BiCC: Bidirectional Connected-Component Loss for Instance-Aware Segmentation
Organizations: Institute for AI in Medicine (IKIM), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany · Institute for Anthropomatics and Robotics (IAR), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany
Abstract
Common segmentation losses aggregate errors voxel-wise, so lesions influence the objective in proportion to their volume, giving small but clinically critical lesions disproportionately little weight. Instance-aware losses aim to address this mismatch by assigning each lesion its own term. However, blob loss and CC-DiceCE derive their regions solely from annotations, so false-positive components receive no instance-level term. This matters in computer-assisted review, where each false-positive component may require separate inspection, making precision and false-positive burden important alongside recall. We introduce the bidirectional connected-component loss (BiCC), which pairs annotation- and prediction-derived partitions to score predicted components on their own scale. By deriving instances from the predictions, this branch directly penalizes false-positive components regardless of their size. The balance parameter allows control over the lesion-wise precision-recall trade-off. Across five datasets with five-fold cross-validation using nnU-Net, BiCC outperforms CC-DiceCE in lesion-wise F1 on four datasets and blob loss on all five. It significantly improves over DiceCE on three datasets and matches it on two; CC-DiceCE instead loses up to 0.363 precision by favoring recall. Code is available at https://github.com/TIO-IKIM/BiCC-Loss.
Figures & tables
| CC/case | Component volume (mm 3 ) | Foreground | Intra-case CoV | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dataset | Scans | median | mean | median | mean | (%) | median |
| AutoPET III | 1611 | 2 [0, 11] | 17.0 | 1294 [495, 3471] | 8856 | 0.028 | 0.37 [0.00, 1.67] |
| ISLES | 1453 | 2 [1, 4] | 3.4 | 162 [20, 1300] | 8287 | 0.268 | 0.73 [0.00, 1.28] |
| BraTS-METS | 1294 | 4 [1, 8] | 7.6 | 43.0 [14.5, 185.8] | 742 | 0.056 | 0.90 [0.00, 1.38] |
| LiTS | 131 | 3 [1, 9] | 6.9 | 539 [145, 2733] | 11249 | 0.124 | 0.85 [0.00, 1.45] |
| CMB | 72 | 1 [0, 2] | 3.3 | 9.9 [7.3, 17.1] | 18.7 | 0.001 | 0.00 [0.00, 0.03] |
| Dataset | Method | Dice | CC-Dice | Prec. | Rec. | F1 | FP/neg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AutoPET III | DiceCE | 0.5654 | 0.4481 | 0.4998 | 0.6631 | 0.5301 | 5.5009 |
| blob loss | 0.5452 | 0.4415 | 0.4733 | 0.6877 | 0.5210 | 6.7312 | |
| CC-DiceCE | 0.5722 | 0.4791 | 0.3758 | 0.7368 | 0.4621 | 10.8482 | |
| BiCC | 0.5848 | 0.4616 | 0.6065 | 0.6410 | 0.5880 | 3.4293 | |
| ISLES | DiceCE | 0.6518 | 0.4845 | 0.6594 | 0.6460 | 0.5905 | 3.0000 |
| blob loss | 0.6438 | 0.4921 | 0.6021 | 0.6698 | 0.5710 | 1.8000 |
| Dataset | Variant | Dice | CC-Dice | Prec. | Rec. | F1 | FP/neg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AutoPET III | (CC-DiceCE) | 0.5722 | 0.4791 | 0.3758 | 0.7368 | 0.4621 | 10.8482 |
| 0.5854 | 0.4733 | 0.5602 | 0.6682 | 0.5742 | 4.3560 | ||
| BiCC ( ) | 0.5848 | 0.4616 | 0.6065 | 0.6410 | 0.5880 | 3.4293 | |
| 0.5809 | 0.4506 | 0.6256 | 0.6195 | 0.5865 | 3.0855 | ||
| 0.5653 | 0.4265 | 0.6380 | 0.5802 | 0.5735 | 2.5969 | ||
| Smoothed Dice ( ) | 0.5855 | 0.4891 | 0.4059 | 0.7308 | 0.4850 | 9.6667 |