Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

APCReg: Anatomical-Prior-Guided Coarse-to-Fine CBCT--IOS Registration via Multi-View Projection and Reliability-Controlled Residual Correction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read APCReg, a coarse-to-fine CBCT–IOS registration pipeline, decomposes the alignment search into ordered anatomical projections, then conditionally accepts or rejects a residual refinement, reporting 0.87 mm mean Chamfer distance and first…

desk verdict A competent engineering paper whose apparent metric inconsistency dissolves once you account for the coordinate frame; the real issues are underspecified IR protocol and missing code, not a contradiction. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09993 v1 pith:MTLQTEV2 submitted 2026-08-07 eess.IV cs.CV

Xincan Zheng , Yaqi Wang , Zhi Li , Jiahao Bao , Lan Feng , Yiru Xia , Shuai Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords CBCT–IOSregistrationanatomicalpriorcoarse-to-finemulti-viewprojectionpointcloudreliabilitycontroldentalsurgicalplanningMICCAISTSR2025
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 introduces APCReg, a fully automatic pipeline for aligning cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans with intraoral scans (IOS) of the jaw, a step needed for surgical planning. The central claim is that the alignment problem should be split into a coarse stage that uses anatomical structure—specifically three ordered 2D projections (buccal, proximal, occlusal)—to narrow the six-degree-of-freedom search, and a fine stage that refines with learned correspondences and then decides, without ground truth, whether to keep the refinement or fall back to the coarse pose. On 60 held-out jaw pairs from the MICCAI STSR 2025 benchmark, APCReg reports 0.87 mm mean Chamfer distance, 2.92 mm Hausdorff distance, and 91.5% inlier ratio, ranking first across all six reported metrics among the open-source baselines tested. If these numbers hold, the approach would offer clinicians a reliable automatic alternative to manual alignment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the staged decomposition of the rigid registration problem. MACR rasterizes the two surfaces into three orthogonal silhouettes and sequentially aligns them (Y-Z, then X-Z, then X-Y), each stage fixing a subset of the translation and rotation parameters, then refining with ICP. The residual stage, OARR, builds a soft transport matrix from KPConv features, overlap predictions, and a folded arch-length cue, and DAHS scores candidate poses on disjoint correspondences; CRG then chooses between the residual update and identity by comparing one-sided IOS-to-CBCT distances. The central compositional identity is \(\hat{T} = T_a T_c\) with \(T_a \in \{T_r, I\}\), letting the system discard a harmful refinement.

What would settle it

Recompute all six metrics from the authors' released predicted transforms and ground-truth transforms using the paper's metric definitions. If the translation component of the relative transform is indeed 13.10 mm on average, a simple geometric calculation implies the mean Chamfer distance cannot be 0.87 mm; a discrepancy would settle that the reported metrics are not mutually consistent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that CBCT–IOS registration is best solved by respecting dental-arch anatomy at every stage: MACR aligns the coarse pose through ordered orthogonal projections that each constrain a subset of the 6-DOF pose, OARR matches the remaining residual using overlap-gated cross-attention with a PCA-axis-reversal-invariant arch coordinate, DAHS selects among structured pose hypotheses using held-out correspondences, and CRG compares the refined pose with the coarse pose using a fixed geometric rule to avoid harmful updates. The final transform is the composition \(\hat{T} = T_a T_c\). The evaluation on 60 jaw pairs shows first place on all six metrics versus the tested open-source baselines, with a 28.4% improvement in mean Chamfer distance over the strongest baseline, Predator.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that the reported evaluation metrics were computed exactly as defined, and in particular that a translation error of 13.10 mm is consistent with a pointwise surface error of 1.00 mm; if the metric definitions, the evaluation code, or the table entries do not match, the first-place ranking is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results replicate, APCReg provides a fully automatic CBCT–IOS registration path that outperforms the tested classical and learned baselines, potentially removing a manual step in digital dental surgery planning.
  • The order of the projection stages is load-bearing: reordering buccal–proximal–occlusal increases mean Chamfer distance by about 0.75 mm, so the anatomical schedule itself is part of the method's correctness.
  • The coarse-retention guard (CRG) is a ground-truth-free safety mechanism: it improves mean Chamfer distance from 1.157 mm to 0.869 mm on the held-out set by rejecting refinements that degrade geometric consistency.
  • On the 17 hard cases where MACR initialization is poor, APCReg recovers 11 of them, indicating the residual stage can correct large initial errors rather than only polishing near solutions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A transferable design principle is to let a registration system abstain from refinement: the CRG rule could be appended to any point-cloud registration network as a zero-cost safety gate, since it only computes one-sided distances.
  • The multi-view projection decomposition is not limited to teeth; any anisotropic structure with a clear principal axis (e.g., long bones) could use the same ordered-silhouette strategy to reduce the search dimension.
  • The evaluation protocol's definition of RTE should be checked: if the translation component of the relative transform is really 13.10 mm while the Chamfer distance is 0.87 mm, then either the definition or the reported numbers need clarification before the ranking is interpreted.
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 proposes APCReg, a coarse-to-fine CBCT-to-intraoral-scan registration pipeline. A multi-view anatomical coarse registration (MACR) stage sequentially aligns buccal, proximal, and occlusal projections; an overlap-aware residual registration (OARR) stage refines the pose with KPConv features, an arch-length cue, and Sinkhorn matching; a dental-arch-structured hypothesis selection (DAHS) stage ranks candidate poses on held-out correspondences; and a coarse-retention guard (CRG) chooses at test time between the residual update and the identity. The method is evaluated on 60 held-out jaw pairs from the MICCAI STSR 2025 benchmark and is reported to rank first among the evaluated baselines on all six metrics, with CD 0.87 mm, HD 2.92 mm, RMSE 1.00 mm, RTE 13.10 mm, RRE 3.88°, and IR 91.5%.

