  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.
