EndoWave: 4D Gaussian Splatting with Rational Wavelet for Endoscopic Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery, accurate 3D reconstruction from endoscopic video is vital for downstream tasks and improved outcomes. However, endoscopic scenarios present unique challenges, including photometric inconsistencies, non-rigid tissue motion, and view-dependent highlights. Most 3DGS-based methods that rely solely on appearance constraints for optimizing 3DGS are often insufficient in this context, as these dynamic visual artifacts can mislead the optimization process and lead to inaccurate reconstructions. To address these limitations, we present EndoWave, a unified spatiotemporal Gaussian Splatting framework by incorporating an optical flow-based geometric constraint and a multi-resolution rational wavelet supervision. First, we adopt a unified spatiotemporal Gaussian representation that directly optimizes primitives in a 4D domain. Second, we propose a geometric constraint derived from optical flow to enhance temporal coherence and effectively constrain the 3D structure of the scene. Third, we propose a multi-resolution rational orthogonal wavelet as a constraint, which can effectively separate the details of the endoscope and enhance the rendering performance. Extensive evaluations on two real surgical datasets, EndoNeRF [1] and StereoMIS [2], demonstrate that our method EndoWave achieves state-of-theart reconstruction quality and visual accuracy compared to the baseline method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".