Comparing SAM 2 and SAM 3 for Zero-Shot Segmentation of 3D Medical Data

Satrajit Chakrabarty, Ravi Soni

Keywords: Foundation models, Segment Anything Model, Zero-shot segmentation, SAM 2, SAM 3

TL;DR: We compare SAM 2 and SAM 3 under identical visual prompts on 16 public 3D medical datasets covering 54 structures and find SAM 3 is the stronger default for zero-shot segmentation, with SAM 2 only competitive for a few compact organs.

Abstract: Foundation models, such as the Segment Anything Model (SAM), have heightened interest in promptable zero-shot segmentation. Although these models perform strongly on natural images, their behavior on medical data remains insufficiently characterized. While SAM 2 has been widely adopted for annotation in 3D medical workflows, the recently released SAM 3 introduces a new architecture that may change how visual prompts are interpreted and propagated. Therefore, to assess whether SAM 3 can serve as an out-of-the-box replacement for SAM 2 for zero-shot segmentation of 3D medical data, we present the first controlled comparison of both models by evaluating SAM 3 in its Promptable Visual Segmentation (PVS) mode using a variety of prompting strategies. We benchmark on 16 public datasets (CT, MRI, Ultrasound, endoscopy) covering 54 anatomical structures, pathologies, and surgical instruments. We further quantify three failure modes: prompt-frame over-segmentation, over-propagation after object disappearance, and temporal retention of well-initialized predictions. Our results show that SAM 3 is consistently stronger under click prompting across modalities, with fewer prompt-frame over-segmentation failures and slower prediction retention decay compared to SAM 2. Under bounding-box and mask prompts, performance gaps narrow in few structures of CT/MR and the models trade off termination behavior, while SAM 3 remains stronger on ultrasound and endoscopy sequences. The overall results position SAM 3 as the superior default choice for most medical segmentation tasks, while clarifying when SAM 2 remains a preferable propagator.

Primary Subject Area: Segmentation

Secondary Subject Area: Foundation Models

Registration Requirement: Yes

Visa & Travel: Yes

Read CFP & Author Instructions: Yes

Originality Policy: Yes

Single-blind & Not Under Review Elsewhere: Yes

LLM Policy: Yes

Midl Latex Submission Checklist: Ensure no LaTeX errors during compilation., Replace NNN with your OpenReview submission ID., Includes \documentclass{midl}, \jmlryear{2026}, \jmlrworkshop, \jmlrvolume, \editors, and correct \bibliography command., Did not override options of the hyperref package., Did not use the times package., Use the correct spelling and format, avoid Unicode characters, and use LaTeX equivalents instead., Any math in the title and abstract must be enclosed within $...$., Did not override the bibliography style defined in midl.cls and did not use \begin{thebibliography} directly to insert references., Avoid using \scalebox; use \resizebox when needed., Included all necessary figures and removed *unused* files in the zip archive., Removed special formatting, visual annotations, and highlights used during rebuttal., All special characters in the paper and .bib file use LaTeX commands (e.g., \'e for é)., No separate supplementary PDF uploads., Acknowledgements, references, and appendix must start after the main content.

Submission Number: 26