Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 44 references

DefSLAM: Tracking and Mapping of Deforming Scenes from Monocular Sequences

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DefSLAM is the first monocular SLAM that tracks and maps deforming scenes in real time.

desk verdict First monocular SLAM for deforming scenes, convincingly engineered; the real-time headline is undercut by the paper's own reported runtimes. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08918 v2 pith:33XKVCOE submitted 2019-08-20 cs.CV eess.IV

Jose Lamarca , Shaifali Parashar , Adrien Bartoli , J.M.M. Montiel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVeess.IV
keywords deformableSLAMmonocularshape-from-templatenon-rigidstructure-from-motionisometricdeformationmedicalendoscopyreal-timetracking
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

This paper presents DefSLAM, a calibrated monocular SLAM system that localizes a camera and reconstructs a scene while the scene itself deforms, and runs in real time on a CPU. It claims to be the first system to achieve this with a single camera, where previous deformable SLAM systems required stereo or RGB-D depth sensors. The system splits the problem into two parallel threads: a fast tracking thread that uses a shape-from-template method to recover camera pose and deformation frame by frame, and a slower mapping thread that uses isometric non-rigid structure-from-motion to update the shape-at-rest template as new regions are explored. The authors validate the approach on a controlled cloth dataset and on medical endoscopy sequences, reporting accurate 3D reconstruction. If the claims hold, it would extend SLAM from rigid scenes to the non-rigid, close-up conditions typical of endoscopic surgery.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a deformable template: a triangular mesh representing the shape-at-rest of the observed surface, with 3D map points embedded in its facets via barycentric coordinates. Tracking works by minimizing reprojection error together with a deformation energy made of a stretching term on edge lengths, a bending term on discrete mean curvature, and a reference regularizer that pulls nodes toward their rest position. Mapping works through the isometric NRSfM formulation, where the warp between keyframes relates metric tensors and Christoffel symbols under isometry and infinitesimal planarity, producing cubic polynomial equations whose solution gives surface normals; shape-from-normals then recovers the up-to-scale surface, and a Sim(3) alignment fixes its scale.

What would settle it

Run DefSLAM on a monocular sequence of a textured sheet undergoing controlled stretching, with ground-truth 3D shape from a motion-capture marker grid or a patterned stretchable fabric. Measure the per-frame 3D RMS error as a function of stretch magnitude; if error remains low well beyond the isometric regime, the isometry assumption is not load-bearing, and if error degrades sharply, the central claim is confirmed to depend on it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that real-time monocular SLAM in deforming scenes is possible by combining two existing non-rigid techniques that had previously been used separately. A deformation tracking thread, based on shape-from-template, treats the current shape-at-rest template as a deformable triangular mesh and jointly minimizes reprojection error with stretching, bending, and reference energies to estimate camera pose and scene deformation at frame rate. A deformation mapping thread, based on isometric non-rigid structure-from-motion with infinitesimal planarity, processes batches of perspective keyframes to compute surface normals, reconstruct an up-to-scale surface, and align it to the existing map under a Sim(3) transformation, thereby updating or extending the template. The two threads run in parallel and only optimize the observed part of the template, giving runtime independent of map size in exploratory sequences. The paper argues that this yields the first monocular SLAM capable of producing accurate 3D models of deforming scenes in real time, including in-vivo medical endoscopy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed surface deforms isometrically, preserving geodesic distances, and is locally planar; if the scene stretches or shears, the mapping equations and tracking energies no longer describe the deformation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Monocular endoscopy and laparoscopy can be used for real-time 3D reconstruction and camera localization in soft-tissue scenes, without a stereo or depth sensor.
  • SLAM systems no longer need to discard or freeze deformed parts of a scene; deformation can be represented explicitly and updated continuously.
  • Because only the observed local zone of the template is optimized, the approach scales to exploratory trajectories with growing maps.
  • In scenes that are nearly rigid or mildly deforming, the same system behaves like a rigid SLAM system, since isometric NRSfM handles rigid and non-rigid cases alike.
  • The incremental normal refinement means later keyframes can improve earlier estimates of surface shape, reducing reconstruction error over time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same architecture could be extended to non-isometric deformations by replacing the isometry constraint in the mapping thread with a more general elasticity model, at the cost of extra unknowns; the tracking thread's energy terms already resemble a thin-shell model that could absorb mild stretching.
  • A testable consequence not reported in the paper is that tracking accuracy should degrade gracefully with increasing stretch, and a threshold experiment on a stretchable fabric would locate where the isometry assumption breaks.
  • The scale drift mechanism identified in the paper suggests that loop-like re-observations could be used as a correction signal: revisiting a previously mapped region provides direct observations of scale that could be fed back to the Sim(3) alignment.
  • In surgical practice, a system like this could supply the geometry needed for augmented-reality overlays even when tissue moves and the camera is hand-held, but the real bottleneck for clinical use may be texture and illumination rather than deformation.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents DefSLAM, a monocular visual SLAM system for deforming scenes. It combines a shape-from-template (SfT) front-end with an isometric non-rigid structure-from-motion (NRSfM) back-end: a deformation tracking thread estimates camera pose and scene deformation at frame rate, while a deformation mapping thread updates the template at keyframe rate. The method is evaluated on a newly introduced mandala kerchief dataset and on the Hamlyn medical endoscopy dataset, with ablations and sensitivity analyses. The headline claim is that DefSLAM is the first monocular SLAM capable of operating in deforming scenes in real time.

