CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 0Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Controlling False Positives in Image Segmentation via Conformal Prediction

Open access
Mossina, Luca, Friedrich, Corentin·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2511.15406arXiv 2511.15406
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Reliable semantic segmentation is essential for clinical decision making, yet deep models rarely provide explicit statistical guarantees on their errors. We introduce a simple post-hoc framework that constructs confidence masks with distribution-free, image-level control of false-positive predictions. Given any pretrained segmentation model, we define a nested family of shrunken masks obtained either by increasing the score threshold or by applying morphological erosion. A labeled calibration set is used to select a single shrink parameter via conformal prediction, ensuring that, for new images that are exchangeable with the calibration data, the proportion of false positives retained in the confidence mask stays below a user-specified tolerance with high probability. The method is model-agnostic, requires no retraining, and provides finite-sample guarantees regardless of the underlying predictor. Experiments on a polyp-segmentation benchmark demonstrate target-level empirical validity. Our framework enables practical, risk-aware segmentation in settings where over-segmentation can have clinical consequences. Code at https://github.com/deel-ai-papers/conseco.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper introduces a post-hoc conformal prediction framework that shrinks any pretrained binary segmentation mask to provide distribution-free, image-level control of accepted false-positive pixels. On a polyp-segmentation benchmark, the calibrated thresholding and erosion variants achieve empirical validity close to the nominal confidence level, with a smooth validity–utility trade-off.

Key findings

  • The method constructs nested confidence masks by either increasing the sigmoid score threshold or applying morphological erosion, then calibrates a single shrink parameter on labeled data so that the accepted false-positive proportion (AFP) stays below a user-specified tolerance τ with probability at least 1−α at the image level.
  • On the Polyps dataset with pretrained PraNet, at confidence 1−α = 0.90, conformalized procedures attain empirical validity (EV) close to the nominal target across τ ∈ {0.1, 0.01, 0.001}, whereas the uncalibrated Baseline fails for small τ and only approaches validity at τ = 0.1.
  • Reported EV values: at τ = 0.1, Baseline 0.789 ± 0.015, Threshold 0.931 ± 0.049, Erosion 0.897 ± 0.030; at τ = 0.01, Baseline 0.165 ± 0.013, Threshold 0.926 ± 0.037, Erosion 0.902 ± 0.034; at τ = 0.001, Baseline 0.005 ± 0.002, Threshold 0.914 ± 0.029, Erosion 0.911 ± 0.033.
  • At fixed τ, the Threshold variant retains higher contraction ratio (CR) and accepted true-positive fraction (ATP) than Erosion, reflecting a more moderate shrinkage path; utility decreases smoothly as τ tightens.

Methods

  • Post-hoc split conformal prediction: define a nested family of inner masks Iλ(X) ⊆ Ŷ, either by thresholding sigmoid scores with λ ∈ [0.5, 1] or by morphological erosion with λ ∈ N, and control the accepted false-positive proportion Fλ relative to the original predicted area |Ŷ|.
  • Calibration: collect an exchangeable labeled calibration set, compute nonconformity scores rι, estimate the conformal threshold as the k-th smallest calibration score with k = ⌈(n+1)(1−α)⌉, and output Iλ̂(Xnew) for new images; the guarantee is Fλ̂ ≤ τ with probability at least 1−α at the image level.
  • Experiments: Polyps dataset collection with pretrained PraNet; compare Baseline (uncalibrated sigmoid threshold at 0.5), Threshold (CP by score cutoff), and Erosion (CP by morphological erosion); 1−α = 0.90, τ ∈ {0.1, 0.01, 0.001}; each run randomly permutes the test split and assigns half to calibration and half to evaluation, yielding 250 calibration images; report mean ± standard deviation over 10 seeds using EV, CR, and ATP.

Limitations

  • The paper states that guarantees are mask-level (marginal) rather than per-pixel, and that true-positive loss can occur when predictions are already precise.
  • The paper states future work includes extending the approach to multi-class segmentation and building size- and instance-adaptive inner masks.
  • Evident from the text: the method assumes exchangeability (or i.i.d.) between calibration and test data, is restricted to binary medical segmentation in the experiments, and can produce very small or empty inner masks if τ is too strict, though the trivial empty mask is always valid.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2511.15406

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

9 of 24 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingnone given
    § 1 Introduction · p. 2

    Evidence on a biomedical benchmark shows that the empirical image-level validity of the accepted false-positive proportion (AFP) matches the target confidence.

