# Uncertainty Identifies Difficult Samples Across Methods: A Multi-Task Study on a Heterogeneous Skin Lesion Dataset

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14768 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14768/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 12 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.11946/) (2019)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.02142/) (2015)
- [Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01474/) (2016)
- [Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.08500/) (2017)
- [A Review of Uncertainty Quantification in Deep Learning: Techniques, Applications and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.06225/) (2020)
- [A Survey of Uncertainty in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03342/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Deep Neural Networks Trained on Clinical Images in Dermatology with the Fitzpatrick 17k Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.09957/) (2021)
- [Understanding Measures of Uncertainty for Adversarial Example Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.08533/) (2018)
- [Disparities in Dermatology AI: Assessments Using Diverse Clinical Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.08006/) (2021)
- [Flipout: Efficient Pseudo-Independent Weight Perturbations on Mini-Batches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.04386/) (2018)
- [DropConnect Is Effective in Modeling Uncertainty of Bayesian Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04569/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Skin lesion classifiers can be confidently wrong on the cases that matter most, so knowing when a prediction should not be trusted is clinically as useful as the prediction. We study uncertainty quantification on a dataset pooled from many ISIC sources, with a shared backbone and two jointly learned heads: a binary malignant versus non-malignant head and a five-class diagnostic head. Five UQ methods (MC Dropout, DropConnect, Flipout, Deep Ensembles, DUQ) are compared on accuracy, calibration, uncertainty decomposition, and risk-coverage. Difficulty is largely method-agnostic: even methods with narrow entropy distributions rank the same samples as hard (per-sample entropy correlations of 0.54 to 0.91). The choice of method matters more for calibration and uncertainty decomposition, where Deep Ensembles is the clear winner, than for finding difficult cases. The ranking is also good enough that deferring the most uncertain cases removes a disproportionate share of errors, supporting uncertainty-based selective referral, evaluated here in-distribution only.