Geometric understanding supports endoscopic navigation and robotic assistance, but learning reliable endoscopic geometry faces two challenges: scarce geometric annotations and ambiguity between camera motion and tissue deformation. We present SCOPE-4D, an endoscopic 4D geometry foundation model that jointly predicts camera parameters, dense geometry, and 3D tissue trajectories from monocular RGB video in a single forward pass. Our curation and annotation pipeline constructs SCOPE-5K, a collection of approximately 5,000 clips spanning real and synthetic gastrointestinal endoscopy and laparoscopy. The collection provides rich geometric supervision and includes newly collected phantom and real-colonoscopy evaluation sets. Geometric supervised fine-tuning on SCOPE-5K learns endoscopic priors that improve camera and depth estimation. Common--Residual Motion (CRM) further constrains local deformation relative to common tissue movement. Together with geometric supervision, CRM and trajectory supervision further improve camera and depth estimation over geometric fine-tuning alone while enabling dense 3D tissue tracking. Evaluations on public and newly collected benchmarks demonstrate strong in-domain and out-of-domain geometry, superior 3D tracking, and more stable long-sequence colon reconstruction. A blinded user study further supports the perceived reconstruction quality on real clinical video. Together, these results demonstrate the value of large-scale endoscopic supervision and motion constraints for joint geometry estimation and tissue tracking.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SCOPE-4D overview. (a) Our curation and annotation pipeline builds SCOPE-5K for geometric supervision and cross-domain evaluation. SCOPE-4D (b) achieves strong cross-domain geometry, (c) recovers tissue motion while preserving camera stability in a stationary-camera sequence, unlike SM4RT, and (d) enables stable long-sequence reconstruction.
Figure 2: Data annotation and SCOPE-4D. (a) SCOPE-5K curation and annotation. (b) Joint camera, geometry, and 3D tissue-track prediction. (c) Common–Residual Motion composes common tissue movement with local deformation.
In-domain average
Hamlyn (OOD)
SCOPE-colon-phantom (OOD)
Pose
Depth
Pose
Depth
Pose
Method
AUC@ 5∘↑
AUC@ 30∘↑
ATE ↓
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25↑
ATE ↓
ARE ↓
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25↑
ATE ↓
RTE ↓
ARE ∗↓
General-domain
VGGT
2.94
29.11
0.128
0.160
74.61
4.610
1.964
0.190
69.19
16.53
16.78
12.14
VGGT- Ω
7.81
48.07
0.049
0.093
91.07
4.496
1.746
0.135
80.82
8.54
10.79
8.22
MapAnything
2.63
26.22
0.122
0.141
85.00
4.984
1.960
0.166
74.15
15.98
17.70
26.98
Table 1: Camera pose and depth across domains. Hamlyn pose measures camera stability; phantom ARE ∗ excludes roll. Gain compares our best variant per metric with the best competing method.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison of 3D geometry reconstruction. Instrument regions are masked out. Highlighted regions show surface consistency and suppression of spurious camera motion.
Sano
StereoMIS
Tracking
Pose
Depth
Tracking
Pose
Depth
Method
EPE ↓
APD ↑
ATE ↓
RTE ↓
RRE ↓
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25↑
EPE ↓
APD ↑
ATE ↓
RTE ↓
RRE ↓
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25↑
D4RT ∗
2.035
72.94
0.014
0.239
0.215
0.193
65.76
7.540
34.12
0.043
0.940
0.344
0.147
87.20
SpatialTrackerV2
0.933
90.58
0.017
0.223
0.125
0.145
78.76
6.870
38.98
0.049
0.677
0.195
0.107
95.24
4RC
0.523
94.72
0.006
0.100
0.062
0.186
66.15
6.266
44.28
0.039
0.481
0.146
0.114
90.42
Any4D
0.535
94.41
0.010
0.376
0.309
0.188
66.01
7.277
42.45
0.061
2.203
0.765
0.144
82.72
Table 2: 3D tracking and geometry on Sano and StereoMIS. D4RT ∗ : open-source reproduction.