Significance. If the real-time claim is substantiated, the contribution is significant: it is the first monocular SLAM system designed for predominantly deforming scenes, with clear relevance to endoscopic navigation and exploratory trajectories. The paper's main strengths are the clean integration of SfT and NRSfM into a SLAM architecture, the explicit treatment of template initialization and update, the inclusion of a new controlled dataset, and the ablation and sensitivity studies for the deformation energy weights. The work is less about proposing new deformation models than about system-level combination, and the paper is transparent about its assumptions and limitations. The reported experiments and the open-source release (indicated in the text) would support reproducibility, provided the mathematical inconsistencies and the real-time evidence are addressed.

major comments (2)
  1. [VI and VII] The real-time claim made in the abstract and in Section III is not supported by the reported runtime numbers. Section VI states that, on a 10x10 node mesh, deformation tracking takes approximately 50 ms and deformation mapping approximately 400 ms on an i7-4700HQ. The Mandala dataset is acquired at 30 fps (Section VII-A), so the frame period is 33 ms and, with a keyframe inserted every 10 frames, the mapping thread has a 333 ms budget per keyframe. The reported per-thread times of 50 ms and 400 ms thus exceed the acquisition intervals, even before considering that Section VII states all experiments were run "sequentialized in single-thread." Therefore the central claim of real-time operation is not demonstrated by the reported configuration. Please either provide measured end-to-end throughput in a parallel execution that meets the frame and keyframe rates, or qualify the real-time claim to the conditions under which it actually holds.
  2. [Eq. (8) and Appendix A(c)] There is an internal inconsistency between the reference regularizer as defined in Eq. (8) and its derivative as reported in Appendix A(c). Equation (8) defines the regularizer as a sum of Euclidean norms, ||V_t_n - V_k_n||, but the derivative in Eq. (27) is given as the constant 1. The derivative of the Euclidean norm of a vector is the unit vector in the direction of the difference, not the constant 1; if the intended error term is the vector V_t_n - V_k_n used in a least-squares framework, the printed objective in Eq. (8) should be a squared norm, not a norm. Since this regularizer is part of the Levenberg-Marquardt optimization in Section IV-C, the Jacobian must be consistent with the objective for the implementation to work as described. Please correct the equation or the derivative, and indicate exactly which form is used in the released code.
minor comments (5)
  1. [V-F] The initialization description states that the template is "a plane parallel to perpendicular to the camera optical axis"; this is contradictory and should be rephrased to state clearly that the initial surface is assumed to be a plane perpendicular to the optical axis.
  2. [VI] The sentence "The code will is available as a public git repository" contains a grammatical error; it should be "The code is available as a public git repository."
  3. [VII-A3] In the sensitivity analysis, the error range is printed as "between 20 and 40 m" but the metric is 3D RMS error in millimeters; the unit should be corrected.
  4. [VII-A1] Only median values of five executions are reported, without any measure of spread such as interquartile ranges. Given the randomness in ORB detection and the optimization, reporting an error bar would strengthen the quantitative claims.
  5. [VII-B] The comparison with MISSLAM reports mean accuracy of 3 and 4 mm versus 0.28 and 0.35 mm, but this is not a head-to-head comparison since MISSLAM is stereo and GPU-based. The paper acknowledges this, but the discrepancy should be discussed more explicitly so that readers do not over-interpret the numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: DefSLAM integrates previously published, externally validated SfT and NRSfM components; the central claim is not equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

