Do We Really Need Dice? The Hidden Region-Size Biases of Segmentation Losses
Most segmentation losses are arguably variants of the Cross-Entropy (CE) or Dice losses. On the surface, these two categories of losses seem unrelated, and there is no clear consensus as to which category is a better choice, with varying performances for each across different benchmarks and applications. Furthermore, it is widely argued within the medical-imaging community that Dice and CE are complementary, which has motivated the use of compound CE-Dice losses. In this work, we provide a theoretical analysis, which shows that CE and Dice share a much deeper connection than previously thought. First, we show that, from a constrained-optimization perspective, they both decompose into two components, i.e., a similar ground-truth matching term, which pushes the predicted foreground regions towards the ground-truth, and a region-size penalty term imposing different biases on the size of the predicted regions. Then, we provide bound relationships and an information-theoretic analysis, which uncover hidden region-size biases: Dice has an intrinsic bias towards specific extremely imbalanced solutions, whereas CE implicitly encourages the ground-truth region proportions. Our theoretical results explain the wide experimental evidence in the medical-imaging literature, whereby Dice losses bring improvements for imbalanced segmentation. Based on our theoretical analysis, we propose a principled and simple solution, which enables to control explicitly the region-size bias. The proposed method integrates CE with explicit terms based on L1 or the KL divergence, which encourage segmenting region proportions to match target class proportions, thereby mitigating class imbalance but without losing generality. Comprehensive experiments and ablation studies over different losses and applications validate our theoretical analysis, as well as the effectiveness of explicit and simple region-size terms.
Code (1)
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Rethinking ValueDice: Does It Really Improve Performance?
Since the introduction of GAIL, adversarial imitation learning (AIL) methods attract lots of research interests. Among these methods, ValueDice has achieved significant improvements: it beats the classical approach Behav…
Imitation LearningAre Cluster Validity Measures (In)valid?
Internal cluster validity measures (such as the Calinski-Harabasz, Dunn, or Davies-Bouldin indices) are frequently used for selecting the appropriate number of partitions a dataset should be split into. In this paper we …
validRethinking ValueDice: Does It Really Improve Performance?
Since the introduction of GAIL, adversarial imitation learning (AIL) methods attract lots of research interests. Among these methods, ValueDice has achieved significant improvements: it beats the classical approach Behav…
Imitation LearningDo LLMs Really Think Step-by-step In Implicit Reasoning?
It has been well-known that Chain-of-Thought can remarkably enhance LLMs' performance on complex tasks. However, because it also introduces slower inference speeds and higher computational costs, many researches have att…
Do We Really Need Multimodal Emotion Language Models Larger Than 1B Parameters?
Recent advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have significantly improved the performance of multimodal emotion recognition (MER) and enabled interpretable description generation by jointly modeling video, …
Multimodal Emotion RecognitionKnowledge Distillation