Figure 4: 3D tissue tracking under different motion conditions. Instrument regions are masked out. Red boxes highlight the suppression of spurious motion.
Table 3: Data and motion ablations. (a) Geometry-only SFT by data source. (b) StereoMIS motion design. (c) SoM vs. CRM. Gain in (a): full dataset versus pretrained VGGT- Ω .
Method
ATE ↓
RTE ↓
RRE ↓
VGGT
93.21
23.65
15.11
VGGT- Ω
85.92
21.67
31.21
SM4RT
88.95
21.29
16.98
Endo3R
77.87
14.75
22.92
SCOPE-4D SFT (Ours)
73.52
10.38
13.38
SCOPE-4D (Ours)
71.17
10.94
13.61
Table 8
Appendix figures & tables24 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Data source
Domain
Data type
Annotations
Clips
GI
Laparo
Synthetic
Real
Depth
Camera
EndoMapper-Real ( Azagra et al., 2023 )
✓
–
–
✓
✓†
✓†
2,379
C3VD ( Bobrow et al., 2023 )
✓
–
–
✓
✓
✓
112
SimCol3D ( Rau et al., 2024 )
✓
–
✓
–
✓
✓
33
EndoMapper-Sim ( Azagra et al., 2023 )
✓
–
✓
–
✓
✓
5
Sano ( Nelson et al., 2026 )
–
✓
✓
–
✓
✓
1,938
Appendix
Table 6: Data composition and annotation coverage of SCOPE-5K. Annotations reflect those available in SCOPE-5K. † denotes annotations generated by our pipeline.
Dataset
Collected
Experimental split
Sampling (%)
Clips
Views
Train
Val.
Test
In-domain
SCARED
34
24,046
24
2
8
13.86
SimCol3D
33
37,833
22
2
9
13.25
C3VD
112
43,164
99
2
11
18.07
EndoMapper-Sim
5
1,610
3
1
1
3.01
Appendix
Table 7: Dataset sizes, splits, and sampling proportions.
Check
Criterion
Role
Registration
One significant reconstruction; at least 90% of frames registered
Median maximum sparse-point parallax at least 1.5∘
Soft flag
Camera adoption
Dense-model camera change at most 1.5% translation and 1∘ rotation
Soft flag
Appendix
Table 8: Clip-level geometry checks.
Stage
Clips
Frames
Raw videos (93 recordings)
–
3,973,969
Clean clips (Stage 1)
3,034
319,727
Accept
1,733
177,358
Borderline
657
70,501
Reject
644
71,868
Retained collection
2,379
246,981
Appendix
Table 9: EndoMapper-Real curation counts. Frame counts precede training conversion.
Figure 5: Quality-control examples.
Method
Input
Output
Resolution
Supplied intrinsics
Test-time optimization
General 3D
VGGT ( Wang et al., 2025a )
RGB video
Depth, cameras, points
518
×
×
VGGT- Ω ( Wang et al., 2026 )
RGB video
Depth, cameras, points
512
×
×
MapAnything ( Keetha et al., 2026 )
RGB video
Depth, cameras, points
518
×
×
CUT3R ( Wang et al., 2025b )
RGB video
Depth, cameras, points
512
×
✓
General 4D
Appendix
Table 10: Compared methods.
Figure 6: User-study interface. Reference video, masked depth, interactive point clouds, and ranking controls for four anonymous methods. No rankings are selected.
Pose
Depth
Method
AUC@ 5∘↑
AUC@ 30∘↑
ATE ↓
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25↑
VGGT
10.31
64.78
0.047
0.047
99.15
VGGT- Ω
17.87
76.51
0.030
0.038
99.36
MapAnything
6.10
56.83
0.050
0.071
95.00
CUT3R
0.35
11.80
0.174
0.135
81.43
SpatialTrackerV2
8.65
68.50
0.049
0.038
99.35
Appendix
Table 11: Camera pose and depth estimation on SCARED.