Significance. If the reported results are correct, APCReg would be a practically valuable contribution: it combines classical anatomical projection constraints with learned residual matching, and the test-time retention guard is an interesting idea for avoiding harmful refinements. The paper has genuine strengths: comparison against a wide panel of open-source baselines on a shared benchmark protocol, clustered-bootstrap CI for the headline CD comparison, stagewise and order-stress ablations for MACR, a hard-case subset analysis, and a ground-truth audit of the CRG decisions. These are the right kinds of evidence for a registration paper. However, the central quantitative claim rests on the consistency and reproducibility of the reported metrics, and that is currently the weakest point of the manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Metrics paragraph and Table 1] Table 1 is internally inconsistent under the metric definitions stated in the 'Metrics' paragraph. RTE is defined as the norm of the translation component of the relative transform. For FPFH+RANSAC, RTE=205.62 mm while CD=6.03 mm; for OBB+PCA, RTE=352.31 mm while CD=10.76 mm. For a rigid transform with a translation component of hundreds of millimeters, every transformed IOS point is displaced by a comparable amount, so directed and bidirectional surface distances cannot be on the order of a few millimeters unless the ground-truth surface contains a matching copy of the IOS at that offset, which is not plausible for jaw anatomy. Similarly, Predator has RTE=29.18 mm and IR=89.9% under a 2 mm inlier threshold, and APCReg has RTE=13.10 mm with RMSE=1.00 mm. These values cannot all hold under the stated definitions. If some centering, normalization, or overlap masking is applied before computing the surface metrics, it must be stated precisely, because it changes the meaning of RTE and RMSE. Since every headline claim is a rank over these six metrics, the authors must correct the definitions, correct the numbers, or provide the exact evaluation code and per-pair transforms. This issue is load-bearing and currently blocks assessment of the main claim.
  2. [Metrics paragraph, IR definition] The inlier ratio is not reproducible as defined. The text says IR is 'the fraction of GT-overlapping IOS points whose predictions lie within 2 mm of the ground-truth IOS surface,' but it does not specify how GT overlap is computed, what threshold defines overlap, which points form the denominator, whether the 2 mm check is a one-sided nearest-neighbor distance over the full GT surface or only over the overlap region, or how the two jaws are pooled. Because Predator reaches 89.9% IR with RTE=29.18 mm, the definition must effectively exclude or heavily downweight non-overlap points; otherwise the reported number is impossible. The exact formula must be given, and the evaluation code should be released. This matters especially because APCReg's gain over Predator on IR is only 1.6 percentage points, so the 'ranks first across all six metrics' claim depends on this underspecified quantity.
  3. [Experiments, 'Comparison with Registration Baselines'] Only the CD pairwise comparison receives a confidence interval and a pairwise win count. The other five metrics, including RTE, RMSE, HD, and IR, are reported as point estimates. With n=60 pairs and a hard subset defined after inspecting MACR's coarse errors, the claim that APCReg ranks first across all six metrics needs per-metric uncertainty quantification, pairwise win/loss counts for each metric, and sensitivity analysis to the hard-case selection rule. Otherwise the reported rank could be driven by a small number of difficult pairs or by threshold choices that are not visible in the table.
  4. [Experiments, 'Dataset and split'] The manuscript excludes 48 of the 179 pose-labeled cases because their ground-truth labels have det(R)=-1. This is a large fraction of the labeled data, and the paper does not report whether the excluded cases differ systematically from the retained ones, nor whether the official challenge uses the same exclusion rule. If the excluded labels follow a different coordinate convention, the exclusion may be justified, but the authors should show that the retained 131 cases form a representative split and that the test partition is not cherry-picked. This is relevant because the reported 60-pair test set is the entire basis for the headline comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] The 'Full APCReg' row includes CRG, while the cumulative ablation rows do not, so the drop from 1.29 mm (A+B+C+D+E) to 0.87 mm confounds the learned-scorer and CRG contributions. The text discusses this, but the table should make the ablation coupling explicit, for example by adding a 'Full without CRG' row.
  2. [Table 2] The row label 'Disrupted P–O–B+ICP' is not defined. The paper should state what disruption is applied and why this variant is a meaningful control.
  3. [Data and code availability] No code, checkpoints, or per-pair result files are provided. Given the metric inconsistency in Table 1, releasing the evaluation code and raw per-pair errors is essential for verification.
  4. [Eq. (7)] Equation (7) ends with a comma in the displayed formula; the equation should end with a full stop or no punctuation.
  5. [Related Work] The baseline algorithm 'OBB+PCA' in Table 1 has no citation or implementation description in the text, which makes the baseline hard to reproduce.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: APCReg's components are evaluated on a held-out test set with validation-set hyperparameters and external benchmark data, with no derivation step reducing to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The coarse transform is produced by ordered silhouette alignment (MACR), the residual by overlap-gated KPConv features and weighted Procrustes on Sinkhorn transport (OARR), and final selection by disjoint-correspondence hypothesis scoring plus a fixed geometric guard (DAHS/CRG). None of these steps is defined in terms of the reported test metrics: CRG thresholds (alpha, tau, beta, gamma, delta) and DAHS weights are explicitly selected on the validation set and frozen before test evaluation, which is standard model selection rather than fitting the test result. The ablation tables compare internal variants under the same held-out protocol, and the reported comparisons are against open-source baselines on the external MICCAI STSR 2025 benchmark. The paper cites prior work for segmentation backbones, the benchmark dataset, and standard registration components, but these citations are external, not load-bearing self-citations that substitute for independent content. The potential inconsistency between Predator's RTE of 29.18 mm and its IR of 89.9%, and the incomplete specification of the IR denominator and GT-overlap computation, are reproducibility or metric-definition concerns, not circularity: the reported numbers are not constructed from the method's own assumptions by definition.

