Conformal Object Detection by Sequential Risk Control

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2505.24038
• Title: Conformal Object Detection by Sequential Risk Control
• Authors: Léo Andéol, Luca Mossina, Adrien Mazoyer, Sébastien Gerchinovitz
• Affiliations: Univ Toulouse (Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse), SNCF, IRT Saint Exupéry
• Classification: stat.ML, cs.CV, cs.LG
• Submission Date: May 2025 (v2: October 31, 2025)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.24038
• Code Link: https://github.com/leoandeol/cods

Abstract

Object detection models are increasingly prevalent in industrial applications, but face inherent reliability issues of neural networks when deployed in safety-critical systems. This paper adopts conformal prediction methods to provide post-hoc uncertainty quantification with statistical guarantees valid for arbitrary dataset sizes, without requiring prior knowledge of the model or data distribution. Main contributions include: (1) formal definition of the Conformal Object Detection (COD) problem; (2) proposal of Sequential Conformal Risk Control (SeqCRC) method, extending statistical guarantees of conformal risk control to sequential tasks requiring two parameters; (3) design of loss functions and prediction sets applicable to different scenarios; (4) provision of open-source toolkit and large-scale experimental validation.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problems

Object detection is widely applied in safety-critical domains such as autonomous driving and medical imaging, but faces the following challenges:

1. Reliability Issues: Neural networks lack interpretability and reliability guarantees
2. Complexity Issues: Object detection involves both localization and classification tasks, with unknown number of objects per image
3. Certification Requirements: Safety-critical systems require statistical guarantees for predictions

Research Significance

• Growing industrial demand for AI system certification
• Existing uncertainty quantification methods are mostly heuristic or Bayesian, lacking finite-sample guarantees
• The complexity of object detection makes establishing a unified theoretical framework challenging

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Heuristic Methods (e.g., MetaDetect): Lack theoretical guarantees
2. Bayesian Methods (e.g., BayesOD): Computationally complex, require distributional assumptions
3. Existing Conformal Methods:
   • Most only handle localization tasks 14,15,16
   • Target specific model families (e.g., Faster R-CNN) 17
   • Lack unified framework handling confidence, localization, and classification simultaneously

Research Motivation

Provide a model-agnostic, distribution-free, statistically valid framework offering guarantees for the complete object detection pipeline under finite samples.

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Contribution: Propose Sequential Conformal Risk Control (SeqCRC) method
   • Extend CRC to 1+2 parameter sequential settings
   • Provide finite-sample guarantees requiring only single data split (vs. 25 requiring two splits)
   • Rigorous theoretical proof (Theorem 2)
2. Methodological Contribution: Design complete conformal object detection pipeline
   • Confidence threshold calibration (λ^cnf)
   • Localization error bounds (λ^loc)
   • Classification prediction sets (λ^cls)
3. Practical Contribution: Provide multiple loss functions and prediction sets
   • Confidence losses: box-count-threshold, box-count-recall
   • Localization losses: thresholded, boxwise, pixelwise
   • Classification methods: LAC, APS
   • Matching strategies: Hausdorff, LAC, GIoU, Mix
4. Tool Contribution: Open-source COD toolkit
   • Support for mainstream detectors (YOLO, DETR, etc.)
   • Complete experimental reproduction code
   • Visualization tools

Method Details

Task Definition

Input Space: $\mathcal{X}$ (image space)

Output Space:

• Bounding box space: $\mathcal{B} = \mathbb{R}^4_+$, where $b = (b_\leftarrow, b_\uparrow, b_\rightarrow, b_\downarrow)$
• Class space: $\mathcal{C} = \{1, \ldots, K\}$
• Ground truth label: $y \in (\mathcal{B} \times \mathcal{C})^{|y|}$ (variable-length sequence)

Detector: $f: \mathcal{X} \to (\mathcal{B} \times \Sigma^{K-1} \times [0,1])^{N^{\text{nms}}}$

• Output bounding boxes, softmax scores, and confidence
• Includes NMS post-processing

Objective: Calibrate three parameters to control risk

1. $\lambda^{\text{cnf}} \in \Lambda^{\text{cnf}}$: Confidence threshold
2. $\lambda^{\text{loc}} \in \Lambda^{\text{loc}}$: Localization bound
3. $\lambda^{\text{cls}} \in \Lambda^{\text{cls}}$: Classification threshold

