Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Resolving the Ambiguity of Complete-to-Partial Point Cloud Registration for Image-Guided Liver Surgery with Patches-to-Partial Matching

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 a patches-to-partial matching module, plugged into existing correspondence-based registration networks, cuts rigid alignment error at 20–30% liver surface visibility from 9.47 mm to 6.73 mm in silico and from 20.71…

desk verdict Genuinely useful plug-and-play fix for low-visibility liver registration; the open question is whether it survives realistic anterior-only crops. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19328 v2 pith:2JPBHHMJ submitted 2024-12-26 cs.CV

Zixin Yang , Jon S. Heiselman , Cheng Han , Kelly Merrell , Richard Simon , Cristian. A. Linte This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords pointcloudregistrationcomplete-to-partialambiguityliversurgeryimage-guidedpatches-to-partialmatchingrigidlaparoscopicdeeplearning
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 targets a specific failure mode in image-guided liver surgery: before any deformation correction, the preoperative full liver surface (source) must be rigidly aligned to a partial intraoperative view (target), often covering only 20–30% of the organ. It argues that state-of-the-art learning-based correspondence registration methods, built and trained for partial-to-partial natural scenes, break down under this complete-to-partial ambiguity because the smooth liver surface offers many regions that can look like the visible patch. To fix this, it proposes a patches-to-partial (P2P) module that cuts candidate regions out of the source cloud, matches the target to each candidate patch separately, and keeps the rigid transformation that minimizes the mean closest-point distance to the target. Plugging this module into Lepard and LiverMatch reduces RMS-TRE at visibility ratio [0.2, 0.3) from 9.47 mm to 6.73 mm (in silico) and from 20.71 mm to 12.45 mm (in vitro), with significance at p < 0.05. If this holds, fully automatic initial rigid registration becomes substantially more reliable for laparoscopic liver procedures.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the patches-to-partial (P2P) module, which converts the complete-to-partial registration into several smaller complete-to-complete registrations. It computes a visibility score per source point by summing target-wise feature similarities, selects the most promising source points, samples k patch centers by farthest-point sampling, forms k patches with the same number of points as the target, and runs dual-softmax matching plus weighted SVD per patch; a distance-based rule then picks the best rigid transform. The module is learnable-parameter-free, fully differentiable, and parallelizable, so it can wrap any correspondence-based registration network that outputs point-wise features and a candidate transformation.

