arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2311.04323

Incident Angle Study for Designing an Endoscopic Tool for Intraoperative Brain Tumor Detection

Kent Y. Yamamoto·Tanner J. Zachem·Weston A. Ross·Patrick J. Codd
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In neurosurgical procedures maximizing the resection of tumor tissue while avoiding healthy tissue is of paramount importance and a difficult task due to many factors, such as surrounding eloquent brain. Swiftly identifying tumor tissue for removal could increase surgical outcomes. The TumorID is a laser-induced fluorescence spectroscopy device that utilizes endogenous fluorophores such as NADH and FAD to detect tumor regions. With the goal of creating an endoscopic tool for intraoperative tumor detection in mind, a study of the TumorID was conducted to assess how the angle of incidence (AoI) affects the collected spectral response of the scanned tumor. For this study, flat and convex NADH/FAD gellan gum phantoms were scanned at various AoI (a range of 36 degrees) to observe the spectral behavior. Results showed that spectral signature did not change significantly across flat and convex phantoms, and the Area under Curve (AUC) values calculated for each spectrum had a standard deviation of 0.02 and 0.01 for flat and convex phantoms, respectively. Therefore, the study showed that AoI will affect the intensity of the spectral response, but the peaks representative of the endogenous fluorophores are still observable and similar. Future work includes conducting an AoI study with a longer working-distance lens, then incorporating said lens to design an endoscopic, intraoperative tumor detection device for minimally invasive surgery, with first applications in endonasal endoscopic approaches for pituitary tumors.

Explore related subjects

cs.RO

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Kent Y. Yamamoto, Tanner J. Zachem, Weston A. Ross, Patrick J. Codd. 2023-11-07. Incident Angle Study for Designing an Endoscopic Tool for Intraoperative Brain Tumor Detection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.04323

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