Prompt-conditioned foundation segmenters have emerged as a dominant paradigm for image segmentation, where explicit spatial prompts(e.g., points, boxes, masks) guide mask decoding. However, many real-world deployments require fully automatic segmentation, creating a structural mismatch: the decoder expects prompts that are unavailable at inference. Existing adaptations typically modify intermediate features, inadvertently bypassing the model's native prompt interface and weakening prompt-conditioned decoding. We propose IP-SAM, which revisits adaptation from a prompt-space perspective through prompt-space conditioning. Specifically, a Self-Prompt Generator (SPG) distills image context into complementary intrinsic prompts that serve as coarse regional anchors. These cues are projected through SAM2's frozen prompt encoder, restoring prompt-guided decoding without external intervention. To suppress background-induced false positives, Prompt-Space Gating (PSG) leverages the intrinsic background prompt as an asymmetric suppressive constraint prior to decoding. Under a deterministic no-external-prompt protocol, IP-SAM achieves state-of-the-art performance across four camouflaged object detection benchmarks with only 21.26M trainable parameters. Furthermore, the proposed conditioning strategy generalizes beyond COD to medical polyp segmentation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overall architecture of IP-SAM. Shifting the paradigm to prompt-space conditioning, IP-SAM utilizes a Self-Prompt Generator (SPG) to synthesize complementary intrinsic prompts ( P± ). These are projected into SAM2’s native manifold via the frozen prompt encoder. Prior to decoding, Prompt-Space Gating (PSG) leverages the negative embedding ( Z− ) to asymmetrically suppress deceptive cues in the positive embedding ( Z+ ). The purified condition ( Z ) explicitly steers the mask decoder. For visual clarity, the optional auxiliary structural regularizer (ablated in \lx@sectionsign 4.3 ) is omitted.
Figure 2: Detailed schematic of Prompt-Space Gating (PSG). PSG isolates and eliminates background-induced false positives before they enter the decoder. It formulates a localized gate decision map from the negative prompt embedding ( Z− ) to physically filter deceptive cues from the positive counterpart ( Z+ ). The suppressed feature ( Z+ ) is then fused with unactivated background cues and compensated via an anchored residual connection to yield the robust Conditioned Prompt Embedding ( Z ).
Method
Param
T-Param
CAMO
CHAMELEON
COD10K
NC4K
(M)
(M)
MAE ↓
Fω↑
Sm↑
Eϕ↑
MAE ↓
Fω↑
Sm↑
Eϕ↑
MAE ↓
Fω↑
Sm↑
Eϕ↑
MAE ↓
Fω↑
Sm↑
Eϕ↑
Specialist COD Methods (CNN & Transformer-based)
FSPNet [ 15 ]
274.2
274.2
.060
.761
.864
.880
.036
.766
.887
.889
.034
.671
.843
.858
.043
.772
.878
.891
ZoomNet [ 32 ]
33.4
33.4
.070
.731
.809
.856
.030
.812
.881
.928
.031
.719
.833
.882
.045
.774
.847
.887
DGNet [ 16 ]
8.30
8.30
.057
.769
.839
.901
.029
.816
.890
.934
.033
.693
.822
.877
.042
.784
.857
.907
CamoFormer [ 48 ]
71.3
71.3
.048
.824
.868
.923
.022
.860
.901
.942
.023
.777
.868
.928
.031
.841
.888
.935
Table 1: Quantitative comparison (no-external-prompt). Best results are boldfaced and IP-SAM is highlighted in gray.
SPG
PSG
Lat.
Ref.
T-Param
COD10K
CAMO
(M)
MAE ↓
Fω↑
Sm↑
Eϕ↑
MAE ↓
Fω↑
Sm↑
Eϕ↑
✗
✗
✗
✗
9.15
0.024
0.788
0.857
0.902
0.043
0.818
0.859
0.893
✓
✗
✗
✗
17.00
0.022
0.802
0.872
0.916
0.041
0.826
0.875
0.915
✓
✓
✗
✗
18.98
0.019
0.826
0.893
0.938
0.034
0.868
0.902
0.938
✓
✓
✓
✗
19.13
0.018
0.835
0.899
0.941
0.032
0.871
0.907
0.942
✓
✓
✓
✓
21.26
0.017
0.838
0.906
0.947
0.032
0.878
0.912
0.946
Table 2: Ablation on core components. Incrementally adding SPG, PSG, Lateral, and Refine to the baseline.
Setting
T-Param (M)
COD10K
CAMO
MAE ↓
Fω↑
Sm↑
Eϕ↑
MAE ↓
Fω↑
Sm↑
Eϕ↑
(I) Conditioning paradigm & SPG Capacity
Minimal-SPG (Direct)
13.85
0.051
0.802
0.887
0.896
0.058
0.727
0.873
0.885
Minimal-SPG + PromptSpace
13.85
0.040
0.851
0.894
0.928
0.049
0.818
0.893
0.936
Full-SPG (Direct)
21.26
0.025
0.765
0.883
0.899
0.043
0.829
0.897
0.913
FeatAdd
19.02
0.020
0.825
0.896
0.940
0.039
0.864
0.904
0.936
Table 3: Ablation on design choices. (I) Conditioning paradigm and SPG capacity, (II) PSG operator and residual anchoring, (III) PSG and token replacement, and (IV) LoRA injection strategy.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison on challenging camouflaged scenarios. Visual predictions of our IP-SAM against representative specialist COD models and SAM-based adaptations under the prompt-absent setting.
