pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.22418 · v3 · submitted 2025-07-30 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI

Aleatoric Uncertainty Medical Image Segmentation Estimation via Flow Matching

Phi Van Nguyen , Ngoc Huynh Trinh , Duy Minh Lam Nguyen , Phu Loc Nguyen , Quoc Long Tran This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 03:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AI
keywords aleatoric uncertaintymedical image segmentationflow matchinguncertainty quantificationgenerative modelingconditional densitysegmentation samplesinter-annotator variability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Conditional flow matching generates multiple segmentation samples whose pixel-wise variance measures aleatoric uncertainty in medical images.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to improve uncertainty estimation in medical image segmentation by modeling the distribution of possible expert annotations. It proposes using conditional flow matching, which learns an exact density without simulation, to generate several plausible segmentations guided by the input image. The variance across these samples then serves as a reliable indicator of uncertainty, particularly in areas with unclear boundaries. This approach is intended to better reflect natural variability among annotators compared to previous generative methods like diffusion models. A sympathetic reader would care because better uncertainty maps can help identify where segmentations are less trustworthy, improving safety in medical applications.

Core claim

The central claim is that by guiding the flow model on the input image and sampling multiple data points, the synthesized segmentation samples have pixel-wise variance that reliably reflects the underlying data distribution of expert annotations. This captures uncertainties in regions with ambiguous boundaries and offers robust quantification that mirrors inter-annotator differences, while also achieving competitive segmentation accuracy.

What carries the argument

Conditional flow matching, a simulation-free flow-based generative model that learns an exact density, conditioned on the input image to produce segmentation samples.

If this is right

  • Generates uncertainty maps that provide deeper insights into the reliability of segmentation outcomes.
  • Captures uncertainties particularly in regions with ambiguous boundaries.
  • Achieves competitive segmentation accuracy alongside the uncertainty quantification.
  • Mirrors inter-annotator differences in the uncertainty estimates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This sampling approach might generalize to other domains with high annotator variability, such as natural image labeling.
  • The exact density learning could allow for more efficient uncertainty estimation than stochastic diffusion processes.
  • In practice, it could flag regions for additional expert review in clinical workflows.

Load-bearing premise

The multiple samples drawn from the learned conditional flow accurately represent the true distribution of expert annotations rather than artifacts from the training or sampling process.

What would settle it

A dataset with multiple independent expert annotations per image where the computed pixel-wise variance does not correlate with the observed disagreement among experts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22418 by Duy Minh Lam Nguyen, Ngoc Huynh Trinh, Phi Van Nguyen, Phu Loc Nguyen, Quoc Long Tran.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of our proposed conditional flow matching framework for mod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparative qualitative analysis of our proposed method against three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparative qualitative analysis of our proposed method against three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantifying aleatoric uncertainty in medical image segmentation is critical since it is a reflection of the natural variability observed among expert annotators. A conventional approach is to model the segmentation distribution using the generative model, but current methods limit the expression ability of generative models. While current diffusion-based approaches have demonstrated impressive performance in approximating the data distribution, their inherent stochastic sampling process and inability to model exact densities limit their effectiveness in accurately capturing uncertainty. In contrast, our proposed method leverages conditional flow matching, a simulation-free flow-based generative model that learns an exact density, to produce highly accurate segmentation results. By guiding the flow model on the input image and sampling multiple data points, our approach synthesizes segmentation samples whose pixel-wise variance reliably reflects the underlying data distribution. This sampling strategy captures uncertainties in regions with ambiguous boundaries, offering robust quantification that mirrors inter-annotator differences. Experimental results demonstrate that our method not only achieves competitive segmentation accuracy but also generates uncertainty maps that provide deeper insights into the reliability of the segmentation outcomes. The code for this paper is freely available at https://github.com/huynhspm/Data-Uncertainty

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes conditional flow matching to model the conditional distribution of medical image segmentations p(y|x). Multiple samples are drawn from the learned flow to compute pixel-wise variance as an estimator of aleatoric uncertainty, which is asserted to faithfully reflect inter-annotator variability and boundary ambiguity. The method is contrasted with diffusion models on grounds of exact density learning and simulation-free training; experiments report competitive Dice scores and qualitatively plausible uncertainty maps, with code released.

