Previous work has reported that vision foundation models show promising zero-shot performance in eye image segmentation. Here we examine whether the latest iteration of the Segment Anything Model, SAM3, offers better eye image segmentation performance than SAM2, and explore the performance of its new concept (text) prompting mode. Eye image segmentation performance was evaluated using diverse datasets encompassing both high-resolution high-quality videos from a lab environment and the TEyeD dataset consisting of challenging eye videos acquired in the wild. Results show that in most cases SAM3 with either visual or concept prompts did not perform better than SAM2, for both lab and in-the-wild datasets. Since SAM2 not only performed better but was also faster, we conclude that SAM2 remains the best option for eye image segmentation. We provide our adaptation of SAM3's codebase that allows processing videos of arbitrary duration.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Example prompts and resulting segmentations for the high resolution lab datasets (left) and the TEyeD datasets (right) for SAM 2 visual prompting (top), SAM 3 visual prompting (middle) and SAM 3 concept prompting (bottom). For the lab images, the prompted frame, the 100th frame and the 1000th frame in the eye video are shown. For the TEyeD images, the prompted frame, the 1000th, the 10000th and the 20000th frame are shown. For the lab datasets (left): the dark blue mask indicates the CR, green the pupil, red the iris and cyan the sclera. For the TEyeD datasets (right): dark blue is the pupil, green the iris, red the sclera. Positive (+) and negative (square) prompts use the same color codes. For the bottom row, different colors instead indicate different “pupil” objects returned by the model. The brown in some segmentations results from the iris and sclera masks overlapping. Close-up eye images with different segmentations of parts of the eye.
Figure 2. Prompting TEyeD. The left panel shows the ground truth annotations provided by TEyeD for the pupil (green ellipse), iris (red ellipse) and palpebral fissure (yellow polygon). Also indicated are the determined eye corners (cyan dots), closest points on the iris ellipse (orange points) and the derived prompt coordinates for the pupil (green +), the iris (red +) and the sclera (blue and magenta +). The right panel shows the corresponding positive (+) and negative (square) visual prompts provided to both SAM models (blue: pupil, green: iris, red: sclera). Also shown are the output masks from SAM 3, using the same color codes as the prompts. Close-up eye images with ground truth annotation and output segmentation of parts of the eye.
Figure 3. RMS-S2S precision and data loss for SAM 2 and SAM 3 on the high-resolution lab datasets. Shown are the RMS-S2S precision (lower values is better) and data loss (lower is better) per participant. Note that the range of the y-axis is different for each of the panels. A summary showing the precision or data loss on the same scale is shown in the right most bar graphs (error bars indicate SEM across participants). Stars indicate significant differences according to paired t-tests. A collection of line and bar graphs.
Dataset
mIoU
Overlap
FA rate
Miss rate
Youden’s J
pupil
iris
sclera
eye opening
iris–sclera
Pupil
Iris
Sclera
Pupil
Iris
Sclera
Pupil
Iris
Sclera
SAM 2 visual
Dikablis
0.880
0.814
0.495
0.773
0.270
0.065
0.384
0.377
0.037
0.003
0.011
0.898
0.613
0.612
GiW
0.911
0.768
0.464
0.767
0.483
0.193
0.340
0.373
0.010
0.032
0.050
0.798
0.628
0.578
LPW
0.853
0.692
0.333
0.639
0.587
0.506
0.668
0.851
0.023
0.055
0.073
0.470
0.278
0.076
NVGaze
0.895
0.854
0.593
0.816
0.227
0.195
0.447
0.548
0.011
0.008
0.009
0.794
0.545
0.443
Table 1. Results for SAM 2 and SAM 3 per dataset in the TEyeD set. Shown are mIoU for the pupil, iris, sclera and the whole eye opening. Furthermore shown is the overlap between the iris and the sclera, and the false alarm rate, miss rate and Youden’s J for the pupil, iris and sclera. For each column and dataset, the best values are printed in bold (higher is better for mIoU and Youden’s J, while lower is better for the other columns), and for pupil columns the second best value is underlined.
