Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Vis2Reg: Visibility-Aware Landmark-Free Geometric 3D--2D Registration for Liver Laparoscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that visibility-aware, mask-gated self-supervision attains 92.60% Dice and 1.43 mm CD, beating the prior best by 13.71 points.

desk verdict The mask-gated one-way visible-domain supervision is a genuine contribution and the ablations support it, but the 13.7 pp Dice headline is not yet trustworthy because the reported metric is also the training loss and the baselines may not share the same input cloud. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17810 v1 pith:BLYW2KDY submitted 2026-07-20 cs.CV cs.AIcs.HC

Jiaming Feng , Xukun Zhang , Shahid Farid , Sharib Ali This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.HC
keywords 3D-2Dregistrationlaparoscopicliversurgeryvisibility-awareself-supervisionpointcloudnon-rigiddeformationdifferentiablerasterizationaugmentedrealitypartial-to-complete
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that deformable 3D-to-2D registration of a preoperative liver model to laparoscopic video can be trained without any 3D ground truth, provided the self-supervision is restricted to the geometry actually visible through the intraoperative mask. Prior landmark-free methods supervise against the whole preoperative surface, so they pull occluded regions toward observations that cannot exist; Vis2Reg instead rasterizes the warped model, keeps only pixels that fall inside the liver mask, and back-projects those pixels to form a visible-domain 3D target. On the public P2I-LReg benchmark it reports a 92.60% silhouette Dice and 1.43 mm Chamfer distance, improving the strongest prior method by 13.71 Dice points while running at 111 ms per frame. The clinical point is that accurate AR overlays for liver resection depend on this kind of visibility-correct supervision, because intraoperative liver views are mostly occluded and no paired 3D ground truth is available.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mask-consistent visible-domain supervision set $V^M_v$, produced by differentiable point rasterization and mask-guided back-projection. For each of $F$ views, the warped preoperative cloud $\hat{W}$ is rasterized into a depth map and a silhouette; the pixels where the rendered depth is positive and the intraoperative mask equals one are back-projected with the camera intrinsics to obtain explicit 3D points on the observable liver surface. These points enter a symmetric visible-domain Chamfer loss against the observed partial cloud, while a one-way observation-to-model Chamfer and silhouette BCE/Dice losses ensure unobserved model regions are never dragged toward missing data. The deformation itself is carried by an implicit displacement field $g_\phi$, a multilayer perceptron with sinusoidal activations conditioned on pair features and a positional encoding, applied after a robust rigid initialization built from soft correspondences and hypothesis refinement.

What would settle it

Retrain and test on P2I-LReg with masks dilated or eroded by several pixels, or with monocular depth corrupted by calibrated noise, and check whether the 92.60% Dice and 1.43 mm CD survive; if the accuracy tracks mask or depth quality rather than the visibility-aware supervision design, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that mask-gated, one-way visible-domain supervision, not rigid initialization, is what resolves the partial-visibility failure mode in deformable liver registration. Starting from a near-perfect rigid seed, the strongest prior method still trails Vis2Reg by 13.71 Dice points, so the remaining gap must come from the non-rigid supervision; conversely, weakening the rigid seed inside Vis2Reg drops Dice to 69.32%, showing that the visibility-aware deformation field also needs a reliable starting pose. The specific mechanism is the mask-consistent visible set $V^M_v$ obtained by rendering the warped cloud into each view, intersecting rendered depth with the intraoperative mask $\{u: \hat{D}_v(u)>0 \wedge M_v(u)=1\}$, and back-projecting those pixels into 3D. Training then aligns this visible set to the observed points with a symmetric Chamfer term, penalizes unobserved model regions through a one-way observation-to-model Chamfer, and regularizes the implicit displacement field for magnitude, smoothness, and topology.

