Steer AGI

Page 1: Conformal Prediction for Image Segmentation Using Morphological Prediction Sets Luca Mossina Corentin Friedrich IRT Saint Exupéry Toulouse, France firstname.lastname@irt-saintexupery.com Abstract Imagesegmentationisachallengingtaskinfluencedbymultiplesources of uncertainty, such as the data labeling process or the sampling of train- ing data. In this paper we focus on binary segmentation and address these challenges using conformal prediction, a family of model- and data- agnostic methods for uncertainty quantification that provide finite-sample theoretical guarantees and applicable to any pretrained predictor. Our approach involves computing nonconformity scores, a type of prediction residual, on held-out calibration data not used during training. We use dilation, one of the fundamental operations in mathematical morphology, to construct a margin added to the borders of predicted segmentation masks. At inference, the predicted set formed by the mask and its mar- gin contains the ground-truth mask with high probability, at a confidence level specified by the user. The size of the margin serves as an indica- tor of predictive uncertainty for a given model and dataset. We work in a regime of minimal information as we do not require any feedback from the predictor: only the predicted masks are needed for computing the prediction sets. Hence, our method is applicable to any segmentation model, including those based on deep learning; we evaluate our approach on several medical imaging applications.1 Keywords: Image Segmentation; Conformal Prediction; Uncertainty Quantification. 1 Introduction Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is essential for ensuring the reliability of Ma- chine Learning (ML) models in critical fields like medical imaging [21]. In image segmentation, uncertainties can stem from various sources, including data la- beling and sampling. If such predictions are part of a complex system, such as 1Our code is available at https://github.com/deel-ai-papers/consema . 1arXiv:2503.05618v1 [cs.CV] 7 Mar 2025 Page 2: an automated aid in medical diagnostics, one needs to rigorously quantify the prediction errors. We use Conformal Prediction (CP) [38, 18], a framework that provides model- and data-agnostic methods for UQ with finite-sample theoreti- cal guarantees, applicable to any pretrained predictor. It constructs prediction sets that contain the truth at a confidence level defined by the user, using held- out i.i.d.2calibration data from the same distribution as production data. We focus on binary segmentation, where each pixel is classified as either belonging to the object (e.g., a tumor) or the background. Our contribution . We propose a novel approach to CP for image segmen- tation, working with a minimal set of hypotheses: only the binary prediction masks ( bY, Fig. 1d) are needed. Unlike existing methods, we do not require access to the predictor ˆf(·)nor its feedback (e.g., logits); thus, our method is applicable to black-box predictors, e.g., embedded in third-party software and machines or derived from complex foundation models [24]. We build CP sets as margins to be added on the contours of masks (Fig. 1f) using morphological dilation. The size of these margins depends on the noncon- formity scores (Eq. 3) measured on held-out calibration data. This method can be used to validate a model (knowing the typical error we incur into, on produc- tion data), but also to provide a set of pixels (the “conformal margin”) that are likely to contain the part of ground truth we might have missed. Although we focus on medical imaging, it is applicable to any use case and any segmentation model. 