    “Evidence on a biomedical benchmark that the empirical image-level validity of the accepted false-positive proportion (AFP) matches the target confidence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Experiments on a polyp-segmentation benchmark demonstrate target-level empirical validity.

    “Experiments on a polyp-segmentation benchmark demonstrate target-level empirical validity.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 2 · plain
      “Evidence on a biomedical benchmark that the empirical image-level validity of the accepted false-positive proportion (AFP) matches the target confidence.”
    • Also stated in: § 5 Conclusion and Perspectives · p. 7 · boosted
      “Experiments on polyp segmentation demonstrate target-level empirical validity and a smooth validity-utility tradeoff governed by τ .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingreasoning
    § 4.1 Results · p. 6

    At fixed τ, the Threshold variant retains higher CR and ATP than Erosion.

    “At fixed τ , the Threshold variant retains higher CR and ATP than Erosion”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingnone given
    § 4.1 Results · p. 6

    Utility decreases smoothly as τ tightens.

    “Utility decreases smoothly as τ tightens.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § 4.1 Results · p. 6

    The Baseline fails for small τ.

    “whereas the Baseline fails for small τ”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 23
  • May combine two claims. 15

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2 Related Work · p. 2

    Other conformal approaches reduce false negatives by lowering score thresholds or by morphological dilation of the predicted mask.

    “Other conformal approaches reduce false negatives by lowering score thresholds [2, 13, 5] or by morphological dilation of the predicted mask [14].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [2] [2] Angelopoulos, A. N., Bates, S., Fisch, A., Lei, L., and Schuster, T. Conformal risk control. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (2024). -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [13] [13] Mossina, L., Dalmau, J., and And´ eol, L. Conformal semantic image segmentation: Post-hoc quantification of predictive uncertainty. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops (June 2024), pp. 3574-3584. - source

      The [14] citation is attached to morphological dilation, not to lowering score thresholds. Section 4.1.1 describes constructing multi-labeled masks by thresholding pixel-wise softmax scores, but the passages found do not address morphological dilation of a predicted mask. The cited copy therefore does not verify the claim attached to [14]. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [5] [5] Blot, V., Angelopoulos, A. N., Jordan, M., and Brunel, N. J.-B. Automatically adaptive conformal risk control. In Proceedings of The 28th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (May 2025), vol. 258 of PMLR , pp. 19-27. - source
    • cites [14] [14] Mossina, L., and Friedrich, C. Conformal prediction for image segmentation using morphological prediction sets. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2025 (Cham, 2026), Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 78-88. - source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2 Related Work · p. 2

    Methods such as MC-Dropout, deep ensembles, or failure prediction provide useful uncertainty maps but do not yield distribution-free guarantees at deployment.

    “methods such as MC-Dropout [11], deep ensembles [12], or failure prediction [7] provide useful uncertainty maps but do not yield distribution-free guarantees at deployment, which can be achieved with CP.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [11] [11] Gal, Y., and Ghahramani, Z. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (New York, New York, USA, 20-22 Jun 2016), vol. 48 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , PMLR, pp. 1050-1059. - source

      Section 4 (p. 4) identifies MC dropout and explains how stochastic forward passes yield predictive uncertainty estimates; Section 5.1 (p. 5) illustrates those estimates. The paper does not address whether MC dropout provides distribution-free guarantees at deployment, so that part of the claim is unsupported by this source. The other methods have separate citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [12] [12] Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., and Blundell, C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017). - source

      The Discussion (p. 9) says deep ensembles improve the quality of predictive uncertainty estimates, supporting the claim that they provide useful uncertainty information. The paper does not address distribution-free guarantees at deployment, and its reported estimates are not described as spatial uncertainty maps. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [7] [7] Corbi` ere, C., THOME, N., Bar-Hen, A., Cord, M., and P´ erez, P. Addressing failure prediction by learning model confidence. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2019), vol. 32, Curran Associates, Inc. -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 2 Related Work · p. 2

    In multilabel prediction, inner and outer sets are constructed to enclose the true label set.

