ||
| SFT | – | 0.41 | 38.26 | 24.79 | 18.51 | ||
| GSPO | SFT | 0.01 | 39.73 | 39.31 | 27.71 | ||
| Model | Pre- | Zm. | Hl. | Failure | PSG Metrics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| train | Rwd. | Rwd. | Rate | AP@50 | Recall | mRecall | |
| GSPO | SFT | 0.02 | 34.15 | 43.63 | 35.72 | ||
| GSPO | SFT | 0.04 | 38.92 | 45.72 | 41.17 | ||
| GSPO | SFT | 0.03 | 40.07 | 48.49 | 37.83 | ||
| GSPO | SFT | 0.00 | 49.91 | 50.27 | 42.88 | ||
| Model | Pre- | M-CoT | Failure | PSG Metrics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| train | dataset | Rate | AP@50 | Recall | mRecall | |
| SFT | – | 0.42 | 36.98 | 21.51 | 13.67 | |
| SFT | – | 0.41 | 38.26 | 24.79 | 18.51 | |
| GSPO | SFT | 0.00 | 49.27 | 48.99 | 38.64 | |
| GSPO | SFT | 0.00 | 49.91 | 50.27 | 42.88 | |
| Setting | AP@50 | Recall | mRecall | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Highlight mask source | ||||
| No Highlight (zoom only) | 46.70 | 48.43 | 39.54 | 43.99 |
| OneFormer (weaker segmenter) | 49.60 | 49.67 | 40.87 | 45.24 |
| GT panoptic masks (upper bound) | 49.12 | 50.44 | 46.03 | 48.24 |
| Mask degradation based on Mask2Former | ||||
| Clean Mask2Former | – | 50.27 | 42.88 | 46.58 |
Scene Graph Generation
Scene graph generation turns images or videos into structured graphs of objects, their attributes, and their spatial or semantic relations.
See all 48 papers