Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Tech Report: Divide and Conquer 3D Real-Time Reconstruction for Improved IGS

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This report claims that a modular divide-and-conquer pipeline for endoscopic 3D reconstruction—frame selection, depth estimation, and ICP alignment—can serve as a practical baseline for image-guided surgery, with Depth-Anything V2…

desk verdict Honest component-level engineering report whose own reconstruction section contradicts the abstract's 'effectiveness' claim; useful as a baseline, not as evidence the integrated pipeline works. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01465 v1 pith:OLPGH4CC submitted 2024-12-31 eess.IV cs.CV

Yicheng Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords image-guidedsurgeryendoscopic3DreconstructionDepth-AnythingV2EndoDACIterativeClosestPointframeselectionmonoculardepthestimationHamlyndataset
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 report is trying to establish that a modular pipeline, which splits endoscopic 3D reconstruction into frame selection, depth estimation, and point-cloud alignment, can be a workable foundation for tracking surgical changes. Its central experimental claim is that Depth-Anything V2 produces better depth estimates than the endoscopic-specialized EndoDAC and the earlier Depth-Anything V1 on the Hamlyn dataset, with consistently lower RMSE, MAE, and related errors. The report also argues that adaptive thresholding in the Iterative Closest Point alignment—specifically using the mean plus two standard deviations of correspondence distances—yields the best alignment among the schemes tested. It openly acknowledges that monocular depth gives only relative scales, so end-to-end reconstruction remains qualitative rather than metric, and that pose estimation is the missing piece for clinical usefulness.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a three-stage divide-and-conquer pipeline. Frame selection filters input frames using a HyperIQA quality score threshold and a red-channel intensity heuristic. Depth estimation then maps each selected frame to a depth map, with Depth-Anything V2 as the primary model and EndoDAC or Depth-Anything V1 as alternatives, followed by post-processing such as disparity-to-depth conversion and normalization. The 3D reconstruction stage converts depth maps to point clouds and aligns them with an Iterative Closest Point routine that uses SVD-based least-squares rigid alignment and a dynamic distance threshold, adaptively chosen as the mean plus two standard deviations of correspondence distances, to exclude outliers before computing the rotation and translation.

