SyncVIS: Synchronized Video Instance Segmentation

Authors: rongkun  zheng
lu  qi
xi  chen
yi  wang
kun  wang
yu  qiao
hengshuang  zhao
Venue: NeurIPS_cc_2024_Conference
Published: 2024-05-14 14:29:06

Abstract: Recent DETR-based methods have advanced the development of Video Instance Segmentation (VIS) through transformers' efficiency and capability in modeling spatial and temporal information. Despite harvesting remarkable progress, existing works follow asynchronous designs, which model video sequences via either video-level queries only or adopting query-sensitive cascade structures, resulting in difficulties when handling complex and challenging video scenarios. In this work, we analyze the cause of this phenomenon and the limitations of the current solutions, and propose to conduct synchronized modeling via a new framework named SyncVIS. Specifically, SyncVIS explicitly introduces video-level query embeddings and designs two key modules to synchronize video-level query with frame-level query embeddings: a synchronized video-frame modeling paradigm and a synchronized embedding optimization strategy. The former attempts to promote the mutual learning of frame- and video-level embeddings with each other and the latter divides large video sequences into small clips for easier optimization. Extensive experimental evaluations are conducted on the challenging YouTube-VIS 2019 & 2021 & 2022, and OVIS benchmarks, and SyncVIS achieves state-of-the-art results, which demonstrates the effectiveness and generality of the proposed approach. The code is available at https://github.com/rkzheng99/SyncVIS.

