Boundary loss for highly unbalanced segmentation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Widely used loss functions for CNN segmentation, e.g., Dice or cross-entropy, are based on integrals over the segmentation regions. Unfortunately, for highly unbalanced segmentations, such regional summations have values that differ by several orders of magnitude across classes, which affects training performance and stability. We propose a boundary loss, which takes the form of a distance metric on the space of contours, not regions. This can mitigate the difficulties of highly unbalanced problems because it uses integrals over the interface between regions instead of unbalanced integrals over the regions. Furthermore, a boundary loss complements regional information. Inspired by graph-based optimization techniques for computing active-contour flows, we express a non-symmetric $L_2$ distance on the space of contours as a regional integral, which avoids completely local differential computations involving contour points. This yields a boundary loss expressed with the regional softmax probability outputs of the network, which can be easily combined with standard regional losses and implemented with any existing deep network architecture for N-D segmentation. We report comprehensive evaluations and comparisons on different unbalanced problems, showing that our boundary loss can yield significant increases in performances while improving training stability. Our code is publicly available: https://github.com/LIVIAETS/surface-loss .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it