Medical image segmentation delineates organs, lesions, and other structures in scans to support measurement, diagnosis, treatment planning, and research.
Is Segment Anything Model 3 (SAM3) capable in segmenting Any Pathology Images? Digital pathology segmentation spans tissue-level and nuclei-level scales, where traditional methods often suffer from high annotation costs and poor generalization. SAM3 introduces Promptable Concept Segmentation, offering a potential automated interface via text prompts. With this work, we propose a systematic evaluation protocol to explore the capability space of SAM3 in a structured manner. Specifically, we evaluate SAM3 under different supervision settings including zero-shot, few-shot, and supervised with varying prompting strategies. Our extensive evaluation on pathological datasets including NuInsSeg, PanNuke and GlaS, reveals that: (1) text-only prompts poorly activate nuclear concepts; (2) performance is highly sensitive to visual prompt types and budgets; (3) few-shot learning offers gains, but SAM3 lacks robustness against visual prompt noise; and (4) a significant gap persists between prompt-based usage and task-trained adapter-based reference. Our study delineates SAM3's boundaries in pathology image segmentation and provides practical guidance on the necessity of pathology domain adaptation.
Qiuyu Kong, Shakiba Sharifi, Yiming Wang +2
Sapienza University of Rome · University of Verona · Fondazione Bruno Kessler
The recent Segment Anything Model 3 (SAM3) extends powerful promptable segmentation from spatial cues to concepts, raising the prospect of a single foundation model for universal image segmentation. However, this promise often fails to translate into reliable performance on downstream segmentation tasks. In this work, we empirically identify concept recognition, rather than mask quality, as the primary bottleneck: SAM3 accurately delineates the objects it recognizes yet struggles to robustly determine which concepts are present. Driven by this, we present Text Anchor re-Grounding (\TAG{}), a simple yet effective framework that rectifies the concept recognition of SAM3 on the target domain without dense annotations. Specifically, \TAG{} introduces an Anchor Residual Pathway comprising image-conditioned, low-rank adapters to re-ground text anchors in the target distribution and modulate subsequent text-conditioned interactions. Guided solely by image-level category labels, \TAG{} jointly optimizes binary cross-entropy with Soft Boundary Ranking objectives to calibrate presence confidence and distinguish present concepts from confusable negatives. Building upon this, we devise Confidence-Weighted Distillation to couple rich semantic context of a multimodal large language model with fine-grained spatial priors of SAM3, thereby achieving effective calibration in the absence of manual annotations. Extensive experiments demonstrate that \TAG{} unlocks SAM3's segmentation potential with only 3.1M trainable parameters, achieving impressive performance across diverse scenarios, and notably, even surpassing leading mask-supervised methods on several metrics. Our code will be publicly available at GitHub \faGithub.
Real-time, on-device segmentation is critical for latency-sensitive and privacy-aware applications such as smart glasses and Internet-of-Things devices. We introduce PicoSAM3, a lightweight promptable visual segmentation model optimized for edge and in-sensor execution, including deployment on the Sony IMX500 vision sensor. PicoSAM3 has 1.3M parameters and combines a dense CNN architecture with region of interest prompt encoding, Efficient Channel Attention, and knowledge distillation from SAM2 and SAM3. On COCO and LVIS, PicoSAM3 achieves 65.45% and 64.01% mIoU, respectively, outperforming existing SAM-based and edge-oriented baselines at similar or lower complexity. The INT8 quantized model preserves accuracy with negligible degradation while enabling real-time in-sensor inference at 11.82ms latency on the IMX500, fully complying with its memory and operator constraints. Ablation studies show that distillation from large SAM models yields up to +14.5% mIoU improvement over supervised training and demonstrate that high-quality, spatially flexible promptable segmentation is feasible directly at the sensor level.
Pietro Bonazzi, Nicola Farronato, Stefan Zihlmann +2
Equal contribution · ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. · IBM Research, Zürich, Switzerland.