Geodesic Loss Function in Machine Learning

• Geodesic loss functions compute the shortest-path distance on a manifold, ensuring geometry-consistent comparisons in non-Euclidean spaces.
• They are applied in 3D pose estimation, shape reconstruction, and protein modeling to enhance accuracy and interpretability.
• Practical implementations rely on surrogate metrics and numerical strategies to maintain stable gradients and avoid discontinuities.

A geodesic loss function is a training objective that penalizes distance between predicted and reference outputs using the intrinsic, shortest-path metric of the underlying manifold or geometric space, rather than a naïve Euclidean or coordinatewise metric. Geodesic loss functions are essential for machine learning tasks in which the output space is non-Euclidean—such as rotation groups, shape manifolds, hyperspheres, or parameter spaces equipped with a Riemannian structure—ensuring that the optimization respects the true geometry and topology of the domain. This approach supports more accurate, robust, and interpretable models in applications ranging from pose estimation and protein complex modeling to representation learning on spheres and interpolation on data manifolds.

1. Mathematical Definition and Core Principle

The central idea is that for a given manifold $\mathcal{M}$ equipped with metric $g$, the geodesic distance $d_g(x,y)$ between two points $x, y \in \mathcal{M}$ is the length of the shortest curve (geodesic) connecting them: $$d_g(x,y) = \inf_{\gamma} \int_0^1 \sqrt{g_{\gamma(t)}(\dot{\gamma}(t), \dot{\gamma}(t))}\, dt$$ where $\gamma(0)=x$, $\gamma(1)=y$. In contrast to Euclidean loss $\|x-y\|$, $d_g$ correctly measures discrepancy for curved spaces (e.g., SO(3), spheres, Riemannian embedded data manifolds) (Lan et al., 20 Nov 2025, Salehi et al., 2018, Choi et al., 2020, Tan et al., 2023, Raghavan et al., 2021).

2. Canonical Examples by Target Manifold

SO(3) (3D Rotations)

For $R_1$, $R_2 \in$ SO(3) (rotation matrices), geodesic distance is

$$d_\mathrm{geo}(R_1, R_2) = \arccos\left(\frac{\operatorname{tr}(R_1^\top R_2) - 1}{2}\right)$$

or, using quaternions $q_1, q_2$,

$$d_\mathrm{geo} = 2\arccos(|\langle q_1, q_2\rangle|)$$

Losses on SO(3) are widely used in pose estimation and motion capture (Lan et al., 20 Nov 2025, Salehi et al., 2018).

Hypersphere

For unit vectors $z_i, z_j \in S^{d-1}$,

$d_g(z_i, z_j) = \arccos(\langle z_i, z_j \rangle)$

The angular margin contrastive loss leverages this metric for deep feature clustering (Choi et al., 2020).

SE(3) (Rigid Motions)

For $(R, t), (\hat{R}, \hat{t}) \in \mathrm{SE}(3)$,

$$d((R, t), (\hat{R}, \hat{t}); \alpha) = \sqrt{\left[d_\theta(R, \hat{R})\right]^2 + \alpha^{-2}\|\hat{t} - t\|^2}$$

This formulation is used in group-aware geodesic losses for protein complex modeling (Wu et al., 1 Jul 2024).

Riemannian Manifolds in Learning

For neural network weight spaces, the metric may be induced via the Fisher information matrix or pullback of the functional output, allowing geodesic distances to structure mode connectivity (Tan et al., 2023, Raghavan et al., 2021).

3. Implementation Strategies and Numerical Surrogates

Direct computation of geodesic distances and gradients is often numerically sensitive due to nonconvexities or nondifferentiabilities of the geodesic formula. Several practical strategies have been used:

• SO(3) Surrogates: To avoid instability near degenerate points, the squared sine proxy is used:

$$L_\text{geo}(q_1, q_2) = 4(1 - \langle q_1, q_2\rangle^2)$$

which is smooth and monotonic (Lan et al., 20 Nov 2025).

• Trace-based SO(3) loss: The trace-formula-based loss $L_\text{geo}(R_1, R_2)$ can be safely implemented by clamping its argument to $[-1,1]$ for numerical stability (Salehi et al., 2018).
• Latent Space Curves: For interpolations in learned latent spaces, finite-difference approximations for velocities and accelerations are combined with Jacobian-based pullback metrics for enforcing geodesicity (Geng et al., 2020).
• Group-aware adaptation: On SE(3) and related product manifolds, losses sum rotational and translational geodesic terms with learnable weights (Wu et al., 1 Jul 2024).