SeqCRC Core Algorithm

Step 1: Confidence Calibration

Define conservative empirical risk: $\tilde{R}^{\text{cnf}}_n(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}) = \max\{R^{\text{cnf}}_n(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}), R^{\text{loc}}_n(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}, \bar{\lambda}^{\text{loc}}), R^{\text{cls}}_n(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}, \bar{\lambda}^{\text{cls}})\}$

Compute two estimators: $\lambda^{\text{cnf}}_+ = \inf\left\{\lambda^{\text{cnf}}: \frac{n\tilde{R}^{\text{cnf}}_n(\lambda^{\text{cnf}})}{n+1} + \frac{\tilde{B}^{\text{cnf}}}{n+1} \leq \alpha^{\text{cnf}}\right\}$

$\lambda^{\text{cnf}}_- = \inf\left\{\lambda^{\text{cnf}}: \frac{n\tilde{R}^{\text{cnf}}_n(\lambda^{\text{cnf}})}{n+1} \leq \alpha^{\text{cnf}}\right\}$

where $\tilde{B}^{\text{cnf}} = \max\{B^{\text{cnf}}, B^{\text{loc}}, B^{\text{cls}}\}$

Innovation Points:

• $\lambda^{\text{cnf}}_+$ used for test inference
• $\lambda^{\text{cnf}}_-$ used for second-step calibration (ensuring feasibility)
• $\tilde{R}^{\text{cnf}}_n$ accounts for downstream task impacts

Step 2: Localization and Classification Calibration

For $\bullet \in \{\text{loc}, \text{cls}\}$: $\lambda^\bullet_+ = \inf\left\{\lambda^\bullet: \frac{nR^\bullet_n(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}_-, \lambda^\bullet)}{n+1} + \frac{B^\bullet}{n+1} \leq \alpha^\bullet\right\}$

Key Technique: Use "optimistic" estimator $\lambda^{\text{cnf}}_-$ to achieve symmetry

Theoretical Guarantees

Theorem 2 (Main Result): Under Assumption 1 (i.i.d. data) and Assumption 3 (loss monotonicity), if $\alpha^{\text{cnf}} \geq 0$ and $\alpha^\bullet \geq \alpha^{\text{cnf}} + \frac{B^\bullet}{n+1}$, then:

$\mathbb{E}[L^\bullet_{\text{test}}(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}_+, \lambda^\bullet_+)] \leq \alpha^\bullet$

If additionally $L^{\text{cnf}}_i(\bar{\lambda}^{\text{cnf}}) \leq \alpha^{\text{cnf}}$, then: $\mathbb{E}[L^{\text{cnf}}_{\text{test}}(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}_+)] \leq \alpha^{\text{cnf}}$

Corollary 1 (Joint Guarantee): $\mathbb{E}[\max(L^{\text{loc}}_{\text{test}}(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}_+, \lambda^{\text{loc}}_+), L^{\text{cls}}_{\text{test}}(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}_+, \lambda^{\text{cls}}_+))] \leq \alpha^{\text{tot}}$

where $\alpha^{\text{tot}} = \alpha^{\text{loc}} + \alpha^{\text{cls}}$

Loss Function Design

Confidence Loss

1. box-count-threshold: $L^{\text{cnf}}_{\text{box-count-threshold}}(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}) = \mathbb{1}_{|\Gamma^{\text{cnf}}_{\lambda^{\text{cnf}}}(x)| < |y|}$
2. box-count-recall (relaxed version): $L^{\text{cnf}}_{\text{box-count-recall}}(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}) = \frac{(|y| - |\Gamma^{\text{cnf}}_{\lambda^{\text{cnf}}}(x)|)_+}{|y|}$

Localization Loss

1. boxwise recall: $L^{\text{loc}}_{\text{box}}(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}, \lambda^{\text{loc}}) = 1 - \frac{|\{b_j \in y: b_j \subseteq \hat{b}^{\lambda^{\text{loc}}}_{\pi_x(j)}\}|}{|y|}$
2. pixelwise (more relaxed): $L^{\text{loc}}_{\text{pix}}(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}, \lambda^{\text{loc}}) = 1 - \frac{1}{|y|}\sum_{b_j \in y} \frac{\text{area}(b_j \cap \hat{b}^{\lambda^{\text{loc}}}_{\pi_x(j)})}{\text{area}(b_j)}$