Load-bearing premise

The entire training signal rests on the intraoperative liver mask and the monocular depth estimates being accurate enough that the mask-gated back-projection really captures the visible liver surface; if either is systematically biased on laparoscopic images, every loss term inherits that bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the P2I-LReg benchmark, Vis2Reg reaches 92.60% Dice and 1.43 mm Chamfer distance, a 13.71-point Dice improvement over the strongest prior method, at 111 ms per frame.
  • At inference the model is geometry-only: masks and camera intrinsics are used to build the training signal but are not needed to warp a preoperative model to a new intraoperative view.
  • The ablation results imply that a correct rigid seed and the mask-gated visible-domain loss are both necessary; removing the visibility-aware loss or its mask gating costs 13 to 18 Dice points, while weakening the rigid seed is the largest single degradation.
  • A strong rigid seed by itself is insufficient, because the prior method already starts from a near-perfect seed and still trails by 13.71 Dice points.
  • Because the training supervision needs only masks, intrinsics, and monocular depth, the framework applies to settings where paired 3D ground truth for the liver is unavailable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same mask-gated visible-domain back-projection should transfer to other deformable partial-to-complete registration tasks where a segmentation mask and monocular depth are available, such as kidney or lung laparoscopy; the paper does not test this.
  • The reported 111 ms excludes depth and mask reconstruction, so a full intraoperative pipeline would add those costs; a deployment-ready timing benchmark would need to include them.
  • Because only surface overlap is measured, the paper does not establish that internal tumour or vessel geometry is registered; evaluating that would require internal anatomical ground truth, which the paper explicitly leaves to future work.
  • The $F=3$ near-static window sidesteps respiratory motion; extending the formulation to a temporal stream with explicit motion modeling could preserve accuracy during breathing, but that extension is not claimed here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Vis2Reg, a self-supervised, landmark-free framework for 3D–2D registration of a preoperative liver model to partial intraoperative laparoscopic observations. The method combines a GeoTransformer-based rigid-initialization module with a SIREN implicit deformation field, and introduces a visibility-aware self-supervision signal obtained by differentiable point rasterization and mask-gated back-projection. Training uses a one-way observation-to-model Chamfer loss, a symmetric visible-domain loss on mask-gated back-projected points, silhouette BCE+Dice, and deformation regularizers. On the P2I-LReg benchmark the authors report Dice 92.60±7.24% and Chamfer Distance 1.43±1.26 mm, outperforming Self-P2IR by 13.71 pp and 1.54 mm, with 111 ms per-frame inference, and they provide ablations supporting the visibility-gating and one-way-loss design choices.

