Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 13 references

Multi-Stage Boundary-Aware Transformer Network for Action Segmentation in Untrimmed Surgical Videos

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MSBATN, a multi-stage TCN-transformer with hierarchical sliding window attention and a Gaussian-weighted boundary-aware loss, reports the highest F1@25 and F1@50 scores on SAR-RARP50, Cholec80, and JIGSAWS surgical action segmentation.

desk verdict A coherent architecture paper whose headline SOTA claim is undercut by an unspecified protocol: the named configuration in the ablation beats the final model on the same metrics, and the boundary loss is under-specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18756 v2 pith:Z4W5MM5J submitted 2025-04-26 cs.CV

Rezowan Shuvo , M S Mekala , Eyad Elyan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords actionsegmentationsurgicalvideoanalysisboundarydetectiontransformertemporalconvolutionalnetworkslidingwindowattentionboundary-awarelossworkflow
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

Action segmentation in surgical videos is hard because actions vary in duration and their start and end boundaries are ambiguous, which makes frame-wise classifiers over- or under-segment. This paper argues that the fix is to model boundaries explicitly: it proposes MSBATN, a multi-stage network combining dilated temporal convolutions, hierarchical sliding window attention, and a unified loss that weights the interior of action segments and their boundary zones differently. On three surgical datasets, it reports F1@25 and F1@50 scores above previously published methods, with comparable accuracy and edit scores. The sympathetic reader takes away that treating boundary detection as a soft, context-weighted task rather than a binary classification can improve segment-level evaluation of long untrimmed surgical videos.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the boundary-aware segmentation loss, a weighted sum of focal classification loss, Dice loss, a Gaussian-weighted cosine-similarity term that peaks at the temporal centre of each ground-truth segment, and a truncated MSE term that is Gaussian-weighted to emphasize the annotated start and end frames. The complementary architectural mechanism is Hierarchical Sliding Window Attention (HSWA), which keeps one sliding window expanding while another shrinks, and aggregates attention scores across temporally downsampled scales, so the transformer maintains linear cost while covering long sequences. Together they implement the paper's thesis: boundaries are soft and context-dependent, so the loss should weight segment interiors and edges differently, and the attention should resolve ambiguities between local and global temporal structure.

What would settle it

Reproduce MSBATN on SAR-RARP50 under two plausible definitions of the boundary supervision $b_t$ (a binary mask with the 5% buffer zone described in Section 3, or a distance-to-boundary map), keeping the reported hyperparameters; if neither reproduces F1@25=72.4 and F1@50=63.8 within the reported standard deviations across random seeds, the boundary-refinement mechanism as specified cannot explain the claimed improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that explicit, soft boundary modelling improves surgical action segmentation more than the binary boundary classifiers used in prior work. MSBATN couples a TCN encoder-decoder with a transformer whose Hierarchical Sliding Window Attention (HSWA) combines a dual sliding window (one expanding, one shrinking across layers, with dilation) and multi-scale hierarchical attention, so the model sees both fine local detail and long-range structure. Its unified loss is the real novelty: a focal term for class balance, a Dice term for segment overlap, a Gaussian-weighted cosine-similarity term that enforces feature smoothness at the core of each action while allowing change at the edges, and a truncated Gaussian-weighted MSE term that concentrates error on the annotated start and end frames. With three refinement decoders operating only on the predicted segments, the model corrects over- and under-segmentation without reprocessing the video. Table 2 reports F1@25=72.4 and F1@50=63.8 on SAR-RARP50, F1@25=73.1 and F1@50=60.2 on Cholec80, and F1@25=76.1 and F1@50=70.7 on JIGSAWS, which the paper frames as superior to ASRF, Asformer, NETE, and the MS-TCN family baselines on segment-level metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The boundary loss rests on a ground-truth boundary label $b_t$ that the paper never defines: it does not specify whether it is a binary mask, a distance map, or a probability, nor the values of the Gaussian width $\sigma$ and the truncation threshold $\tau$, so the central refinement mechanism cannot be reconstructed from the text.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On SAR-RARP50, Cholec80, and JIGSAWS, the model reports F1@25 and F1@50 scores above the cited baselines, with frame accuracy and edit score at par, so the improvement is specifically in segment-level boundary fidelity.
  • The ablation study in Table 4 shows the Gaussian start-end loss beats binary cross-entropy across causal and acausal settings, implying the boundary-aware loss alone accounts for a substantial part of the reported improvement.
  • The three-decoder refinement architecture operates only on predicted segments rather than re-processing the video, so the boundary correction adds negligible computational cost, consistent with the reported GFLOPs comparable to Asformer.
  • The best-performing configuration in the ablation (ACHDSWO) combines acausal convolutions, hierarchical dual sliding windows, and overlap, indicating that the architecture and the loss are separable contributions that each contribute to the reported gains.
  • The paper's comparisons position MSBATN against ASRF and Asformer as boundary-aware baselines, so its claims are specifically about beating soft-boundary and attention-based refinement, not just frame-level classifiers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the boundary supervision label is under-specified, a natural next experiment is to test whether a distance-to-boundary regression target or a single-frame peak label changes the reported F1 margins; this would localize which part of the loss produces the improvement.
  • Beyond the paper: the Gaussian centre-weighting of cosine similarity may generalize beyond surgery to any long-video action segmentation with ambiguous transitions; swapping the loss into a standard multi-stage temporal network on non-surgical benchmarks would test that transfer.
  • Beyond the paper: the soft-boundary thesis implies that binary boundary labels are an inferior training signal; replacing the truncated MSE boundary term with a soft distance-map regression and measuring over-segmentation rates would be a direct testable extension.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MSBATN, a multi-stage TCN-Transformer architecture for surgical action segmentation in untrimmed videos. The model uses DINOv2 features, an acausal TCN encoder, a transformer encoder with hierarchical sliding window attention (HSWA), and three TCN decoders. The training loss is a weighted combination of focal, Dice, Gaussian-weighted cosine similarity, and a truncated MSE boundary loss. Experiments are reported on SAR-RARP50, Cholec80, and JIGSAWS, and the abstract claims state-of-the-art F1@25/50 scores. The paper also presents ablations over attention configurations, a comparison of the proposed loss versus binary cross-entropy, and a computational-cost table.

