Beyond Boundary Noise: Aggregated Aleatoric Uncertainty Fails to Capture Presence Ambiguity in 3D Lung Nodule Segmentation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Uncertainty estimation is critical for the safe clinical deployment of deep learning in medical image segmentation, with aleatoric uncertainty theoretically designed to capture irreducible data ambiguity. However, whether entropy-based measures reflect clinically meaningful ambiguity, i.e. case-level disagreement about whether a pathology is present at all, remains poorly understood. Contrary to most prior work, which focused on pixel-wise boundary disagreement, we systematically evaluate how well aleatoric uncertainty captures presence ambiguity. Our evaluation spans 3D lung nodule segmentation across four architectures with Monte Carlo dropout and deep ensembles, on LIDC-IDRI and an external validation cohort (LNDb). We find that entropy-based uncertainty maps align with boundary noise and minor drawing variation but carry insufficient discriminative signal for presence ambiguity. In contrast, a lightweight supervised ambiguity head trained on frozen segmentation features substantially outperforms all entropy-aggregation-based baselines across architectures, metrics, and both cohorts, and matches or exceeds methods that explicitly model ambiguity under disagreement supervision (Probabilistic U-Net, Annotator-Confusion 3D-UNet). A qualitative feature-space analysis shows that presence ambiguity is already encoded in the frozen encoder features of pixel-wise-trained networks, only to be discarded by the segmentation output and its entropy aggregation. Our findings expose a fundamental mismatch between the theoretical promise of aleatoric uncertainty and its practical behavior, and suggest that practitioners should not rely on entropy-based uncertainty as a proxy for clinical ambiguity in safety-critical applications.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2026.
Builds on
16 of 28 references.
References · 16
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
- 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
- 2018UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reductioncited by 2,898
- 2019Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Machine Learning: An Introduction to Concepts and Methodscited by 913
- 2018A Probabilistic U-Net for Segmentation of Ambiguous Imagescited by 283
- 2019Learning From Noisy Labels By Regularized Estimation Of Annotator Confusioncited by 127
- 2022Quantifying Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty in Machine Learning: Are Conditional Entropy and Mutual Information Appropriate Measures?cited by 125
- 2024Benchmarking Uncertainty Disentanglement: Specialized Uncertainties for Specialized Taskscited by 78
- 2020Disentangling Human Error from the Ground Truth in Segmentation of Medical Imagescited by 58
- 2019Supervised Uncertainty Quantification for Segmentation with Multiple Annotationscited by 42
- 2023A review of uncertainty quantification in medical image analysis: probabilistic and non-probabilistic methodscited by 39
- 2021Spatially Varying Label Smoothing: Capturing Uncertainty from Expert Annotationscited by 31
4 more
- 2019LNDb: A Lung Nodule Database on Computed Tomographycited by 28
- 2025Uncertainty Quantification for Machine Learning in Healthcare: A Surveycited by 14
- 2023Confidence Contours: Uncertainty-Aware Annotation for Medical Semantic Segmentationcited by 4
- 2025Benchmarking Uncertainty and its Disentanglement in multi-label Chest X-Ray Classificationcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.