Main paper: 
 introduction: 
 Video Instance Segmentation (VIS) is a fundamental while challenging vision task that aims to detect, segment, and track object instances inside videos based on a set of predefined object categories at the same time. With the prosperous video media, VIS has attracted various attention due to its numerous vital applications in areas such as video understanding, video editing, autonomous driving, etc.Benefiting from favorable long-range modeling among frames, query-based offline VIS methods [6, 31, 15, 29, 17, 36] like Mask2Former-VIS [6] , and SeqFormer [31] begin to dominate the VIS. Inspired by the object detection method DETR [5] , they learn a group of queries that can track and segment potential instances simultaneously across the multiple frames of a video. On the other hand, online VIS approaches like IDOL [32] also exploit the temporal consistency of query embeddings and associate instances via linking the corresponding query embeddings frame by frame. Albeit the success gained by those methods, we find they barely capitalize multi-frame inputs. In practice, the Mask2Former-VIS [6] would significantly perform worse if more input frames are given during training (evidenced in Fig. 3 ). This is paradoxical to our common sense that more frames could facilitate deep learning models obtaining more motion information of instances.For this problem, many researchers [15, 31, 17] point out that the video-level queries are vitally hard to track the instances well if receiving many frames in training. That is because the trajectory Fig. 1 . Comparison of video instance segmentation paradigms. Previous methods (left part) like VITA [15] adopt asynchronous query-sensitive structures to model instance appearances and trajectories. Our model (right part) employs frame and video embeddings in a query-robust synchronous manner, and they synchronize with each other through the transformer decoder to generate the refined video-level query embeddings for the prediction. Also, we employ a synchronized embedding optimization strategy 'Sync. Optim.' instead of the classic optimization approach. complexity will increase in polynomials along with the number of frames. Therefore, state-of-the-art methods like SeqFormer [31] and VITA [15] usually decouple the trajectory into spatial and temporal dimensions, which are modeled by frame-level and video-level queries, respectively. Specifically, they utilize the frame-level queries to segment each frame independently and then associate these frame-level queries with video-level queries, which are responsible for the final video-level prediction. The well-trained frame-level queries guarantee the quality in the spatial dimension and thus decrease the burden of video queries. However, we argue that two issues remain in these asynchronous designs (as illustrated at the left of Fig. 1 ). First, with the asynchronous structure, the wellness of video-level queries heavily relies on the learning of former frame-level queries, inside which some motion information may be lost because it is an image encoding stage (rather than video encoding), which leads to the sensitivity of queries to the learning quality of former stages. Second, previous works have not solved the bipartite matching among more frames (rather than single frame), and thus the optimization complexity of trajectories remains exorbitant. Both two issues block the further development of query-based methods for video instance segmentation.To this end, we propose to model video and frame queries synchronously with a new framework named SyncVIS to address the above-mentioned issues. Built upon DETR-style structures [6, 32] , our SyncVIS has two key components: the synchronized video-frame modeling paradigm and the synchronized embedding optimization strategy. Both designs put effort into unifying the frame-and video-level predictions in synchronization. The synchronized video-frame modeling paradigm makes frame-and video-level embeddings interact with each other in a query-robust parallel manner, rather than a query-sensitive cascade structure. Then the synchronized embedding optimization strategy adds a video-level buffer state to generate more tractable intermediate bipartite matching optimization compared with only frame-level losses. Fig. 1 demonstrates the schematic difference between the asynchronous state-of-the-art method and our synchronous approach. Our model is schematically simple but practically more effective, with exquisite designs as follows.In the synchronized video-frame modeling paradigm, we employ frame and video-level embeddings in the transformer decoder to model object segmentation and tracking synchronously. Specifically, frame-level embeddings are assigned to each sampled frame, and responsible for modeling the appearance of instances, and video-level embeddings are a set of shared instance queries for all sampled frames, which are used to characterize the general motion (In the DETR-style architecture, when video queries are associated with features across time via the decoder, they can effectively model instance-level motion through the cascade structure. In Mask2Former-VIS, the use of video queries alone enables the capture of instance motion). Frame-level embeddings are kept on each frame to attend to instances locally. In each decoder layer, the video-level embeddings are aggregated to refine frame-level embeddings on the corresponding frame. The refined frame-level embeddings, in turn, are aggregated into video-level embeddings. By repeating this synchronization in decoder layers, SyncVIS incorporates the semantics and movement of instances in each frame. In the synchronized embedding optimization strategy, we focus more on video-level bipartite matching. Concretely, we decouple the input video into several clips to synchronize video and frame, and the total number of clips is related to the combinatorial number. Then, we calculate each clip loss independently by video-level bipartite matching, so that video embeddings can maintain their association ability.We evaluate our SyncVIS on four popular VIS benchmarks, including YouTube-VIS 2019 & 2021 & 2022 [34] , and OVIS-2021 [27] . The experiments show the effectiveness of our method with signifi-cant improvement over the current state-of-the-art methods VITA [15] , DVIS [38] , and CTVIS [37] . Our contributions are as follows:• We analyze the limitations of existing video instance segmentation methods and propose a framework named SyncVIS with synchronized video-frame modeling. It can well characterize instances' trajectories under complex and challenging video scenarios. • We develop two critical modules: a synchronized video-frame modeling paradigm and a synchronized embedding optimization strategy. The former adopts a synchronized paradigm to alleviate error accumulation in cascade structures. The latter divides large video sequences into small clips for easier optimization.  
related works: 
 Online video instance segmentation. Most online VIS methods adopt the tracking-by-detection paradigm, integrating a tracking branch into image instance segmentation models. These methods predict detection and segmentation within a local range using a few frames and associate these outputs using matching algorithms. MaskTrack R-CNN [34] incorporates a tracking branch to Mask R-CNN [12] . Many subsequent approaches [4, 35, 21] , follow this pipeline, measuring the similarities between frame-level predictions and associating them with different matching modules. CrossVIS [35] uses the instance feature in the current frame to pixel-wisely localize the same instance in another frame. MinVIS [16] implements a query-based image instance segmentation model [7] on individual frames and associate query embeddings via bipartite matching.Contrarily, some previous works [9, 19, 10, 14] , draw inspiration from Video Object Segmentation [25] , Multi-Object Tracking [8, 24, 41, 2, 26, 39] , and Multi-Object Tracking and Segmentation [28] . GenVIS [14] adopts a novel target label assignment strategy and builds instance prototype memory in query-based sequential learning. IDOL [32] , based on Deformable-DETR [42] , introduces a contrastive learning head that acquires discriminative instance embeddings for association [11] . CTVIS [37] improved upon IDOL by constructing a consistent paradigm for both training and inference. However, online VIS methods usually adopt frame-level query and ignore the video-level associations across non-adjacent frames, which is problematic when handling complex long videos.Offline video instance segmentation. Offline methods predict instance masks and trajectories through the whole video in one step using the whole video as input. STEm-Seg [1] proposes a single-stage model which learns and clusters the spatio-temporal embeddings. MaskProp [3] and Propose-Reduce [19] improve association and mask quality by mask propagation. Efficient-VIS [30] uses a tracklet query paired with a tracklet proposal to represent object instances. VisTR [29] successfully adapts DETR [5] to VIS, using instance queries to model the whole video. IFC [17] proposes inter-frame communication transformers, using memory tokens to model associations across frames. By adapting Mask2Former [7] to 3D spatio-temporal features, Mask2Former-VIS [6] becomes the state-of-the-art by exploiting its mask-oriented representation. TeViT [36] introduces a new approach based on transformers instead of the CNN backbone and associates temporal information efficiently. SeqFormer [31] decomposes the shared instance queries into frame-level box ones and utilizes video-level instance queries to relate different frames. Recently, VITA [15] uses object tokens to represent the whole video and employs video queries to decode semantics from object tokens. TMT-VIS [40] manages to jointly train multiple datasets to improve performance via different taxonomy information. However, these methods typically implement only video query or utilize asynchronous structures, and the final query-sensitive approaches have difficulties dealing with complex scenarios. 
method: 
 Video instance segmentation can be formulated into a set prediction problem, which can be addressed by a DETR [5] style framework like Mask2Former [7] . We first revisit the Mask2Former-VIS [6] , one of the baselines that our method is built on. Then we propose a synchronized transformer framework named SyncVIS to address challenging video scenarios, with its two key designs. Mask2Former [6, 7] is a universal Transformer-based framework for image or video instance segmentation. Given an input sample, Mask2Former adopts a Transformer-based decoder, which first learns N number of C-dimensional queries Q ∈ R N ×C to generate embeddings E ∈ R N ×1×1×1×C , then predicts N segmentation masks based on the generated embeddings, where the 2 nd , 3 rd , and 4 th dimensions of E correspond to temporal T , height H, and width W dimensions respectively.Here, we note that the transformer decoder is a nine-layer structure, where l th layer cascades a masked cross-attention h l CA , a self-attention h l SA , and a feed-forward network FFN l . For frame-level Mask2Former, E is expanded along spatial dimensions W and H to the shape of N × 1 × H × W × C. Alternatively, for video-level Mask2Former, E is with a shape of N × T × H × W × C, and the combination of temporal T and spatial dimensions W and H enables Mask2Former to utilize the shared embeddings to represent the same visual instances across different frames consistently. Finally, E is utilized for instance-level classification P c and pixel-level mask prediction P m .Analysis. Although Mask2Former-VIS [6] has achieved impressive results, it exhibits notable performance degradation when dealing with complex videos. For instance, we observe a decrease in average precision (AP) of 1.5% when the number of input frames increases to ten. This observation is counter-intuitive as we expect models to improve their performance with an increased number of training frames. We hypothesize that this decline in performance stems from the insufficiency of stand-alone video queries for effective long-range video modeling. In the case of challenging longrange video sequences, there is a need to model more instances and their corresponding movements using video-level queries. This unexpected scenario suggests that there is a significant demand for distinct sets of queries that can effectively characterize both the object categories and movement trajectories in video sequences.The SyncVIS is a new framework designed to improve the representation of long video frame information and optimize system learning processes. It combines video-level and frame-level embeddings synchronously, which enhances the overall functionality of the framework. The framework is depicted in Fig. 2 and features two fundamental modules, i.e., a synchronized video-frame modeling paradigm (Sec. 3.3) and a combinatorial embedding optimization strategy (Sec. 3.4).Synchronized video-frame modeling is a strategy designed to avoid the sensitive cascading in previous methods and improve the synchrony between the frame-level embeddings X l f ∈ R T ×N ×C and video-level X l v ∈ R 1×N ×C . X l f focuses on every frame separately, while X l v mainly interacts with the whole video features.Based on the design of the transformer decoder, we concurrently introduce frame-and video-level embeddings to each layer. Here, the frame-and video-level embeddings are replicated for T and 1 times by learnable frame-and video-level embeddings at first when given a video with T frames. Thus both the frame-and video-level embeddings pass the transformer decoder layer and two kinds of interaction operations for synchronous exchange and refinement. For each step, these two embeddings are updated as follows:EQUATIONwhere t ∈ {f, v} indicates the frame-or video-level embeddings and F means the pyramid features extracted from the backbone. X l is the embeddings processed by the l th transformer decoder layer. The h v CA (q, r) indicates the cross-attention with video-level query embedding q and frame-level reference embedding r. In our design, frame-level embeddings are assigned to each sampled frame, and responsible for modeling the appearance of instances, and video-level embeddings are a set of shared instance queries for all sampled frames, which are used to characterize the general motion (because they encode the position information of instances across frames, and thereby naturally contain the motion information).Then, we feed the frame-and video-level embeddings into the proposed synchronous structure for mutual information exchange and refinement as follows:EQUATIONEQUATIONwhere 'v-s' and 'f-s' mean that we only select top N k embeddings in key and value to interact with the query, while 'fv' and 'vf' indicate the refinement direction of the feedfoward network, from frame to video and video to frame. λ (set to 0.05) is the update momentum of video-level embeddings, because we presume that the aggregation of frame-level features should not change the general video-level embeddings significantly, and vice versa.The motivation behind this approach is similar to that of the masked attention mechanism used in Mask2Former. The key difference lies in the dimension where the masking happens. In Mask2Former, the strategy is to mask out the background regions within the spatial dimension. On the other hand, our method works differently by masking out background embeddings within the key and value dimensions. This is done by selecting the top N k embeddings based on the confidence scores provided by the prediction head. Therefore, while both methods aim to reduce the influence of irrelevant background information, they do so in different ways: Mask2Former masks spatially, while our method targets key and value embeddings.Video-level bipartite matching is a challenging memory-costly problem that remains asynchronous:The matching approaches from previous VIS methods are adapted directly from DETR, so the complexity of matching increases with the number of frames in a video, as the instances are not restrained to a single frame, but could be in any frame in the video. Even though larger input frames can bring more trajectory information of instances for prediction, this presents a challenge due to the resulting trajectory complexity, which scales polynomically with the input. Conversely, when the input is insufficient, the system may lack the necessary information to function optimally. Such asynchrony is the motivation of our new optimization strategy.Regarding this, we present the synchronized embedding optimization strategy using the divide-andconquer: if we want to associate frame t i to frame t j and yet the time interval may be large, an effective approach is to find k, s.t i < k < j, and associate t i to t k as well as t k to t j . When the model achieves better segmentation results on sub-clips, combining these local optimums and we can achieve a better matching. Therefore, when generating the output predictions, we would divide the predictions into several sub-clips, and optimize each sub-clips independently. This sub-clip is like a video-level buffer to help synchronizing video-level and frame-level embeddings. By optimizing the local sub-sequence of the video, rather than the entire video sequence, if the target instance becomes occluded in certain frames, our optimizing strategy can adjust the features within the sub-sequence to adapt to this change, without being affected by the unoccluded frames. The size of sub-clips, T s , is variable across all VIS datasets: as for VIS datasets with fewer instances per video, such as Youtube-VIS 2019, T s is set to 3, while for OVIS, T s works best at 2 (discussed in Sec. 4.4). In order to further reduce the complexity for better optimization, dividing into smaller sub-clips can accelerate the optimization. Also, keeping the size of two is able to maintain the temporal information. In this way, our video-level objective L v could be divided into several clips as follows:EQUATIONwhere T indicates the number of input frames. And the overall training loss L for our model can be formulated as:EQUATIONwhere L ce f and L ce v denote the cross-entropy loss for frame-and video-level classification. Similarly, L bce f , L bce v , L dice f , and L dice v denote the binary cross-entropy and dice loss for frame-and video-level mask prediction, respectively. Here P is the prediction, and G is the ground truth, and c refers to classification while m refers to mask. L contras represents the contrastive loss, which is applied in online settings (but not in offline) as IDOL [32] does, where the previous frame is set as a reference frame and the current frame is set as key frame.Our method is built on detectron2 [33] . Hyper-parameters regarding the pixel and transformer decoder are the same as these of Mask2Former-VIS [6] . In the synchronized video-frame modeling, we set the number of frame-level and video-level embeddings N to 100. To extract the key information, we set the N k to 10. Following the design of Mask2Former-VIS [6] , we first trained our model on COCO [20] before training on VIS datasets. We use the AdamW [23] optimizer with a base learning rate of 5e-4 on Swin-Large backbone in YoutubeVIS 2019 (we use different training iterations and learning rates for different datasets). During inference, each frame's shorter side is resized to 360 pixels for ResNet [13] and 448 pixels for Swin [22] . Most of our experiments are conducted on 4 A100 GPUs (80G), and on a cuda 11.1, PyTorch 3.9 environment. The training time is approximately 1.5 days when training with the Swin-L backbone.Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof? Answer: [NA]• It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean. • It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have a 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified. • For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negative error rates). • If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text. 