Significance. If the method were fully specified and the reported numbers were tied to a clear evaluation protocol, the boundary-aware weighting idea and the multi-stage refinement architecture could be a useful contribution to the surgical video analysis community. The proposed Gaussian-weighted cosine-similarity loss is a plausible alternative to binary boundary detection and may help with over- and under-segmentation. However, the current evidence is weakened by an undefined boundary target, an unexplained mismatch between the ablation table and the final results, and the use of non-standard data splits. These issues must be resolved before the work can be considered a reliable state-of-the-art result.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (5)] The boundary target b_t in Eq. (5) is never formally defined. The text mentions a 5% transition buffer zone at the start and end of each segment, but it does not specify whether b_t is a binary mask, a distance transform, or a probability, nor does it give the Gaussian width sigma and truncation threshold tau used in G_boundary(t) and the min operation. Without this definition, the central boundary-aware loss cannot be reconstructed, and the claimed boundary-refinement mechanism is not reproducible.
  2. [Tables 2 and 3, Section 4.3] The paper identifies ACHDSWO as the proposed configuration in Section 4.3, but the ACHDSWO row in Table 3 reports F1@25/50 of 75.0/64.0 on SAR-RARP and 78.3/68.6 on Cholec80, whereas the final MSBATN row in Table 2 reports 72.4/63.8 and 73.1/60.2 on the same datasets. The manuscript does not state whether the ablation in Table 3 is computed on the same test split as Table 2. If it is a validation split, that should be stated; if it is the test split, the final model is not the best configuration. Either way, the headline F1 values are not anchored to a single declared protocol.
  3. [Section 4, dataset splits] The paper states 'We split the dataset into 80-20 ratios for training testing for Jigsaw and Cholec80.' For JIGSAWS, the standard evaluation protocol is leave-one-user-out; a random 80-20 split is not comparable to published numbers. No split is described for SAR-RARP50. If Table 2 uses different data partitions than the prior work it compares against, the SOTA comparison is invalid. The exact experimental protocol, including split definitions and any validation-set usage, must be reported.
  4. [Table 2, Cholec80 and JIGSAWS rows] The claim of state-of-the-art performance is not consistently supported by Table 2. On Cholec80, the F1@50 of 60.2 +/- 8.4 overlaps with ASRF's 60.1 +/- 3.4 within one standard deviation. On JIGSAWS, the accuracy of 86.1 +/- 6.3 is substantially below ASFormer's 92.8 +/- 3.3. The authors should either provide statistical significance tests or temper the abstract's claim of 'state-of-the-art performance' to reflect the mixed results.
  5. [Section 3.2.2, Eq. (1)] The aggregated attention formula in Eq. (1) uses undefined quantities: the attention scores e^s_ij, the neighborhood sets N_i^s, and the scale weights w_s are not formally defined, and it is unclear whether w_s is learned or fixed in the implementation. This makes the HSWA module description incomplete and hinders reproducibility.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2 header] The header line in Table 2 is malformed ('F1@50SAR-RARP' should be split), and the table layout should be fixed.
  2. [Table 2, MS-TCN row] The MS-TCN row cites Li et al. (2020), but MS-TCN is introduced in Farha and Gall (2019); the reference list entry Li et al. (2020) is for MS-TCN++.
  3. [Section 3] The sentence 'considering this 5% of the total segment length is labeled as a transition buffer zone' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten to clearly define the buffer-zone rule.
  4. [Table 4] Table 4 does not specify the dataset used for the loss comparison; this should be stated in the caption.
  5. [Conclusion] The heading 'Feature Work' is a typo for 'Future Work'.
  6. [Figure 3] The font size in Figure 3 is very small, and some component labels are difficult to read; the figure should be enlarged or redrawn.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular dependency found; the network is trained with standard supervised losses on public benchmarks and the reported gains are empirical, not derived from fitted constants.

