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

Abstract: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.

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2608.14768 [cs.CV]

(or arXiv:2608.14768v1 [cs.CV] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.14768 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.