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

The central claim depends on standard rigid registration machinery plus anatomical priors and validation-tuned thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unstated costs are the CRG and DAHS hyperparameters and the assumptions that ordered projection alignment and OBB+PCA framing are valid for the test dentitions.

free parameters (4)
  • CRG retention thresholds (alpha, tau, beta, gamma, delta) = 0.80, 0.90, 0.25, 1.30 mm, 0.15 mm
    Selected on the validation set and frozen for testing; they determine when the coarse pose is retained and directly affect the reported CD and IR.
  • DAHS scoring weights and learned scorer parameters (lambda_w, lambda_b, lambda_c, lambda_s, eta, MLP) = not reported
    Weights in Eq. (7) and the learned correction head are fit on validation data; values are not given, so hypothesis ranking cannot be reproduced.
  • Overlap visibility threshold (0.3) = 0.3
    Hard visibility sets in Eq. (4) use a fixed 0.3 overlap probability cutoff; this hand-chosen threshold controls which points enter cross-attention.
  • Arch-gate width sigma_s = not reported
    Equation (6) uses sigma_s for the arch gate, but its value is not specified; it controls the strictness of arch-consistent correspondences.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The ordered buccal, proximal, and occlusal projection alignments decompose the 6-DoF search into weakly coupled 3-DoF subproblems.
    Invoked in the MACR section; if view-specific silhouette constraints interact strongly, early errors propagate and the coarse pose can leave the residual stage's operating range.
  • domain assumption After OBB+PCA normalization, the longest dental extent defines x and the shortest extent approximates the occlusal normal z.
    Used in MACR to define the jaw-centered frame; atypical dentitions, partial arches, or metal artifacts could break this anatomical prior.
  • domain assumption The pretrained PointNet++ and nnU-Net segmenters provide sufficiently accurate tooth surfaces for both IOS and CBCT.
    Stated in Dataset and split; all methods consume only these segmentations, so segmentation errors propagate directly into registration accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of APCReg: Anatomical-Prior-Guided Coarse-to-Fine CBCT--IOS Registration via Multi-View Projection and Reliability-Controlled Residual Correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MTLQTEV2