experiments: 
 Datasets and metrics. YouTube-VIS dataset is a large-scale video database for video instance segmentation. The dataset has seen three iterations, in 2019, 2021, and 2022, with each adding more challenges to the dataset [34] . The first iteration, YouTube-VIS 2019, contains 2.9k videos with an average duration of 4.61 seconds. The validation set has an average length of 27.4 frames per video and covers 40 predefined categories. The dataset was updated to YouTube-VIS 2021 with longer videos with more complex trajectories. As a result, the validation videos' average length increased to 39.7 frames. The most recent update, YouTube-VIS 2022, adds an additional 71 long videos to the validation set and 89 extra long videos to the test set.OVIS dataset is another resource for video instance segmentation, particularly focusing on scenarios with severe occlusions between objects [27] . It consists of 25 object categories and 607 training videos. Despite a smaller number of training videos compared to the YouTube-VIS datasets, the OVIS videos are much longer, averaging 12.77 seconds each. OVIS emphasizes the complexity of the scenes and the severity of occlusions between objects.We compare SyncVIS with state-of-the-art approaches which are with ResNet-50 and Swin-L backbones on the YouTube-VIS 2019 & 2021 & 2022 [34] & OVIS 2021 [27] benchmarks. The results are reported in Tables 1 , 2 and 3.YouTube-VIS 2019. Table 1 shows the comparison on YouTube-VIS 2019. When applying our design to CTVIS, we discover that the forward passing of CTVIS is still asynchronous. While a single frame produces the frame embedding, there is no explicit video-level embedding to interact with the frame-level instance embedding. In our design, we add a set of video-level embeddings that gradually update with the frame-level embeddings. Our SyncVIS sets new state-of-the-art results under all of the settings. Among the online approaches, SyncVIS gets the highest performance of 57.9% AP and 67.1% AP with ResNet-50 and Swin-L backbones, which outperforms the previous best solution CTVIS [37] by 2.8 and 1.5 points, exceeds the top-ranking method DVIS [38] OVIS. Table 3 illustrates the competitiveness of SyncVIS on the challenging OVIS dataset. SyncVIS also shows superior performance over other high-performance algorithms with 36.3% AP and 50.8% AP on ResNet-50 and Swin-L backbones, outperforming the current strongest architecture DVIS [38] by 2.2 and 0.9 points, respectively. SyncVIS harvests the highest performance on all four datasets, further evidencing its effectiveness and generality.We ablate our proposed components, which are conducted with ResNet-50 on YouTube-VIS 2019. Complexity of video scenarios. Changing the complexity of video scenarios can check the capability of VIS solutions. We define the complexity as an indicator of the movements of different instances, which is calculated as the maximum combination of trajectories between frames. For example, if frame t has n instances while t + 1 frame has m, then the maximum complexity would be mn, and thus complexity is in polynomials with input frames, and we could use the frame number as an indicator of complexity. We examine the effect of different numbers of input frames in Fig. 3 . We find the popular Mask2Former-VIS framework meets difficulties when dealing with complex videos, i.e., T = 2 works best for the model, and as T continually increases, the performance will degrade notably. In contrast, as we increase the input frames, our SyncVIS improves gradually and achieves the best performance at T = 9. This evidences that our model is capable of handling challenging scenarios and can well characterize the movement trajectories of video instances. 4 demonstrates the effect of our component designs when combined with the prevalent VIS methods. By aggregating the synchronized video-frame modeling paradigm, Mask2Former-VIS achieves a huge gain of 5.2 points in AP performance. This is credited to the design of two levels of queries as well as their mutual interactions. The synchronized embedding optimization strategy further advances performance improvement across all VIS methods. Aggregating two designs could also boost VITA by 3.5 and 1.7 points in performance, respectively. Note that the gain of 7.0 points for IDOL is also contributed by changing its original backbone to a Mask2Former-based backbone. The extensive results in Table 4 show that our new designs can introduce consistent improvements to various popular VIS methods, further indicating the effectiveness and generality.Enhancement direction. In Table 5 , we investigate the effect of the direction of the modeling paradigm, including synchronous bidirectional and asynchronous unidirectional ones. Unidirectional embedding enhancement can be divided into two types according to the output of the transformer decoder: i) utilize the frame-level embeddings to enhance the video-level ones, and the aggregation module consists of an FFN and cross-attention layer (denoted as 'Frame→Video'); ii) adopt the video-level embeddings to update the frame-level ones, and feed the frame-level embeddings to prediction heads to generate the masks and instance classes independently (denoted as 'Video→Frame').In Table 5 , we find that without embedding enhancement, the decrease in performance is conspicuous as up to 6.4 points. With either unidirectional asynchronous embedding enhancement strategy, the result gets improved but is still not paired with the bidirectional synchronized video-frame modeling. This signifies several points: first, introducing frame-level embeddings to refine video-level embeddings can increment the performance by adding more frame-level instance details, thus strengthening the representative ability of video-level embeddings. Second, video-level embeddings contain more spatial-temporal information, and utilizing video-level embeddings to predict segmentation results for the video can receive better results. Third, adopting synchronized video-frame modeling is better than unidirectional modeling. Even though adding frame-specific information to video-level embeddings can contribute to representing more instance details, building the mutual association and aggregation leads to a stronger representation ability to characterize the semantics and motions.Modeling structure. We suppose the superiority of using a synchronous structure over a cascade one is that the former avoids motion information loss and error accumulation. In Table 6 , we evaluate these two structures. For the cascade structure, we use frame-level embeddings to extract information and associate image-level embeddings with video-level ones. The synchronized video-frame modeling and synchronized embedding optimization remain the same in cascade structure experiments. The synchronous structure gets 1.6 points higher AP performance than the cascade one, demonstrating the superior design of the proposed synchronous structure over the classical cascade structure.Query selection. As shown in Table 6 , utilizing only video-level queries performs better than only adopting frame-level ones. Frame-level queries segment each frame independently and focus less on the association across frames, which leads to lower performance. Our synchronous model, on the other hand, adopts both queries and achieves the best performance, validating the effectiveness of our synchronized video-frame modeling paradigm. Aggregation strategy. Table 7 shows the results of different aggregation strategies in the synchronized video-frame modeling. In the 'Query Similarity', we select the most similar embeddings by computing the cosine similarity between videolevel and frame-level embeddings. Note we compute similarities frame-by-frame and concatenate the top N k embeddings together as input to the aggregation module. In the 'Mask Similarity', we get similarities of corresponding mask embeddings to determine the most similar ones. We use class scores (i.e., 'Class Prediction') to select key embeddings that work the best. Since some objects only appear in a few frames, the most similar embeddings may represent the background in extreme cases, disturbing the useful information for discrimination. Both aggregation methods have such problems, and using mask similarity is even worse since masks are insufficient to encode motion fully, leading to ineffective similarity calculation.Aggregation embedding size. Table 8 shows the performance of SyncVIS with varying numbers of embedding in the aggregation stage of the synchronized video-frame modeling paradigm. When selecting top N k = 10 embeddings to aggregate, the model performance reaches its best. When N k decreases, the aggregated key information contained in embeddings is not sufficient, the selected one may not encode the semantic information of all instances in the video, and therefore cause the drop in performance. Alternately, when N k gets larger than optimum, the redundant query features dilute the original information, which also leads to performance degradation.Sub-clips size. Table 8 shows the results of SyncVIS with a varying T s of sub-clips. The larger the sizes of sub-clips are, the more complicated the optimization will be, and embeddings are less likely to capture the proper semantics and trajectories. When we set the size of sub-clips to 3, the model achieves its best performance. When T s decreases to the lowest, the problem of optimizing the whole video descends to optimizing each frame, weakening the model's ability to associate frames temporally. When T s increases, though there is a gain in the performance when compared to undivided circumstances, the optimization is still more complex, making the training process hard to reach optimum. Learned embeddings are insufficient to capture all semantics for sub-clip, and therefore the performance is weaker than the optimal T s value. However, T s = 3 is the optimum for Youtube-VIS 2019 & 2021. For Youtube-VIS 2022 and OVIS, SyncVIS performs best when T s is 2, which is the smallest size to maintain temporal associations. We suppose, that for more complex scenarios, dividing into smaller sub-clips is beneficial for query embeddings to associate across frames and accelerate the optimization. In optimization strategy, our main goal is to reduce the increasing optimization complexity as the input frame number grows. To realize this target, our strategy is to divide the video into several sub-clips that could make optimization easier while retaining the temporal motion information. Longer Sub-clips could provide the model with more temporal information, but their optimization complexity also rises polynomially. By optimizing sub-clips, models can better adapt to changes in the target instance within the video, particularly in cases of occlusion of many similar instances (In OVIS, most cases are videos with many similar instances, most of which are occluded in certain frames). By optimizing the local sub-sequence of the video, rather than the entire video sequence, if the target instance becomes occluded in certain frames, our optimizing strategy can adjust the features within the sub-sequence to adapt to this change, without being affected by the unoccluded frames.Generality. The proposed optimization strategy is effective and general that can be adapted into various DETR-based approaches. In these frameworks, the optimization problem for long video sequences still exists. As in Table 9 , when adding our optimization strategy to Mask2Former-VIS, we harvest notable performance gains on all three benchmarks. This demonstrates that the proposed optimization can be treated as a robust design suitable for different video scenarios. 
conclusion: 
 We have proposed SyncVIS for synchronized Video Instance Segmentation. Unlike the current VIS approaches that use asynchronous structures, SyncVIS utilizes a synchronized video-frame modeling paradigm to encourage the synchronization between frame embeddings and video embeddings in a synchronous manner, which incorporate both semantics and movement of instances more effectively. Moreover, SyncVIS develops a plug-and-use synchronized embedding optimization strategy during training, which reduces the complexity of bipartite matching in a divide-and-conquer approach.Based on these two designs, our SyncVIS outperforms current methods and achieves SOTA on four challenging benchmarks. We hope that our method can provide valuable insights and motivate the future VIS research.Broader impacts and limitations. SyncVIS is designed to propose a new synchronized structure for VIS with promising performance. We hope this work can contribute to further applications in video-related tasks and real-life applications. However, even though our model achieves promising results, it has a problem segmenting very crowded or heavily occluded scenarios, which is discussed in the supplementary. Fig. 4 . Visual comparison of our SyncVIS with Mask2Former-VIS ('M2F') [6] and VITA [15] . SyncVIS shows impressive accuracy in long, complex scenarios where objects share similar appearances and have heavy occlusions. 
experiments compute resources: 
 Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the computer resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?Answer: [Yes]Justification: We include these information in our paper.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.• The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage. • The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute. • The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't make it into the paper). 
code of ethics: 
 Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines? 
broader impacts: 
 Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?Answer: [Yes]Justification: We include it at the end of the paper.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.• If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact. • Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.• The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster. • The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology. • If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML). 
safeguards: 
 Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?Answer: [NA] Justification: No data or models have a high risk for misuse.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.• Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters. • Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images. • We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.12. Licenses for existing assets Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?Answer: [Yes] Justification: We cite each used asset.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.• The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.• The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL. • The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.• For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided. • If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode.com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset. • For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided.• If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators. 13. New Assets Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets? Answer: [Yes] Justification: We include them and make them well-documented. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.• Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc. • The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used. • We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution. • For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review. 
 