Significance. If the reported improvements are genuine, Vis2Reg would be a useful contribution to AR-guided laparoscopic liver surgery: the visibility-aware self-supervision is well motivated, the pipeline is geometry-only at inference, and the two-stage synthetic-to-real training with a public benchmark and patient-level 5-fold protocol is a strength. The ablation study is internally consistent and shows that each proposed component contributes to the reported performance. However, the central comparative claim is currently weakened by two load-bearing issues: the real-data metrics overlap with the training objectives, and it is not established that all methods consume the same intraoperative input representation. Independent validation on a metric not used in training, and a precise statement of the input clouds used by each baseline, are needed before the headline gains can be attributed to the visibility-aware mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1 and §3.1] The central comparison in Table 1 may not hold the input observation fixed. §2.1 states that each intraoperative view Q_v is reconstructed from laparoscopic frames with monocular depth (DepthAnything), whereas §3.1 states that P2I-LReg provides "an intraoperative sparse point cloud." If Vis2Reg consumes dense DepthAnything-derived clouds while the baselines consume the P2I-LReg sparse clouds, the reported 13.71 pp Dice gain and 1.54 mm CD reduction could reflect a change in input representation rather than the visibility-aware supervision. The paper should state exactly which clouds each method uses and, if the inputs differ, rerun all baselines on the same Q used by Vis2Reg, or provide an ablation with baselines on both representations.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (5), Tables 1–2] The two headline metrics are training objectives: Dice is the BCE+Dice silhouette term L_sil in Eq. (5), and the reported CD is the one-way Chamfer L_3D minimized during training. §3.1 itself states that CD is "not a target registration error" and §4 states that no internal ground truth is available. As a result, the real-data numbers in Table 1 measure how well the method optimizes its own losses, not anatomical registration accuracy. In addition, Eq. (5) defines CD with squared L2 distances, so the "mm" unit in Table 1 is inconsistent; reporting sqrt(CD) or a distance-based variant would be needed. I request an evaluation on an objective not used in training (e.g., projected landmark/vessel error, or synthetic deformations with real-style noise) before the headline improvement can be attributed to registration quality.
  3. [§3.2, Table 1] The synthetic rigid-initialization numbers are reported as single means (RRE 0.08°, RTE 0.26 mm) without standard deviations over the 5 folds or random seeds, which is insufficient to support the "more reliable rigid seed" claim. The GeoTransformer baseline is also run as a standalone matcher with closed-form pose estimation and no RANSAC or ICP, while Vis2Reg's rigid module uses mutual filtering, PROSAC, and trimmed ICP; the comparison therefore conflates the matcher with the robust pose-estimation pipeline. Reporting GeoTransformer with standard robust estimation (as in ref. [26]) and giving fold-wise statistics would make the rigid-init claim testable.
  4. [§2.3, §3.1] The visible-domain supervision is constructed entirely from the intraoperative mask M_v and the monocular-depth-derived cloud Q_v. The paper applies "statistical denoising" to Q_v but does not quantify depth noise or validate mask quality, and it assumes a near-static liver over the F=3-frame window. If the mask over- or under-segments the liver or DepthAnything is systematically biased on laparoscopic images, those errors propagate directly into L_vis and L_sil and thence into the reported Dice and CD. A sensitivity analysis (e.g., perturbing masks and depth by realistic corruptions, or reporting depth error against available structure) would establish robustness of the supervision signal.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 and §2.3] The symbol for the visible-domain supervision set is typeset inconsistently (V^M_v in the text vs. a differently formatted form in Fig. 1); please unify the notation.
  2. [§3.2] The abstract's "111 ms per-frame inference time" excludes depth and mask reconstruction, as noted in §3.2; the runtime including those steps would be informative for the near-real-time claim.
  3. [§3.1] The statement that Dice is the "primary AR-overlay metric" should clarify that it is a silhouette overlap between the rendered registered surface and the liver mask, not a volumetric or anatomical-target overlap.
  4. [§2.1] The choice of F=3 as a "short local, non-temporal window corresponding to a near-static liver" would benefit from a brief justification or citation, since camera and tissue motion are non-negligible in laparoscopy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Vis2Reg's supervision is anchored to external intraoperative observations and evaluation is on held-out patients.

full rationale

Vis2Reg's derivation chain is self-contained against the external P2I-LReg benchmark and does not reduce to its own inputs. The visibility-aware supervision in Sec. 2.3 (Eqs. 3–5) is built from two external signals: the intraoperative segmentation mask M_v and the observed point cloud Q_v (reconstructed from laparoscopic frames via monocular DepthAnything). The losses L_3D, L_vis, and L_sil compare the warped preoperative model to these observations; this is a standard self-supervised registration objective rather than a definitional identity. The real-data evaluation (Table 1) is on held-out patients under the official 5-fold protocol, so reporting Dice and Chamfer Distance does not constitute fitting a parameter to the test set. It is true that the reported Dice and CD coincide with the training objectives L_sil and L_3D, and that both metrics use the same mask/depth-derived signal; the paper itself acknowledges CD is 'not a target registration error' and that no internal anatomical ground truth is available (Secs. 3.1 and 4). Metric-supervision overlap is a validity limitation, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation appears: the cited benchmark (Self-P2IR), DepthAnything, GeoTransformer, and PyTorch3D are external and not by the present authors. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-by-citation, or renaming of a known result as a new derivation is present. The alternative concern that Vis2Reg's dense DepthAnything Q differs from the sparse cloud consumed by baselines is an input-comparability confound for the comparative claim and belongs under correctness risk, not circularity. Verdict: no circular step can be exhibited by quotation, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about monocular depth reliability, mask quality, and near-static liver motion; none are quantitatively validated. The method introduces no new physical entities. The loss weights and window size are hand-tuned without sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (8)
  • lambda_3D = 0.5
    Weight for the one-way observation-to-model Chamfer loss L3D in Eq 5; hand-tuned, no sensitivity analysis.
  • lambda_vis = 1.2
    Weight for the symmetric visible-domain Chamfer loss Lvis; hand-tuned, no sensitivity analysis.
  • lambda_sil = 1.0
    Weight for the silhouette BCE and Dice losses; hand-tuned, no sensitivity analysis.
  • lambda_def = 0.1
    Weight for deformation-magnitude regularizer; hand-tuned.
  • lambda_smooth = 0.1
    Weight for local smoothness regularizer; hand-tuned.
  • lambda_topo = 0.3
    Weight for topology-preservation regularizer; hand-tuned.
  • F (number of views) = 3
    Local multi-view window size; chosen to represent a near-static liver.
  • Nmax = 6000
    Point cloud resampling/zero-padding size; hand-set.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DepthAnything monocular depth provides an unbiased 3D reconstruction of the intraoperative liver surface after back-projection.
    Q_v is built from DepthAnything [24]; only 'statistical denoising' is applied, with no quantification of depth error (Sec 2.1, Sec 3.1).
  • domain assumption The liver mask M_v accurately delineates the visible liver surface.
    Masks gate the back-projection to define U_v and V^M_v (Eq 4); no mask-quality analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption The liver is near-static within the F=3 frame window.
    F=3 is chosen as a 'short local, non-temporal window corresponding to a near-static liver' (Sec 2.1).
  • domain assumption Synthetic Blender renderings from patient-specific preoperative models transfer to real intraoperative geometry for pretraining the rigid seed.
    Stage-2 starts from synthetic pretraining (Sec 3.1); the domain gap is not evaluated.
  • ad hoc to paper The topology regularizer preserves anatomical plausibility.
    L_topo only penalizes k-NN distance changes and does not guarantee global topology preservation (Sec 2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vis2Reg: Visibility-Aware Landmark-Free Geometric 3D--2D Registration for Liver Laparoscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BLYW2KDY

