Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Surg-UniWorld: A Unified Surgical World Model with Multimodal Control Experts

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that controllable surgical video generation works best when persistent scene identity is anchored separately from optional edge, depth, and optical-flow evidence, and demonstrates this with a hierarchical anchor plus…

desk verdict A genuinely new surgical control adapter with a smart anchor-relative design, but the headline comparison gives Surg-UniWorld a richer condition set than the baselines, so the 'consistently outperforms' claim does not hold as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06770 v1 pith:PRXOOQMI submitted 2026-08-07 cs.AI cs.CV

classification cs.AIcs.CV
keywords surgicalworldmodelcontrollablevideogenerationmultimodalcontrolhierarchicalsemanticmasksdiffusioninstrument-tissueinteractionflowmatchinglaparoscopic
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

The paper sets out to show that surgical video generation is best controlled by separating persistent scene identity from transient visual evidence. It proposes Surg-UniWorld, which builds a Hierarchical Surgical Anchor from the first frame and hierarchical instrument, foreground-tissue, and background-tissue masks, then treats edge, depth, and optical flow as optional cues interpreted relative to that anchor. On a new benchmark built from laparoscopic clips, the full-control model reports consistent gains over general and surgical baselines in pixel fidelity, temporal realism, and control adherence. The sympathetic reading of the result is that "what the scene is" and "what is moving in it" need different roles in a generative world model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Surg-ARCA, the Surgical Anchor-Relative Control Adapter. Surg-ARCA builds a Hierarchical Surgical Anchor by organizing first-frame appearance tokens into a region-aware key-value memory using masked attention over instrument, foreground-tissue, and background-tissue masks; the memory yields a dense anchor hint and a compact region anchor bank. Modality-specific experts then read edge, depth, or flow evidence against the anchor bank with region-grounded attention and anchor modulation, producing per-modality increments. A Multimodal Control Expert combines the dense anchor hint with these increments through learnable stage-wise scaling, and the resulting hints are added to selected blocks of the frozen video diffusion backbone, so removing a modality subtracts only its own contribution.

What would settle it

Take the trained model and feed it masks with known, controlled corruption, for instance swapping instrument and tissue labels in a random 10% of frames or blurring region boundaries, and measure PSNR, FVD, and control adherence. If performance barely changes, the mask-accuracy premise is not load-bearing; if it collapses or reproduces the corruption, the reported advantage over baselines may be partly an artifact of unusually clean masks rather than of the anchor architecture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that anchoring generation to the first frame and hierarchical semantic masks, then expressing each optional control as an increment relative to that anchor, prevents anatomical distortion, instrument appearance drift, and temporal inconsistency that arise when heterogeneous conditions are fused directly. In the full-control configuration, Surg-UniWorld reports PSNR 21.250, SSIM 0.722, LPIPS 0.186, FVD 92.981, and FID 7.359, improving PSNR by 2.751 dB over the strongest baseline and reducing FVD and FID by about 11.0% and 34.9%. The authors would state the discovery as: a shared anchor with contribution-preserving composition makes arbitrary subsets of edge, depth, and flow control both usable and beneficial.

Load-bearing premise

The hierarchical semantic masks that define the anchor are assumed to be accurate, complete, and temporally aligned; the paper reports manual review and refinement but no mask-quality metric such as inter-annotator agreement or error rates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Generation remains possible with no optional modalities at all, because the anchor-only setting is a trained configuration, so surgical video can be produced from text, a first frame, and masks alone.
  • Adding each control improves its matched property: edge raises boundary adherence, depth lowers geometric error, and flow lowers motion error, while combinations give more balanced quality across instrument, tissue, and background regions.
  • Each auxiliary loss contributes: removing the temporal structure, control benefit, or marginal consistency objective degrades FVD or control adherence, meaning the composition behavior is trained rather than emergent.
  • Because modality subsets are sampled during training and composed additively, the same frozen backbone can serve multiple downstream uses, from anchor-only data augmentation to fully controlled simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the anchor mechanism is as general as the paper implies, the same architecture could transfer to other video domains with persistent object identity, such as manipulation or driving, wherever hierarchical masks are available; this is a natural but untested extension.
  • The manual refinement step in the benchmark construction suggests that mask quality, rather than the diffusion backbone, may be the practical bottleneck; an automatic mask-refinement or uncertainty-weighted anchor could be tested against the current pipeline.
  • The contribution-preserving composition might enable incremental editing at inference time, for example adding a depth constraint to an already generated anchor-only video without regenerating from scratch; the paper does not test this.
  • The region-aware flow-matching weighting implies that model performance should be evaluated per region, and the paper does report such breakdowns; future comparisons should do the same to avoid masking instrument-region failures.
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 Surg-UniWorld, a controllable surgical video generation framework built on a frozen Wan2.2 video diffusion backbone. The method introduces a Hierarchical Surgical Anchor constructed from the first frame and a temporally aligned sequence of hierarchical semantic masks (instrument, foreground tissue, background tissue), followed by Anchor-Relative Modality Experts that interpret edge, depth, and optical-flow controls relative to this anchor. A Multimodal Control Expert composes the anchor hint with modality-specific increments in a stage-wise, contribution-preserving manner and injects the result into selected DiT blocks. The authors also construct Cholec80-SurgWAM, a benchmark derived from Cholec80 with hierarchical masks, text descriptions, and aligned edge, depth, and flow controls. Experiments on this benchmark compare Surg-UniWorld with several video generation and controllable generation baselines across quality, temporal consistency, and control-adherence metrics, with additional ablations on architectural choices, losses, and composition strategies. The central claim is that the full-control configuration consistently outperforms all baselines in generation quality, temporal consistency, and multimodal controllability.