2 Background Conformal Prediction (CP) [38, 3, 12] constructs prediction sets C(X)that con- tain the ground truth Ywith probability P{Y∈ C(X)} ≥1−α, where α∈(0,1) is a user-specified error level (also “risk”). We use inductive (or “split”) CP [28], whichcomputesnonconformityscores(predictionresiduals)onheld-out, labeled calibration data that are independent of the training data and follow the same distribution as the test data. The size of C(X)is often interpreted as a measure of uncertainty,3as it depends on a quantile of the nonconformity scores. Conformal Prediction in image segmentation. Using a threshold on the sigmoid scores, [6, 4, 9] construct prediction sets with distribution-free risk- controlling procedures in binary segmentation. In [27], they extend the method of [4] to account for multiple classes at once, where each class channel can be seen as a binary mask. Furthermore, [13] builds inner and outer prediction sets that capture the ground truth with high probability, and they propose a nonconformity score based on the distance to the boundary of the masks. The methods of [23, 7] use a spatially-aware weighting of the scores, under the hypothesis of pixel-wise exchangeability. Our work is also related to CP for 2CP also applies to exchangeable data, which is a less strict requirement. 3CP does not distinguish [27] between aleatoric andepistemic uncertainty [20]. 2 Page 3: (a) Input image X (b) Sigmoid scores (unknown) (c) Target YbY (d) Prediction bY (e)Y∩bY (f)C6(X) =δ6 B(bY) Figure 1: Example: White Blood Cell (WBC) dataset [39], prediction (nucleus) with UniverSeg [11]. (a)Input image X.(b)Sigmoid scores ˆf(X), assumed to be unavailable. (c)ground-truth mask Y.(d)predicted mask bY.(e) intersection of YandbYin purple (true positives). (f)prediction set Cλ(bY): adding a margin via λ= 6dilations of bYby structuring element B=, the missing pixels (e, in red) are covered, as per nonconformity score in Eq. (3). Colors : true positives; : dilation margin; : false negatives recovered. object detection [14, 22, 1, 2, 36], where a “conformal” margin is added around the bounding boxes. 2.1 Nested prediction sets Following the formulation of CP based on nested prediction sets of [18], let XandYbe the input features and target; let {Cλ(X)}λ∈Λbe a sequence of prediction sets, where Λis an ordered set (e.g., Λ⊂R+). This is said to be asequence of nested sets when, for any λ≤λ′, we have Cλ(X)⊆ C λ′(X). The nonconformity score induced by Cλ(X)is then r(X, Y) =inf λ∈Λ : Y∈ Cλ(X) .In words, the score is the smallest parameter λsuch that the prediction set built from features Xcontains the true Y(see [18] for more examples). Given calibration data (Xi, Yi)n i=1, one can compute the empirical quantile ˆλin (1) which is then used at inference to build Cˆλ(Xtest). ˆλ=⌈(n+ 1)(1 −α)⌉-th largest score in r(Xi, Yi)
n i=1. (1) 3 Page 4: 3 Methods Let(Xi, Yi)n i=1be a sequence of calibration points where Xiis the input image, andYiits ground-truth mask labeled by an expert. We notate with bYthe predicted mask and we assume that the segmentation predictor ˆfis unknown or inaccessible, based on deep learning or any other algorithm. Note that Yand bYare sets of points (i.e. pixels), hence the usual set notation applies. For binary segmentation, we aim to avoid false negatives in the prediction: that is, every ground-truth pixel is contained in the predicted mask, denoted as Y⊆bY. To do so, the core of our proposal is to add a margin µ(bY)around the prediction bYso that we cover all true positives: the prediction set is Cλ(X) = bY∪µ(bY)and the condition becomes Y⊆ Cλ(X).4With respect to Fig. 1.c, our method statistically covers the red pixels (false negatives), whereas the blue pixels are false positives and deemed innocuous. 