 Appendix: Fig. 5 . Qualitative comparisons with Mask2Former-VIS (abbreviated as 'M2F') on Youtube-VIS 2019. In this case, we want to further prove that SyncVIS can better distinguish and capture instances with the same identities.In the first two rows, the person on the right is not segmented by Mask2Former-VIS, while in the last two rows, the cyclist from the back is not segmented by Mask2Former-VIS. [6] and VITA [15] . SyncVIS shows impressive accuracy in long videos, while the previous methods have either low confidence (the confidence of the car in blue masks in the first row is 77% while in the third row is 98%) or incomplete masks (the first frame in the second row).Frame-level Embeddings Fig. 8 . Qualitative comparisons with different designs of embeddings. Video-level embeddings are from a set of shared instance queries for all sampled frames. In the first row, video-level embeddings successfully capture most of the instances, but fail to mask the fish in the middle of the image. Frame-level embeddings are assigned to each sampled frame. In the second row, frame-level embeddings segment instances better than the first row, but fail to maintain the trajectories of fish in the bottom right. When synchronizing these two sets of embeddings, our model achieves better segmentation results even under such a complex scenario.NeurIPS Paper Checklist Justification: We include limitations in the end of the paper, discussing some failure cases. Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper. • The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section in their paper.• The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be. • The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with a few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated. • The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach.For example, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon. • The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size. • If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness. • While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.Justification: We conduct in conform with the ethic code.Guidelines:• The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.• If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics. • The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction). 


