From Pixels to Concepts: Do Segmentation Models Understand What They Segment?

TL;DR

This paper introduces CAFE, a benchmark for evaluating whether segmentation models truly understand concepts by testing their responses to attribute-level counterfactual modifications.

Contribution

The paper presents CAFE, a novel benchmark with counterfactual attribute manipulations to assess concept-faithful segmentation in promptable models.

Findings

Models often produce accurate masks for misleading prompts, indicating reliance on visual cues.

There is a gap between localization accuracy and true concept understanding.

CAFE enables diagnosis of semantic grounding versus shortcut-driven mask retrieval.

Abstract

Segmentation is a fundamental vision task underlying numerous downstream applications. Recent promptable segmentation models, such as Segment Anything Model 3 (SAM3), extend segmentation from category-agnostic mask prediction to concept-guided localization conditioned on high-level textual prompts. However, existing benchmarks primarily evaluate mask accuracy or object presence, leaving unclear whether these models faithfully ground the queried concept or instead rely on visually salient but semantically misleading cues. We introduce CAFE: \textbf{C}ounterfactual \textbf{A}ttribute \textbf{F}actuality \textbf{E}valuation, a novel benchmark for evaluating concept-faithful segmentation in promptable segmentation models. Our \textbf{CAFE} is built on attribute-level counterfactual manipulation: the target region and ground-truth mask are preserved, while attributes such as surface appearance, context, or material composition are modified to introduce misleading semantic cues. The benchmark contains 2,146 paired test samples, each consisting of a target image, a ground-truth mask, a positive prompt, and a misleading negative prompt. These samples cover three counterfactual categories: Superficial Mimicry (\textbf{SM}), Context Conflict (\textbf{CC}), and Ontological Conflict (\textbf{OC}). We evaluate various model types and sizes on our CAFE. Experiments reveal a systematic gap between localization quality and concept discrimination: models often generate accurate masks even for misleading prompts, suggesting that strong mask prediction does not necessarily imply faithful semantic grounding. Our CAFE provides a controlled benchmark for diagnosing whether promptable segmentation models perform concept-faithful grounding rather than shortcut-driven mask retrieval.