What would settle it

Construct a low-visibility test pair (visibility ratio in [0.2, 0.3)) where the target is a genuinely unseen region of the liver with large deformation, and inspect whether the top-$M$ source points chosen by $S_{\mathrm{vis}}$ contain the true target region; if the chosen set misses it and the mean closest-point selection rule cannot recover the correct transformation, the module's core premise is refuted. A direct ablation replacing the visibility-score localization with randomly sampled patches would also show whether localization, rather than the multi-hypothesis matching, is the reason for the gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that complete-to-partial ambiguity is not an information problem that needs a new network architecture; it is a matching-scope problem that can be fixed by converting the complete-to-partial registration into patches-to-partial registration. The P2P module computes a visibility score per source point as the summed similarity between that source feature and all target features, keeps the top source points, applies farthest-point sampling to choose k patch centers, builds k patches with as many points as the target cloud, matches each patch to the target with dual-softmax and weighted SVD, and selects the transformation with the smallest mean closest-point distance between the transformed full source and the target. The paper reports that this module, added without changing losses, architectures, or outlier rejection, consistently improves Lepard and LiverMatch across visibility ratios, noise levels, and deformation ranges, and that it outperforms a RANSAC baseline in low visibility. The paper also constructs and releases an in silico benchmark of over 1,000 liver models with more than 10,000 simulations and an in vitro phantom test set, and it uses fiducial-based RMS-TRE rather than correspondences to measure subsurface registration quality.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the source and target point features produced by the frozen registration network are similar enough that the visibility score $S_{\mathrm{vis}}=\sum_j \mathbf{x}^S(\mathbf{x}^T)^\top$ localizes the true visible region of the source liver; the paper itself notes in Section VI-D that when features become highly inconsistent this localization can fail and exclude the correct anatomical region from all candidate patches.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At visibility ratio [0.2, 0.3), adding P2P to Lepard lowers RMS-TRE from 9.47 mm to 6.73 mm on the in silico test set and from 20.71 mm to 12.45 mm on the in vitro phantoms.
  • The same plug-in cuts LiverMatch's errors from 12.85 mm to 8.74 mm in silico and from 20.54 mm to 14.97 mm in vitro, with p < 0.05.
  • Because the module reuses the network's extracted features and only resamples and rematches, it adds about 0.02–0.03 seconds per case and is fully differentiable and parallelizable, so it can wrap future correspondence-based networks unchanged.
  • The success rate at a 20 mm threshold rises in low-visibility, low-deformation cases (LiverMatch from 84.38% to 95.54%; Lepard from 94.49% to 98.66%), supporting use as an automatic initialization for downstream non-rigid registration.
  • The constructed in silico benchmark of over 1,000 liver models with more than 10,000 simulations, together with the in vitro phantom test set, gives other researchers a common platform for measuring complete-to-partial liver registration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same patches-to-partial conversion may transfer to other smooth, low-texture organs such as kidney and prostate, since the ambiguity is geometric rather than liver-specific; this would be a straightforward cross-organ re-run of the benchmark.
  • Because the module only needs point-wise features and a candidate transformation, a testable extension is to apply it to correspondence-based methods not fine-tuned on liver data, to see whether the visibility score still localizes enough to help.
  • The K=5 default rests on the 20% minimal visibility ratio; in even lower-visibility settings, the same logic would push K higher, and the paper's sensitivity curve suggests doing so costs only compute.
  • If the visibility-score localization is the true load-bearing part, then improving feature consistency (for example through stronger cross-attention in the host network) should yield further gains without changing the P2P selection logic.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper addresses rigid registration of a complete preoperative liver surface to a partial intraoperative point cloud, which the authors term complete-to-partial ambiguity. They construct in silico (1,320 training and 121 testing liver models with deformations) and in vitro (four phantoms, 800 samples) benchmarks, evaluate GO-ICP, RegTr, RoITr, LiverMatch, and Lepard, and propose a plug-and-play patches-to-partial (P2P) module. P2P estimates visible source points via feature similarity (S_vis), generates K candidate patches, matches each to the target using dual-softmax and weighted SVD, and selects the best transformation via a closest-point-distance rule. The module improves RMS-TRE at visibility 0.2-0.3 from 9.47 to 6.73 mm (Lepard, in silico) and from 20.71 to 12.45 mm (in vitro), with reported statistical significance.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful contribution: it identifies a practical failure mode of learning-based registration methods for liver surgery, provides a benchmark with fiducial-based RMS-TRE evaluation, and proposes a simple, differentiable, and parallelizable module with modest computational overhead. The release of code and datasets is a concrete strength. The evaluation includes ablations, sensitivity analysis, a Procrustes reference, and tests on two datasets. However, the central claim that the module resolves the ambiguity in liver surgery is only tested under random-cropped target clouds, which may not reflect the clinically relevant anterior-only visibility, and one statistical test appears misapplied.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV-A1 and VI-C (also III-C1)] The target point clouds in both datasets are generated by random cropping of the full liver surface. The paper itself notes in VI-C that in laparoscopic surgery only the anterior liver surface is visible, but no experiment uses viewpoint-based or anterior-only cropping. This is load-bearing because P2P's visible-source-point estimation (S_vis) ranks source points by the sum of feature similarities; under a systematic shift from random crops to anterior-only views, the top-M points may not cover the true visible region, so the candidate patches (III-C2) would not contain the correct anatomy and Eq. 4 would select among incorrect hypotheses. I recommend adding an anterior-only or camera-viewpoint-based cropping test on the existing meshes, or explicitly limiting the claims to the random-crop scenario.