Decision: All reviewers are inclined towards acceptance, with scores ranging from 5 to 7. They have highlighted several areas for improvement that the authors should address carefully in the final version. These include adding clarifications and detailed explanations and all suggested additional experiments, and enhancing the presentation and organization of the paper to minimize confusion.

Reviews: review: paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper proposes SyncVIS, an approach for Video Instance Segmentation (VIS), which tries to jointly model frame-level and video-level embeddings thus can capture both semantics and movement of instances. The new architecture design is intuitive and generic enough to be applied to various VIS models. Experiments are done on Youtube-VIS 2019, 2021, 2022, and OVIS which show that SyncVIS achieves state-of-the-art results on these benchmarks. Ablations are thorough and enough to understand the proposed approach. Written presentation is clear and easy to read.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: - The paper may be benefit from having from qualitative results to highly what SyncVIS can improve from the base models which were trained on asynchronous manner in the main text if space allows.
questions: questions: - Why the results of Mask2Former-VIS on OVIS dataset in Table 9 are too low?
limitations: limitations: The author(s) have some statements about their method's limitation and further provide more details in supplementary.
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper concentrates on the video instance segmentation task. To address the problem of motion information loss when existing methods use frame queries, and the optimization issue of bipartite matching across multiple frames, the authors propose a synchronized video-frame modeling paradigm. This paradigm allows for interaction between frame queries and video queries and introduces a synchronized embedding optimization strategy in a video-level buffer, making multi-frame tracking optimization feasible. The effectiveness of the proposed method is verified on four VIS benchmarks, and detailed ablation studies are conducted.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. Line 45 mentions that 'image encoding stage (rather than video encoding)' could lead to motion information loss; however, the proposed method still employs image encoding. Frame queries take video query for feature aggregation, the aggregation is merely an accumulation of multi-frame information, similar to the video query in SeqFormer, which can help achieve robustness, but how does it model object motion? This statement might be inappropriate.
questions: questions: 1. The proposed Synchronized Embedding Optimization for bipartite matching is it aimed at the bipartite matching between prediction and Ground Truth, or object query bipartite matchings during the tracking process (Like MinVIS)? This aspect is quite confusing for me. From lines L186-L193, it seems that the author aims to enhance bipartite matching between prediction and GTs. Yet, lines L194-L199 appear to discuss associating the tracking results of two frames.