@misc{pith2026260717810,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vis2Reg: Visibility-Aware Landmark-Free Geometric 3D--2D Registration for Liver Laparoscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BLYW2KDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17810}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate 3D--2D liver registration, which aligns preoperative 3D models to partial, view-dependent intraoperative surface observations, is critical for AR-guided laparoscopic surgery but remains challenging due to severe occlusion, limited visibility, and the lack of 3D ground-truth supervision. Existing landmark-free approaches perform partial-to-complete geometric alignment, yet robust self-supervision under extreme partial visibility remains difficult. We propose Vis2Reg, a visibility-aware registration framework that explicitly constrains deformation using mask-consistent visible regions. We introduce a visibility-aware self-supervision that derives a visible-domain 3D supervision signal from intraoperative masks, enabled by differentiable point rasterization and mask-guided back-projection. This formulation improves robustness under severe occlusion while maintaining fully self-supervised learning. Vis2Reg combines a robust geometric rigid initialization module with an implicit neural deformation field for stable alignment. Vis2Reg achieves a Dice score of 92.6\% and a Chamfer Distance of 1.43 mm on real intraoperative datasets, with 111 ms per-frame inference time, demonstrating both accuracy and practical efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17810 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Vis2Reg pipeline. Given preoperative P and intraoperative partial Q, the network outputs warped geometry Wˆ via rigid initialization and non-rigid deforma￾tion; differentiable rasterization and mask-gated back-projection construct the visible￾domain supervision set V M v from (Dˆv, Sˆv) and Mv. neural deformation field, achieving improved registration robustness and near￾real-time performance on in-vivo laparoscopic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the geometry-only registration network in Vis2Reg: EdgeConv feature encoding, rigid initialization (Trigid), and implicit non-rigid deformation field gϕ producing the warped point cloud Wˆ . Bottom: EdgeConv update block. 2.2 Geometry-Only Registration Network As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison on intraoperative keyframes. Col. 1: input. Cols. 2–5: baselines. Col. 6: Vis2Reg point cloud. Col. 7: Vis2Reg mesh overlay. Col. 8: visible￾region fitting. Blue: preoperative; purple: intraoperative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging44(11), 4350–4362 (2025)

    Zhou, J., Gao, B., Wang, K., Pei, J., Heng, P.A., Qin, J.: Landmark-free preoperative-to-intraoperative registration in laparoscopic liver resection. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging44(11), 4350–4362 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1 109/TMI.2025.3574198

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Medical Image Analysis99, 103371 (2025)

    Ali, S., Espinel, Y., Jin, Y., Liu, P., Güttner, B., Zhang, X., Zhang, L., Dowrick, T., Clarkson, M.J., Xiao, S., Wu, Y., Yang, Y., Zhu, L., Sun, D., Li, L., Pfeif- fer, M., Farid, S., Maier-Hein, L., Buc, E., Bartoli, A.: An objective comparison of methods for augmented reality in laparoscopic liver resection by preoperative- to-intraoperative image fusi...