@misc{pith2026260809993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: APCReg: Anatomical-Prior-Guided Coarse-to-Fine CBCT--IOS Registration via Multi-View Projection and Reliability-Controlled Residual Correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MTLQTEV2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09993}
}
read the original abstract

Registration between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and intraoral scans (IOS) is essential for patient-specific surgical planning. However, disparate imaging modalities, limited overlap, and large pose offsets make automated registration unreliable. Consequently, clinical registration remains dependent on conventional geometry pipelines and manual clinician adjustment. To address these challenges, we propose APCReg, an anatomical-prior-guided coarse-to-fine framework for global registration and reliability-controlled residual correction. Specifically, multi-view anatomical coarse registration (MACR) performs ordered orthogonal projection alignment (buccal, proximal, and occlusal) to decompose the six-degree-of-freedom search before three-dimensional refinement. Overlap-aware residual registration (OARR) combines shared KPConv features, a folded arch-length cue, overlap-gated cross-attention, and Sinkhorn matching. Finally, dental-arch-structured hypothesis selection evaluates diverse poses on held-out reliable correspondences, while a ground-truth-free coarse-retention guard conditionally retains a geometrically reliable coarse pose. On 60 held-out jaw pairs, APCReg achieves a submillimeter mean Chamfer distance of 0.87 mm and a Hausdorff distance of 2.92 mm under this evaluation protocol, and ranks first across the six reported metrics among the evaluated open-source baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09993 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Test-set trade-off between Chamfer distance (CD; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of APCReg. (a) nnU-Net and PointNet++ extract CBCT and IOS tooth surfaces. (b) MACR obtains the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MACR coarse registration. (a) Buccal Y Z, proximal XZ, and occlusal XY projection alignment. (b) Sequential composition of view-specific updates followed by ICP yields Tc. (c) Resulting coarse alignment; gray denotes CBCT, while orange and light blue denote overlapping and non-overlapping IOS regions. With column vectors and right-to-left composition, Ta = I retains the coarse pose. MACR captures global pose, OARR e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: DAHS hypothesis selection. Overlap-aware trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CD and HD distributions of five selected high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Registration comparison. (a) Frontal and lateral overlays for selected methods and ground truth; gray denotes CBCT, while orange and blue denote transformed upper- and lower-jaw IOS surfaces. (b) CD success curves, with APCReg registering 55/60 pairs within 2 mm. (c) P…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: CRG audit on 60 held-out pairs. (a) Identity score ver￾sus ∆s = spred − sid; dashed thresholds at 1.30 and 0.15 mm define the upper-left fallback region. (b) Fallback decisions against the ground-truth audit labels. rejecting harmful residuals through a fixed geometric…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    Aoki, Yasuhiro and Goforth, Hunter and Srivatsan, Rangaprasad Arun and Lucey, Simon , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    work page

  2. [2]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    Bai, Xuyang and Luo, Zixin and Zhou, Lei and Chen, Hongkai and Li, Liu and Hu, Zhijian and Fu, Hongbo and Tai, Chiew-Lan , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    work page

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06094 , year =

    Ben-Hamadou, Anas and Smaoui, Omar and Chaabouni-Chouayakh, Houda and Rekik, Asma and Pujades, Sergi and Boyer, Edmond and Strippoli, Julien and Thollot, Antoine and Setbon, Hadrien and Trosset, Claire and Ladroit, Emmanuel , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06094 , year =

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Ben-Hamadou, Anas and Smaoui, Omar and Rekik, Asma and Pujades, Sergi and Boyer, Edmond and Lim, Hyun-Kyung and Kim, Minseo and Lee, Minju and Chung, Minwoo and Shin, Young-Gil and Leclercq, Maxime and Cevidanes, Lucia and Prieto, Juan C. and Zhuang, Shuo and Wei, Guanglei and Cui, Zhiqiang and Zhou, Yifan and Dascalu, Teodor and Ibragimov, Bulat and Yong...