2. The conclusion in Sec4.4 seems counterintuitive. Longer Sub-clips could provide the model with more temporal information to help it model complex scenes and trajectories. This should be especially evident on OVIS, which includes many objects and complex inter-object motions, including occlusions and disappearances and reappearances. According to the paper's motivation, longer Sub-clips should perform better on OVIS, but the experimental conclusion states the optimal length on OVIS to be T_s = 2, which corresponds to a pair of frames, providing very limited temporal information. Doesn't this contradict the motivation or the conclusion?
limitations: limitations: Yes
paper_summary: paper_summary: This paper focuses on improving synchronization between frame and video queries in video instance segmentation for better long-range video analysis. The authors propose encoding frame and video queries separately, then using confidence scores to select Nk queries. These queries are updated through mutual information exchange with momentum updates. To train each query, they introduce a synchronized optimization method using a divide-and-conquer approach. They also identify that video-level bipartite matching complexity increases with the number of frames, and address this by suggesting sub-clip level matching. Their technique, when applied to CTVIS and VITA, demonstrates enhanced performance in both online and offline settings compared to existing methods.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: - The analysis primarily focuses on early work (Mask2Former-VIS), while the baselines used are CTIVS and VITA. Despite this, there is a lack of thorough analysis on these baselines.
- The GT assignment method of Synchronized Embedding Optimization is not compared with existing methods such as TCOVIS. Additionally, although the authors aim for long-range video modeling, their performance on the long video dataset YouTube-VIS 2022 is lower than that of TCOVIS.
- In the Checklist under Experiments Compute Resources, the authors answered "yes" but did not specify the equipment used.