Pose
Depth
Method
AUC@ 5∘↑
AUC@ 30∘↑
ATE ↓
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25↑
VGGT
0.44
10.82
0.288
0.181
68.03
VGGT- Ω
6.69
52.96
0.072
0.093
92.77
MapAnything
0.22
7.39
0.258
0.172
71.11
CUT3R
0.09
11.28
0.223
0.459
32.57
SpatialTrackerV2
0.79
35.24
0.105
0.155
75.69
Appendix
Table 12: Camera pose and depth estimation on SimCol3D.
Pose
Depth
Method
AUC@ 5∘↑
AUC@ 30∘↑
ATE ↓
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25↑
VGGT
7.37
50.19
0.097
0.196
65.00
VGGT- Ω
18.54
70.34
0.042
0.062
97.05
MapAnything
9.37
60.34
0.056
0.144
78.64
CUT3R
0.51
22.06
0.138
0.406
38.45
SpatialTrackerV2
25.32
77.26
0.031
0.076
94.10
Appendix
Table 13: Camera pose and depth estimation on C3VD.
Pose
Depth
Method
AUC@ 5∘↑
AUC@ 30∘↑
ATE ↓
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25↑
VGGT
0.05
19.17
0.228
0.153
79.49
VGGT- Ω
1.86
47.59
0.067
0.062
99.51
MapAnything
0.04
8.53
0.265
0.088
94.00
CUT3R
0.03
21.75
0.120
0.301
49.62
SpatialTrackerV2
0.42
43.41
0.060
0.077
97.55
Appendix
Table 14: Camera pose and depth estimation on EndoMapper-Sim.
Pose
Depth
Method
AUC@ 5∘↑
AUC@ 30∘↑
ATE ↓
AbsRel ↓
δ1.25↑
VGGT
1.41
31.43
0.155
0.214
61.56
VGGT- Ω
3.22
49.08
0.089
0.157
76.44
MapAnything
1.49
27.23
0.156
0.274
81.11
CUT3R
0.20
17.54
0.190
0.408
37.70
SpatialTrackerV2
3.03
54.16
0.097
0.194
68.16
Appendix
Table 15: Camera pose and depth estimation on EndoMapper-Real.
Sano
StereoMIS
Method
APD@1 ↑
APD@2 ↑
APD@5 ↑
APD@10 ↑
APD@1 ↑
APD@2 ↑
APD@5 ↑
APD@10 ↑
D4RT ∗
33.99
66.11
92.98
98.69
4.29
10.56
42.99
78.63
SpatialTrackerV2
77.81
88.97
96.50
99.03
6.87
18.56
50.80
79.70
4RC
86.91
94.26
98.08
99.63
12.25
26.19
56.17
82.50
Any4D
87.29
93.65
97.35
99.34
12.02
25.08
54.46
78.25
SM4RT
89.48
95.28
98.17
99.62
12.20
25.26
56.14
82.21
Appendix
Table 16: 3D tracking APD at multiple thresholds.
Variant
APD@1 ↑
APD@2 ↑
APD@5 ↑
APD@10 ↑
SoM (baseline)
11.22
28.89
63.67
82.55
w/ zero-motion anchor
12.73
33.55
66.33
87.83
Full CRM
19.02
37.30
66.89
87.30
Appendix
Table 17: Motion ablation on StereoMIS.
Figure 7: Additional 3D geometry comparisons.
Figure 8: Additional 3D geometry comparisons.
Figure 9: Additional 3D geometry comparisons.
Figure 10: Additional 3D geometry comparisons.
Figure 11: Additional 3D geometry comparisons.
Figure 12: Additional 3D geometry comparisons.
Figure 13: Additional 3D geometry comparisons.
Figure 14: Additional 3D geometry comparisons.
Figure 15: Additional depth comparisons.
Figure 16: Long-sequence reconstruction on RealSynCol Colon 2.