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence14(2), 239–256 (1992)

    Besl, P.J., McKay, N.D.: A method for registration of 3D shapes. IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence14(2), 239–256 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1109/34.121791

    doi:10.1109/34.121791 1992

  4. [3]

    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery20(2), 269–278 (2025)

    Dai,Y.,Yang,X.,Hao,J.,Luo,H.,Mei,G.,Jia,F.:Preoperativeandintraoperative laparoscopic liver surface registration using deep graph matching of representative overlapping points. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery20(2), 269–278 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-024-03312-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11548-024-03312-x 2025

  5. [4]

    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery17(12), 2211–2219 (2022)

    Espinel, Y., Calvet, L., Botros, K., Buc, E., Tilmant, C., Bartoli, A.: Using multiple images and contours for deformable 3D-2D registration of a preoperative CT in laparoscopic liver surgery. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery17(12), 2211–2219 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-022-027 74-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s11548-022-027 2022

  6. [5]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging27(3), 355–369 (2008)

    Feuerstein, M., Mussack, T., Heining, S.M., Navab, N.: Intraoperative laparoscope augmentation for port placement and resection planning in minimally invasive liver resection. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging27(3), 355–369 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2007.907327 10 J. Feng et al

    work page arXiv 2008

  7. [6]

    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 18(8), 1521–1531 (2023)

    Guan, P., Luo, H., Guo, J., Zhang, Y., Jia, F.: Intraoperative laparoscopic liver surface registration with preoperative CT using mixing features and overlapping region masks. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 18(8), 1521–1531 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-023-02846-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11548-023-02846-w 2023

  8. [7]

    Healthcare Technology Letters 12(1), e70030 (2025)

    Huang, B., Yang, X., Jia, F.: A landmark-free 3D–2D rigid liver registration via point cloud matching for laparoscopic surgery. Healthcare Technology Letters 12(1), e70030 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1049/htl2.70030

    work page doi:10.1049/htl2.70030 2025

Show all 25 references
  1. [8]

    Huang, S., Gojcic, Z., Usvyatsov, M., Wieser, A., Schindler, K.: PREDATOR: Registrationof3Dpointcloudswithlowoverlap.In:ProceedingsoftheIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 4267–4276 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.00425

    2021

  2. [9]

    In: SIGGRAPH Asia 2020 Courses

    Johnson, J., Ravi, N., Reizenstein, J., Novotny, D., Tulsiani, S., Lassner, C., Branson, S.: Accelerating 3D deep learning with PyTorch3D. In: SIGGRAPH Asia 2020 Courses. p. 10. Association for Computing Machinery (2020). https: //doi.org/10.1145/3415263.3419160

    2020

  3. [10]

    International Journal of Computer As- sisted Radiology and Surgery17(1), 167–176 (2022)

    Koo, B., Robu, M.R., Allam, M., Pfeiffer, M., Thompson, S., Gurusamy, K., David- son, B., Speidel, S., Hawkes, D., Stoyanov, D., Clarkson, M.J.: Automatic, global registration in laparoscopic liver surgery. International Journal of Computer As- sisted Radiology and Surgery17(1...

    2022 doi

  4. [11]

    Medical Image Analysis17(8), 974–996 (2013)

    Maier-Hein,L.,Mountney,P.,Bartoli,A.,Elhawary,H.,Elson,D.,Groch,A.,Kolb, A., Rodrigues, M., Sorger, J., Speidel, S., Stoyanov, D.: Optical techniques for 3D surface reconstruction in computer-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Medical Image Analysis17(8), 974–996 (2013). https://d...