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    and McKay, Neil D

    Besl, Paul J. and McKay, Neil D. , title =. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , volume =. 1992 , doi =

    1992

  6. [6]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages =

    Chen, Shiqi and Xu, Haobo and Li, Ruixin and Liu, Guofeng and Fu, Chi-Wing and Liu, Shuaicheng , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages =

    work page

  7. [7]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    Choy, Christopher and Dong, Wei and Koltun, Vladlen , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    work page

  8. [8]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , volume =

    Chung, Minyoung and Lee, Jingyu and Song, Wisoo and Song, Youngchan and Yang, Il-Hyung and Lee, Jeongjin and Shin, Yeong-Gil , title =. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    work page 2020

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

    Cuturi, Marco , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

  2. [10]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    Fu, Kexue and Yuan, Ming and Wang, Cheng and Pang, Wenjie and Chi, Junhao and Wang, Ming and Gao, Liang , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

  3. [11]

    and Sonka, Milan and Buatti, John and Aylward, Stephen R

    Fedorov, Andriy and Beichel, Reinhard and Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree and Finet, Julien and Fillion-Robin, Jean-Christophe and Pujol, Sonia and Bauer, Christian and Jennings, Dominique and Fennessy, Fiona M. and Sonka, Milan and Buatti, John and Aylward, Stephen R. and Miller, ...

    2012

  4. [12]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    Huang, Shengyu and Gojcic, Zan and Usvyatsov, Mikhail and Wieser, Andreas and Schindler, Konrad , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

  5. [13]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume =

    Huang, Xiaoshui and Huang, Zhou and Zuo, Yifan and Gong, Yongshun and Zhang, Chengdong and Liu, Deyang and Fang, Yuming , title =. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume =

  6. [14]

    and Kohl, Simon A

    Isensee, Fabian and Jaeger, Paul F. and Kohl, Simon A. A. and Petersen, Jens and Maier-Hein, Klaus H. , title =. Nature Methods , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  7. [15]

    Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine , volume =

    Kim, Minchang and Chung, Minyoung and Shin, Yeong-Gil and Kim, Bohyoung , title =. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  8. [16]

    Bioengineering , volume =

    Kim, Yong-Jin and Ahn, Jun-Hyeok and Lim, Hyun-Kyung and Nguyen, Thanh Phuong and Jha, Narendra and Kim, Ah-Ram and Yoon, Jong-Yeol , title =. Bioengineering , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  9. [17]

    Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2024 , series =

    Kim, Seonghyeon and Choi, Yejin and Na, Jaeseok and Song, In-Seok and Lee, Young-Seok and Hwang, Byung-Yoon and Lim, Hyun-Kyung and Baek, Seung Jun , title =. Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention--MICCAI 2024 , series =

    2024

  10. [18]

    Patterns , volume =

    Liu, Jingwei and Hao, Jian and Lin, Haoyu and Pan, Wei and Yang, Jun and Feng, Yuxuan and Wang, Guorui and Li, Jiaxin and Jin, Zhen and Zhao, Zhi and Liu, Zhijian , title =. Patterns , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  11. [19]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume =

    Lin, Shuyuan and Peng, Wenwu and Huang, Junjie and Qi, Qiang and Wang, Miaohui and Weng, Jian , title =. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume =

  12. [20]

    Pang, Yatian and Wang, Wenxiao and Tay, Francis E. H. and Liu, Wei and Tian, Yong and Yuan, Li , title =. European Conference on Computer Vision , pages =

  13. [21]

    and Yi, Li and Su, Hao and Guibas, Leonidas J

    Qi, Charles R. and Yi, Li and Su, Hao and Guibas, Leonidas J. , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

  14. [22]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    Qin, Zhe and Yu, Hao and Wang, Changjiang and Guo, Yulan and Peng, Yuxin and Xu, Kai , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