Significance. If the empirical claims are supported, Surg-UniWorld would be a useful contribution to surgical world modeling and controllable video generation: it explicitly separates persistent scene anchors from optional modality evidence, introduces a region-aware composition mechanism, and provides a new benchmark with curated hierarchical masks and multimodal controls. The paper is also transparent about many design choices and includes detailed ablations. However, the current evidence does not fully support the headline claim. The main comparison is not matched in conditioning, the control-adherence metrics are computed with the same estimators that generated the input conditions, and all reported numbers appear to come from single runs without error bars or significance tests. These issues are central to the paper's claims and should be addressed before the work can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [V-B, Table II] The headline comparison is not matched in conditioning. Surg-UniWorld's Mask row uses the full temporal sequence of hierarchical masks M={M_t}_{t=0}^{T-1} together with the first frame and text, while the All row additionally receives edge, depth, and optical-flow sequences; each baseline in Table II is evaluated with a single control condition. The improvements of the full configuration (PSNR 21.250 vs. 18.499, FVD 92.981 vs. 104.461, FID 7.359 vs. 11.312) therefore reflect a strictly larger information budget and cannot be attributed specifically to the proposed anchor and expert design. Moreover, the Surg-UniWorld mask-only row reports LPIPS 0.297 and FVD 270.996, which are worse than the VACE-Wan2.2 mask-only row (LPIPS 0.274, FVD 104.461), directly contradicting the abstract's statement that Surg-UniWorld consistently outperforms existing controllable video generation methods and surgical world-model baselines. The authors should either run baselines under the same hierarchical mask sequence and the same optional modality set, or qualify the claim to the matched settings.
  2. [V-A2 and Section III] The control-adherence metrics (Edge F1, Depth si-RMSE, Flow EPE) are computed by re-extracting conditions from the generated video with a fixed modality estimator. In this paper, those estimators are the same HED, Depth Anything 3, and WAFT models that were used in Section III to produce the input edge, depth, and flow annotations. This creates a systematic bias: a model that reproduces estimator-specific artifacts rather than true geometric or motion properties can achieve artificially high adherence scores. Since the multimodal controllability claim rests on these metrics, the authors should validate at least a subset of the control-adherence results with independent estimators or human evaluation, and should discuss the potential circularity explicitly.
  3. [V-B, Tables II-V] All quantitative results appear to be from single training runs without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. This is load-bearing because several reported differences are small relative to what one would expect from stochastic training (for example, LPIPS 0.186 vs. 0.190 and FVD 92.981 vs. 98.716 in the ablations of Table III). Without multiple seeds or statistical testing, the ranking of configurations and the claims of consistent improvement are not established. The authors should report variance over at least three runs for the main comparison and for the key ablations, or provide a justified significance analysis.
  4. [III and IV-B] The hierarchical masks are produced by SAM2 and then manually reviewed and refined, but no inter-rater agreement, mask-quality metrics, or error analysis are reported. These masks are not merely an input: region weights W_i, shape tokens S_i, the anchor bank B_i, the region-aware flow-matching loss in Eq. (16), and the region-wise evaluations in Fig. 7 all depend on them. If the masks contain systematic errors in instrument/tissue boundaries, those errors propagate into every control stage and into the evaluation itself. The authors should report mask quality on a held-out subset and, ideally, a sensitivity analysis with perturbed masks to show that the conclusions are robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV-C, Eq. (10)] The method reuses the VACE patch embedding and context blocks with shared parameters, while VACE-Wan2.2 is also used as a baseline. The paper should state explicitly how much of the VACE pipeline is reused, whether this reuse is considered part of the proposed adapter or an external component, and what this implies for the comparison with the VACE baseline.
  2. [V-A2] The sentence 'Each condition is re-extracted from the generated video using a fixed modality estimator' should clarify that the input control is itself an estimator output, and that the estimator family is the same one used in dataset construction; this point is related to the major concern about circularity.
  3. [Table II] In the All row, the Flow EPE value appears as '0.0951.327' and 'All21.250' with missing spacing; these formatting errors should be corrected.
  4. [IV-E, Eq. (15)] The notation for the weighted norm is unusual: it is defined as a ratio of weighted sums, but the same notation is later used for a squared weighted norm. The authors should define the weighted squared norm explicitly to avoid confusion.
  5. [V-B.1] The claim that the consistent improvements across pixel-level, perceptual, and spatiotemporal metrics indicate that the gains extend beyond frame reconstruction to overall temporal realism is too strong given the absence of error bars and the unmatched conditioning noted above; please temper the wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the headline benchmark comparisons are self-contained against held-out test clips and external baselines.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are grounded in held-out test clips (video71-80) and external baselines, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The future semantic mask sequence M is an explicit conditional input in Eq. (1), not a quantity the model is claimed to derive from the first frame; while this weakens the 'world-model prediction' framing, it is a task-framing limitation rather than a constructional circularity. The control-adherence metrics re-extract edge, depth, and flow from the generated video with fixed estimators, but these metrics are not the headline generation-quality comparison and do not make the PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS/FVD/FID results true by construction. Author-overlapping citations such as SurgSora appear as baselines or related work, not as load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz justifications. The ablations compare architectural variants under the same training protocol; even where the marginal-drift metric resembles the L_MC objective, the main quantitative claim in Table II does not reduce to any training loss or definition. No equation in the method section is equivalent to an evaluation metric by construction, so no circular step is exhibited.