3.1 Nested sets via morphological dilations We usemorphological dilation , the fundamental operator of mathematical mor- phology [26, 31, 33, 30, 17, 10]. Binary dilation δB(·)on a discrete set (e.g., a binarydigitalimage)isperformedusingastructuringelement(SE) B, whichde- finespixelconnectivity. Commonchoicesincludea 3×3cross( ,4-connectivity) and a 3×3square ( , 8-connectivity) [17]. One iteration of dilation passes B over the image and assigns a value of 1 to all zero-valued pixels that have at least one neighboring 1-pixel under B. Our proposal for the prediction set is to choose a structuring element Band apply a dilation λ∈Λ⊆Ntimes: Cλ(X) := ( δB◦δB◦ ··· ◦ δB)| {z } λiterations(bY) =δλ B(bY), (2) with δ0(bY) :=bYandδλ B(bY) :=δB(δλ−1 B(bY)). Also, the set µλ(bY) =Cλ(X)\bY is what we call the marginofCλ(X). Morphological dilation is extensive, so the dilated set always increases in size and contains the original set, until the whole image is covered. It follows that for any (nonempty) prediction mask bY, the sequence (δλ B(bY))λ∈Λforms a sequence of nested sets. Furthermore, it would be straightforward to extend this method to negative margins, using erosions on the background if the predictions were over-covering the ground truth. Note that any operation that preserves the nested conditions of Sec. 2.1 is applicable, suchaschainingseveralstructuringelementstoinducespecificshape on the margin or having SE’s of variable size. For example, it is possible to obtain the distance-based score of [13] doing a single dilation with a structuring element B(λ)that grows with λ, so that B(λ)⊂B(λ′)for any λ < λ′. Then, the prediction set is Cλ(Xi) =δ1 B(λ)(bYi), where, for λ= 0, we have B(0) := ∅ 4We write Cλ(X)to be consistent with the literature, although we could write Cλ(bY), since we do not need access to Xnor the underlying predictor ˆf. 4 Page 5: andδ∅(bY) :=bY. This can be a discrete approximation of a disc or any other shape. As above, it also holds that (δ1 B(λ)(bY))λ∈Λis a sequence of nested sets. It is important that one rely exclusively on prior knowledge or training data when selecting the morphological operation and B. Using the calibration data for this purpose would violate the i.i.d. or exchangeability assumptions required by CP. 3.1.1 Nonconformity score. For a calibration pair (Xi, Yi), we define the score as the smallest value λ∈Λ such that at least τ×100%of the ground-truth pixels in Yiare contained within the prediction set Cλ(Xi), where the hyperparameter τ∈[0,1]is referred to as coverage ratio [27]. More formally, r(Xi, Yi) =inf λ∈N:|Yi∩ Cλ(Xi)| |Yi|≥τ , (3) where | · |is the number of elements (pixels) in a set. In some rare events, demanding to cover the entire truth can be overly conservative, that’s why we introduce the hyperparameter τthat enables a trade-off. For instance, a τ= 0.999implies that the user can accept up to 0.1%of false negatives in Cλ(X). Since by construction we have that for any λ≤λ′,Cλ(Xi)⊆ Cλ′(Xi), this can be applied into the formulation of conformal nested prediction sets [18, 4] (see Sec. 2.1) and the following holds: Theorem 1. Letˆλbe computed as in Eq. (1). Under the hypotheses of inductive conformal prediction [28, 18, 4], for the nonconformity score in (3)induced by prediction sets (2), it holds true that, for a new point (Xtest, Ytest), P|Ytest∩ Cˆλ(Xtest)| |Ytest|≥τ ≥1−α. (4) Proof.For any τ∈[0,1], it suffices to set a binary loss to ℓ(Cλ(X), Y) = 1{|Y∩Cλ(X)| |Y|̸≥τ}(monotone in λ) and apply Conformalized Risk Control (CRC) as per Theorem 1 in [4], where they show that CRC with binary losses and CP are statistically equivalent. □ The CP guarantee in Eq.(4) is said to hold marginally , i.e., on average over all possible inputs Xtestand on average over repeated draws of the calibration and test samples; see [3] for statistical details. Eq. (1) implies that, for an a priori fixed α, the sample size must be n≥1 α−1. Similarly, for a fixed calibration set of size n, the user can choose (prior to calibration) an error value α≥1 n+1. 