DefSLAM's derivation chain is a system integration, not a self-referential derivation. The tracking energy (eqs. 3-8) and the NRSfM polynomial system (eqs. 11-14) are explicitly imported from the authors' earlier peer-reviewed works [24] and [33], with the paper stating "We build on the isometric NRSfM proposed in [33]" and "We refer to [33] for further details." Importing a published method is not circular: the paper does not claim to derive those equations from the target result, and the cited methods are independently published and externally evaluated. The only free parameters are the regularizer weights λs=16000, λb=300, λr=0.02, which are tuned and then submitted to a sensitivity analysis; the reported errors are measured against external ground truth (stereo/CT) after per-frame scale alignment, a standard evaluation convention rather than a fitted prediction. The bootstrap between tracking (which uses the current template) and mapping (which refines the template from keyframes) is a feedback loop, but at each step one component is fixed, and the initial template is a plane, so the final map is not equivalent to the input by construction. The runtime inconsistency (50 ms tracking vs. 30 fps input, and single-threaded experiments) is a performance/correctness issue, not a circularity issue. Self-citations [24] and [33] are present but are not load-bearing circularities because they are independent support. No circular step can be exhibited, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the isometry and infinitesimal planarity assumptions inherited from the SfT and NRSfM components, on the hand-tuned regularizer weights (λs, λb, λr), and on the planar initial template. These are stated in the paper, but the first two are not validated against non-isometric scenes.

free parameters (4)
  • λs (stretching weight) = 16000
    Weight of the stretching energy term in the tracking objective (eq. 5). Set by "standard tuning" in Sec. VII-A3 and used across all experiments; sensitivity analysis shows robustness over λs in [1600, 100000].
  • λb (bending weight) = 300
    Weight of the bending energy term in the tracking objective (eq. 5). Standard tuning; sensitivity range [100, 1000].
  • λr (reference regularizer weight) = 0.02
    Weight of the reference regularizer (eq. 8). Standard tuning; claimed critical to reduce scale drift in SeqHeart from 36% to 2% at λr=0.02.
  • keyframe insertion interval = 10 frames
    For repeatability, DefSLAM inserts one new keyframe every 10 frames (Sec. VII). This is a hand-set rate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Scene deformation is isometric (geodesic distances between surface points are preserved).
    Used in both tracking (stretching energy measures deviation from rest-length edges) and mapping (NRSfM polynomial system from isometry, Sec. V-A). The paper lists non-isometric deformations as future work.
  • domain assumption Surface is infinitesimally planar (locally a plane) in NRSfM.
    Invoked in Sec. V-A to express Christoffel symbols in terms of inverse depth derivatives and derive eqs. (11)-(14).
  • standard math Camera is calibrated and follows a pinhole model.
    Projection function in eq. (2) requires known intrinsics.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial template is a plane perpendicular to the camera optical axis.
    Sec. V-F: "We compute it from the first frame of the sequence, assuming its surface S1, and hence its template T1 is a plane parallel to perpendicular to the camera optical axis." This is an arbitrary initialization that the mapping thread must correct.
  • domain assumption Inter-frame deformation is small enough for frame-to-frame active matching with ORB descriptors.
    Data association (Sec. IV-D) predicts map point locations from the previous shape and searches locally; large rapid deformations would break matching. The paper reports delayed convergence in fast-deformation sequences mandala3/4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DefSLAM: Tracking and Mapping of Deforming Scenes from Monocular Sequences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/33XKVCOE

@misc{pith2026190808918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DefSLAM: Tracking and Mapping of Deforming Scenes from Monocular Sequences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/33XKVCOE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08918}
}
read the original abstract