  2. [IV-B5] The paper uses the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test to compare baseline versus baseline+P2P. Because the same target point clouds are used in both conditions, the observations are paired; the appropriate test is the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (or a paired permutation test). Please re-run the statistical analysis with a paired test and report the resulting p-values or effect sizes.
  3. [III-C1 and V-C] The paper does not directly evaluate whether the visibility score S_vis correctly localizes the true visible region. Since every downstream step (patch node generation, patch matching, and selection in Eq. 4) depends on this localization, I suggest reporting a diagnostic such as the recall of the ground-truth visible source points among the top-M candidates, or the fraction of cases in which the correct patch is among the K candidates. This would directly address the failure mode acknowledged in VI-D and would strengthen the claim that the observed improvement is attributable to the proposed mechanism.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV-A1] The random cropping procedure is referenced to previous work but not described; please specify how the crop is generated (e.g., random sphere center and radius) so that the benchmark is reproducible.
  2. [IV-A2] Please clarify whether the 200 target point clouds per in vitro phantom are generated with the same random-cropping protocol and visibility range as the in silico data.
  3. [Tables I and VII] The statement 'confirmed to be statistically significant (p < 0.05)' is not sufficient; report the test statistic or a confidence interval for the key comparisons.
  4. [VI-A] The justification for K=5 based on 20% visibility is heuristic; consider softening the wording or providing quantitative support.
  5. [Eq. (4)] The Distmin operator should be defined explicitly as the nearest-neighbor distance from each target point to the transformed source point cloud, and tie-breaking or handling of empty sets should be stated.
  6. [General] Minor typographical issues: 'learnable-parameter-free' is awkward; 'In Vitro' appears inconsistently capitalized; Section VI-B refers to 'P2P' without redefinition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: P2P is a parameter-free resampling/rematching add-on evaluated on independent fiducial ground truth; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: adding the P2P module to correspondence-based registration methods improves low-visibility complete-to-partial registration. The module introduces no learned parameters and no fitted constants; it resamples existing point-wise features from the frozen base network, forms candidate patches, re-runs matching, and selects a transformation by closest-point distance. The visibility score S_vis = sum_j xS xT^T is a straightforward cosine-similarity aggregation, not a quantity defined in terms of the final registration error, so no equation reduces to its own output by construction. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Sec. VI-D that Visible Source Point Estimation can fail when source and target features are inconsistent, which is a candid limitation rather than a circular step. The in silico benchmark is generated by the authors, but the in vitro phantom uses independently segmented CT surfaces and embedded fiducial markers as ground truth (Sec. IV-A2), so the evaluation is not tied to the module's own predictions. The self-citations, notably LiverMatch [22] and the phantom dataset [48], are used as one baseline and as test data, respectively; the central improvement is also demonstrated against the external Lepard baseline, and the ablations compare the module with and without candidate proposal. Thus the self-citations are not load-bearing support for the claimed improvement. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The limitation about anterior-only cropping (Sec. VI-C) is a generalizability concern, not a circularity concern. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained relative to its stated assumptions, and the reported gains are an empirical algorithmic result rather than a tautology.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The P2P module is parameter-light: it introduces one main hyperparameter K plus preprocessing constants, and no new physical or geometric entities. The load-bearing assumptions are the feature-based visibility localization, the patch-to-target sufficiency assumption, and the realism of the synthetic and phantom benchmarks.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of candidate patches K = 5 (default)
    Chosen by the authors and tuned via sensitivity study; the paper argues it is justified by a minimum visibility of about 20%, but the choice is a hyperparameter of the module.
  • Acceptance radius tau (inlier selection ablation only) = 0.05
    Only used in the ablation comparing inlier-based selection, not in the default module; still an ad hoc threshold.
  • Voxel size 0.04 and KPConv cell size 0.02 = 0.04 / 0.02
    Preprocessing and network parameters chosen to make the point clouds compatible; they affect the geometry and could be tuned differently.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The visibility score, computed by summing feature cosine similarities over target points, identifies the correct visible region of the source liver surface.
    This is the core premise of the P2P module. It is introduced in Section III-C1 and used to select the top M source points before patch generation.
  • domain assumption A patch of the source surface that has the same number of points as the target and is close in shape to the target is sufficient to estimate the full rigid transformation.
    This is the theoretical foundation in Section III-B, based on the idea that the ambiguity is minimized when the source extent approaches the target extent.
  • domain assumption The in silico deformation pipeline, based on finite element models and the rigid-component removal by SVD alignment of volumetric vertices, produces realistic deformation ranges.
    Section IV-A1 relies on this to claim that the benchmark has deformation ranges similar to the Sparse Non-Rigid Registration Challenge dataset.
  • domain assumption RMS-TRE computed from volumetric fiducial markers is a valid proxy for clinical registration accuracy.
    Section IV-A3 adopts this metric because ground truth rigid transformations and one-to-one correspondences are not applicable in complete-to-partial settings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resolving the Ambiguity of Complete-to-Partial Point Cloud Registration for Image-Guided Liver Surgery with Patches-to-Partial Matching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JPBHHMJ