5 Page 6: 3.1.2 Conformalization algorithm The “conformalization” of a (unknown) pretrained segmentation predictor ˆf boils down to: 1. set α∈(0,1)and collect labeled calibration data (Xi, Yi)n i=1, with n≥ 1 α−1; 2. fix a coverage ratio τ∈[0,1]and a Bfor prediction set Cλ(·)in Eq. (2); 3. compute the nonconformity scores (r(Xi, Yi))n i=1as per Eq. (3); 4. compute the empirical quantile ˆλas in Eq. (1); 5. for a test prediction bYtest, use ˆλinCλ(·)and compute the dilated mask. 4 Experiments Weranourexperimentswithtwosegmentationmodelsandthreedatasetgroups. First, we used the pretrained UniverSeg model [11].5We tested it on two public datasets as also evaluated in their paper: WBC (White Blood Cells) [39]6and OASIS [25, 19],7a neuroimaging dataset. As in [4], we also ran experiments using the PraNet [15] model8and the collection of datasets it was trained on, covering polyp segmentation in colonoscopy images: ETIS [32], CVC-ClinicDB [8], CVC-ColonDB [34], EndoScene [37], and Kvasir [29]. For conformalization, we randomly shuffles and partitioned the original test data into calibration and proper test, applied the algorithm in Sec. 3.1.2 and compute the following metrics: Empirical coverage: Cov (ˆλ;C, τ) =1 ntestntestX i=11|Yi∩ Cˆλ(Xi)| |Yi|≥τ ,(5) Stretch [1]: ϕ(ˆλ;C) =1 ntestntestX i=1|Cˆλ(Xi)| |bYi|. (6) Statistical coverage being a random quantity, the empirical coverage is the eval- uation of a realization of Eq. (4). The stretch ϕtells, on average, how much larger the prediction sets are with respect to bY(lower is better). We also re- port the average empirical quantile ˆλ, which indicates how many dilations were necessary to attain the specified coverage. For all the metrics, we report the average and standard deviation over 36 runs (i.e., shuffling and partitioning the data). 5https://github.com/JJGO/UniverSeg , accessed 2024-04-08. 6Distributed as open source at: https://github.com/zxaoyou/segmentation_WBC . We ac- knowledge the Jiangxi Tecom Science Corporation, China , and the CellaVision blog (http: //blog.cellavision.com/ ) for providing the data. 7Source: https://sites.wustl.edu/oasisbrains , obtained via https://github.com/ JJGO/UniverSeg . 8We reused the precomputed predictions and dataset as partitioned (training, test) by the authors of [4]. See https://github.com/aangelopoulos/conformal-prediction . 6 Page 7: Model Dataset 1−α τ Cov ϕ avgˆλ PraNet polyps 0.9 0 .90.909 (0.023)†1.253 (0.131)†6.083 (2.980)† 0.9 0 .990.898 (0.029)1.780 (0.270)17.500 (5.593) 0.9 0 .9990.904 (0.023)2.031 (0.309)22.500 (5.969) 0.95 0 .90.953 (0.020)3.093 (0.857)41.389 (14.349) 0.95 0 .990.955 (0.019)4.144 (0.971)58.611 (14.946) 0.95 0 .9990.962 (0.019)4.840 (0.959)69.167 (14.238) UniverSeg WBC 0.9 0 .90.952 (0.044)1.108 (0.065)1.056 (0.630) 0.9 0 .990.932 (0.055)1.646 (0.261)6.278 (2.514) 0.9 0 .9990.928 (0.061)1.865 (0.284)8.389 (2.686) 0.95 0 .90.984 (0.033)1.449 (0.365)4.361 (3.523) 0.95 0 .990.985 (0.024)2.448 (0.664)13.667 (5.826) 0.95 0 .9990.985 (0.025)2.776 (0.735)16.528 (6.236) UniverSeg OASIS 0.9 0 .90.969 (0.040)1.774 (0.061)4.500 (0.507) 0.9 0 .990.941 (0.049)2.198 (0.034)12.333 (0.756) 0.9 0 .9990.940 (0.038)2.247 (0.030)15.417 (0.996) 0.95 0 .90.997 (0.007)1.845 (0.040)5.194 (0.401) 0.95 0 .990.990 (0.014)2.232 (0.033)14.222 (1.124) 0.95 0 .9990.993 (0.014)2.259 (0.028)17.917 (0.937) Table 1: Experiments with structuring element B=averaged across 36 runs. †: standard deviation. 