Monocular SLAM algorithms perform robustly when observing rigid scenes, however, they fail when the observed scene deforms, for example, in medical endoscopy applications. We present DefSLAM, the first monocular SLAM capable of operating in deforming scenes in real-time. Our approach intertwines Shape-from-Template (SfT) and Non-Rigid Structure-from-Motion (NRSfM) techniques to deal with the exploratory sequences typical of SLAM. A deformation tracking thread recovers the pose of the camera and the deformation of the observed map, at frame rate, by means of SfT processing a template that models the scene shape-at-rest. A deformation mapping thread runs in parallel with the tracking to update the template, at keyframe rate, by means of an isometric NRSfM processing a batch of full perspective keyframes. In our experiments, DefSLAM processes close-up sequences of deforming scenes, both in a laboratory controlled experiment and in medical endoscopy sequences, producing accurate 3D models of the scene with respect to the moving camera.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08918 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Real-time reconstruction of a deforming scene with DefSLAM. The mandala kerchief deforms while the camera moves. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Deformation tracking: estimating camera pose and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Relation between an anchor keyframe k and one of its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sk is the estimated up-to-scale surface. ~n are the set of normals. Two examples of surfaces at a different scale but having the same normals are displayed in dotted lines. where Jηkk˚ and Hq ηkk˚ are the Jacobian and the Hessian for the variable q “ tx, ˆ yˆu of the w…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Two examples of warp estimation. Warp estimation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overall quality for Mandala dataset sequences. From left to right, the scenario contains more deformation. Top: 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Recovering local deformations in the mandala3 sequence. 3D map points in red, 3D point in yellow is the ground truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Two configurations of Mandala dataset: rigid planar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Rigid tracking vs deformation tracking surface error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (Left) Box-and-whisker plot for the normals angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Processing Hamlyn sequences. Green DefSLAM, blue ORBSLAM. From left to right: Heart, organs, abdomen and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: DefSLAM in in-vivo Hamlyn dataset sequences. 3 typical 2D images an the corresponding 3D maps. (Top left) Heart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Scale drift along the Hamlyn dataset sequences. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agarwal, K

    S. Agarwal, K. Mierle, and Others. Ceres solver. http://ceres-solver.org

    work page

  2. [2]

    Agudo, L

    A. Agudo, L. Agapito, B. Calvo, and J. M. M. Montiel. Good vibrations: A modal analysis approach for sequential non-rigid structure from motion. In CVPR, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Agudo and F

    A. Agudo and F. Moreno-Noguer. Simultaneous pose and non-rigid shape with particle dynamics. In CVPR, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Akhter, Y

    I. Akhter, Y . Sheikh, S. Khan, and T. Kanade. Trajectory space: A dual representation for nonrigid structure from motion. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 33(7):1442–1456, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Bartoli, Y

    A. Bartoli, Y . G ´erard, F. Chadebecq, T. Collins, and D. Pizarro. Shape- from-template. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 37(10):2099–2118, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    G. Bradski. The OpenCV Library. Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools, 2000

    2000

  7. [7]

    Bregler, A

    C. Bregler, A. Hertzmann, and H. Biermann. Recovering non-rigid 3D shape from image streams. In CVPR, 2000

    2000

  8. [8]

    Chhatkuli, D

    A. Chhatkuli, D. Pizarro, and A. Bartoli. Non-rigid shape-from-motion for isometric surfaces using infinitesimal planarity. In BMVC, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Chhatkuli, D

    A. Chhatkuli, D. Pizarro, A. Bartoli, and T. Collins. A stable analytical framework for isometric shape-from-template by surface integration. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 39(5):833–850, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Chhatkuli, D

    A. Chhatkuli, D. Pizarro, T. Collins, and A. Bartoli. Inextensible non- rigid shape-from-motion by second-order cone programming. In CVPR, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Collins and A

    T. Collins and A. Bartoli. Locally affine and planar deformable surface reconstruction from video. In International Workshop on Vision, Modeling and Visualization , 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    Y . Dai, H. Li, and M. He. A simple prior-free method for non-rigid structure-from-motion factorization. International Journal of Computer Vision, 107(2):101–122, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    A. J. Davison. Real-time simultaneous localisation and mapping with a single camera. In null, page 1403. IEEE, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    Engel, V

    J. Engel, V . Koltun, and D. Cremers. Direct sparse odometry. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 40(3):611– 625, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    M. S. Floater. Mean value coordinates. Computer Aided Geometric Design, 20(1):19–27, 2003

    2003

  8. [16]

    Gao and R

    W. Gao and R. Tedrake. Surfelwarp: Efficient non-volumetric single view dynamic reconstruction. In Robotics: Science and System (RSS) , 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    R. Garg, A. Roussos, and L. Agapito. Dense variational reconstruction of non-rigid surfaces from monocular video. In CVPR, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    P. F. Gotardo and A. M. Martinez. Kernel non-rigid structure from motion. In ICCV, 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    P. F. Gotardo and A. M. Martinez. Non-rigid structure from motion with complementary rank-3 spaces. In CVPR, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    O. G. Grasa, E. Bernal, S. Casado, I. Gil, and J. Montiel. Visual slam for handheld monocular endoscope. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 33(1):135–146, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Innmann, M

    M. Innmann, M. Zollh ¨ofer, M. Nießner, C. Theobalt, and M. Stam- minger. V olumedeform: Real-time volumetric non-rigid reconstruction. In ECCV, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Klein and D