Classification Loss

$L^{\text{cls}}(\lambda^{\text{cnf}}, \lambda^{\text{cls}}) = \frac{1}{|y|}\sum_{c_j \in y} \mathbb{1}_{c_j \notin \Gamma^{\text{cls}}_{\lambda^{\text{cnf}}, \lambda^{\text{cls}}}(x)_{\pi_x(j)}}$

Prediction Set Construction

Localization Prediction Sets

1. Additive Bound: $\Gamma^{\text{loc}}_{\lambda^{\text{cnf}}, \lambda^{\text{loc}}}(x)_k = \hat{b}_k + (-\lambda^{\text{loc}}, -\lambda^{\text{loc}}, \lambda^{\text{loc}}, \lambda^{\text{loc}})$
2. Multiplicative Bound (adaptive): $\Gamma^{\text{loc}}_{\lambda^{\text{cnf}}, \lambda^{\text{loc}}}(x)_k = \hat{b}_k + \lambda^{\text{loc}}(-\hat{w}_k, -\hat{h}_k, \hat{w}_k, \hat{h}_k)$

Classification Prediction Sets

1. LAC (Least Ambiguous Classifier): $\Gamma^{\text{cls}}_{\lambda^{\text{cnf}}, \lambda^{\text{cls}}}(x)_k = \{\kappa \in \mathcal{C}: \hat{c}_k(\kappa) \geq 1-\lambda^{\text{cls}}\}$
2. APS (Adaptive Prediction Sets): $\Gamma^{\text{cls}}_{\lambda^{\text{cnf}}, \lambda^{\text{cls}}}(x)_k = \{\kappa_{[1]}, \ldots, \kappa_{[\hat{m}(\lambda^{\text{cls}})]}\}$ where $\hat{m}(\lambda^{\text{cls}}) = \min\{m: \sum_{l=1}^m \hat{c}_k(\kappa_{[l]}) > \lambda^{\text{cls}}\}$

Matching Strategies

Define distance function $d: (\mathcal{B} \times \mathcal{C}) \times (\mathcal{B} \times \Sigma^{K-1}) \to \mathbb{R}_+$:

1. Hausdorff Distance (localization): $d_{\text{haus}}(b, \hat{b}) = \max\{\hat{b}_\leftarrow - b_\leftarrow, \hat{b}_\uparrow - b_\uparrow, b_\rightarrow - \hat{b}_\rightarrow, b_\downarrow - \hat{b}_\downarrow\}$
2. LAC Distance (classification): $d_{\text{LAC}}(c, \hat{c}) = 1 - \hat{c}_c$
3. Mixed Distance: $d_{\text{mix}}((b,c), (\hat{b}, \hat{c})) = \tau d_{\text{LAC}}(c, \hat{c}) + (1-\tau)d_{\text{haus}}(b, \hat{b})$

Monotonization Technique

Since the matching process may cause losses to be non-monotonic in $\lambda^{\text{cnf}}$, the algorithm uses: $\sup_{\lambda' \geq \lambda^{\text{cnf}}} L^\bullet_i(\lambda', \lambda^\bullet)$ replacing the original loss, computed online to maintain efficiency.

Experimental Setup

Datasets

• MS-COCO Validation Set: 5000 images
  • Calibration set: 2500 images (n=2500)
  • Test set: 2500 images
• 80 object classes from everyday objects
• NMS threshold: IoU=0.5
• Confidence pre-filtering: >0.001 (independent of data)

Models

1. DETR-101 (60M parameters)
   • Transformer-based detector
   • End-to-end training
2. YOLOv8x (68M parameters)
   • Single-stage detector
   • Latest YOLO series

Both are pre-trained models, emphasizing model-agnostic nature.

