In medical imaging, inter-observer variability among radiologists often introduces label uncertainty, particularly in modalities where visual interpretation is subjective. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a prime example-it frequently presents a mixture of highly ambiguous regions and clearly discernible structures, making consistent annotation challenging even for experienced clinicians. In this work, we introduce a novel approach to both labeling and training AI models using expert-supplied, per-pixel confidence values. Rather than treating annotations as absolute ground truth, we design a data annotation protocol that captures the confidence that radiologists have in each labeled region, modeling the inherent aleatoric uncertainty present in real-world clinical data. We demonstrate that incorporating these confidence values during training leads to improved segmentation performance. More importantly, we show that this enhanced segmentation quality translates into better performance on downstream clinically-critical tasks-specifically, estimating S/F oxygenation ratio values, classifying S/F ratio change, and predicting 30-day patient readmission. While we empirically evaluate many methods for exposing the uncertainty to the learning model, we find that a simple approach that trains a model on binarized labels obtained with a (60%) confidence threshold works well. Importantly, high thresholds work far better than a naive approach of a 50% threshold, indicating that training on very confident pixels is far more effective. Our study systematically investigates the impact of training with varying confidence thresholds, comparing not only segmentation metrics but also downstream clinical outcomes. These results suggest that label confidence is a valuable signal that, when properly leveraged, can significantly enhance the reliability and clinical utility of AI in medical imaging.

Vision-language models (VLMs) excel in various multimodal tasks but frequently suffer from poor calibration, resulting in misalignment between their verbalized confidence and response correctness. This miscalibration undermines user trust, especially when models confidently provide incorrect or fabricated information. In this work, we propose a novel Confidence Calibration through Semantic Perturbation (CSP) framework to improve the calibration of verbalized confidence for VLMs in response to object-centric queries. We first introduce a perturbed dataset where Gaussian noise is applied to the key object regions to simulate visual uncertainty at different confidence levels, establishing an explicit mapping between visual ambiguity and confidence levels. We further enhance calibration through a two-stage training process combining supervised fine-tuning on the perturbed dataset with subsequent preference optimization. Extensive experiments on popular benchmarks demonstrate that our method significantly improves the alignment between verbalized confidence and response correctness while maintaining or enhancing overall task performance. These results highlight the potential of semantic perturbation as a practical tool for improving the reliability and interpretability of VLMs.

Evaluating the accuracy of outputs generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) is especially important in the climate science and policy domain. We introduce the Expert Confidence in Climate Statements (ClimateX) dataset, a novel, curated, expert-labeled dataset consisting of 8094 climate statements collected from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, labeled with their associated confidence levels. Using this dataset, we show that recent LLMs can classify human expert confidence in climate-related statements, especially in a few-shot learning setting, but with limited (up to 47%) accuracy. Overall, models exhibit consistent and significant over-confidence on low and medium confidence statements. We highlight implications of our results for climate communication, LLMs evaluation strategies, and the use of LLMs in information retrieval systems.

Class labels used for machine learning are relatable to each other, with certain class labels being more similar to each other than others (e.g. images of cats and dogs are more similar to each other than those of cats and cars). Such similarity among classes is often the cause of poor model performance due to the models confusing between them. Current labeling techniques fail to explicitly capture such similarity information. In this paper, we instead exploit the similarity between classes by capturing the similarity information with our novel confidence labels. Confidence labels are probabilistic labels denoting the likelihood of similarity, or confusability, between the classes. Often even after models are trained to differentiate between classes in the feature space, the similar classes' latent space still remains clustered. We view this type of clustering as valuable information and exploit it with our novel projective loss functions. Our projective loss functions are designed to work with confidence labels with an ability to relax the loss penalty for errors that confuse similar classes. We use our approach to train neural networks with noisy labels, as we believe noisy labels are partly a result of confusability arising from class similarity. We show improved performance compared to the use of standard loss functions. We conduct a detailed analysis using the CIFAR-10 dataset and show our proposed methods' applicability to larger datasets, such as ImageNet and Food-101N.

Argumentation is the process of constructing arguments about propositions, and the assignment of statements of confidence to those propositions based on the nature and relative strength of their supporting arguments. The process is modelled as a labelled deductive system, in which propositions are doubly labelled with the grounds on which they are based and a representation of the confidence attached to the argument. Argument construction is captured by a generalized argument consequence relation based on the ^,--fragment of minimal logic. Arguments can be aggregated by a variety of numeric and symbolic flattening functions. This approach appears to shed light on the common logical structure of a variety of quantitative, qualitative and defeasible uncertainty calculi.