    G. Klein and D. Murray. Parallel tracking and mapping for small AR workspaces. In ISMAR, 2007

    2007

  15. [23]

    K ¨ummerle, G

    R. K ¨ummerle, G. Grisetti, H. Strasdat, K. Konolige, and W. Burgard. g2o: A general framework for graph optimization. In ICRA. IEEE, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Lamarca and J

    J. Lamarca and J. M. M. Montiel. Camera tracking for SLAM in deformable maps. In 4th Inter. Workshop on Recovering 6D Object Pose. In ECCVw, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Mahmoud, T

    N. Mahmoud, T. Collins, A. Hostettler, L. Soler, C. Doignon, and J. M. M. Montiel. Live tracking and dense reconstruction for hand- held monocular endoscopy. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Marmol, A

    A. Marmol, A. Banach, and T. Peynot. Dense-arthroslam: Dense intra- articular 3-d reconstruction with robust localization prior for arthroscopy. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 4(2):918–925, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Moreno-Noguer and J

    F. Moreno-Noguer and J. M. Porta. Probabilistic simultaneous pose and non-rigid shape recovery. In CVPR, 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Mountney, D

    P. Mountney, D. Stoyanov, and G.-Z. Yang. Three-dimensional tissue deformation recovery and tracking. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 27(4):14–24, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Mur-Artal, J

    R. Mur-Artal, J. M. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tardos. ORB-SLAM: a versatile and accurate monocular SLAM system. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 31(5):1147–1163, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    R. A. Newcombe, D. Fox, and S. M. Seitz. Dynamicfusion: Reconstruc- tion and tracking of non-rigid scenes in real-time. In CVPR, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    D. T. Ngo, J. ¨Ostlund, and P. Fua. Template-based monocular 3D shape recovery using laplacian meshes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 38(1):172–187, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Paladini, A

    M. Paladini, A. Del Bue, M. Stosic, M. Dodig, J. Xavier, and L. Agapito. Factorization for non-rigid and articulated structure using metric projec- tions. In CVPR, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Parashar, D

    S. Parashar, D. Pizarro, and A. Bartoli. Isometric non-rigid shape-from- motion with riemannian geometry solved in linear time. IEEE Transac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 40(10):2442–2454, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    Pizarro, R

    D. Pizarro, R. Khan, and A. Bartoli. Schwarps: Locally projective image warps based on 2d schwarzian derivatives. International Journal of Computer Vision, 119(2):93–109, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Salzmann and P

    M. Salzmann and P. Fua. Linear local models for monocular reconstruc- tion of deformable surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 33(5):931–944, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    J. Song, J. Wang, L. Zhao, S. Huang, and G. Dissanayake. Dynamic reconstruction of deformable soft-tissue with stereo scope in minimal invasive surgery. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 3(1):155–162, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    J. Song, J. Wang, L. Zhao, S. Huang, and G. Dissanayake. Mis- slam: Real-time large-scale dense deformable slam system in minimal invasive surgery based on heterogeneous computing. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(4):4068–4075, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Sorkine and M

    O. Sorkine and M. Alexa. As-rigid-as-possible surface modeling. In Eurographics, 2007

    2007

  31. [39]

    Stoyanov, G

    D. Stoyanov, G. P. Mylonas, F. Deligianni, A. Darzi, and G. Z. Yang. Soft-tissue motion tracking and structure estimation for robotic assisted mis procedures. In MICAI, 2005

    2005

  32. [40]

    Stoyanov, M

    D. Stoyanov, M. V . Scarzanella, P. Pratt, and G.-Z. Yang. Real- time stereo reconstruction in robotically assisted minimally invasive surgery. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 275–282. Springer, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    R. W. Sumner, J. Schmid, and M. Pauly. Embedded deformation for shape manipulation. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 papers , pages 80–es. 2007

    2007

  34. [42]

    Taylor, A

    J. Taylor, A. D. Jepson, and K. N. Kutulakos. Non-rigid structure from locally-rigid motion. In CVPR, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    Vicente and L

    S. Vicente and L. Agapito. Soft inextensibility constraints for template- free non-rigid reconstruction. In ECCV, 2012. APPENDIX A. Derivatives of Regularizers We show the Jacobian terms of the regularizers to prove that it does not have singularities: a) Stretching: The strec...

    2012

  36. [2016]

    Since 2020 he is coordinating the EU FET EndoMapper grant aimed to bring visual SLAM to medical intracorporeal scenes

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.