What would settle it

Recompute the depth metrics on the same Hamlyn frames without any depth scaling and also with per-frame scaling or scaling fit only on valid ground-truth pixels; if Depth-Anything V2 no longer beats EndoDAC and Depth-Anything V1 on RMSE, MAE, and delta accuracy, the paper's central depth-ranking claim is not settled.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery, on its own terms, is that a general-purpose monocular depth model, Depth-Anything V2, provides better depth estimation results than both a state-of-the-art endoscopic depth model (EndoDAC) and its predecessor (Depth-Anything V1) on the Hamlyn test sequences. Across the reported tables, Depth-Anything V2 achieves lower Root Mean Squared Error, Mean Absolute Error, Squared Relative Error, and Log RMSE, and higher delta accuracy and SSIM, on both test22 and rectified01. The report further finds that among seven ICP thresholding schemes, the adaptive mean-plus-two-standard-deviations threshold gives the best alignment in qualitative reconstruction tests. It does not claim a metric-accurate 3D reconstruction; the final point clouds align visually with ground-truth input but not quantitatively, because relative monocular depth cannot be brought to an absolute scale by a single global scaling factor.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative depth comparison assumes that a single retrospectively fitted scaling factor per sequence, applied after prediction, makes the monocular relative depth maps comparable to the Hamlyn ground truth; if that scaling absorbs systematic errors, the reported superiority of Depth-Anything V2 could be an artifact of the alignment procedure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the depth-ranking claim holds, a general monocular depth model can replace endoscopic-specialized depth networks in this pipeline, simplifying deployment and making future depth-model swaps a configuration change rather than a re-engineering effort.
  • The adaptive mean-plus-two-standard-deviations ICP threshold is identified as the best of seven schemes, giving future users a default setting for neighbor-based point-cloud alignment.
  • Because the end-to-end reconstruction is only qualitatively aligned and cannot be compared to ground truth at metric scale, the pipeline in its current form is a baseline, not a clinical tracking solution; adding pose estimation is a direct prerequisite for quantitative evaluation.
  • The frame selection module is implementable but untested on the curated Hamlyn sequences; its value is expected to appear on less curated operating-room footage with off-site frames, blur, or fluid interference.
  • The observed error spikes tied to erroneous ground-truth frames indicate that validation on endoscopic datasets should include a ground-truth quality-screening step before computing depth metrics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The report leaves implicit that the same adaptive statistical thresholding used in ICP could double as a frame-quality filter, flagging frames whose depth maps produce outlier-heavy correspondence distances; this is a testable extension that would reuse existing pipeline components.
  • A natural next step, which the report does not implement, is to couple the pipeline with a pose-estimation module; if pose were available, the neighbor-ICP drift problem would likely be replaced by a global optimization, converting the relative-depth outputs into a metric scene model.
  • The success of Depth-Anything V2 on two Hamlyn sequences suggests a broader hypothesis: that zero-shot general monocular depth models may transfer to endoscopic domains more effectively than domain-trained models when endoscopic training data are limited, but the report's two-sequence evidence is too thin to establish that generality.
  • The paper's concession that a single retrospective scaling factor cannot align relative depth to ground truth implies that per-frame or per-pixel scale estimation, or metric-depth training, is the true bottleneck; testing metric-depth models directly on Hamlyn would be a sharper comparison than the reported scaled-relative evaluation.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a modular, open-source pipeline for endoscopic 3D reconstruction from monocular video, combining frame selection (HyperIQA and R-channel intensity), depth estimation (Depth-Anything V1/V2 and EndoDAC), and ICP-based point-cloud alignment with a dynamic thresholding mechanism. The experimental sections report quantitative depth estimation comparisons on two Hamlyn sequences (test22 and rectified01), a search over seven ICP threshold schemes on a single frame pair, and a qualitative assessment of end-to-end reconstruction. The paper's stated contribution is a flexible pipeline architecture plus evidence that Depth-Anything V2 outperforms EndoDAC and Depth-Anything V1 for the tested depth metrics, with the abstract additionally claiming that the integrated methods are effective.

