Beyond Boundary Noise: Aggregated Aleatoric Uncertainty Fails to Capture Presence Ambiguity in 3D Lung Nodule Segmentation

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.

Reliability analysis for BraTS-GoAT segmentation: a controlled robustness study of deep-ensemble uncertainty

Deep networks segment brain tumours accurately in-distribution, but can fail silently when the input differs from their training data. That risk is central to clinical deployment and is the premise of the BraTS-GoAT generalizability task. We ask not only how well a model segments, but whether its uncertainty knows when it is wrong. On BraTS-GoAT (Task 3) we train a 5-fold cross-validated nnU-Net baseline (one held-out prediction per case) and a 3-seed deep ensemble. Both are evaluated for calibration and error detection on a per-region relevant mask, aggregated per case. In-distribution the 3-seed ensemble improves modestly over the already strong single model on the same held-out split, with the clearest gain in calibration. The separation appears under shift. In a controlled robustness study using graded synthetic corruptions as a proxy for acquisition shift, the single model's confidence stays flat while its accuracy and calibration degrade. Inter-member disagreement instead rises steeply, about a quarter to a third above the clean condition, several times the single model's response. On the official validation leaderboard the 5-fold ensemble of those folds attains whole-tumour Dice 0.87. The generalization gap is concentrated on the harder regions, with a characteristic failure of missing small, satellite lesions on unseen cohorts. In the synthetic study, disagreement among the 3-seed members is a more sensitive case-level indicator of acquisition shift than single-model confidence. Its per-voxel error localisation weakens as severity grows. The contribution is a rigorous, honest reliability comparison rather than a claim that any one uncertainty method dominates.