Significance. If the central assumption holds, the approach would supply a principled, density-exact alternative for aleatoric uncertainty quantification in segmentation, potentially improving clinical reliability assessment in ambiguous regions. The simulation-free training and open code are concrete strengths that would aid adoption and verification.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (method): the assertion that 'pixel-wise variance reliably reflects the underlying data distribution' receives no derivation, error analysis, or quantitative validation. No comparison is shown between statistics of the generated samples (Dice variance, Hausdorff spread, label-flip rates) and empirical inter-annotator variability on multi-annotated test sets; this is load-bearing for the uncertainty claim.
  2. [§4] §4 (experiments): the evaluation uses standard single-annotation benchmarks; without a multi-rater test set, it is impossible to verify that the sampled variance matches real expert disagreement rather than flow-matching artifacts (e.g., smoothing induced by the chosen probability path).
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the conditional velocity field and probability path should be introduced earlier and used consistently.
  2. [§2] Add a reference to the original conditional flow-matching formulation (Lipman et al.) and clarify any modifications made for the segmentation task.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript while being transparent about current limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (method): the assertion that 'pixel-wise variance reliably reflects the underlying data distribution' receives no derivation, error analysis, or quantitative validation. No comparison is shown between statistics of the generated samples (Dice variance, Hausdorff spread, label-flip rates) and empirical inter-annotator variability on multi-annotated test sets; this is load-bearing for the uncertainty claim.

    Authors: We agree that a formal derivation and error analysis would strengthen the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in §3 deriving that, because conditional flow matching learns the exact conditional density p(y|x) via a deterministic ODE, the Monte-Carlo variance of independent samples converges to the true pixel-wise variance of the learned distribution; we will also supply a simple error bound based on the number of samples drawn. We will further report quantitative sample statistics (standard deviation of Dice scores across draws, Hausdorff distance spread, and boundary label-flip frequency) on the existing test sets. Direct numerical comparison against empirical inter-annotator variability, however, requires multi-rater ground truth that is absent from the standard single-annotation benchmarks we used; we will therefore add an explicit limitations paragraph acknowledging this gap and framing the reported variance as an approximation conditioned on the training annotations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (experiments): the evaluation uses standard single-annotation benchmarks; without a multi-rater test set, it is impossible to verify that the sampled variance matches real expert disagreement rather than flow-matching artifacts (e.g., smoothing induced by the chosen probability path).

    Authors: We concur that multi-rater test sets would enable the most direct validation. Our experimental design follows the prevailing single-annotation protocols in the medical segmentation literature to allow fair comparison with prior work. To address possible flow-matching artifacts, the revised §4 will include (i) an ablation across two different probability paths and (ii) side-by-side visualizations demonstrating that elevated variance concentrates at anatomically plausible ambiguous boundaries rather than producing uniform smoothing. We will also state clearly that the uncertainty maps reflect the distribution learned from the available annotations and may not fully capture all sources of expert disagreement. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct quantitative verification that pixel-wise variance matches real inter-annotator variability requires multi-rater test sets, which are not available in the single-annotation benchmarks used in the current experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper trains a conditional flow-matching model to approximate p(y|x) for segmentations y given input images x, then estimates aleatoric uncertainty via pixel-wise variance across multiple samples drawn from the learned model. This variance is a direct statistical consequence of the generative sampling procedure and does not reduce to a fitted target uncertainty map, self-definition, or self-citation chain. No load-bearing steps invoke prior author work for uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or renaming of known results; the central claim rests on the flow-matching objective plus empirical validation rather than tautological reduction to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the learned flow accurately approximates the conditional distribution of expert segmentations; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5739 in / 997 out tokens · 25195 ms · 2026-05-19T03:04:25.172350+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Radiology232(3), 739–748 (2004)

    Armato III, S.G., McLennan, G., McNitt-Gray, M.F., Meyer, C.R., Yankelevitz, D., Aberle, D.R., Henschke, C.I., Hoffman, E.A., Kazerooni, E.A., MacMahon, H., et al.: Lung image database consortium: developing a resource for the medical imaging research community. Radiology232(3), 739–748 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Com- puter Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shen- zhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 22

    Baumgartner, C.F., Tezcan, K.C., Chaitanya, K., Hötker, A.M., Muehlematter, U.J., Schawkat, K., Becker, A.S., Donati, O., Konukoglu, E.: Phiseg: Capturing un- certainty in medical image segmentation. In: Medical Image Computing and Com- puter Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shen- zhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedi...

