Rethinking Uncertainty Quantification and Entanglement in Image Segmentation
Organizations: Technical University of Denmark, DTU Compute · University of Lucerne, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Switzerland
Abstract
Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is crucial in safety-critical applications such as medical image segmentation. Total uncertainty is typically decomposed into data-related aleatoric uncertainty (AU) and model-related epistemic uncertainty (EU). Many methods exist for modeling AU (such as Probabilistic UNet, Diffusion) and EU (such as ensembles, MC Dropout), but it is unclear how they interact when combined. Additionally, recent work has revealed substantial entanglement between AU and EU, undermining the interpretability and practical usefulness of the decomposition. We present a comprehensive empirical study covering a broad range of AU-EU model combinations, propose an entanglement proxy based on the relative performance of uncertainty measures, and evaluate model combinations across downstream uncertainty quantification tasks. Ensembles consistently show more favorable proxy values and superior performance. Softmax models usually beat other AU methods, except in calibration where the results are dataset-dependent. A softmax ensemble performs remarkably well on all tasks. Finally, we analyze potential sources of uncertainty entanglement and outline directions for mitigating this effect.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Modality | #Im | Ann/Im | Train | Val | Test (ID/OOD) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIDC-IDRI | CT | 2 | 15096 | 4 | 9355 | 2689 | 3052 / |
| MMIS NPC | MRI | 2 | 2260 | 4 | 1483 | 302 | 475 / |
| Chákṣu IMAGE | Fundus imaging | 3 | 1345 | 5 | 648 | 162 | 264 / 271 |
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Abbreviation | Meaning |
|---|---|
| AU | Aleatoric uncertainty |
| EU | Epistemic uncertainty |
| TU | Total uncertainty |
| ID | In-distribution |
| OOD | Out-of-distribution |
| AMB | Ambiguity modeling |