4.1 Results The results in Table 1 show that, as expected, the empirical coverage is greater than the nominal value 1−αon average over multiple runs, that is, our CP procedure constructs statistically valid prediction sets (Cov ≥1−α). As for the size of the prediction set, we see how the stretch and ˆλincrease for higher αand τ, to compensate for the stricter requirements imposed by the user. In Table 1 we can also see how CP can be used to evaluate a model: for a given risk α and coverage ratio τ, the margin is small (e.g., 1.056for WBC and UniverSeg atα= 0.1andτ= 0.9) when the underlying predictor is already satisfying (empirically) the statistical requirements. Finally, despite working in the restrictive setting without feedback from the predictor (no sigmoid scores), we show that there are cases where more infor- mation does not improve the prediction sets: for PraNet on the polyps dataset, we also compute conformal sets using a threshold on the sigmoid, so that as it is lowered, more pixels are included. The average stretch across several config- urations (Tab. 2) is considerably larger than with our method. In this model and dataset configuration, our method performs better than approaches that use more information (e.g., sigmoid scores): not only it produces statistically valid sets, but it also avoids introducing artifacts in the conformal margin. This phenomenon is visible in Fig. 2, where the margins are uninformative and seem to be due more to noisy scores in the underlying sigmoid rather than to actual 7 Page 8: Model Dataset 1−α τ ϕ morphology ϕthresholding PraNet polyps 0.9 0 .9 1.253 1.218 0.9 0 .99 1.780 8.950 0.9 0 .999 2.031 15.001 0.95 0 .9 3.093 3.010 0.95 0 .99 4.144 15.189 0.95 0 .999 4.840 16.062 Table 2: Comparison with the first rows in Tab. 1. Here, conformalization is done both by morphological dilation and thresholding of the sigmoid as in [4]. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Figure 2: Example: polyps dataset (see Sec. 4), prediction with PraNet [15]. Forα= 0.10andτ= 0.99:(a)input image, (b)ground-truth mask, (c) predicted mask, (d)prediction set via dilation (Eq. 2), (e)prediction set via thresholding on sigmoid (as in [4]). Pixels in light blue ( ) are the margin: in (d) it contains only pixels contiguous to the prediction (c) while in (e), it does not necessarily do so because of the underlying sigmoid scores (not shown). As shown in Tab. 2, for this model configuration the latter has much larger stretch (Eq. 6, lower is better). White pixels represent the background. uncertainty scoring (e.g., due to the type of training loss [5]). On the other hand, in cases where distant zones are missed by the segmentation mask bY, our method cannot recover those areas except by using a large margin. In this case, using the sigmoid (if available), may be a viable option; in this a sense, our approach can be seen as complementary to other CP methods. 5 Conclusion In this paper, we proposed an approach that combines a fundamental operation in mathematical morphology, dilation, with Conformal Prediction to construct statistically valid prediction sets for image segmentation. We achieved this in a restrictive framework with no internal knowledge of the model (e.g., sigmoid scores), where only the prediction masks are required. We managed to preserve the original shape of the prediction and to remain robust to aberrant scores from such models. Although we applied our algorithm to several benchmarks in medical imag- ing, our method can be used with any segmentation method that returns binary 8 Page 9: masks (e.g., standard thresholding/clustering approaches or more advanced ML models). This includes ML models that lack transparency (black boxes) and whose details are hidden from the end users, as well as algorithms that were not originally conceived for uncertainty quantification. Perspectives. A promising next step is to extend morphological sets to multiclass and instance segmentation, which are commonly used in the field of medical imaging. In their basic form, CP sets do not adapt to the input instance, and the theoretical guarantee holds on average: some images may be “harder” and require a larger margin, and vice versa. This is an active