Significance. If the claims were supported, the paper would provide a useful modular baseline and open-source implementation for endoscopic reconstruction, with a candid account of practical difficulties such as relative depth scaling and ground-truth inconsistencies. The strengths of the manuscript are its public repository, the use of standard depth metrics, and its explicit discussion of limitations (e.g., the frame-selection module was not tested, and reconstruction could not be quantitatively aligned). However, the central claim of an effective integrated pipeline is directly contradicted by the paper's own Section 4.3, and the quantitative depth comparison is weakened by per-sequence scale fitting. As it stands, the significance is limited to a component-level comparison and a documentation of unsolved integration challenges; the claims need to be substantially revised or supplemented with quantitative reconstruction evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Section 4.3] The abstract's claim that 'Experiments conducted on the Hamlyn dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of the integrated methods' is directly contradicted by Section 4.3, which states that a quantitative comparison 'is not feasible at this point because the discrepancy between the reconstructed scene and the actual scene is too large,' and that the depth-estimation-based reconstruction in Figure 13 is 'far worse' than the ground-truth-depth reconstruction. The central claim of an effective integrated reconstruction pipeline is therefore unsupported by the paper's own results. The authors should either provide a quantitative reconstruction error measurement (e.g., point-to-surface distance after alignment) for the full pipeline, or explicitly downgrade the paper's claims to component-level depth estimation and ICP investigations.
  2. [Section 4.1 / Section 5] The quantitative depth comparison is weakened by per-sequence scaling factors fitted retrospectively to align predicted depth maps with ground truth, as stated in Section 4.1 ('Scaling factors were applied to align the predicted depth maps with the ground truth') and Section 5 ('we must attempt a retrospective best fit scaling to align them with the ground truth'). With the scale fitted to the same data on which RMSE, MAE, and other metrics are computed, the reported numbers partly measure the quality of the fitted scale rather than an independent prediction. Please report scale-invariant metrics (e.g., SILog or median-scaling with held-out data), state exactly how many scale parameters are fitted per sequence, and discuss how the ranking changes under an alternative calibration.
  3. [Section 4.2] The 'best' ICP thresholding scheme is selected based on experiments on a single pair of frames from the test22 sequence using ground-truth depth images. This is insufficient to establish a generalizable recommendation and risks overfitting, especially because the same dataset and parameter choice are later used to support the qualitative reconstruction claims. Please evaluate the thresholding schemes on multiple frame pairs and sequences, and provide statistics (e.g., final alignment error, convergence trajectories) rather than a single anecdotal comparison.
  4. [Section 3] The manuscript explicitly states in Section 3 that the frame-selection module 'was not tested as part of the current pipeline evaluation.' Since frame selection is a named component of the integrated pipeline, the claim that the integrated methods are effective cannot be validated end-to-end. The authors should either incorporate and evaluate the frame-selection stage in the pipeline experiments, or clearly restrict the conclusions to the independent depth-estimation and ICP components.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3 heading] The heading 'Quantative study of depth estimation methods' contains a typo; it should read 'Quantitative study of depth estimation methods.'
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The tables report 'Mean' metric values but do not specify the number of frames over which the mean is computed or the standard deviation/variance of the metrics; adding these would allow the reader to assess the stability of the reported differences.
  3. [Equation (8)] The SSIM data range is defined as max(max(dpred), max(dgt)), which is an unusual choice; please justify it or use a fixed, standard data range and state it explicitly.
  4. [Figure 4] The caption describes the 25th frame of rectified01 as having 'erroneous ground truth' without a verification protocol; state how such frames are identified and whether they were excluded from the quantitative results in Tables 1 and 2.
  5. [Section 4.3] The phrase 'the ground truth images are aligned okay' is informal and non-quantitative; if alignment quality is being claimed, it should be supported by a measured error (e.g., mean point-to-point distance or overlap ratio) rather than visual impression alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the report's components are external models or disclosed empirical fits, and its admitted reconstruction failure is an evidence gap, not a self-referential argument.

full rationale

The report is an empirical tech report rather than a derivation chain, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction. Depth estimation uses external pretrained models (Depth-Anything V2, EndoDAC); the only fitted quantity is the retrospective scaling in Section 3 ('Scaling factors were applied to align the predicted depth maps with the ground truth') and Section 5 ('we must attempt a retrospective best fit scaling to align them with the ground truth'). This makes the reported RMSE/MAE scale-invariant residuals rather than absolute prediction errors, but it does not force the comparative ranking: the scaling is a nuisance parameter, and DA:v2's better delta-accuracy and SSIM depend on the structure of its predicted depth maps, not on the fitted scale alone. The ICP threshold search in Section 4.2 tests seven schemes on one frame pair and selects mean+2sigma in Section 4.3; this is in-sample tuning, not a fitted input presented as an independent prediction. The report's own limitations are explicit and non-circular: Section 3 states 'The frame selection module was not tested', Section 4.3 states 'A quantitative comparison is not feasible at this point' and that the depth-estimation reconstruction is 'far worse', and Section 5 acknowledges 'retrospective best fit scaling... leads to additional complexities and potential errors'. These passages contradict the abstract's 'effectiveness of the integrated methods' claim and are serious evidence gaps, but they are correctness and validity concerns, not circularity. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, and no load-bearing argument rests on a self-citation. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