@misc{pith2026241219328,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resolving the Ambiguity of Complete-to-Partial Point Cloud Registration for Image-Guided Liver Surgery with Patches-to-Partial Matching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JPBHHMJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19328}
}
read the original abstract

In image-guided liver surgery, the initial rigid alignment between preoperative and intraoperative data, often represented as point clouds, is crucial for providing sub-surface information from preoperative CT/MRI images to the surgeon during the procedure. Currently, this alignment is typically performed using semi-automatic methods, which, while effective to some extent, are prone to errors that demand manual correction. Point cloud correspondence-based registration methods are promising to serve as a fully automatic solution. However, they may struggle in scenarios with limited intraoperative surface visibility, a common challenge in liver surgery, particularly in laparoscopic procedures, which we refer to as complete-to-partial ambiguity. We first illustrate this ambiguity by evaluating the performance of state-of-the-art learning-based point cloud registration methods on our carefully constructed in silico and in vitro datasets. Then, we propose a patches-to-partial matching strategy as a plug-and-play module to resolve the ambiguity, which can be seamlessly integrated into learning-based registration methods without disrupting their end-to-end structure. It has proven effective and efficient in improving registration performance for cases with limited intraoperative visibility. The constructed benchmark and the proposed module establish a solid foundation for advancing applications of point cloud correspondence-based registration methods in image-guided liver surgery.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19328 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of widely used public point registration datasets in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the general paradigm of learning-based correspondence registration methods (top) and our plug-and-play P2P module (bottom). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the in silico phantom generation process. Source and target point clouds/ meshes are shown in blue and red, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Properties of the testing set from the in silico phantom dataset: (a) Distribution of RMS-TRE across all sample pairs after rigid alignment using volumetric vertices correspondences to remove rigid components. (b) Distribution of max-TRE per sample pair after rigid ali…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of registration results on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of registration errors from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sensitivity study on patch number K, performed on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of success rates at different thresholds (τ) on the in silico phantom dataset within the visibility ratio range [0.2, 0.3). TABLE IV REGISTRATION SUCCESS RATE (τ = 20 mm) IN PERCENTAGE ON THE in silico PHANTOM DATASET AT DIFFERENT DEFORMATION RANGES MEASURED…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In the first row, we show cases with a high visibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative comparison of registration results on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Toward Patient-specific Partial Point Cloud to Surface Completion for Pre- to Intra-operative Registration in Image-guided Liver Interventions

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A patient-specific VN-OccNet completion network reconstructs full liver surfaces from partial intra-operative point clouds, reducing rigid registration TRE from ~30-40 mm to ~3-5 mm on two in vitro phantoms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Intraoperative correction of liver deformation using sparse surface and vascular features via linearized iterative boundary reconstruction,

    J. S. Heiselman, W. R. Jarnagin, and M. I. Miga, “Intraoperative correction of liver deformation using sparse surface and vascular features via linearized iterative boundary reconstruction,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 2223–2234, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Ultrasound guidance in navigated liver surgery: toward deep-learning enhanced compensation of deformation and organ mo- tion,

    J. N. Smit, K. F. Kuhlmann, B. R. Thomson, N. F. Kok, T. J. Ruers, and M. Fusaglia, “Ultrasound guidance in navigated liver surgery: toward deep-learning enhanced compensation of deformation and organ mo- tion,” International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery , pp. 1–9, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Fast elastic registration of soft tissues under large deformations,

    I. Peterl ´ık, H. Courtecuisse, R. Rohling, P. Abolmaesumi, C. Nguan, S. Cotin, and S. Salcudean, “Fast elastic registration of soft tissues under large deformations,” Medical image analysis , vol. 45, pp. 24–40, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    O. V . Ivashchenko, K. F. Kuhlmann, R. van Veen, B. Pouw, N. F. Kok, N. J. Hoetjes, J. N. Smit, E. G. Klompenhouwer, J. Nijkamp, and T. J. Ruers, “Cbct-based navigation system for open liver surgery: Accurate guidance toward mobile and deformable targets with a semi- rigid organ approximation and electromagnetic tracking of the liver,” Medical physics, vo...