4. Applications Across Machine Learning Domains

Geodesic loss functions are foundational in the following contexts:

• 3D Pose and Motion Estimation: Geodesic SO(3) losses outperform naive L2 losses on axis–angle or quaternion vectors in both accuracy and robustness, notably under large rotations (Lan et al., 20 Nov 2025, Salehi et al., 2018).
• Text-Guided Image and Video Morphing: Geodesic distillation losses regularize transformations in CLIP-guided spaces, promoting alignment with the natural manifold of images and text and mitigating stability–plasticity tradeoffs (Oh et al., 19 Jan 2024).
• Shape Matching and Partial Correspondence: Losses masked with criteria based on consistency of surface geodesics (e.g., wormhole loss) prevent incorrect supervision on pairs affected by missing regions, yielding robust partial matching (Bracha et al., 30 Oct 2024).
• Shape-Aware Reconstruction: Enforcement of geodesic consistency between lifted point embeddings and underlying surface or mesh geodesics prevents artifacts like "cutting corners" in high-curvature object reconstructions (Wang et al., 2020).
• Protein Complex Modeling: Frame-aligned geodesic losses (F2E) on SE(3) maintain meaningful gradients even for large misalignments, in contrast to chordal/Frobenius metrics which suffer gradient vanishing (Wu et al., 1 Jul 2024).
• Representation Learning and Clustering: Sphere-based contrastive/geodesic losses enforce Riemannian-geometric clustering, driving interpretability and separation between feature classes (Choi et al., 2020).
• Riemannian Mode Connectivity and Sparsification: Geodesic loss regularization in neural network parameter space enables explicit control of trade-offs between task performance, functional stability, and auxiliary objectives (sparsity, continual learning) (Tan et al., 2023, Raghavan et al., 2021).

5. Theoretical and Empirical Benefits

• Manifold Awareness: Geodesic loss functions encode true minimal-distance structure, ensuring that predictions or interpolations respect the geometry of the target space and eliminate artifacts from linearization or coordinate mismatches.
• Gradient Behavior: Manifold-aware geodesic losses avoid sudden discontinuities, singularities, or gradient collapse, maintaining optimization stability even near singularities (e.g., near antipodal rotations in SO(3) (Salehi et al., 2018, Wu et al., 1 Jul 2024)).
• Interpretability: Feature representations regularized with geodesic losses exhibit clearer clustering and class separation, with empirical improvements observed in visual explanation via Grad-CAM for classification (Choi et al., 2020).
• Improved Downstream Task Performance: Empirical results consistently show that geodesic losses reduce train/test error, improve generalization on nonlinear outputs (pose, correspondence, image morphing), and facilitate more reliable interpolation across modes and tasks (Lan et al., 20 Nov 2025, Bracha et al., 30 Oct 2024, Oh et al., 19 Jan 2024).

6. Composite and Hybrid Geodesic Losses

Modern applications frequently combine manifold-based geodesic objectives with standard data or physics-informed losses:

• Physics- and Data-Hybrid Losses: In geodesic distance learning on irregular domains, Eikonal PDE-residual, boundary (Soner) conditions, and labeled-point losses are linearly combined to cover both global geometry and local supervision (Muchacho et al., 6 Mar 2025).
• Multi-term Geodesic Regularization: For latent interpolations, composite objectives combine a constant-speed loss, the geodesic equation residual, and a minimal-length penalty to enforce geodesic properties at multiple scales (Geng et al., 2020).
• Masked Losses for Shape Matching: Wormhole loss incorporates masking based on geodesic–extrinsic thresholding to prevent misleading gradients from regions with ambiguous geodesic meaning (Bracha et al., 30 Oct 2024).

7. Practical Considerations and Limitations

• Numerical Implementation: Proper parameterization (e.g., axis–angle, quaternion), normalization, and clamping are critical for stable geodesic loss computation. Surrogate losses based on sine or cosine can provide numerically stable alternatives (Lan et al., 20 Nov 2025, Salehi et al., 2018).
• Gradient Flow: Nonlinear projection onto the manifold is essential; coordinatewise L2 losses produce suboptimal or discontinuous gradients in curved spaces.
• Label Alignment and Masking: Manifold-aware masking schemes (as in wormhole loss) are required where ground-truth geodesic distances are ambiguous due to partial observation or missing regions (Bracha et al., 30 Oct 2024).

---

The geodesic loss function paradigm enables principled, geometry-aware optimization in modern machine learning, ensuring that neural network outputs, embeddings, and parameters are compared and regularized according to the correct intrinsic distance of the relevant manifold rather than an extrinsic, potentially misleading, coordinate metric (Lan et al., 20 Nov 2025, Oh et al., 19 Jan 2024, Bracha et al., 30 Oct 2024, Choi et al., 2020, Salehi et al., 2018, Wu et al., 1 Jul 2024, Tan et al., 2023, Raghavan et al., 2021, Geng et al., 2020, Muchacho et al., 6 Mar 2025, Wang et al., 2020).