field of research in CP [16, 9], and the literature on Mathematical Morphology could provide new tools to build adaptive morphological prediction sets using training data. Finally, we consider combining morphological sets with other approaches (e.g., thresholding) to leverage their respective strengths [35]. Acknowledgments The authors thank all the people and industrial partners involved in the DEEL project. This work has benefited from the support of the DEEL project,9with fundings from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, and which is part of the ANITI AI cluster. References [1]Andéol, L., Fel, T., de Grancey, F., and Mossina, L. Conformal prediction for trustworthy detection of railway signals. AI and Ethics (Jan. 2024). [2]Andéol, L., Fel, T., de Grancey, F., and Mossina, L. Confident objectdetectionviaconformalpredictionandconformalriskcontrol: anap- plication to railway signaling. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction with Applications (2023), vol. 204, PMLR, pp. 36–55. [3]Angelopoulos, A. N., Barber, R. F., and Bates, S. Theoreti- cal foundations of conformal prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11824 (2024). [4]Angelopoulos, A. N., Bates, S., Fisch, A., Lei, L., and Schuster, T.Conformal risk control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.02814 (2022). [5]Azad, R., Heidary, M., Yilmaz, K., Hüttemann, M., Karimijafar- bigloo, S., Wu, Y., Schmeink, A., and Merhof, D. Loss functions in the era of semantic segmentation: A survey and outlook. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05391 (2023). 9https://www.deel.ai/ 9 Page 10: [6]Bates, S., Angelopoulos, A., Lei, L., Malik, J., and Jordan, M. Distribution-free, risk-controlling prediction sets. J. ACM 68 , 6 (9 2021). [7]Bereska, J. I., Karimi, H., and Samavi, R. Sacp: Spatially-aware conformal prediction in uncertainty quantification of medical image seg- mentation, 2025. [8]Bernal, J., Sánchez, F. J., Fernández-Esparrach, G., Gil, D., Rodríguez, C., and Vilariño, F. Wm-dova maps for accurate polyp highlighting in colonoscopy: Validation vs. saliency maps from physicians. Comp. Med. Imaging Graph. 43 (2015), 99–111. [9]Blot, V., Angelopoulos, A. N., Jordan, M. I., and Brunel, N. J.-B.Automatically adaptive conformal risk control. arXiv:2406.17819 (2024). [10]Blusseau, S., and Puybareau, É. Morphologie mathématique et traite- ment d’images. Informatique Mathématique Une photographie en 2023 (2023), Chapitre–3. [11]Butoi, V. I., Ortiz, J. J. G., Ma, T., Sabuncu, M. R., Guttag, J., and Dalca, A. V. Universeg: Universal medical image segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2023), pp. 21438–21451. [12]Da Veiga, S. Tutorial on conformal prediction and related methods-etics 2024 research school, 2024. [13]Davenport, S. Conformal confidence sets for biomedical image segmen- tation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03406 (2024). [14]de Grancey, F., Adam, J.-L., Alecu, L., Gerchinovitz, S., Ma- malet, F., and Vigouroux, D. Object detection with probabilistic guarantees: A conformal prediction approach. In SAFECOMP 2022 Work- shops(2022), Springer, pp. 316–329. [15]Fan, D.-P., Ji, G.-P., Zhou, T., Chen, G., Fu, H., Shen, J., and Shao, L. Pranet: Parallel reverse attention network for polyp segmenta- tion. InMICCAI 2024 (2020), Springer, pp. 263–273. [16]Gibbs, I., Cherian, J. J., and Candès, E. J. Conformal prediction with conditional guarantees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12616 (2023). [17]Gonzalez, R. C., and Woods, R. E. Digital Image Processing , 4 ed. Pearson, 3 2017. [18]Gupta, C., Kuchibhotla, A. K., and Ramdas, A. Nested conformal prediction and quantile out-of-bag ensemble methods. Pattern Recognition 127(2022), 108496. 