Figure 4: Internal feature visualization of the Prompt-Space Gating (PSG) mechanism. Feature evolution from the baseline’s leakage (Col 2) to IP-SAM’s clean prediction (Col 3). Intermediate columns depict suppressed false positives (Col 4), complementary intrinsic prompts (Cols 5-6), gate decision map (Col 7), and feature energy adjustments (Col 8).
Method
Kvasir-SEG (In-domain)
CVC-ClinicDB
ETIS
mDice ↑
mIoU ↑
Sm↑
MAE ↓
mDice ↑
mIoU ↑
Sm↑
MAE ↓
mDice ↑
mIoU ↑
Sm↑
MAE ↓
SEPNet [ 40 ]
.896
.839
.917
.028
.815
.744
.874
.028
.741
.663
.847
.018
LACFormer [ 38 ]
.906
.851
.922
.029
.826
.758
.889
.026
.798
.722
.884
.016
ASPS [ 21 ]
.788
.704
.844
.063
.670
.580
.786
.069
.362
.313
.660
.039
ZoomNeXt [ 33 ]
.892
.831
.909
.031
.805
.731
.863
.031
.693
.625
.841
.023
SAM-Adapter [ 4 ]
.624
.514
.724
.117
.450
.366
.671
.093
.223
.189
.596
.070
Table 4: Cross-dataset medical polyp segmentation. Models are trained on Kvasir-SEG and evaluated on CVC-ClinicDB and ETIS. Best overall are underlined and best SAM-based are boldfaced (IP-SAM belongs to both categories).
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
DUTS-TE
DUT-OMRON
HKU-IS
ECSSD
PASCAL-S
MAE ↓
Fβmax↑
Sm↑
Emmax↑
MAE ↓
Fβmax↑
Sm↑
Emmax↑
MAE ↓
Fβmax↑
Sm↑
Emmax↑
MAE ↓
Fβmax↑
Sm↑
Emmax↑
MAE ↓
Fβmax↑
Sm↑
Emmax↑
CNN-Based Methods
F3Net [ 42 ]
.035
.905
.888
.920
.053
.841
.838
.864
.028
.943
.917
.952
.033
.957
.924
.948
.061
.892
.861
.898
GateNet-X [ 54 ]
.035
.908
.897
.916
.051
.847
.849
.865
.029
.946
.925
.947
.035
.957
.929
.944
.064
.892
.865
.895
MINet-R [ 34 ]
.037
.884
.884
.917
.056
.831
.833
.860
.029
.942
.919
.952
.033
.954
.925
.950
.064
.881
.856
.896
MENet [ 41 ]
.028
.918
.905
.938
.045
.845
.850
.871
.023
.951
.927
.960
.021
.957
.928
.951
.053
.897
.872
.910
Appendix
Table 5: Quantitative comparison on standard RGB Salient Object Detection (SOD) benchmarks. Results of competing methods are quoted from their original papers when available. “-” indicates the metric is not reported. Fβmax and Emmax denote the maximum F-measure and maximum E-measure, respectively. The best results are highlighted in bold .
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on Salient Object Detection (SOD). Visual results demonstrate IP-SAM’s precise localization and resistance to over-segmentation. A detailed analysis is provided in Section B .
Figure 6: Qualitative comparison on medical polyp segmentation. IP-SAM demonstrates robust boundary preservation and effectively mitigates mucosa-induced false positives. See Section C for detailed observations.
Figure 7: Additional qualitative results on extreme camouflaged scenarios. Visual comparison of IP-SAM against representative COD models and SAM adaptations under the prompt-absent setting. IP-SAM demonstrates robust disambiguation across near-zero contrast (top rows), deceptive distractors (middle rows), and fragile topologies (bottom rows).
Setting
T-Param (M)
COD10K
CAMO
MAE ↓
Fω↑
Sm↑
Eϕ↑
MAE ↓
Fω↑
Sm↑
Eϕ↑
(I) Prompt Conditioning Pathway
No Prompt Conditioning
13.40
0.020
0.811
0.890
0.934
0.040
0.849
0.896
0.930
Bypass Prompt Encoder
21.26
0.020
0.817
0.893
0.935
0.040
0.850
0.897
0.928
Prompt-Space Cond. (Ours)
21.26
0.017
0.838
0.906
0.947
0.032
0.878
0.912
0.946
(II) Input Logit Formats for Prompt Encoder
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation study on prompt conditioning pathways and input logit formats. All variants share an identical downstream MaskDecoderV2 architecture to strictly isolate the source of performance gains. The results indicate that the observed gain is closely tied to routing intrinsic prompts through SAM2’s frozen prompt encoder, especially when using raw continuous logits, rather than to decoder replacement alone.