full rationale

MSBATN is a supervised action-segmentation model: the boundary-aware loss in Eq. 5 uses ground-truth boundary positions b_t as training targets, the Gaussian-cosine loss in Eq. 4 uses ground-truth segment centres c, and the total loss in Eq. 6 combines classification, Dice, similarity, and boundary terms with weights stated to be empirically determined on the validation set. None of these terms is defined in terms of the reported F1@25/50 outcomes, so the outputs are not forced by construction. The architecture components (DINOv2 features, dilated TCN, sliding-window attention, refinement decoders) are borrowed from or inspired by external prior work such as Oquab et al., Longformer, MS-TCN, ASRF, and Asformer, and are evaluated by ablations rather than justified by self-citations; there is no invoked uniqueness theorem and no self-citation chain carrying the central claim. Tuning loss weights on a validation split and selecting an architecture variant from an ablation table are standard model-selection practices, not circular predictions. The paper does have reproducibility and protocol weaknesses: b_t, sigma, and tau in Eq. 5 are never formally defined, and the relationship between the ACHDSWO ablation rows in Table 3 and the final MSBATN rows in Table 2 is unexplained, with the ablation numbers being higher on the headline metrics. Those are correctness and reporting concerns, however, not instances of a result being equivalent to its input by construction. No circular step can be quoted from the paper's equations or citations.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The model is composed of existing neural network components. The most consequential choices are the loss weights, the Gaussian widths, the 5% buffer zone, and the post-hoc selection of the best architecture variant from the ablation table.

free parameters (5)
  • Loss weights α, β, γ, δ = (1.0, 0.2, 0.5, 0.5)
    Empirically determined on the validation set (Section 3.3, Eq. 6); these weights control the balance of classification, Dice, similarity, and boundary terms, and no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Gaussian width σ for L_sim and L_boundary = not reported
    Controls the temporal width of the Gaussian weighting in Eqs. 4 and 5; no value or scaling rule is provided, leaving the loss underspecified.
  • Truncation threshold τ = not reported
    Limits the influence of large errors in the boundary MSE term of Eq. 5; the value is not stated.
  • Transition buffer zone percentage = 5% of segment length
    Defines which frames count as boundary versus interior for training (Section 3, second paragraph); a modeling choice that is not ablated or justified.
  • Architecture variant (ACHDSWO) = Acausal Hierarchical Dual Sliding Window with Overlap
    Chosen from Table 3 after comparing 13 variants on the target datasets; if the ablation is on test data, this is post-hoc model selection.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DINOv2-Reg frame features, projected to 2048 dimensions, are a sufficient input representation for surgical action segmentation.
    The entire pipeline relies on these frozen features; no comparison with other feature extractors on the final task is provided, only a qualitative figure.
  • domain assumption Adam optimization with early stopping and a maximum of 120 epochs reliably finds a good local minimum.
    Standard deep learning practice invoked implicitly in Section 4; no sensitivity to optimizer settings is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper Ground-truth action boundaries with a 5% transition buffer zone are a valid training target for boundary detection.
    The buffer zone is introduced without derivation or ablation and directly shapes the boundary supervision b_t used in Eq. 5.
  • domain assumption The 80/20 train/test split and preprocessing choices are sufficient to fairly compare with published baselines.
    The split for SAR-RARP50 is not described, and baseline numbers are taken from other papers without confirming the same features or evaluation protocol.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Stage Boundary-Aware Transformer Network for Action Segmentation in Untrimmed Surgical Videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z4W5MM5J