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

The leading free parameters are the scaling factors used to align predicted depth to ground truth, plus several hand-picked ICP thresholds. The key domain assumption is that a single scaling makes relative depth maps comparable to metric ground truth. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Depth scaling factor (per sequence) = Not stated
    Applied to align predicted depth maps to ground truth before computing all metrics (Section 4.1). This is a fitted quantity.
  • ICP threshold for constant scheme = T=10
    Chosen for the constant-value scheme in Section 4.2 without justification.
  • Multiplier for mean/median threshold schemes = 1.5
    The factor 1.5 in T = 1.5 * mean(d) and T = 1.5 * median(d) is chosen by hand (Section 4.2).
  • Percentages for threshold schemes = 0.8 and 0.9
    The 80% of maximum distance and 90th percentile schemes use hand-picked quantiles (Section 4.2).
  • ICP threshold statistics = mean + 2*std
    The 'best' scheme uses two standard deviations, a choice validated only on a single frame pair.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Monocular depth predictions are relative and can be transformed to metric scale by a single affine scaling per sequence.
    Relied on throughout the evaluation (Section 4.1, Section 5).
  • domain assumption The Hamlyn ground truth depth is accurate enough for benchmarking.
    The authors note erroneous ground-truth frames (Section 5), yet still use the full sequences for metric computation.
  • domain assumption The two selected Hamlyn sequences are representative of ESSBS conditions.
    The segments are chosen partly for ease of qualitative assessment, not clinical representativeness (Section 3).
  • standard math SVD-based point set alignment and KD-tree search are correct and standard.
    Used in ICP without derivation; standard background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tech Report: Divide and Conquer 3D Real-Time Reconstruction for Improved IGS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OLPGH4CC

@misc{pith2026250101465,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tech Report: Divide and Conquer 3D Real-Time Reconstruction for Improved IGS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OLPGH4CC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01465}
}
read the original abstract

Tracking surgical modifications based on endoscopic videos is technically feasible and of great clinical advantages; however, it still remains challenging. This report presents a modular pipeline to divide and conquer the clinical challenges in the process. The pipeline integrates frame selection, depth estimation, and 3D reconstruction components, allowing for flexibility and adaptability in incorporating new methods. Recent advancements, including the integration of Depth-Anything V2 and EndoDAC for depth estimation, as well as improvements in the Iterative Closest Point (ICP) alignment process, are detailed. Experiments conducted on the Hamlyn dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of the integrated methods. System capability and limitations are both discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01465 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization comparing Depth-Anything V2 and EndoDAC results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization comparing Depth-Anything V2 and EndoDAC results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heatmap of the per-pixel alignment error at the first (left) and tenth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization comparing Depth-Anything V2 and EndoDAC results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Four plots for constant value method 90 percentile Using the value of 90 percentile of point distance. T = P90(d) where P90(d) is the 90th percentile of the distances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Four plots for 90 percentile method Mean of error with a factor Using the value of a factor multiplied by the mean of distances. T = 1.5 × ¯d 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Four plots for mean method 1.5 Times Median Using the value of a factor multiplied by the median of distances. T = 1.5 × median(d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Four plots for 1.5 times median method Linear Interpolation Using linear interpolation between minimum and max￾imum distances as the threshold. Tinitial = 10Tf inal = 0.1 T = a · Tf inal + (1 − a) · Tinitial a = i max iteration − 1 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Four plots for linear interpolation method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Four plots for 80% of maximum distance method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Four plots for mean plus two standard deviations method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Reconstruction using ground truth depths at frame 1(left) and frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Reconstruction using depth estimation from depth-anything:v2 at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lateral transor- bital neuroendoscopic approach to the lateral cavernous sinus,

    R. A. Bly, R. Ramakrishna, M. Ferreira, and K. S. Moe, “Lateral transor- bital neuroendoscopic approach to the lateral cavernous sinus,” Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base , vol. 75, no. 1, p. 11, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    What are the limits of endoscopic sinus surgery?: the expanded endonasal approach to the skull base,