Table 7: Computational efficiency analysis of IP-SAM. (a) End-to-end inference speed measured with the same wall-clock protocol as the main paper. (b) Internal component-wise profiling measured with synchronized CUDA Events (averaged over 200 runs after 50 warm-up iterations), used solely to illustrate the relative computational distribution inside the IP-SAM forward pass. Most computation remains in the SAM2 backbone, while the proposed prompt-space modules contribute only a modest fraction of the internal runtime.
Figure 8: Mechanistic visualization of IP-SAM’s failure modes. By unboxing the internal feature evolution, we illustrate how extreme visual ambiguity triggers a coupled error mechanism: the negative prompt ( P− , Column 8) erroneously encroaches upon the target regions, establishing an aggressive suppressive gate, which further diminishes the already weakened intrinsic foreground prompt ( P+ , Column 7). This propagates through the Prompt-Space Gating (PSG) module, ultimately resulting in severe under-segmentation.
Promptable foundation models such as the Segment Anything Model (SAM) produce high-quality masks but remain semantically blind, relying on external prompts to specify categories. Existing vision-language approaches address this limitation by using external prompt coupling, where a vision-language model generates spatial prompts for SAM as a separate stage. We propose CLIP-Guided SAM, a parameter-efficient segmentation framework built on internal semantic conditioning. Instead of using semantic signals only to generate prompts, we inject CLIP-derived text, vision, and similarity features directly into SAM's image encoder through lightweight multi-modal semantic adapters. These adapters condition SAM's internal feature representations, allowing semantic information to influence mask prediction while preserving SAM's original promptable interface. Our framework is designed for low labeled-data settings and applies to both general-domain benchmarks and specialized downstream tasks. It supports two operating modes: Manual mode, for interactive segmentation with both text and spatial prompts, and Semi-Automatic text-only mode, for applications that require concept-specific segmentation using only textual input. We show that robustness depends on aligning training with the type of prompts used at inference, making train-test prompt consistency an important design principle. Through extensive experiments and ablations, we evaluate our method against SAM+PEFT baselines without semantic conditioning, vision-language + SAM pipelines, SAM 3, and strong semi-supervised segmentation methods that rely on large amounts of unlabeled data. Across these settings, CLIP-Guided SAM consistently achieves superior or competitive performance while remaining parameter-efficient in both training and deployment.
Promptable segmentation models provide a reusable interface, but direct transfer to automatic infrared small-target segmentation (IRSTD) exposes a mismatch between spatial prompts and target-domain mask responses. In a diagnostic using target-covering loose-box prompts deterministically derived from test reference masks, the best official SAM2.1 results are only 4.69%, 1.64%, and 2.28% IoU on NUAA-SIRST, NUDT-SIRST, and IRSTD-1K. We introduce SPARK-SAM (Self-Prompt Adaptation with Response Knowledge for SAM), which learns target-domain response knowledge and conditions the decoder through an image-conditioned joint self-prompt state. Training combines benchmark-mask supervision with reliability-aware response guidance. SPARK-SAM achieves 75.78%, 86.49%, and 68.34% IoU with 0.726M additional parameters, ranking first on two benchmarks among 14 retrained SAM variants and adaptations evaluated as automatic image-to-mask methods. The staged IRSTD-1K diagnostic shows that response adaptation reaches most of the final IoU before the predicted points acquire reliable target grounding. Prompt supervision aligns the predicted prompt candidates with target locations, and frozen-weight interventions measure output sensitivity to the joint self-prompt state. Matched ablations show consistent accuracy gains from response guidance and high-resolution prompt refinement across all three datasets. Code is available at https://github.com/Sakauma/SPARK-SAM.
Aji Mao, Zhenming Peng, Bailin Mu +1
School of Information and Communication Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
Visual Foundation Models (VFMs) such as the Segment Anything Model (SAM) have significantly advanced broad use of image segmentation. However, SAM and its variants necessitate substantial manual effort for prompt generation and additional training for specific applications. Recent approaches address these limitations by integrating SAM into in-context (one/few shot) segmentation, enabling auto-prompting through semantic alignment between query and support images. Despite these efforts, they still generate sub-optimal prompts that degrade segmentation quality due to visual inconsistencies between support and query images. To tackle this limitation, we introduce PR-MaGIC (Prompt Refinement via Mask Decoder Gradient Flow for In-Context Segmentation), a training-free test-time framework that refines prompts via gradient flow derived from SAM's mask decoder. PR-MaGIC seamlessly integrates into in-context segmentation frameworks, being theoretically grounded yet practically stabilized through a simple top-1 selection strategy that ensures robust performance across samples. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that PR-MaGIC consistently improves segmentation quality across various benchmarks, effectively mitigating inadequate prompts without requiring additional training or architectural modifications.
Minjae Lee, Sungwoo Hur, Soojin Hwang +1
Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang, South Korea