    2013 doi

  5. [12]

    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery20(1), 57–64 (2025)

    Mhiri, I., Pizarro, D., Bartoli, A.: Neural patient-specific 3D-2D registration in laparoscopic liver resection. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery20(1), 57–64 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-024-03231-x

    2025 doi

  6. [13]

    Computer- ized Medical Imaging and Graphics124, 102616 (2025)

    Neri, A., Penza, V., Baldini, C., Mattos, L.S.: Surgical augmented reality registra- tion methods: A review from traditional to deep learning approaches. Computer- ized Medical Imaging and Graphics124, 102616 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compmedimag.2025.102616

    2025

  7. [14]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI12, 1702360 (2025)

    Neri, A., Penza, V., Haouchine, N., Mattos, L.S.: Benchmarking complete-to- partial point cloud registration techniques for laparoscopic surgery. Frontiers in Robotics and AI12, 1702360 (2025). https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2025.1702360

    2025

  8. [15]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics31(4), 30:1–30:11 (2012)

    Ovsjanikov, M., Ben-Chen, M., Solomon, J., Butscher, A., Guibas, L.: Functional maps: A flexible representation of maps between shapes. ACM Transactions on Graphics31(4), 30:1–30:11 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1145/2185520.2185526

    2012

  9. [16]

    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 13(10), 1629–1640 (2018)

    Özgür, E., Koo, B., Le Roy, B., Buc, E., Bartoli, A.: Preoperative liver registra- tion for augmented monocular laparoscopy using backward-forward biomechanical simulation. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 13(10), 1629–1640 (2018). https://doi.o...

    2018 doi

  10. [17]

    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery24(10), 2251–2258 (2020)

    Prevost, G.A., Eigl, B., Paolucci, I., Rudolph, T., Peterhans, M., Weber, S., Beldi, G., Candinas, D., Lachenmayer, A.: Efficiency, accuracy and clinical applicability of a new image-guided surgery system in 3D laparoscopic liver surgery. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery24(...

    2020 doi

  11. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    Prokudin, S., Ma, Q., Raafat, M., Valentin, J., Tang, S.: Dynamic point fields. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 7964–7976 (2023) Vis2Reg: Visibility-Aware 3D–2D Liver Registration 11

    2023

  12. [19]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45(8), 9806–9821 (2023)

    Qin, Z., Yu, H., Wang, C., Guo, Y., Peng, Y., Ilic, S., Hu, D., Xu, K.: Geo- Transformer: Fast and robust point cloud registration with geometric transformer. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45(8), 9806–9821 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2...

    2023

  13. [20]

    Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization 10(4), 441–450 (2022)

    Rabbani, N., Calvet, L., Espinel, Y., Le Roy, B., Ribeiro, M., Buc, E., Bartoli, A.: A methodology and clinical dataset with ground-truth to evaluate registration ac- curacy quantitatively in computer-assisted laparoscopic liver resection. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and ...

    2022

  14. [21]

    Medical Image Analysis90, 102943 (2023)

    Ramalhinho, J., Yoo, S., Dowrick, T., Koo, B., Somasundaram, M., Gurusamy, K., Hawkes, D.J., Davidson, B., Blandford, A., Clarkson, M.J.: The value of Aug- mented Reality in surgery—a usability study on laparoscopic liver surgery. Medical Image Analysis90, 102943 (2023). https...

    2023

  15. [22]

    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery13(6), 947–956 (2018)

    Robu, M.R., Ramalhinho, J., Thompson, S., Gurusamy, K., Davidson, B., Hawkes, D., Stoyanov, D., Clarkson, M.J.: Global rigid registration of CT to video in la- paroscopic liver surgery. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery13(6), 947–956 (2018). http...

    2018 doi

  16. [23]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics38(5), 146:1–146:12 (2019)

    Wang, Y., Sun, Y., Liu, Z., Sarma, S.E., Bronstein, M.M., Solomon, J.M.: Dynamic graph CNN for learning on point clouds. ACM Transactions on Graphics38(5), 146:1–146:12 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3326362

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Zhao, M., Jiang, J., Ma, L., Xin, S., Meng, G., Yan, D.M.: Correspondence-free non-rigid point set registration using unsupervised clustering analysis. In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 21199–21208 (2024). https...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.