    “In multilabel prediction, inner and outer sets are constructed to enclose the true label set [6].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] [6] Cauchois, M., Gupta, S., and Duchi, J. C. Knowing what you know: valid and validated confidence sets in multiclass and multilabel prediction. Journal of Machine Learning Research 22 , 81 (2021), 1-42. 2 https://www.deel.ai - source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1 Introduction · p. 1

    Existing uncertainty scores and calibration methods provide useful heuristics but do not offer finite-sample guarantees on the errors of the produced masks.

    “Existing uncertainty scores and calibration methods provide useful heuristics, but they do not offer finite-sample guarantees on the errors of the produced masks.”
    • Also stated in: § 2 Related Work · p. 2 · plain
      “methods such as MC-Dropout [11], deep ensembles [12], or failure prediction [7] provide useful uncertainty maps but do not yield distribution-free guarantees at deployment, which can be achieved with CP.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [11] [11] Gal, Y., and Ghahramani, Z. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In Proceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (New York, New York, USA, 20-22 Jun 2016), vol. 48 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , PMLR, pp. 1050-1059. - source

      The Introduction (p. 1) describes uncertainty estimates as useful for deciding when to seek human classification, and §5.2 (p. 6) identifies entropy and variation ratios as ways to quantify uncertainty. The paper does not address calibration methods or finite-sample guarantees on errors in produced masks, so those parts of the claim are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [12] [12] Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., and Blundell, C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017). - source

      Section 3.6 (p. 8) describes calibrated confidence estimates as useful for deciding when to trust predictions, and Appendix A.2 (p. 13) calls one uncertainty measure a heuristic. The paper does not address errors in produced masks or state that these methods lack finite-sample guarantees for them; searches for those terms found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [7] [7] Corbi` ere, C., THOME, N., Bar-Hen, A., Cord, M., and P´ erez, P. Addressing failure prediction by learning model confidence. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2019), vol. 32, Curran Associates, Inc. -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 2 Related Work · p. 2

    In semantic segmentation, inner and outer prediction masks have been used targeting coverage of the ground-truth mask.

    “For CP in semantic segmentation, [8] have used inner and outer prediction masks targeting coverage of the ground-truth mask.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] [8] Davenport, S. Conformal confidence sets for biomedical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03406 (2024). - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 3.2 Conformal Prediction · p. 4

    The method adapts inner sets from the segmentation approach of [8] and uses morphological erosion as the counterpart of the dilation-based outer sets in [14].

    “We adapt the inner sets from the segmentation approach of [8], and use morphological erosion as the counterpart of the dilation-based outer sets in [14].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [8] [8] Davenport, S. Conformal confidence sets for biomedical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03406 (2024). - source

      Section 3.1 (p. 8) says the paper constructs outer confidence sets using a distance transformation of the predicted mask. That supports the reference to spatially expanded outer sets, but our copy does not describe the method as morphological dilation or establish that its outer sets are dilation-based in the specific sense claimed. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [14] [14] Mossina, L., and Friedrich, C. Conformal prediction for image segmentation using morphological prediction sets. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2025 (Cham, 2026), Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 78-88. - source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 4.1 Results · p. 6

    The validity-utility trade-off behaves monotonically and remains stable across random seeds.

    “The validity-utility trade-off behaves monotonically and remains stable across random seeds.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 5 Conclusion and Perspectives · p. 7

    Experiments on polyp segmentation demonstrate target-level empirical validity and a smooth validity-utility tradeoff governed by τ.

    “Experiments on polyp segmentation demonstrate target-level empirical validity and a smooth validity-utility tradeoff governed by τ .”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1 Formulation of the False-Positives Control problem · p. 4

    We construct inner masks that are the largest subsets of ˆY containing few false positives.

    “we instead construct inner masks that are the largest subsets of ˆ Y containing few false positives, according to the chosen definition of inner mask (Eqs. 12).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2 Related Work · p. 2

    We address binary medical segmentation and control the proportion of accepted false-positive pixels within the predicted region using nested prediction-shrinkers and conformal calibration.

    “We address binary medical segmentation and control the proportion of accepted false-positive pixels within the predicted region using nested prediction-shrinkers and conformal calibration.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 1 Introduction · p. 1

    The validity bound is asserted at the image level.

    “The validity bound is asserted at the image level”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3 Methods · p. 3

    The erosion function is suited to segmentation models where false positives are concentrated at the boundary of the object.