Evaluation Metrics

Risk Metrics

• j-Risk: $\frac{1}{n_{\text{test}}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{\text{test}}} L^j_{\text{test},i}(\lambda^j_+)$
• Global Risk: $\frac{1}{n_{\text{test}}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{\text{test}}} \max\{L^{\text{loc}}_{\text{test},i}, L^{\text{cls}}_{\text{test},i}\}$
• Compared against targets $\alpha^j$ or $\alpha^{\text{tot}}$

Set Size Metrics

1. Confidence Set Size: Average number of predicted boxes $\frac{1}{n_{\text{test}}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{\text{test}}} |\Gamma^{\text{cnf}}_{\lambda^{\text{cnf}}_+}(X_{\text{test},i})|$
2. Localization Set Size (Stretch): $\frac{1}{n_{\text{test}}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{\text{test}}} \frac{1}{n_{\text{test},i}}\sum_{k} \sqrt{\frac{\text{area}(\hat{b}^{\lambda^{\text{loc}}_+}_k)}{\text{area}(\hat{b}_k)}}$
3. Classification Set Size: Average number of classes $\frac{1}{n_{\text{test}}}\sum_{i=1}^{n_{\text{test}}} \frac{1}{n_{\text{test},i}}\sum_k |\hat{c}^{\lambda^{\text{cls}}_+}_k|$

Experimental Configuration

• Risk Levels:
  • $\alpha^{\text{tot}}=0.1$: $\alpha^{\text{cnf}}=0.02, \alpha^{\text{loc}}=0.05, \alpha^{\text{cls}}=0.05$
  • $\alpha^{\text{tot}}=0.2$: $\alpha^{\text{cnf}}=0.03, \alpha^{\text{loc}}=0.10, \alpha^{\text{cls}}=0.10$
• Mixed Distance Parameter: $\tau=0.25$
• Hardware: Single NVIDIA RTX 4090
• Runtime: ~20 minutes per experiment

Experimental Results

Main Results (Table I, DETR-101, α_tot=0.1)

Key Findings:

1. Risk Control Effective: All experiments' risks ≤ target levels
2. Relaxed Losses Superior: Pixelwise loss produces smallest localization bounds (1.043 vs 1.552)
3. Compact Classification Sets: Average requires only 0.994-1.007 classes
4. Conservative Global Risk: 0.082-0.100 < 0.1, room for improvement

Matching Function Comparison (Table II)

Key Insights:

1. Mix Optimal: Achieves best balance between localization and classification
2. GIoU Fails: Inconsistent with downstream losses, causing excessive correction
3. Specialized Distances Effective: Hausdorff optimizes localization, LAC optimizes classification
4. Non-linear Risk Level Effects: Classification set size changes dramatically from α=0.1 to 0.2

Model-Agnostic Verification (Table III, α_tot=0.1)

Key Observations:

1. Universal Guarantees: Both model types achieve controlled risks
2. Performance Differences: YOLO predicts fewer but requires larger localization correction
3. Different Trade-offs: DETR has better localization, YOLO more confident classification
4. Method Effectiveness: Demonstrates model-agnostic nature

Ablation Studies

Risk Level Impact (α_tot: 0.1 vs 0.2)

From Tables V and VI comparison:

• Localization Size: 1.043 → 1.018 (Mix, DETR)
• Classification Size: 8.228 → 0.931 (Mix, DETR)
• Risk: 0.096 → ~0.15

Conclusion: Larger α allows tighter sets, but relationship is non-linear

Boundary Number Experiment (Table IV)

Finding: Bonferroni correction cost is high, single boundary more efficient

Case Analysis

Success Cases (Fig. 6, 9):

• Bear and clock tower detection: Single-class classification sets, small localization bounds
• Airplane detection: Despite extra predictions, ground truth covered (recall guarantee)

Failure Cases (Fig. 11):

• Annotation Inconsistency: Books sometimes labeled individually, sometimes collectively
• Definition Ambiguity: Statues labeled as "person"
• False Positives: Moon predicted as kite (recall guarantee allows this)

Distribution Statistics (Fig. 7, 12)

• Set Size Distribution: Heavy-tailed, most experiments produce small sets, few extreme
• Target Count Distribution: Post-calibration distribution closer to true distribution
• Monotonization Impact (Fig. 4): Original loss non-monotonic, monotonized slightly conservative

Related Work

Conformal Prediction for Object Detection

1. Localization Only:
   • 14 de Grancey et al. (2022): Hausdorff distance, additive bounds
   • 15,16 Andéol et al. (2023,2024): Railway signal applications
2. Model-Specific:
   • 17 Li et al. (2022): PAC guarantees for Faster R-CNN
   • 18 Blot et al. (2024): Precision-recall control for medical imaging
3. Classification + Localization:
   • 24 Timans et al. (2025): Class-conditional localization correction
   • This work: Unified framework, model-agnostic