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    A mechanics-based nonrigid registration method for liver surgery using sparse intraoperative data,

    D. C. Rucker, Y . Wu, L. W. Clements, J. E. Ondrake, T. S. Pheiffer, A. L. Simpson, W. R. Jarnagin, and M. I. Miga, “A mechanics-based nonrigid registration method for liver surgery using sparse intraoperative data,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 147–158, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Automatic, global registration in laparoscopic liver surgery,

    B. Koo, M. R. Robu, M. Allam, M. Pfeiffer, S. Thompson, K. Gurusamy, B. Davidson, S. Speidel, D. Hawkes, D. Stoyanov, et al. , “Automatic, global registration in laparoscopic liver surgery,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery , pp. 1–10, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Physics-based shape matching for intraoperative image guidance,

    S. Suwelack, S. R ¨ohl, S. Bodenstedt, D. Reichard, R. Dillmann, T. dos Santos, L. Maier-Hein, M. Wagner, J. W ¨unscher, H. Kenngott, et al. , “Physics-based shape matching for intraoperative image guidance,” Medical physics, vol. 41, no. 11, p. 111901, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Augmented reality during open liver surgery using a markerless non-rigid registration system,

    N. Golse, A. Petit, M. Lewin, E. Vibert, and S. Cotin, “Augmented reality during open liver surgery using a markerless non-rigid registration system,” Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, vol. 25, pp. 662–671, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Augmented reality in liver surgery, where we stand in 2023,

    B. Acidi, M. Ghallab, S. Cotin, E. Vibert, and N. Golse, “Augmented reality in liver surgery, where we stand in 2023,” Journal of Visceral Surgery, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    The effect of intraoperative imaging on surgical navigation for laparoscopic liver resection surgery,

    A. Teatini, E. Pelanis, D. L. Aghayan, R. P. Kumar, R. Palomar, ˚A. A. Fretland, B. Edwin, and O. J. Elle, “The effect of intraoperative imaging on surgical navigation for laparoscopic liver resection surgery,”Scientific Reports, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 18687, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    3dmatch: Learning local geometric descriptors from rgb-d reconstruc- tions,

    A. Zeng, S. Song, M. Nießner, M. Fisher, J. Xiao, and T. Funkhouser, “3dmatch: Learning local geometric descriptors from rgb-d reconstruc- tions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 1802–1811, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Preda- tor: Registration of 3d point clouds with low overlap,

    S. Huang, Z. Gojcic, M. Usvyatsov, A. Wieser, and K. Schindler, “Preda- tor: Registration of 3d point clouds with low overlap,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 4267–4276, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Lepard: Learning partial point cloud matching in rigid and deformable scenes,

    Y . Li and T. Harada, “Lepard: Learning partial point cloud matching in rigid and deformable scenes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 5554–5564, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Cofinet: Reliable coarse- to-fine correspondences for robust pointcloud registration,

    H. Yu, F. Li, M. Saleh, B. Busam, and S. Ilic, “Cofinet: Reliable coarse- to-fine correspondences for robust pointcloud registration,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 23872–23884, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes,

    Z. Wu, S. Song, A. Khosla, F. Yu, L. Zhang, X. Tang, and J. Xiao, “3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 1912–1920, 2015

    1912

  8. [16]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 652– 660, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Characterization and correction of intraoperative soft tissue deformation in image-guided laparoscopic liver surgery,

    J. S. Heiselman, L. W. Clements, J. A. Collins, J. A. Weis, A. L. Simpson, S. K. Geevarghese, T. P. Kingham, W. R. Jarnagin, and M. I. Miga, “Characterization and correction of intraoperative soft tissue deformation in image-guided laparoscopic liver surgery,” Journal of Medic...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Method for registration of 3-d shapes,

    P. J. Besl and N. D. McKay, “Method for registration of 3-d shapes,” in Sensor fusion IV: control paradigms and data structures , vol. 1611, pp. 586–606, Spie, 1992

    1992

  11. [19]

    Go-icp: A globally optimal solution to 3d icp point-set registration,

    J. Yang, H. Li, D. Campbell, and Y . Jia, “Go-icp: A globally optimal solution to 3d icp point-set registration,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 2241–2254, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Pose-independent surface matching for intra-operative soft- tissue marker-less registration,

    T. R. dos Santos, A. Seitel, T. Kilgus, S. Suwelack, A.-L. Wekerle, H. Kenngott, S. Speidel, H.-P. Schlemmer, H.-P. Meinzer, T. Heimann, et al. , “Pose-independent surface matching for intra-operative soft- tissue marker-less registration,” Medical image analysis , vol. 18, no...