    “This function is suited to segmentation models where the false positives are concentrated at the boundary of the object.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3 Methods · p. 3

    The quantity Fλ is compatible with the requirements of CP and hence admits rigorous statistical guarantees.

    “we define a quantity F λ ( X,Y ) (Eq. 3) that is compatible with the requirements of CP and hence admits rigorous statistical guarantees”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2 Related Work · p. 2

    Conformal Risk Control extends CP to monotone losses, providing guarantees on the expected risk.

    “Conformal Risk Control extends CP to monotone losses, providing guarantees on the expected risk [2].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] [2] Angelopoulos, A. N., Bates, S., Fisch, A., Lei, L., and Schuster, T. Conformal risk control. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (2024). -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3 Methods · p. 3

    Any morphology-based inner set is applicable.

    “As noted in [14], any morphology-based inner set is applicable”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] [14] Mossina, L., and Friedrich, C. Conformal prediction for image segmentation using morphological prediction sets. In Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2025 (Cham, 2026), Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 78-88. - source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2 Related Work · p. 2

    This work is complementary to prior false-negative control work and different in scope from multilabel FP-limited set prediction.

    “This is complementary to prior false-negative control work and different in scope from multilabel FP-limited set prediction [10].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] [10] Fisch, A., Schuster, T., Jaakkola, T., and Barzilay, D. Conformal prediction sets with limited false positives. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning (17-23 Jul 2022), vol. 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , PMLR, pp. 6514-6532. -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3 Methods · p. 3

    The erosion model applies to black-box predictors whose internals are not accessible to end users.

    “This erosion model also applies to black-box predictors, whose internals are not accessible to end users (e.g. third-party vendors, embedded in medical equipment, etc.).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 2 Related Work · p. 2

    Split CP constructs distribution-free prediction sets with finite-sample guarantees of containing the true target at a user-specified confidence level 1-α.

    “Split CP [15] constructs distribution-free prediction sets with finite-sample guarantees of containing the true target at a user-specified confidence level 1 -α .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] [15] Papadopoulos, H., Proedrou, K., Vovk, V., and Gammerman, A. Inductive confidence machines for regression. In ECML 2002 (2002). - source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3.1 Formulation of the False-Positives Control problem · p. 3

    The trivial solution Iλ = ∅ does not contain any FPs and is always valid.

    “note that the trivial solution I λ = ∅ does not contain any FPs and it is always valid.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.1 Results · p. 6

    Since Conformal Prediction guarantees statistical validity for any segmentation model, utility metrics can also serve to compare or select among different predictors.

    “Finally, since Conformal Prediction guarantees statistical validity for any segmentation model, utility metrics can also serve to compare or select among different predictors, e.g. when provided by a third-party.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1 Formulation of the False-Positives Control problem · p. 4

    In some cases it is possible to have Fλ(X,Y) ≤ τ, in which case no shrinkage would be needed.

    “in some cases it is possible to have F λ ( X,Y ) ≤ τ , in which case no shrinkage would be needed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3.3 Conformalization procedure · p. 5

    One can use any fixed segmentation model, either pretrained or trained separately on dedicated data.

    “One can use any fixed segmentation model, either pretrained or trained separately on dedicated data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.2 Conformal Prediction · p. 4

    The method builds on the standard inductive CP framework.

    “Our method builds on the standard inductive CP framework [15].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] [15] Papadopoulos, H., Proedrou, K., Vovk, V., and Gammerman, A. Inductive confidence machines for regression. In ECML 2002 (2002). - source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2 Conformal Prediction · p. 5

    The method can be seen as a mechanism to produce confidence regions that mitigate the operational hazard of predicting a treatment where not needed.

    “This can also be seen as a mechanism to produce confidence regions that mitigate the operational hazard of predicting a treatment (i.e. a 'positive' pixel) where not needed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3.1 Formulation of the False-Positives Control problem · p. 4

    For λ = λ0, Fλ0 corresponds to the original false-positive fraction of the prediction.

    “For λ = λ 0 (no shrinkage), F λ 0 = | W ( X,Y ) | / | ˆ Y | corresponds to the original false-positive fraction of the prediction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2 Conformal Prediction · p. 5

    The method opens to empirical exploration of shrinkers and scores from any uncertainty model.