    C. H. Snyderman, H. Pant, R. L. Carrau, D. Prevedello, P. Gardner, and A. B. Kassam, “What are the limits of endoscopic sinus surgery?: the expanded endonasal approach to the skull base,” The Keio journal of medicine, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 152–160, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Image-guided surgery,

    W. E. L. Grimson, R. Kikinis, F. A. Jolesz, and P. M. Black, “Image-guided surgery,” Scientific American, vol. 280, no. 6, pp. 62–69, 1999

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Complications of craniofacial resection for malignant tumors of the skull base: report of an International Collaborative Study,

    I. Ganly, S. G. Patel, B. Singh, D. H. Kraus, P. G. Bridger, G. Cantu, and A. Cheesman, “Complications of craniofacial resection for malignant tumors of the skull base: report of an International Collaborative Study,” Head & neck , vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 445–451, 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: analysis of complications in the authors’ initial 800 patients: a review,

    A. B. Kassam, D. M. Prevedello, R. L. Carrau, C. H. Snyderman, A. Thomas, P. Gardner, and A. Zanation, “Endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery: analysis of complications in the authors’ initial 800 patients: a review,” Journal of neurosurgery , vol. 114, no. 6, pp. 1544–1568, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Health state utility values in patients undergoing endoscopic si- nus surgery,

    Z. M. Soler, E. Wittenberg, R. J. Schlosser, J. C. Mace, and T. L. Smith, “Health state utility values in patients undergoing endoscopic si- nus surgery,” The Laryngoscope, vol. 121, no. 12, pp. 2672–2678, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Use endoscope and instrument and pathway relative motion as metric for automated objective surgical skill assessment in skull base and sinus surgery,

    Y. Li, R. Bly, M. Whipple, I. Humphreys, B. Hannaford, and K. Moe, “Use endoscope and instrument and pathway relative motion as metric for automated objective surgical skill assessment in skull base and sinus surgery,” vol. 79, p. A194, Georg Thieme Verlag KG, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Real-time virtual intraoperative ct in endoscopic sinus surgery,

    Y. Li, N. Konuthula, I. M. Humphreys, K. Moe, B. Hannaford, and R. Bly, “Real-time virtual intraoperative ct in endoscopic sinus surgery,” Inter- national Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery , pp. 1–12, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Learning surgical motion pattern from small data in endoscopic sinus and skull base surgeries,

    Y. Li, R. Bly, S. Akkina, F. Qin, R. C. Saxena, I. Humphreys, M. Whipple, K. Moe, and B. Hannaford, “Learning surgical motion pattern from small data in endoscopic sinus and skull base surgeries,” in 2021 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. ...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Objective signatures of endoscopic surgical performance,

    R. A. Harbison, A. Berens, Y. Li, A. Law, M. Whipple, B. Hannaford, and K. Moe, “Objective signatures of endoscopic surgical performance,” in Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base , vol. 77, p. A120, 2016. 21

    2016

  3. [11]

    Scale- invariant registration of monocular endoscopic images to CT-scans for sinus surgery,

    D. Burschka, M. Li, M. Ishii, R. H. Taylor, and G. D. Hager, “Scale- invariant registration of monocular endoscopic images to CT-scans for sinus surgery,” Medical Image Analysis, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 413–426, 2005

    2005

  4. [12]

    Functional endoscopic sinus surgery: theory and diagnostic evaluation,

    D. W. Kennedy, S. J. Zinreich, A. E. Rosenbaum, and M. E. Johns, “Functional endoscopic sinus surgery: theory and diagnostic evaluation,” Archives of Otolaryngology, vol. 111, no. 9, pp. 576–582, 1985

    1985

  5. [13]