    2014

  13. [21]

    Non-rigid volume to surface registration using a data-driven biomechanical model,

    M. Pfeiffer, C. Riediger, S. Leger, J.-P. K ¨uhn, D. Seppelt, R.-T. Hoff- mann, J. Weitz, and S. Speidel, “Non-rigid volume to surface registration using a data-driven biomechanical model,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interventi...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Learning feature descriptors for pre-and intra-operative point cloud matching for laparoscopic liver registration,

    Z. Yang, R. Simon, and C. A. Linte, “Learning feature descriptors for pre-and intra-operative point cloud matching for laparoscopic liver registration,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, pp. 1–8, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Least-squares fitting of two 3-d point sets,

    K. S. Arun, T. S. Huang, and S. D. Blostein, “Least-squares fitting of two 3-d point sets,” IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, pp. 698–700, 1987

    1987

  16. [24]

    Pointnetlk: Robust & efficient point cloud registration using pointnet,

    Y . Aoki, H. Goforth, R. A. Srivatsan, and S. Lucey, “Pointnetlk: Robust & efficient point cloud registration using pointnet,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 7163–7172, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Omnet: Learning overlapping mask for partial-to-partial point cloud registration,

    H. Xu, S. Liu, G. Wang, G. Liu, and B. Zeng, “Omnet: Learning overlapping mask for partial-to-partial point cloud registration,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 3132–3141, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Regtr: End-to-end point cloud correspon- dences with transformers,

    Z. J. Yew and G. H. Lee, “Regtr: End-to-end point cloud correspon- dences with transformers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 6677–6686, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Geometric transformer for fast and robust point cloud registration,

    Z. Qin, H. Yu, C. Wang, Y . Guo, Y . Peng, and K. Xu, “Geometric transformer for fast and robust point cloud registration,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 11143–11152, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Rotation- invariant transformer for point cloud matching,

    H. Yu, Z. Qin, J. Hou, M. Saleh, D. Li, B. Busam, and S. Ilic, “Rotation- invariant transformer for point cloud matching,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 5384–5393, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    3d registration with maximal cliques,

    X. Zhang, J. Yang, S. Zhang, and Y . Zhang, “3d registration with maximal cliques,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 17745–17754, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Intraoperative laparoscope augmentation for port placement and resection planning in minimally invasive liver resection,

    M. Feuerstein, T. Mussack, S. M. Heining, and N. Navab, “Intraoperative laparoscope augmentation for port placement and resection planning in minimally invasive liver resection,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 355–369, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Surface registration for use in interactive, image—guided liver surgery,

    A. J. Herline, J. L. Herring, J. D. Stefansic, W. C. Chapman, R. L. Galloway, and B. M. Dawant, “Surface registration for use in interactive, image—guided liver surgery,” Computer Aided Surgery , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 11–17, 2000

    2000

  24. [32]

    Global rigid registration of ct to video in laparoscopic liver surgery,

    M. R. Robu, J. Ramalhinho, S. Thompson, K. Gurusamy, B. Davidson, D. Hawkes, D. Stoyanov, and M. J. Clarkson, “Global rigid registration of ct to video in laparoscopic liver surgery,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery , vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 947–956, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Intraoperative laparo- scopic liver surface registration with preoperative ct using mixing fea- tures and overlapping region masks,

    P. Guan, H. Luo, J. Guo, Y . Zhang, and F. Jia, “Intraoperative laparo- scopic liver surface registration with preoperative ct using mixing fea- tures and overlapping region masks,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery , pp. 1–11, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Point cloud registration in laparoscopic liver surgery using keypoint correspondence registration network,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Zou, and P. X. Liu, “Point cloud registration in laparoscopic liver surgery using keypoint correspondence registration network,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    An in vivo porcine dataset and evaluation methodology to measure soft-body laparoscopic liver registration accuracy with an 14 extended algorithm that handles collisions,

    R. Modrzejewski, T. Collins, B. Seeliger, A. Bartoli, A. Hostettler, and J. Marescaux, “An in vivo porcine dataset and evaluation methodology to measure soft-body laparoscopic liver registration accuracy with an 14 extended algorithm that handles collisions,” International jou...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,