    “This opens the method to empirical exploration of shrinkers and scores from any uncertainty model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 3.3 Conformalization procedure · p. 5

    The calibration set is distinct from both training and test data.

    “Gather a labeled calibration set { ( X ι , Y ι ) } n ι =1 , distinct from both training and test data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5 Conclusion and Perspectives · p. 7

    The method is model-agnostic, requires no retraining, and operates with either score-thresholding or morphological-erosion shrinkers.

    “The method is model-agnostic, requires no retraining, and operates with either score-thresholding or morphological-erosion shrinkers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3.2 Conformal Prediction · p. 5

    The guarantee depends only on exchangeability of the data and on the nestedness of the inner sets, not on the particular way Iλ is produced.

    “Our guarantee depends only on exchangeability of the data and on the nestedness of the inner sets I λ ( X ) λ ∈ Λ . It does not depend on the particular way I λ is produced.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Calibration data and test point form an exchangeable (or i.i.d.) sequence.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.1 Results · p. 6

    Sigmoid scores are often more informative than the binary mask.

    “This is expected, as sigmoid scores are often more informative than the binary mask”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2 Conformal Prediction · p. 5

    Any scoring function or post-hoc shrinker that induces a nested family can be plugged in; this choice affects only utility, not validity.

    “Any scoring function or post-hoc shrinker that induces a nested family can be plugged in; this choice affects only utility (e.g., average contraction, inner-margin size, ATP/CR), not validity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Calibration data and test point form an exchangeable (or i.i.d.) sequence.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2 Conformal Prediction · p. 5

    Clinically, AFP bounds the fraction of unnecessary positive pixels within the region we agree to act upon, while rejected pixels are marked as uncertain and not acted on.

    “Clinically, AFP bounds the fraction of unnecessary positive pixels within the region we agree to act upon , while the rejected pixels are marked as uncertain and not acted on.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2 Conformal Prediction · p. 5

    The convention of a fixed denominator |ˆY| and the handling of empty masks do not change the guarantee; they only influence how conservative the resulting inner masks are.

    “The convention of a fixed denominator | ̂ Y | and the handling of empty masks ( F λ = 0) likewise do not change the guarantee; they only influence how conservative the resulting inner masks are.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Calibration data and test point form an exchangeable (or i.i.d.) sequence.
33 of 33

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Calibration data and test point form an exchangeable (or i.i.d.) sequence.

    “Assuming that calibration data and test point ( X new , Y new ) form an exchangeable (or i.i.d.) sequence”
    “Following standard CP assumptions, these samples are required to be exchangeable (or i.i.d.) with the test cases.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Deep models rarely provide explicit statistical guarantees on their errors.

    “yet deep models rarely provide explicit statistical guarantees on their errors.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Reliable semantic segmentation is essential for clinical decision making.

    “Reliable semantic segmentation is essential for clinical decision making”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    False positives may trigger unnecessary interventions.

    “where false positives may trigger unnecessary interventions.”
4 of 4

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [2][2] Angelopoulos, A. N., Bates, S., Fisch, A., Lei, L., and Schuster, T. Conformal risk control. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (2024). -
  2. [3][3] Bates, S., Angelopoulos, A., Lei, L., Malik, J., and Jordan, M. Distributionfree, risk-controlling prediction sets. J. ACM 68 , 6 (9 2021). -
  3. [7][7] Corbi` ere, C., THOME, N., Bar-Hen, A., Cord, M., and P´ erez, P. Addressing failure prediction by learning model confidence. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2019), vol. 32, Curran Associates, Inc. -
  4. [20][20] V´ azquez, D., Bernal, J., S´ anchez, F. J., Fern´ andez-Esparrach, G., L´ opez, A. M., Romero, A., et al. A benchmark for endoluminal scene segmentation of colonoscopy images. J Healthc Eng 2017 , 1 (2017), 4037190. -

Authors
Mossina, L., & Friedrich, C.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2511.15406
arXiv
2511.15406
OpenAlex
W7106221848
Semantic Scholar
5f707ea2be9ce9f3b6eba9d5293f6edc74b725f2
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
conformal prediction, image segmentation, false positive control, post-hoc calibration, morphological erosion, finite-sample guarantees, polyp segmentation, clinical decision support

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-22.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-22.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review