  15. [23]

    Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages =

    Rusu, Radu Bogdan and Blodow, Nico and Beetz, Michael , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages =. 2009 , doi =

    2009

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07906 , year =

    Sarode, Vishwanath and Li, Xiang and Goforth, Hunter and Aoki, Yasuhiro and Srivatsan, Rangaprasad Arun and Lucey, Simon and Choset, Howie , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07906 , year =

    1908 arXiv

  17. [25]

    and Deschaud, Jean-Emmanuel and Marcotegui, Beatrice and Goulette, Francois and Guibas, Leonidas J

    Thomas, Hugues and Qi, Charles R. and Deschaud, Jean-Emmanuel and Marcotegui, Beatrice and Goulette, Francois and Guibas, Leonidas J. , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages =

  18. [26]

    and Bronstein, Michael M

    Wang, Yue and Sun, Yongbin and Liu, Ziwei and Sarma, Sanjay E. and Bronstein, Michael M. and Solomon, Justin M. , title =. ACM Transactions on Graphics , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  19. [27]

    and Chen, Lei and Zhang, Qian and Qian, Dan and Wang, Shuang and Zhou, Hong , title =

    Wang, Yifan and Li, Zeyu and Wu, Cheng and Liu, Jiaqi and Zhang, Yu and Chen, Jing and Ni, Jia and Luo, Qixuan and Liu, Jie and Han, Chen and Ji, Chao and Tan, Zhi Qiang and George, Adithya B. and Chen, Lei and Zhang, Qian and Qian, Dan and Wang, Shuang and Zhou, Hong , title ...

  20. [28]

    , title =

    Wang, Yue and Solomon, Justin M. , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages =

  21. [29]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

    Yu, Hao and Li, Fu and Saleh, Mohamed and Busam, Benjamin and Ilic, Slobodan , title =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

  22. [30]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    Yew, Zi Jian and Lee, Gim Hee , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

  23. [31]

    Clinical Oral Investigations , volume =

    Zheng, Qianhan and Wu, Yongjia and Chen, Jiahao and Wang, Xiaozhe and Zhou, Mengqi and Li, Huimin and Lin, Jiaqi and Zhang, Weifang and Chen, Xuepeng , title =. Clinical Oral Investigations , volume =. 2025 , number =

    2025

  24. [32]

    European Conference on Computer Vision , pages =

    Zhou, Qian-Yi and Park, Jaesik and Koltun, Vladlen , title =. European Conference on Computer Vision , pages =

  25. [33]

    Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    Zeng, Andy and Song, Shuran and Niessner, Matthias and Fisher, Matthew and Xiao, Jianxiong and Funkhouser, Thomas , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

  26. [34]

    Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    Deng, Haowen and Birdal, Tolga and Ilic, Slobodan , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  27. [35]

    and Wieser, Andreas , title =

    Gojcic, Zan and Zhou, Caifa and Wegner, Jan D. and Wieser, Andreas , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  28. [36]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages =

    Lu, Weixin and Wan, Guowei and Zhou, Yao and Fu, Xiangyu and Yuan, Pengfei and Song, Shiyu , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages =

  29. [37]

    Dias and Ramalingam, Srikumar and Govindu, Venu Madhav and Nascimento, Jacinto C

    Pais, G. Dias and Ramalingam, Srikumar and Govindu, Venu Madhav and Nascimento, Jacinto C. and Chellappa, Rama and Miraldo, Pedro , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

  30. [38]

    Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =

    Bai, Xuyang and Luo, Zixin and Zhou, Lei and Fu, Hongbo and Quan, Long and Tai, Chiew-Lan , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  31. [39]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics , volume =

    Yang, Heng and Shi, Jingnan and Carlone, Luca , title =. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  32. [40]

    Registration of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Data and Intraoral Surface Scans---A Prerequisite for Guided Implant Surgery with

    Fl. Registration of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Data and Intraoral Surface Scans---A Prerequisite for Guided Implant Surgery with. Clinical Oral Implants Research , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  33. [41]

    Medical Image Analysis , volume =

    Jang, Tae Jun and Yun, Hye Sun and Hyun, Chang Min and Kim, Jong-Eun and Lee, Sang-Hwy and Seo, Jin Keun , title =. Medical Image Analysis , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.