Reference

Li, Junlong, et al. "Tcovis: Temporally consistent online video instance segmentation." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023.
questions: questions: - In Section 3.1, the author highlights the performance drop in Mask2Former-VIS when increasing the number of frames. CTVIS, on the other hand, shows improved performance with more frames and seems to handle temporal modeling well through its memory bank. If CTVIS were used as the baseline, why does the proposed method show improved performance and what specific aspects are enhanced?

- TCOVIS aggregates the cost for each frame and matches GT with predictions at the video level globally. The proposed method matches at the sub-clip level, which is a contrasting approach. What are the respective strengths and weaknesses of each method? Additionally, why does the proposed method perform worse on long videos like YouTubeVIS-2022 compared to TCOVIS?

- In L219, it is mentioned that inference with the Swin-L backbone was done at 480p, but the code indicates 448p. Which is correct? Furthermore, in L218, the learning rate is stated as 1e-4, but the code shows 5e-5. Also, the iteration and learning rate decay settings for YouTubeVIS-2019 and 2021 datasets seem inconsistent. How were the optimization settings determined?
limitations: limitations: The authors address the limitations of the proposed method in the appendix.
paper_summary: paper_summary: The paper argues that existing methods for video instance segmentation use asynchronous designs, leading to difficulties in handling complex video scenarios. To address this problem, the paper proposes a SyncVIS method for synchronized modeling, achieving state-of-the-art results on several benchmarks.
strength_weakness: strength_weakness: 1. The novelty of synchronized embedding optimization is limited.
2. The paper did not compare with DVIS++. For example, using ResNet-50 and offline mode, DVIS++ outperforms SyncVIS by 2.5% on YouTube-VIS 2019. DVIS++: Improved Decoupled Framework for Universal Video Segmentation, arXiv, 2023.
3. More implementation details like training steps should be reported.
4. Compute resources, such as the type of GPU, are not reported in the paper, yet the authors answered YES to question 8 in the checklist.
questions: questions: In addition to the Weaknesses,
1. How does the method ensure that the video queries learn motion information?
2. Ablation study on different values of $N_{k}$ (line 173) should be conducted.
3. How is the efficiency of the method?
limitations: limitations: Yes.