@misc{pith2026250418756,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Stage Boundary-Aware Transformer Network for Action Segmentation in Untrimmed Surgical Videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z4W5MM5J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18756}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding actions within surgical workflows is critical for evaluating post-operative outcomes and enhancing surgical training and efficiency. Capturing and analyzing long sequences of actions in surgical settings is challenging due to the inherent variability in individual surgeon approaches, which are shaped by their expertise and preferences. This variability complicates the identification and segmentation of distinct actions with ambiguous boundary start and end points. The traditional models, such as MS-TCN, which rely on large receptive fields, that causes over-segmentation, or under-segmentation, where distinct actions are incorrectly aligned. To address these challenges, we propose the Multi-Stage Boundary-Aware Transformer Network (MSBATN) with hierarchical sliding window attention to improve action segmentation. Our approach effectively manages the complexity of varying action durations and subtle transitions by accurately identifying start and end action boundaries in untrimmed surgical videos. MSBATN introduces a novel unified loss function that optimises action classification and boundary detection as interconnected tasks. Unlike conventional binary boundary detection methods, our innovative boundary weighing mechanism leverages contextual information to precisely identify action boundaries. Extensive experiments on three challenging surgical datasets demonstrate that MSBATN achieves state-of-the-art performance, with superior F1 scores at 25% and 50%. thresholds and competitive results across other metrics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18756 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The action-transition graph for SAR-RARP50 features nodes 1 to 7, representing canonical suturing actions. A typical sequence is: Pick up the needle (1) → Position the tip (2) → Push through the tissue (3) → Pull out (4). After this sequence, the surgeon can either return or drop the needle (7), tie a knot (5), cut the suture (6), or skip the last two steps. This graph allows for loops and re-entries, so it doesn’t … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-stage Boundary-Aware Refinement Pipeline: The initial prediction with typical over- and under-segmentation errors (segments are split too finely, merged, or slightly shifted) misleads action order. Our approach resolves this by applying a Gaussian centre-weighting scheme to Action and Boundary segments to minimise the error. The refined prediction aligns with the annotated ground truth, and boundaries without … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proposed Multi-Stage Boundary-Aware Transformer Network (MSBATN): Input video features (𝑋) are first processed by TCN encoder consisting Acausal Conv1D (see right bottom) for temporal feature extraction to produce 𝑋𝑡𝑐𝑛. These features are then fed into the Transformer Encoder, consisting of Hierarchical Sliding-Window Attention (HSWA) (see right top), to generate 𝑋𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑑 . The 𝑋𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑑 features are expanded to the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of frame feature extractors. a Transformer-based encoder for deeper contextual understanding, and TCN-based decoders for refinement. Notably, MSBATN does not need explicit positional encodings, as its design naturally captures sequence order and relationship…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Segment-wise Gaussian-cosine similarity scores for SAR-RARP where 𝐴 and 𝐵 represent the predicted and ground truth sets, respectively. The Dice Loss is then formulated as: dice = 1 − Dice Coefficient (3) This formulation emphasises the overlap between predictions and …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative action segmentation comparison. (a) Ground Truth (GT), where each colour label represents an action. The rectangular boxes explicitly highlight actions for detailed comparison of actions’ start/end. (b) ASRF Ishikawa et al. (2021) and (c) Asformer Yi et al.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Tecno: Surgical phase recognition with multi- stage temporal convolutional networks, in: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, Part III 23, Springer. pp. 343–352. Ding,X.,Li,X.,2022. Exploringsegment-levelsemanticsforonlinephaserecognitionfromsurgi...

    arXiv 2020

  2. [4]

    Medical image analysis 59, 101572

    Multi-task recurrent convolutional network with correlation loss for surgical video analysis. Medical image analysis 59, 101572. Jin,Y.,Yu,Y.,Chen,C.,Zhao,Z.,Heng,P.A.,Stoyanov,D.,2022. Exploringintra-andinter-videorelationforsurgicalsemanticscenesegmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 41, 2991–3002. Keisham,K.,Jalali,A.,Lee,M.,2022. Onlineacti...