10 Page 11: [19]Hoopes, A., Hoffmann, M., Greve, D. N., Fischl, B., Guttag, J., and Dalca, A. V. Learning the effect of registration hyperparameters with hypermorph. J Mach Learn Biomed Imaging 1 (2022), 1–30. [20]Hüllermeier, E., and Waegeman, W. Aleatoric and epistemic un- certainty in machine learning: an introduction to concepts and methods. Mach. Learn. 110 , 3 (2021), 457–506. [21]Lambert, B., Forbes, F., Doyle, S., Dehaene, H., and Dojat, M. Trustworthy clinical ai solutions: a unified review of uncertainty quan- tification in deep learning models for medical image analysis. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (2024), 102830. [22]Li, S., Park, S., Ji, X., Lee, I., and Bastani, O. Towards pac multi- object detection and tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07482 (2022). [23]Liu, K., Sun, T., Zeng, H., Zhang, Y., Pun, C.-M., and Vong, C.-M.Spatial-aware conformal prediction for trustworthy hyperspectral image classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01236 (2024). [24]Ma, J., He, Y., Li, F., Han, L., You, C., and Wang, B. Segment anything in medical images. Nature Communications 15 , 1 (Jan. 2024). [25]Marcus, D. S., Wang, T. H., Parker, J., Csernansky, J. G., Mor- ris, J. C., and Buckner, R. L. Open access series of imaging studies (oasis): cross-sectional mri data in young, middle aged, nondemented, and demented older adults. Journal of cognitive neuroscience 19 , 9 (2007), 1498–1507. [26]Matheron, F. Random sets and integral geometry . John Wiley & Sons, 2 1975. [27]Mossina, L., Dalmau, J., and Andéol, L. Conformal semantic image segmentation: Post-hoc quantification of predictive uncertainty. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops (June 2024), pp. 3574–3584. [28]Papadopoulos, H., Proedrou, K., Vovk, V., and Gammerman, A. Inductive confidence machines for regression. In Machine Learning: ECML 2002(2002). [29]Pogorelov, K., Randel, K. R., Griwodz, C., Eskeland, S. L., de Lange, T., Johansen, D., Spampinato, C., Dang-Nguyen, D.- T., Lux, M., Schmidt, P. T., Riegler, M., and Halvorsen, P. Kvasir: A multi-class image dataset for computer aided gastrointestinal disease detection. In Proceedings of ACM MMSys (2017), p. 164–169. [30]Schmitt, M., and Mattioli, J. Morphologie mathématique . Presses des MINES, 2013. 11 Page 12: [31]Serra, J. j. Image analysis and mathematical morphology: V.1 . Image Analysis & Mathematical Morphology Series. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, Jan. 1984. [32]Silva, J., Histace, A., Romain, O., Dray, X., and Granado, B. Toward embedded detection of polyps in wce images for early diagnosis of colorectal cancer. International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery 9 (2014), 283–293. [33]Soille, P. Morphological Image Analysis . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004. [34]Tajbakhsh, N., Gurudu, S. R., and Liang, J. Automated polyp de- tection in colonoscopy videos using shape and context information. IEEE T-MI 35, 2 (2015), 630–644. [35]Teneggi, J., Tivnan, M., Stayman, W., and Sulam, J. How to trust your diffusion model: A convex optimization approach to conformal risk control. In Proceedings of ICML (2023), vol. 202, PMLR, pp. 33940–33960. [36]Timans, A., Straehle, C.-N., Sakmann, K., and Nalisnick, E. Adaptive bounding box uncertainties via two-step conformal prediction. InECCV(2024), Springer. [37]Vázquez, D., Bernal, J., Sánchez, F. J., Fernández-Esparrach, G., López, A. M., Romero, A., Drozdzal, M., and Courville, A. A benchmark for endoluminal scene segmentation of colonoscopy images. J Healthc Eng 2017 , 1 (2017), 4037190. [38]Vovk, V., Gammerman, A., and Shafer, G. Algorithmic learning in a random world , vol. 29. Springer, 2005. [39]Zheng, X., Wang, Y., Wang, G., and Liu, J. Fast and robust segmen- tation of white blood cell images by self-supervised learning. Micron 107 (2018), 55–71. 12