Evaluates whether object-centric representations derived from zero-shot segmentation masks enable robust zero-shot classification under spurious background correlations, and compares them against slot-based OCL methods on unsupervised object discovery. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Movi-C, Movi-E, UrbanCars, ImageNet-D, ImageNet-9, Waterbirds, CounterAnimals, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Occam Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-occam-eval)
---
name: occam-eval
description: Evaluates whether object-centric representations derived from zero-shot segmentation masks enable robust zero-shot classification under spurious background correlations, and compares them against slot-based OCL methods on unsupervised object discovery. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Movi-C, Movi-E, UrbanCars, ImageNet-D, ImageNet-9, Waterbirds, CounterAnimals, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2504.07092
bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
confidence: high
---
# occam-eval
> Are We Done with Object-Centric Learning? — Rubinstein et al. (2025) (arXiv:2504.07092, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates whether object-centric representations derived from zero-shot segmentation masks enable robust zero-shot classification under spurious background correlations, and compares them against slot-based OCL methods on unsupervised object discovery.
## Datasets
- **Movi-C** — total 1000; splits: test (1000)
- **Movi-E** — total 1000; splits: test (1000)
- **UrbanCars** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **ImageNet-D** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **ImageNet-9** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Waterbirds** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **CounterAnimals** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Standard classification accuracy: the proportion of correctly predicted labels out of the total number of samples.
- `worst group accuracy (WGA)` — range: [0, 1]
- The minimum accuracy computed across predefined spurious correlation groups (e.g., background types). It measures robustness by penalizing models that rely on spurious cues.
- `FG-ARI` — range: [0, 1]
- Foreground adjusted Rand index: a clustering similarity metric that evaluates how well predicted instance masks match ground truth foreground objects, ignoring background pixels.
- `mBO` — range: [0, 1]
- Mean best overlap: computes the maximum intersection-over-union (IoU) between predicted and ground truth masks for each object, averaged across objects and accounting for background pixels.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Input images containing foreground objects and spurious background cues (or synthetic scenes for object discovery). For the OCCAM pipeline, the model receives the original image and predicted object masks.
**Output**: Class predictions (zero-shot classification) or mask-based feature representations. For object discovery, binary/instance masks per object.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_accuracy(preds, gold):
return sum(1 for p, g in zip(preds, gold) if p == g) / len(gold)
def compute_wga(preds, gold, groups):
group_accs = {}
for p, g, grp in zip(preds, gold, groups):
group_accs.setdefault(grp, []).append(p == g)
return min(sum(accs)/len(accs) for accs in group_accs.values())
```
## Common pitfalls
- Assuming slot-based OCL is required for object-centric representations, whereas zero-shot segmentation masks achieve superior performance with far fewer training samples.
- Confusing standard accuracy with Worst Group Accuracy (WGA); WGA specifically measures robustness by taking the minimum accuracy across spurious background groups, making it sensitive to background correlations.
- Overlooking that foreground mask selection remains a critical bottleneck; even with high-quality segmentation, poor foreground detection degrades downstream classification performance.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We measure model performance using the standard metric used in the respective benchmark: accuracy and worst group accuracy (WGA). We provide per-benchmark comparisons for reference, including results from other relevant methods, citing them alongside their names in the tables.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{rubinstein2025objectcentric,
title={Are We Done with Object-Centric Learning?},
author={Rubinstein et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2504.07092}
}
```
- arXiv: 2504.07092