On the Effectiveness of Textual Prompting with Lightweight Fine-Tuning for SAM3 Remote Sensing Segmentation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Remote sensing (RS) image segmentation is constrained by the limited availability of annotated data and a gap between overhead imagery and natural images used to train foundational models. This motivates effective adaptation under limited supervision. SAM3 concept-driven framework generates masks from textual prompts without requiring task-specific modifications, which may enable this adaptation. We evaluate SAM3 for RS imagery across four target types, comparing textual, geometric, and hybrid prompting strategies, under lightweight fine-tuning scales with increasing supervision, alongside zero-shot inference. Results show that combining semantic and geometric cues yields the highest performance across targets and metrics. Text-only prompting exhibits the lowest performance, with marked score gaps for irregularly shaped targets, reflecting limited semantic alignment between SAM3 textual representations and their overhead appearances. Nevertheless, textual prompting with light fine-tuning offers a practical performance-effort trade-off for geometrically regular and visually salient targets. Across targets, performance improves between zero-shot inference and fine-tuning, followed by diminishing returns as the supervision scale increases. Namely, a modest geometric annotation effort is sufficient for effective adaptation. A persistent gap between Precision and IoU further indicates that under-segmentation and boundary inaccuracies remain prevalent error patterns in RS tasks, particularly for irregular and less prevalent targets.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Dec 2025.
Builds on
16 of 25 references.
References · 16
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
- 2023Segment Anythingcited by 8,158
- 2023Grounding DINO: Marrying DINO with Grounded Pre-Training for Open-Set Object Detectioncited by 3,274
- 2024SAM 2: Segment Anything in Images and Videoscited by 2,784
- 2021Grounded Language-Image Pre-trainingcited by 1,147
- 2025SAM 3: Segment Anything with Conceptscited by 835
- 2023Segment Everything Everywhere All at Oncecited by 546
- 2021Image Segmentation Using Text and Image Promptscited by 509
- 2023RemoteCLIP: A Vision Language Foundation Model for Remote Sensingcited by 357
- 2019ResUNet-a: a deep learning framework for semantic segmentation of remotely sensed datacited by 260
- 2023RSPrompter: Learning to Prompt for Remote Sensing Instance Segmentation based on Visual Foundation Modelcited by 180
- 2021Reviving Iterative Training with Mask Guidance for Interactive Segmentationcited by 162
4 more
- 2022FocalClick: Towards Practical Interactive Image Segmentationcited by 101
- 2023The Segment Anything Model (SAM) for Remote Sensing Applications: From Zero to One Shotcited by 83
- 2024PointSAM: Pointly-Supervised Segment Anything Model for Remote Sensing Imagescited by 24
- 2025Visual and Text Prompt Segmentation: A Novel Multi-Model Framework for Remote Sensingcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026B-GRTO: Bootstrapped Group Relative Tool Optimization for Referring Segmentationcited by 1
- 2026More with Less: a Large Scale Remote Sensing VLM with a Simple Recipecited by 0
- 2026Evaluating Semantic and Spatial Guidance for Foundation Model Segmentation of Small-Scale PV in Remote Sensing Imagerycited by 0
- 2026Evaluating Semantic and Spatial Guidance for Foundation Model Segmentation of Small-Scale PV in Remote Sensing Imagery11 Aug 2026
- 2026More with Less: a Large Scale Remote Sensing VLM with a Simple Recipe17 Jul 2026
- 2026B-GRTO: Bootstrapped Group Relative Tool Optimization for Referring Segmentation22 May 2026