    C. R. Qi, L. Yi, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Kpconv: Flexible and deformable convolution for point clouds,

    H. Thomas, C. R. Qi, J.-E. Deschaud, B. Marcotegui, F. Goulette, and L. J. Guibas, “Kpconv: Flexible and deformable convolution for point clouds,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 6411–6420, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Point transformer,

    H. Zhao, L. Jiang, J. Jia, P. H. Torr, and V . Koltun, “Point transformer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 16259–16268, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Concerning nonnegative matrices and doubly stochastic matrices,

    R. Sinkhorn and P. Knopp, “Concerning nonnegative matrices and doubly stochastic matrices,” Pacific Journal of Mathematics , vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 343–348, 1967

    1967

  32. [40]

    Neighbourhood consensus networks,

    I. Rocco, M. Cimpoi, R. Arandjelovi ´c, A. Torii, T. Pajdla, and J. Sivic, “Neighbourhood consensus networks,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Least-squares fitting of two 3-d point sets,

    K. S. Arun, T. S. Huang, and S. D. Blostein, “Least-squares fitting of two 3-d point sets,” IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, no. 5, pp. 698–700, 1987

    1987

  34. [42]

    Loftr: Detector- free local feature matching with transformers,

    J. Sun, Z. Shen, Y . Wang, H. Bao, and X. Zhou, “Loftr: Detector- free local feature matching with transformers,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 8922–8931, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    The medical segmentation decathlon,

    M. Antonelli, A. Reinke, S. Bakas, K. Farahani, A. Kopp-Schneider, B. A. Landman, G. Litjens, B. Menze, O. Ronneberger, R. M. Summers, et al. , “The medical segmentation decathlon,” Nature communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 4128, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    scikit-image: image processing in python,

    S. Van der Walt, J. L. Sch ¨onberger, J. Nunez-Iglesias, F. Boulogne, J. D. Warner, N. Yager, E. Gouillart, and T. Yu, “scikit-image: image processing in python,” PeerJ, vol. 2, p. e453, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    Open3D: A modern library for 3D data processing,

    Q.-Y . Zhou, J. Park, and V . Koltun, “Open3D: A modern library for 3D data processing,” arXiv:1801.09847, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Tetgen, a delaunay-based quality tetrahedral mesh generator,

    S. Hang, “Tetgen, a delaunay-based quality tetrahedral mesh generator,” ACM Trans. Math. Softw , vol. 41, no. 2, p. 11, 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    The image-to-physical liver registration sparse data challenge: comparison of state-of-the-art using a common dataset,

    J. S. Heiselman, J. A. Collins, M. J. Ringel, T. Peter Kingham, W. R. Jarnagin, and M. I. Miga, “The image-to-physical liver registration sparse data challenge: comparison of state-of-the-art using a common dataset,” Journal of Medical Imaging, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 015001–015001, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Boundary constraint- free biomechanical model-based surface matching for intraoperative liver deformation correction,

    Z. Yang, R. Simon, K. Merrell, and C. A. Linte, “Boundary constraint- free biomechanical model-based surface matching for intraoperative liver deformation correction,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high- performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. Kopf, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, “Pytorch: An imperative style, high- p...

    2019

  42. [50]

    Improving registration robustness for image-guided liver surgery in a novel human-to-phantom data framework,

    J. A. Collins, J. A. Weis, J. S. Heiselman, L. W. Clements, A. L. Simpson, W. R. Jarnagin, and M. I. Miga, “Improving registration robustness for image-guided liver surgery in a novel human-to-phantom data framework,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 36, no. 7, pp. ...

    2017

  43. [51]

    Evalu- ation of intra-operative patient-specific methods for point cloud com- pletion for minimally invasive liver interventions,

    N. Poudel, Z. Yang, K. Merrell, R. Simon, and C. A. Linte, “Evalu- ation of intra-operative patient-specific methods for point cloud com- pletion for minimally invasive liver interventions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11969, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Disparity refinement framework for learning-based stereo matching methods in cross-domain setting for laparoscopic images,

    Z. Yang, R. A. Simon, and C. A. Linte, “Disparity refinement framework for learning-based stereo matching methods in cross-domain setting for laparoscopic images,” Journal of Medical Imaging , vol. 10, no. 4, p. 045001, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.