Sequential Conformal Prediction

• 25 Xu et al. (2024): Two-stage CRC for ranking retrieval
  • Difference: Requires two data splits or asymptotic guarantees
  • This Work's Advantage: Single split + finite-sample guarantees

Learn-Then-Test Framework

• 22 Angelopoulos et al. (2025): LTT for multi-parameter
  • Applied to language models 26 and medical OD 18
  • This work uses different sequential strategy

Other UQ Methods

1. Heuristic:
   • MetaDetect 10: Meta-network estimates IoU
   • 27: Position-aware confidence calibration
2. Bayesian:
   • BayesOD 8: Bayesian fusion replaces NMS
   • 7: Dropout sampling estimates uncertainty

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Theoretical Contribution: SeqCRC provides finite-sample guarantees for 1+2 parameter sequential tasks
2. Practical Effectiveness: Validated on DETR and YOLO, risk control accurate
3. Flexible Framework: Supports multiple loss functions, prediction sets, and matching strategies
4. Tool Support: Open-source toolkit facilitates reproduction and extension

Limitations

Methodological Level

1. Recall Control Only: Precision (false positives) cannot be directly controlled
   • Reason: Precision non-monotonic in parameters
   • Impact: May produce extra predictions (Fig. 8, 11)
2. Annotation Dependency:
   • MS-COCO annotation inconsistency (individual vs. collective)
   • If ground truth incorrect, correction may be excessive
3. Monotonization Cost:
   • Matching-loss inconsistency causes non-monotonicity
   • Monotonization makes prediction sets slightly conservative
4. Conservative Global Risk:
   • Corollary 1 uses max{a,b} ≤ a+b
   • Actual risk far below αtot, room for improvement

Experimental Level

1. Dataset Limitation: Only MS-COCO validation tested
2. Model Selection: Only DETR and YOLO families tested
3. Computational Cost: Monotonization optimization requires 20 min/experiment

Future Directions

Theoretical Extensions

1. Precision Control: Explore handling non-monotonic losses
2. Conditional Guarantees: Class-conditional or test-conditional guarantees
3. Tighter Bounds: Improve Corollary 1's additive bounds

Method Improvements

1. Adaptive Bounds: Incorporate uncertainty estimates from BayesOD
2. Better Matching: Design distance functions consistent with losses
3. Multi-task Optimization: Joint optimization of three parameters

Application Extensions

1. Other Detection Tasks: 3D detection, instance segmentation
2. Online Learning: Dynamic calibration for streaming data
3. Safety Certification: Integration with industrial standards (e.g., DO-178C)

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

Theoretical Rigor

1. Novel Theory: First to solve 1+2 parameter sequential CRC
   • Single data split
   • Finite-sample guarantees
   • Rigorous proofs (Theorem 2, Lemma 1)
2. Symmetry Technique: Clever introduction of λ^cnf_-
   • Ensures second-step feasibility
   • Maintains symmetry for expectation computation
3. Efficient Monotonization: Online computation maintains efficiency

Method Completeness

1. End-to-End Framework: Covers full OD pipeline
   • Confidence thresholding
   • Localization correction
   • Classification sets
2. Model-Agnostic: Applicable to any detector
   • DETR (transformer)
   • YOLO (single-stage)
   • Theoretically supports Faster R-CNN, etc.
3. Rich Options:
   • 6 loss functions
   • 4 matching strategies
   • 2 localization bounds
   • 2 classification methods

Experimental Sufficiency

1. Large-Scale Benchmark: Hundreds of experimental configurations
2. Multi-Dimensional Analysis:
   • Loss function comparison
   • Matching strategy impact
   • Model-agnostic verification
   • Risk level effects
3. Rich Visualization: Success/failure case analysis

Practical Value

1. Open-Source Toolkit: Fully reproducible
2. Computational Efficiency: Negligible inference overhead
3. Plug-and-Play: No retraining required

Weaknesses

Theoretical Limitations

1. Expectation Guarantees:
   • Not per-sample guarantees
   • May fail on specific test images
   • 55 proves test-conditionality impossible
2. Strict Assumptions:
   • i.i.d. data assumption
   • Using validation set as calibration may violate independence
   • Loss monotonicity requires monotonization technique
3. Conservatism:
   • Loose global risk bounds
   • Bonferroni-type correction

Method Defects

1. Precision Problem:
   • Cannot control false positives
   • May produce excessive predictions in practice
   • Requires post-processing or heuristic filtering
2. Annotation Sensitivity:
   • MS-COCO inconsistency severely impacts
   • Requires high-quality annotations
   • Fragile to annotation errors
3. Matching Dilemma:
   • Difficult to unify localization and classification distances
   • Mix distance's τ requires tuning
   • GIoU failure shows distance design is critical

Experimental Insufficiency

1. Single Dataset:
   • Only MS-COCO
   • Missing domain-specific data (medical, autonomous driving)
   • No distribution shift testing
2. Limited Models:
   • Only 2 architectures
   • Missing Faster R-CNN, RetinaNet, etc.
   • No small model testing
3. Incomplete Ablation:
   • τ parameter effects not thoroughly studied
   • Calibration set size effects not analyzed
   • Different NMS threshold effects untested
4. Missing Comparisons:
   • No direct numerical comparison with 17,18,24
   • No computational cost comparison with Bayesian methods

Impact

Academic Contribution

1. Theoretical Breakthrough: First finite-sample method for sequential CRC
2. Unified Framework: First conformal method covering full OD pipeline
3. Citation Potential:
   • Conformal prediction community: theoretical innovation
   • Computer vision: practical toolkit
   • AI safety: certification method

Practical Value

1. Industrial Applications:
   • Autonomous driving: safety-critical decisions
   • Medical imaging: diagnostic assistance
   • Railway systems: existing applications 15,16
2. Certification Support:
   • Provides statistical guarantees
   • Meets standards like DO-178C
   • Reduces certification costs
3. Usability:
   • No retraining required
   • Low computational cost
   • Well-documented open-source tools

Reproducibility

1. Code Open-Source: https://github.com/leoandeol/cods
2. Complete Documentation:
   • Algorithm pseudocode (Algorithm 1-4)
   • Detailed experimental setup
   • Rich supplementary materials
3. Tool Support:
   • Multi-model integration
   • Visualization tools
   • Easy to extend

Applicable Scenarios

Ideal Scenarios

1. Safety-Critical Systems:
   • Require statistical guarantees
   • Tolerate conservative predictions
   • High annotation quality
2. Pre-trained Model Deployment:
   • Cannot retrain
   • Need quick adaptation
   • Limited labeled data available
3. Recall-Priority Tasks:
   • High cost of misses
   • False positives acceptable
   • E.g., medical screening

Unsuitable Scenarios

1. Precision-Critical:
   • High false positive cost
   • E.g., spam detection
   • Requires additional methods
2. Unreliable Annotations:
   • Crowdsourced labels
   • Ambiguous definitions
   • Requires data cleaning first
3. Real-Time Systems:
   • Calibration time (20 min) may be excessive
   • Inference time acceptable
   • Requires offline calibration
4. Small Datasets:
   • n=2500 may be insufficient
   • Guarantees more conservative
   • Requires trade-off analysis

References

Core Methods

• 13 Vovk et al. (2005): Algorithmic learning in a random world - Conformal prediction foundations
• 53 Angelopoulos et al. (2024): Conformal risk control - CRC method
• 22 Angelopoulos et al. (2025): Learn then test - LTT framework

OD Conformal Prediction

• 14 de Grancey et al. (2022): First OD conformal method
• 15,16 Andéol et al. (2023,2024): Railway signal applications
• 17 Li et al. (2022): PAC multi-object detection
• 24 Timans et al. (2025): Two-stage conformal (concurrent work)

Detection Models

• 38-40 YOLO series: Single-stage detectors
• 43 DETR: Transformer detector
• 42 Faster R-CNN: Two-stage detector

Uncertainty Quantification

• 7,8 BayesOD: Bayesian methods
• 10 MetaDetect: Heuristic method
• 27 Küppers et al.: Confidence calibration

Overall Assessment

This paper represents a significant theoretical and practical breakthrough in conformal prediction for object detection. The SeqCRC method elegantly solves the finite-sample guarantee problem for multi-parameter sequential tasks, filling a gap in the field. The comprehensive experiments and open-source toolkit substantially enhance the work's value.

Strongly Recommended For:

1. Conformal prediction researchers (theoretical innovation)
2. Object detection practitioners (practical toolkit)
3. AI safety engineers (certification methods)

Suggested Future Research: Precision control, validation on more datasets, numerical comparison with existing methods.