Accurate vision-based navigation in monocular endoscopy is difficult due to limited depth cues, weak tissue texture, non-rigid deformation, and substantial appearance variation across domains, all of which complicate pose estimation, depth prediction, and image-to-anatomy alignment. Although recent vision foundation models have shown promise, their learned representations often remain insufficiently geometry-consistent, hindering stable feature correspondence and limiting their reliability for downstream navigation tasks. We propose a unified framework for learning geometry-consistent and domain-robust image representations for monocular endoscopy. The framework combines a synthetic data pipeline that provides accurate geometric supervision with Hierarchy-Aware Geometry-Semantic Adaptation, a structured alternative to standard LoRA that inserts low-rank adapters selectively across the transformer hierarchy and couples them with layer-wise training objectives to encourage geometric correspondence in intermediate features and semantic consistency in deeper features. Experiments on public and proprietary datasets show improved geometric and semantic representation quality, leading to better performance on downstream navigation tasks including pose estimation and monocular depth estimation. The learned representations show favorable synthetic-to-real transfer on clinical bronchoscopy and provide a useful initialization for adaptation to sinus endoscopy and colonoscopy under limited supervision. The framework also shows favorable scaling with model size and training data. These results support hierarchy-aware, geometry-guided adaptation as a practical approach for endoscopic representation learning.
Hongchao Shu, Roger D. Soberanis-Mukul, Hao Ding +5
Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21211 USA · Semaphor Surgical · Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA
Reconstructing deformable surgical scenes from endoscopic videos is challenging and clinically important. Recent state-of-the-art methods based on implicit neural representations or 3D Gaussian splatting have made notable progress. However, most are designed for deformable scenes with fixed endoscope viewpoints and rely on stereo depth priors or accurate structure-from-motion for initialization and optimization, limiting their ability to handle monocular sequences with large camera motion in real clinical settings. To address this, we propose Local-EndoGS, a high-quality 4D reconstruction framework for monocular endoscopic sequences with arbitrary camera motion. Local-EndoGS introduces a progressive, window-based global representation that allocates local deformable scene models to each observed window, enabling scalability to long sequences with substantial motion. To overcome unreliable initialization without stereo depth or accurate structure-from-motion, we design a coarse-to-fine strategy integrating multi-view geometry, cross-window information, and monocular depth priors, providing a robust foundation for optimization. We further incorporate long-range 2D pixel trajectory constraints and physical motion priors to improve deformation plausibility. Experiments on three public endoscopic datasets with deformable scenes and varying camera motions show that Local-EndoGS consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods in appearance quality and geometry. Ablation studies validate the effectiveness of our key designs. Code will be released upon acceptance at: https://github.com/IRMVLab/Local-EndoGS.
Jiwei Shan, Zeyu Cai, Cheng-Tai Hsieh +5
Department of Mechanical and Automation Engineering and T Stone Robotics Institute, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. · Shenyang Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang, China · State Key Laboratory of Robotics and Intelligent Systems, Shenyang, China +3
We present SCOPE (Scale-Consistent One-Pass Estimation of 3D Geometry), a novel approach for estimating 3D geometry from extended monocular video sequences, where existing methods struggle to maintain both geometric accuracy and temporal consistency across hundreds of frames. Our approach generates affine-invariant 3D point maps with shared parameters across entire sequences, enabling consistent scale-invariant representations. We introduce three key innovations: viewpoint-invariant geometry aligning multi-perspective points in a unified reference frame; appearance-invariant learning enforcing consistency across exponential timescales; and frequency-modulated positioning enabling extrapolation to sequences vastly exceeding training length. Experiments across diverse datasets demonstrate significant improvements, reducing relative point map error by 24.2% and temporal alignment error by 34.9% on ScanNet compared to state-of-the-art methods. Our approach handles challenging scenarios with complex camera trajectories and lighting variations while efficiently processing extended sequences in a single pass. Project page: https://scope3d.github.io/.
Zheng Zhang, Lihe Yang, Tianyu Yang +6
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong · Alibaba Group, Hong Kong · Alibaba Group, China +2