    Epipolar-plane image analysis: An approach to determining structure from motion,

    R. C. Bolles, H. H. Baker, and D. H. Marimont, “Epipolar-plane image analysis: An approach to determining structure from motion,” Interna- tional journal of computer vision , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7–55, 1987

    1987

  6. [14]

    Shape from shading,

    E. Prados and O. Faugeras, “Shape from shading,” Handbook of mathe- matical models in computer vision , pp. 375–388, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Monoslam: Real- time single camera slam,

    A. J. Davison, I. D. Reid, N. D. Molton, and O. Stasse, “Monoslam: Real- time single camera slam,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and ma- chine intelligence , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1052–1067, 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    Three-dimensional dense reconstruction: A review of algorithms and datasets,

    Y. Lee, “Three-dimensional dense reconstruction: A review of algorithms and datasets,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 18, p. 5861, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Endo- depth-and-motion: Reconstruction and tracking in endoscopic videos using depth networks and photometric constraints,

    D. Recasens, J. Lamarca, J. M. F´ acil, J. Montiel, and J. Civera, “Endo- depth-and-motion: Reconstruction and tracking in endoscopic videos using depth networks and photometric constraints,” IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7225–7232, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Blindly assess image quality in the wild guided by a self-adaptive hyper network,

    S. Su, Q. Yan, Y. Zhu, C. Zhang, X. Ge, J. Sun, and Y. Zhang, “Blindly assess image quality in the wild guided by a self-adaptive hyper network,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 6 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Depth Anything V2,

    L. Yang, B. Kang, Z. Huang, Z. Zhao, X. Xu, J. Feng, and H. Zhao, “Depth Anything V2,” 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Depth Any- thing: Unleashing the Power of Large-Scale Unlabeled Data,

    L. Yang, B. Kang, Z. Huang, X. Xu, J. Feng, and H. Zhao, “Depth Any- thing: Unleashing the Power of Large-Scale Unlabeled Data,” Apr. 2024. arXiv:2401.10891 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    EndoDAC: Efficient Adapting Foundation Model for Self-Supervised Depth Estimation from Any Endoscopic Camera,

    B. Cui, M. Islam, L. Bai, A. Wang, and H. Ren, “EndoDAC: Efficient Adapting Foundation Model for Self-Supervised Depth Estimation from Any Endoscopic Camera,” 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    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, vol. PAMI-9, pp. 698–700, Sept. 1987

    1987

  15. [23]

    A method for registration of 3-d shapes,

    P. Besl and N. D. McKay, “A method for registration of 3-d shapes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 239–256, 1992. 22

    1992

  16. [24]

    Open3D: A Modern Library for 3D Data Processing,

    Q.-Y. Zhou, J. Park, and V. Koltun, “Open3D: A Modern Library for 3D Data Processing,” Jan. 2018. arXiv:1801.09847

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    SciPy 1.0–Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python,

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. v. d. Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, . Polat, Y. Feng, E....

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Image quality assess- ment: from error visibility to structural similarity,

    Z. Wang, A. Bovik, H. Sheikh, and E. Simoncelli, “Image quality assess- ment: from error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004

    2004

  19. [27]

    Depth Map Prediction from a Single Image using a Multi-Scale Deep Network,

    D. Eigen, C. Puhrsch, and R. Fergus, “Depth Map Prediction from a Single Image using a Multi-Scale Deep Network,”

  20. [28]

    scikit- image: image processing in Python,

    S. van der Walt, J. L. Schnberger, J. Nunez-Iglesias, F. Boulogne, J. D. Warner, N. Yager, E. Gouillart, T. Yu, and t. s.-i. contributors, “scikit- image: image processing in Python,” PeerJ, vol. 2, p. e453, June 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Zero-shot metric depth with a field-of-view conditioned diffusion model,

    S. Saxena, J. Hur, C. Herrmann, D. Sun, and D. J. Fleet, “Zero-shot metric depth with a field-of-view conditioned diffusion model,” 2023. 23

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.