    work page 2022

  3. [7]

    Attention-based surgical phase boundaries detection in laparoscopic videos, in: 2019 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), pp. 577–583. doi:10.1109/CSCI49370.2019. 00109. Neil, D., Pfeiffer, M., Liu, S.C.,

    arXiv 2019

  4. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00496

    Sar- rarp50: Segmentation of surgical instrumentation and action recognition on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00496 . Ramesh, S., Dall’Alba, D., Gonzalez, C., Yu, T., Mascagni, P., Mutter, D., Marescaux, J., Fiorini, P., Padoy, N.,

    arXiv

  5. [11]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging 36, 86–97

    Endonet: a deep architecture for recognition tasks on laparoscopic videos. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 36, 86–97. Twinanda,A.P.,Yengera,G.,Mutter,D.,Marescaux,J.,Padoy,N.,2018. Rsdnet:Learningtopredictremainingsurgerydurationfromlaparoscopic videos without manual annotations. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 38, 1069–1078. Van Amsterdam, B., ...

    work page 2018

  6. [29]

    Cholectriplet2021:Abenchmark challenge for surgical action triplet recognition

    Nwoye,C.I.,Alapatt,D.,Yu,T.,Vardazaryan,A.,Xia,F.,Zhao,Z.,Xia,T.,Jia,F.,Yang,Y.,Wang,H.,etal.,2023. Cholectriplet2021:Abenchmark challenge for surgical action triplet recognition. Medical Image Analysis 86, 102803. Nwoye, C.I., Yu, T., Gonzalez, C., Seeliger, B., Mascagni, P., Mutter, D., Marescaux, J., Padoy, N.,

    work page 2023

  7. [2016]

    International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery 11, 1937–1949

    Shot boundary detection in endoscopic surgery videos using a variational bayesian framework. International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery 11, 1937–1949. Mascagni, P., Alapatt, D., Sestini, L., Altieri, M.S., Madani, A., Watanabe, Y., Alseidi, A., Redan, J.A., Alfieri, S., Costamagna, G., et al.,

    work page 1937

  8. [2019]

    Multitask Learning of Temporal Connectionism in Convolutional Networks using a Joint Distribution Loss Function to Simultaneously Identify Tools and Phase in Surgical Videos

    Multitask learning of temporal connectionism in convolutional networks using a joint distribution loss function to simultaneously identify tools and phase in surgical videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.08315 . Namazi, B., Sankaranarayanan, G., Devarajan, V.,

    work page Pith review arXiv 1905

Show all 13 references
  1. [2020]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05150

    Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05150 . Chadebecq,F.,Lovat,L.B.,Stoyanov,D.,2023. Artificialintelligenceandautomationinendoscopyandsurgery. NatureReviewsGastroenterology & Hepatology 20, 171–182. Chao, Y.W., Vijayanarasimhan, S., Seybold, B...

    2004 arXiv

  2. [2021]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08568

    Asformer: Transformer for action segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08568 . Yi,F.,Yang,Y.,Jiang,T.,2022. Notend-to-end:Exploremulti-stagearchitectureforonlinesurgicalphaserecognition,in:ProceedingsoftheAsian Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2613–2628. Zhang, B., Goel, B...

    2022 arXiv

  3. [2022]

    Medical Image Analysis 78, 102433

    Rendezvous: Attention mechanisms for the recognition of surgical action triplets in endoscopic videos. Medical Image Analysis 78, 102433. Oquab,M.,Darcet,T.,Moutakanni,T.,Vo,H.,Szafraniec,M.,Khalidov,V.,Fernandez,P.,Haziza,D.,Massa,F.,El-Nouby,A.,etal.,2023. Dinov2: Learning r...

    2023 arXiv

  4. [2023]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07814

    Kinematic data-based action segmentation for surgical applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07814 . : Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 14 of 15 Huang,J.,Jin,H.,Gong,S.,Liu,Y.,2022.Videoactivitylocalisationwithuncertaintiesintemporalboundary,in:EuropeanConferenceonComputer...

    2022 arXiv

  5. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03867

    Surgformer: Surgical transformer with hierarchical temporal attention for surgical phase recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03867 . Yi, F., Wen, H., Jiang, T.,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.