mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Kandinsky Conformal Prediction: Efficient Calibration of Image Segmentation Algorithms

arXiv 2311.11837 ↗First posted 20 Nov 2023cs.CV cs.AI cs.LGcited by 14

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Image segmentation algorithms can be understood as a collection of pixel classifiers, for which the outcomes of nearby pixels are correlated. Classifier models can be calibrated using Inductive Conformal Prediction, but this requires holding back a sufficiently large calibration dataset for computing the distribution of non-conformity scores of the model's predictions. If one only requires only marginal calibration on the image level, this calibration set consists of all individual pixels in the images available for calibration. However, if the goal is to attain proper calibration for each individual pixel classifier, the calibration set consists of individual images. In a scenario where data are scarce (such as the medical domain), it may not always be possible to set aside sufficiently many images for this pixel-level calibration. The method we propose, dubbed ``Kandinsky calibration'', makes use of the spatial structure present in the distribution of natural images to simultaneously calibrate the classifiers of ``similar'' pixels. This can be seen as an intermediate approach between marginal (imagewise) and conditional (pixelwise) calibration, where non-conformity scores are aggregated over similar image regions, thereby making more efficient use of the images available for calibration. We run experiments on segmentation algorithms trained and calibrated on subsets of the public MS-COCO and Medical Decathlon datasets, demonstrating that Kandinsky calibration method can significantly improve the coverage. When compared to both pixelwise and imagewise calibration on little data, the Kandinsky method achieves much lower coverage errors, indicating the data efficiency of the Kandinsky calibration.

Key facts. Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Nov 2023.

Builds on

16 of 34 references.

References · 16

  1. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  2. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  3. 2021A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantificationcited by 777
  4. 2021The Medical Segmentation Decathloncited by 620
  5. 2020Classification with Valid and Adaptive Coveragecited by 390
  6. 2021Revisiting the Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 387
  7. 2022Conformal Risk Controlcited by 290
  8. 2021Learn then Test: Calibrating Predictive Algorithms to Achieve Risk Controlcited by 256
  9. 2023Prediction-Powered Inferencecited by 214
  10. 2023Class-Conditional Conformal Prediction with Many Classescited by 109
  11. 2022Image-to-Image Regression with Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification and Applications in Imagingcited by 107
  12. 2023Smooth ECE: Principled Reliability Diagrams via Kernel Smoothingcited by 59
4 more
  1. 2022A Unifying Theory of Distance from Calibrationcited by 51
  2. 2022The Calibration Generalization Gapcited by 18
  3. 2022Confidence Calibration for Object Detection and Segmentationcited by 5
  4. 2023A Theoretical and Practical Framework for Evaluating Uncertainty Calibration in Object Detectioncited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 7; 2026: 5.

14 papers.

Sort: