Post-training compression of pretrained medical segmentation models commonly uses quantization, pruning, or distillation to reduce model size and computational cost. Existing medical segmentation quantization studies mainly evaluate Dice, model size, memory, and latency, but this is incomplete for safety-critical use because compressed models should also preserve uncertainty signals that indicate unreliable predictions. We study this problem in compressed MRI/CT segmentation and formalize why Dice can remain stable while uncertainty changes. Motivated by this failure mode, we propose score-guided aggregate-validated mixed precision (SGAV-MP), a post-training compression framework that selects layer precisions under reliability constraints. SGAV-MP ranks quantization actions with a compact benefit-risk score and accepts them only after full-model reliability validation on a calibration set. Across five 2D backbones and three 3D benchmarks, SGAV-MP preserves FP32-level Dice and high uncertainty-map agreement, achieving 3.59×--7.8× compression in 2D and 4.73×--7.82× in 3D. We also report backend-supported TensorRT deployment measurements separately to distinguish runtime execution from reliability-preserving storage compression.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Model
Dice
ECE
Brier
UQ Corr.
PROMISE12
EfficientNet-B0
0.8892→0.882
0.0982→0.112
0.196→0.22
1.000→0.428
PROMISE12
ResNet50
0.886→0.881
0.103→0.114
0.205→0.229
1.000→0.324
MosMedPlus
ResNet50
0.785→0.651
0.206→0.365
0.412→0.730
1.000→0.119
Table 1: Representative cases where INT4 quantization may preserve usable Dice while degrading uncertainty and calibration. UQ Corr. denotes uncertainty-map correlation with the FP32 model.
Figure 1: Compression–uncertainty Pareto analysis on MosMedPlus. INT8/INT4 are fixed points; SGAV-MP varies uncertainty tolerance with full-model validation. SGAV-MP improves compression beyond INT8 while preserving uncertainty correlation, whereas INT4 degrades it. The broken y-axis shows both INT4 and the SGAV-MP frontier.
Model
Method
Dice ↑
ECE ↓
Brier ↓
AURC ↓
Error AUROC ↑
UQ Corr. ↑
Comp. Ratio ↑
ResNet50
FP32
0.8857
0.1025
0.2052
0.00539
0.5881
1.0000
1.00
INT8
0.8855
0.1032
0.2067
0.00534
0.5879
0.9441
3.98
INT4
0.8810
0.1144
0.2293
0.00524
0.5848
0.3240
7.91
MCKP
0.8857
0.1026
0.2056
0.00540
0.5880
0.9945
3.96
Hessian Greedy
0.8838
0.1101
0.2206
0.00542
0.5835
0.4547
7.90
AdaRound
0.8864
0.1027
0.2053
0.00542
0.5869
0.7906
3.88
Table 2: MRI segmentation results on PROMISE12/ResNet50. FP32 is the reference and is not ranked. Best compressed value is bold-underlined and second best is bold. For SGAV-MP, Layers / Build / Peak GPU are 62 / 2450 s / 19915 MB for ResNet50.
Model
Method
Dice ↑
ECE ↓
Brier ↓
AURC ↓
Error AUROC ↑
UQ Corr. ↑
Comp. Ratio ↑
ResNet50
FP32
0.7850
0.2064
0.4123
0.00464
0.5829
1.0000
1.00
INT8
0.7849
0.2059
0.4114
0.00465
0.5846
0.9290
3.98
INT4
0.6507
0.3653
0.7304
0.00653
0.5458
0.1192
7.91
MCKP
0.7850
0.2067
0.4128
0.00464
0.5829
0.9936
3.97
Hessian Greedy
0.7717
0.2137
0.4270
0.00491
0.5784
0.2549
7.89
AdaRound
0.7835
0.2089
0.4163
0.00463
0.5845
0.7667
3.96
Table 3: CT segmentation results on MosMedPlus/ResNet50. FP32 is the reference and is not ranked. Best compressed value is bold-underlined and second best is bold. For SGAV-MP, Layers / Build / Peak GPU are 62 / 510.1 s / 4719.9 MB.
Dataset
Precision
Dice ↑
ECE ↓
Brier ↓
AURC ↓
Err-AUROC ↑
UC ↑
CR ↑
AMOS22
FP32
0.7778
0.0527
0.1755
0.00043
0.8719
1.0000
1.00
FP16
0.7778
0.0527
0.1755
0.00043
0.8719
1.0000
2.00
INT8
0.7780
0.0525
0.1750
0.00042
0.8722
0.9997
4.00
INT4
0.7450
0.0703
0.2109
0.00054
0.8603
0.9121
7.98
SGAV-MP
0.7717
0.0478
0.1679
0.00053
0.8806
0.9857
7.72
BraTS
FP32
0.7334
0.0866
0.2095
0.00013
0.8723
1.0000
1.00
Table 4: 3D SegResNet results on AMOS22 and BraTS. FP32 is the reference and is not ranked. Best compressed value is bold-underlined and second best is bold. For SGAV-MP, build time / peak GPU are 8875 s / 5981 MB on AMOS22 and 28252.6 s / 3430.9 MB on BraTS.
Variant
αD
αU
αR
αC
λM
Dice ↑
ECE ↓
Brier ↓
AURC ↓
Err-AUROC ↑
U-Corr. ↑
CR ↑
LQ
Time(s)
Mem(MB)
Dice
1
0
0
0
1
0.8857
0.1026
0.2055
0.0054
0.5883
0.9608
5.07
32
2444.6
19914.2
Dice only (NC)
1
0
0
0
0
0.8857
0.1026
0.2055
0.0054
0.5883
0.9608
5.07
32
2440.4
19914.2
Dice+UQ+risk
1
1
1
0
1
0.8856
0.1029
0.2061
0.0054
0.5884
0.9531
7.29
62
2601.2
19912.4
UQ
0
1
0
0
1
0.8853
0.1037
0.2077
0.0054
0.5882
0.9545
7.17
63
2455.5
19913.9
UQ only (NC)
0
1
0
0
0
0.8853
0.1037
0.2077
0.0054
0.5882
0.9545
7.17
63
2442.6
19913.9
Risk+ECE
0
0
1
1
1
0.8857
0.1026
0.2055
0.0054
0.5883
0.9608
5.07
32
2443.6
19914.7
Table 5: Ablation study on PROMISE12/ResNet50. D , U , R , and C denote Dice, uncertainty, AURC, and ECE degradation terms. NC removes the connection term. The ablation reruns policy selection under fixed score-term settings. Best compressed value is bold-underlined and second best is bold.
Model
Dice ↑
ECE ↓
Brier ↓
AURC ↓
Error AUROC ↑
UQ Corr. ↑
Abs. Unc.
Comp. Ratio ↑
Layers Quant.
Build Time (s)
Peak GPU (MB)
ResNet18
0.779
0.212
0.423
0.004
0.586
0.954
0.014
4.153
29
1261.513
12775.755
MobileNetV2
0.784
0.199
0.398
0.004
0.603
0.942
0.012
4.065
43
2441.863
10874.005
EfficientNet-B0
0.788
0.192
0.383
0.004
0.606
0.952
0.012
5.734
77
3614.041
11168.406
DenseNet121
0.791
0.196
0.392
0.004
0.620
0.968
0.013
4.545
120
5355.454
15615.749
ResNet50
0.785
0.206
0.411
0.005
0.583
0.948
0.011
5.454
61
2537.617
16074.700
Table 6: SGAV-MP is calibrated on PROMISE12 and evaluated on MosMedPlus to assess sensitivity to calibration-domain shift
Method
Dice ↑
ECE ↓
Brier ↓
AURC ↓
Err-AUROC ↑
U-Corr. ↑
Lat.(ms) ↓
Mem.(MB) ↓
CR ↑
FP32
0.7273
0.0658
0.2039
0.0007
0.8828
1.0000
2.186
141.50
1.00
FP16
0.7274
0.0657
0.2036
0.0007
0.8828
1.0000
0.862
70.76
2.00
MedPTQ
0.7270
0.0661
0.2046
0.0007
0.8823
0.9946
0.843
88.95
3.90
SGAV-MP
0.7274
0.0654
0.2033
0.0007
0.8825
0.9972
1.580
136.95
1.58
Table 7: Representative 3D AMOS22 TensorRT deployment measurements using the UNet3D. FP32 is the backend reference and is not ranked. Best compressed value is bold-underlined and second best is bold. Build time / peak GPU are 35.7 s / 152 MB for FP16, 19.7 s / 170 MB for MedPTQ, and 30.7 s / 224 MB for SGAV-MP.
Dataset
Model
Precision
CR ↑
Lat. ↓
Con-Mem ↓
Dice ↑
ECE ↓
Brier ↓
AURC ↓
Err-AUROC ↑
UC ↑
Weights ↓
Total Mem. ↓
MosMedPlus
EfficientNet-B0
FP32
1.000
1.331
94.563
0.7882
0.1915
0.3825
0.0041
0.6067
1
35.04
129.60
SGAV-MP
2.250
0.791
34.718
0.7882
0.1914
0.3823
0.0041
0.6067
0.9833
15.58
50.30
Uniform INT8
3.812
0.903
37.125
0.7881
0.1917
0.3828
0.0041
0.6065
0.9600
9.20
46.33
PROMISE12
ResNet50
FP32
1.000
0.982
88.438
0.8857
0.1026
0.2055
0.0023
0.5883
1
94.11
182.55
SGAV-MP
2.527
0.594
37.125
0.8857
0.1026
0.2055
0.0023
0.5883
0.9698
37.25
74.18
Uniform INT8
4.082
0.659
40.813
0.8857
0.1026
0.2055
0.0023
0.5883
0.9426
23.06
65.81
Table 8: Representative 2D TensorRT deployment results. CR denotes compression ratio, UC denotes uncertainty-map correlation, and Con-Mem denotes TensorRT context memory. FP32 is the reference and is not ranked. Best value is bold-underlined and second best is bold.
Reliable uncertainty estimation is critical for medical image segmentation, where automated contours feed downstream quantification and clinical decision support. Many strong uncertainty methods require repeated inference, while efficient single-forward-pass alternatives often provide weaker failure ranking or rely on restrictive feature-space assumptions. We present SegWithU, a post-hoc framework that augments a frozen pretrained segmentation backbone with a lightweight uncertainty head. SegWithU taps intermediate backbone features and models uncertainty as perturbation energy in a compact probe space using rank-1 posterior probes. It produces two voxel-wise uncertainty maps: a calibration-oriented map for probability tempering and a ranking-oriented map for error detection and selective prediction. Across ACDC, BraTS2024, and LiTS, SegWithU is the strongest and most consistent single-forward-pass baseline, achieving AUROC/AURC of 0.9838/2.4885, 0.9946/0.2660, and 0.9925/0.8193, respectively, while preserving segmentation quality. These results suggest that perturbation-based uncertainty modeling is an effective and practical route to reliability-aware medical segmentation. Source code is available at https://github.com/ProjectNeura/SegWithU.
Tianhao Fu, Austin Wang, Charles Chen +2
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada · Vector Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada · Project Neura, Toronto, ON, Canada +4
Model compression techniques such as quantization and pruning are widely used to reduce the deployment cost of large language models (LLMs), with existing evaluations focusing almost exclusively on accuracy preservation. However, in safety-critical applications, a model's ability to reliably quantify its own uncertainty is equally important. We ask: does compression preserve this ability? To answer this question, we benchmark 12 LLMs under various compression configurations across five NLP tasks, using conformal prediction to provide a rigorous, distribution-free measure of uncertainty. Our experiments reveal that: (I) compression frequently decouples accuracy from uncertainty; (II) larger models absorb compression-induced uncertainty far more effectively than smaller ones; and (III) uncertainty inflation is often threshold-like rather than gradual. These results suggest that accuracy-only evaluation is insufficient for assessing the deployment readiness of compressed LLMs, and that uncertainty-aware benchmarking should be a standard component of model compression pipelines.
Yujia Tong, Yuxi Wang, Yunyang Wan +3
Wuhan University of Technology · Nanyang Technological University
Medical image segmentation models often report high benchmark accuracy under ideal imaging conditions, yet their failures under clinical degradation can be quiet: sensor noise, patient motion, low- resolution acquisition, and contrast variability may all alter model behavior without producing an obvious warning. We present a reproducible framework for evaluating uncertainty-aware segmentation under con- trolled clinical degradation. Our experiments use a synthetic multimodal brain tumor MRI cohort generated with a biophysical phantom simulator that follows the BraTS protocol. We train U-Net and Attention U-Net baselines for multi-class tumor sub-region segmentation and augment both models with Monte Carlo dropout to estimate per-voxel uncertainty. Across eight clinically motivated corruption types at five severity levels, we measure segmentation accuracy, calibration, failure detection, and selective prediction coverage. On clean data, Attention U-Net achieves a whole-tumor Dice of 0.990; under severe Gaussian noise, its performance falls to 0.089. Predictive uncertainty rises with degradation and tracks segmentation error (Pearson r = 0.53 under severity-3 Gaussian noise), allowing us to flag failures with an AUROC of 0.843. These results argue for uncertainty-aware inference as a practical safety layer in physician-in-the-loop radiology workflows. We release the code, trained models, and evaluation protocol to support direct reproduction.
Pranav Kaliaperumal, Manisha Kaliaperumal
Department of Computer Science University of Colorado Denver Aurora, CO, USA · Department of Biology (Pre-Medical) Creighton University Omaha, NE, USA