Daily Papers

Image segmentation is a largely researched field where neural networks find vast applications in many facets of technology. Some of the most popular approaches to train segmentation networks employ loss functions optimizing pixel-overlap, an objective that is insufficient for many segmentation tasks. In recent years, their limitations fueled a growing interest in topology-aware methods, which aim to recover the correct topology of the segmented structures. However, so far, none of the existing approaches achieve a spatially correct matching between the topological features of ground truth and prediction. In this work, we propose the first topologically and feature-wise accurate metric and loss function for supervised image segmentation, which we term Betti matching. We show how induced matchings guarantee the spatially correct matching between barcodes in a segmentation setting. Furthermore, we propose an efficient algorithm to compute the Betti matching of images. We show that the Betti matching error is an interpretable metric to evaluate the topological correctness of segmentations, which is more sensitive than the well-established Betti number error. Moreover, the differentiability of the Betti matching loss enables its use as a loss function. It improves the topological performance of segmentation networks across six diverse datasets while preserving the volumetric performance. Our code is available in https://github.com/nstucki/Betti-matching.

Segmentation algorithms are prone to make topological errors on fine-scale structures, e.g., broken connections. We propose a novel method that learns to segment with correct topology. In particular, we design a continuous-valued loss function that enforces a segmentation to have the same topology as the ground truth, i.e., having the same Betti number. The proposed topology-preserving loss function is differentiable and we incorporate it into end-to-end training of a deep neural network. Our method achieves much better performance on the Betti number error, which directly accounts for the topological correctness. It also performs superiorly on other topology-relevant metrics, e.g., the Adjusted Rand Index and the Variation of Information. We illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method on a broad spectrum of natural and biomedical datasets.

We consider whether off-policy experience from a smaller, weaker model can elicit capability in a stronger learner that on-policy RL fine-tuning (e.g., GRPO) does not reach. We find that injecting mathematically wrong drafts from a smaller but more domain-trained model -- mismatched to the current problem -- into a stronger learner's GRPO context consistently outperforms standard on-policy GRPO on held-out MATH-500 and out-of-distribution AIME 2025/2026. Concretely, we use Mathstral-7B as the learner, Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B as the draft model, 8.8K Level 3--5 MATH problems (with MATH-500 held out), and train with Dr. GRPO. Mismatch is an active ingredient: shuffling drafts to mismatched problems while holding everything else constant yields +1.62pp on MATH-500 (greedy pass@1) over the matched-wrong variant (n=10 seeds, p=0.0015, Welch's t). In fact, the mismatched-wrong variant leads all other variants we tested on MATH-500 across both greedy pass@1 and sampling pass@k. On out-of-distribution AIME 2025 and 2026, the mismatched-wrong variant uniquely lifts pass@k above both Mathstral-7B (in its native [INST] format) and the Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B draft model at every sample budget from k=1 to k=1024 across 2 seeds (+14.2pp on 2025 and +9.0pp on 2026 at pass@1024 over Mathstral-7B), and at pass@1024 also leads no-draft, matched-wrong, and mismatched-correct variants on both years. All variants use the same prompt with no draft injection at test time. The recipe -- trained on a single GPU with no SFT, no reward models, no synthesized data, and no produce-critique-revise inner loop -- reaches 71.98% MATH-500 on Mathstral-7B-v0.1, the highest published result on this model to our knowledge, surpassing the heavier WizardMath pipeline at 70.9% on full MATH (SFT + PPO with process/instruction reward models).