Comments: comment: Thank you for the authors' rebuttal. Most of my concerns have been addressed. I hope the authors will include all the experiments raised by the reviewers in the final version and present important details, like FPS, more explicitly in the table rather than in a short sentence.
Thanks to the author for the response. All my doubts have been answered in the author's rebuttal. I agree with the phenomena observed on OVIS and hope that there will be more detailed explanations about Synchronized Embedding Optimization in the revision.
Dear Reviewer 2sLS,

Thank you very much for your positive feedback! We are glad to hear that our rebuttal has resolved most of your concerns! As for the discussion on optimization in the context, we will revise this part in the final version. Again, we thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving our work.
Thank you for your response. Since most of my concerns have been addressed, I will raise the score to BA. In the main text, the discussion on optimization mainly focused on memory issues, making it difficult to identify which aspects contributed to performance improvement. I hope the final version will be more organized in this regard.
Dear Reviewer 2sLS,

We sincerely appreciate your dedicated time and effort in reviewing our work. Your valuable comments and feedback are crucial for improving the quality of our research.

We have carefully considered your concerns and provided corresponding responses and updated results. We believe we have addressed the key issues you raised, and we welcome further discussion to ensure we have fully covered your concerns. Please let us know if any remaining unclear parts or areas require additional clarification. We are committed to providing a comprehensive response and are open to any additional feedback you may have. Your input is invaluable in helping us strengthen our work.

Thank you again for your thorough review. We look forward to continuing our productive discussion and are hopeful for a favorable consideration of our work.
Dear Reviewer hMrY,

We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. Your feedback is invaluable, and we are grateful for the opportunity to address any concerns you may have. If you have any further questions or require additional clarification on our rebuttal, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. We stand ready to provide any necessary information or explanations to facilitate your review process. 

Thank you again for your thorough review. We look forward to receiving your feedback and are hopeful for a favorable consideration of our work.
Dear Reviewer MsYp,

We sincerely appreciate your dedicated time and effort in reviewing our work. Your valuable comments and feedback are crucial for improving the quality of our research.

We have carefully considered your concerns and provided corresponding responses and updated results. We believe we have addressed the key issues you raised, and we welcome further discussion to ensure we have fully covered your concerns. Please let us know if any remaining unclear parts or areas require additional clarification. We are committed to providing a comprehensive response and are open to any additional feedback you may have. Your input is invaluable in helping us strengthen our work.

Thank you again for your thorough review. We look forward to continuing our productive discussion.
Thank you for taking the time to review our rebuttal and sharing your perspectives. We are glad that the significance of our synchronous design is acknowledged, and we'd love to address to your additional comments. 

### Advantage of sub-clip level matching

- The advantage of optimizing sub-clip over the GIA strategy (TCOVIS) is its ability to **better adapt to changes** in the target instance within the video, particularly in cases of occlusion of many similar instances (In OVIS, most cases are videos with many similar instances, most of which are occluded in certain frames.) 

- By optimizing the local sub-sequence of the video, rather than the entire video sequence, if the target instance becomes occluded in certain frames, our optimizing strategy can adjust the features within the sub-sequence to adapt to this change, **without being affected by the unoccluded frames**. For instance, if the target becomes occluded between frames 10 and 15. For the GIA strategy, it would be difficult to adjust the features in these last 5 frames, as the features in the initial 10 frames may be well-represented.

- We tested two optimization methods based on GenVIS in the online setting with ResNet-50 backbone on OVIS dataset. As shown in the table, our method shows **better improvement** (0.6 AP) over GIA. This result is consistent with our analysis that our optimization strategy is more effective under such scenarios.


| Method                                                         | $AP$ | $AP_{50}$ | $AP_{75}$ |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|:--:|:-----:|:-----:|
| GenVIS                              |35.8| 60.8  |  36.2 |
| GenVIS + Global Instance Assignment |36.2| 61.4  |  36.6 |
| GenVIS + Synchronized Optimization  |36.8| 62.3  |  37.0 |

### Memory issue
- As for the memory issue, previous VIS methods would take input frame number at a quite low value (For example, Mask2Former is 2). However, we argue that this is because their performance will even drop (due to their asynchronous structure) when handling more input frames during training (as shown in Fig. 3). But in our design, we introduce an efficient synchronous modeling paradigm that is capable of efficiently utilizing temporal information with more input frames. With more input frames, the memory issue becomes more significant.
Thank you for the authors' thorough responses. Now, I understand and agree that bidirectional communication between video queries and frame queries is crucial for solving the VIS task, and that this is a point overlooked by previous works.

However, I am still not convinced about the sub-clip matching approach.

- I don't understand why matching predictions and ground truth at the sub-clip level would lead to better distinction between multiple instances. Intuitively, it seems that globally matching predictions to each object's trajectory would be more effective.
- Since TCOVIS is based on GenVIS and SyncVIS is based on CTVIS, I find it difficult to compare their performance on OVIS alone as a measure of optimization effectiveness. I'm not confident that sub-clip matching optimizes better than global matching for the OVIS dataset.
- Also, the memory issue doesn't seem significant since VIS tasks typically don't use a large number of frames for ground truth assignment during the training phase.