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Blundell, C., Cornebise, J., Kavukcuoglu, K., Wierstra, D.: Weight uncertainty in neural network. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 1613–1622. PMLR (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    European journal of Radiology 31(2), 97–109 (1999)

    Doi, K., MacMahon, H., Katsuragawa, S., Nishikawa, R.M., Jiang, Y.: Computer- aided diagnosis in radiology: potential and pitfalls. European journal of Radiology 31(2), 97–109 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    In: international conference on machine learn- ing

    Gal, Y., Ghahramani, Z.: Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. In: international conference on machine learn- ing. pp. 1050–1059. PMLR (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance

    Ho, J., Salimans, T.: Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598 (2022)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Medical Image Analysis p

    Huang, L., Ruan, S., Xing, Y., Feng, M.: A review of uncertainty quantification in medical image analysis: Probabilistic and non-probabilistic methods. Medical Image Analysis p. 103223 (2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    European radiology29, 1391–1399 (2019)

    Joskowicz,L.,Cohen,D.,Caplan,N.,Sosna,J.:Inter-observervariabilityofmanual contour delineation of structures in ct. European radiology29, 1391–1399 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 22

    Jungo,A.,Reyes,M.:Assessingreliabilityandchallengesofuncertaintyestimations for medical image segmentation. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 22. pp. 48–56. Springer (2019)

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Kendall, A., Gal, Y.: What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision? Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Kingma, D.P., Welling, M., et al.: Auto-encoding variational bayes (2013)

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Advances in neural information processing sys- tems31(2018)

    Kohl, S., Romera-Paredes, B., Meyer, C., De Fauw, J., Ledsam, J.R., Maier-Hein, K., Eslami, S., Jimenez Rezende, D., Ronneberger, O.: A probabilistic u-net for segmentation of ambiguous images. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems31(2018)

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    A Hierarchical Probabilistic U-Net for Modeling Multi-Scale Ambiguities

    Kohl, S.A., Romera-Paredes, B., Maier-Hein, K.H., Rezende, D.J., Eslami, S., Kohli, P., Zisserman, A., Ronneberger, O.: A hierarchical probabilistic u-net for modeling multi-scale ambiguities. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13077 (2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1905

  15. [15]

    Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems30(2017)

    Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., Blundell, C.: Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems30(2017)

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Flow Matching for Generative Modeling

    Lipman, Y., Chen, R.T., Ben-Hamu, H., Nickel, M., Le, M.: Flow matching for generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747 (2022) Uncertainty Flow Matching 11

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    MMIS 2024 Organizing Committee: Multi-rater medical image segmentation for radiotherapy planning in nasopharyngeal carcinoma and glioblastoma.https:// mmis2024.com/(2024), mMIS-2024 @ ACM Multimedia 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Rahman,A.,Valanarasu,J.M.J.,Hacihaliloglu,I.,Patel,V.M.:Ambiguousmedical image segmentation using diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 11536–11546 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00104 (2019)

    Seedat, N., Kanan, C.: Towards calibrated and scalable uncertainty representations for neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00104 (2019)

    work page arXiv 1911

  20. [20]

    Advances in neural information processing systems 28(2015)

    Sohn, K., Lee, H., Yan, X.: Learning structured output representation using deep conditional generative models. Advances in neural information processing systems 28(2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Score-Based Generative Modeling through Stochastic Differential Equations

    Song, Y., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D.P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., Poole, B.: Score- based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 (2020)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging 42(12), 3932–3943 (2023)

    Wu, J., Wang, G., Gu, R., Lu, T., Chen, Y., Zhu, W., Vercauteren, T., Ourselin, S., Zhang, S.: Upl-sfda: Uncertainty-aware pseudo label guided source-free domain adaptation for medical image segmentation. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 42(12), 3932–3943 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning

    Wu, J., Fu, R., Fang, H., Zhang, Y., Yang, Y., Xiong, H., Liu, H., Xu, Y.: Med- segdiff: Medical image segmentation with diffusion probabilistic model. In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning. pp. 1623–1639. PMLR (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Zbinden, L., Doorenbos, L., Pissas, T., Huber, A.T., Sznitman, R., Márquez-Neila, P.: Stochastic segmentation with conditional categorical diffusion models. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 1119–1129 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Zepf, K., Wanna, S., Miani, M., Moore, J., Frellsen, J., Hauberg, S., Warburg, F., Feragen, A.: Laplacian segmentation networks improve epistemic uncertainty quantification. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 349–359. Springer (2024)

    work page 2024