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

The central claim rests on hand-set hyperparameters, accurate semantic masks, and the frozen backbone's quality. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced beyond standard learned modules.

free parameters (5)
  • Surgical importance weights alpha_inst, alpha_fg, alpha_bg = 2.0, 1.0, 0.5
    Hand-set region weights in Eq. (16); no sensitivity analysis, and they directly shape the flow-matching loss that trains the model.
  • Loss weights lambda_TS, lambda_CB, lambda_MC = 0.1, 0.01, 0.01
    Hand-set in Eq. (21); no sensitivity study shown.
  • Control injection strength eta = not specified numerically
    Appears in Eq. (3) as the injection strength; the value is not reported.
  • Injection layer count N and layer set L_ctrl = N=8
    Number of control stages fixed to 8; no ablation across N.
  • Control-subset sampling probabilities p(S) = 0.20 for S=empty/full, 0.10 otherwise
    Eq. (22) training schedule, hand-chosen.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The hierarchical semantic masks M_t are accurate, temporally aligned, and cover instrument, foreground tissue, and background tissue.
    All anchor components (region weights, shape tokens, anchor bank) derive from these masks; Section III says they are manually reviewed and refined from SAM2, but no quality metrics or inter-rater agreement are reported.
  • domain assumption The first frame I_0 preserves the persistent scene identity and appearance for the entire T-1 generated frames.
    The Hierarchical Surgical Anchor treats I_0 as the stable appearance reference; severe occlusion or camera motion, which the conclusion says remain challenging, would break this.
  • domain assumption The control estimators (Depth Anything 3, WAFT, HED) provide reliable and consistent depth, flow, and edge evidence for both conditioning and evaluation.
    These models are used to build the dataset controls and to re-extract controls from generated video for adherence metrics; systematic biases would be inherited by both.
  • domain assumption The pretrained Wan2.2 backbone provides a strong enough generative prior for surgical scenes.
    The whole approach freezes this backbone and only trains the control adapter, so any weakness of Wan2.2 on laparoscopic imagery limits the method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surg-UniWorld: A Unified Surgical World Model with Multimodal Control Experts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PRXOOQMI

@misc{pith2026260806770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surg-UniWorld: A Unified Surgical World Model with Multimodal Control Experts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PRXOOQMI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06770}
}
read the original abstract

Controllable surgical world models can provide a generative foundation for surgical artificial intelligence and simulation by synthesizing realistic instrument--tissue interactions. However, existing methods lack a unified multimodal control paradigm, while direct fusion of heterogeneous visual conditions often causes anatomical distortion, instrument appearance drift, and temporally inconsistent interactions. In this work, we propose {Surg-UniWorld}, a unified surgical world model with multimodal control experts. Surg-UniWorld first constructs a {Hierarchical Surgical Anchor} from first-frame appearance and hierarchical semantic masks to preserve persistent scene identity, anatomical organization, and interaction boundaries. {Anchor-Relative Modality Experts} then interpret edge, depth, and optical-flow evidence relative to the shared anchor, capturing complementary boundary, geometric, and motion information. A {Multimodal Control Expert} further performs contribution-preserving stage-wise composition of the activated modality increments and generates control hints for the Wan2.2 video diffusion backbone. To support multimodal surgical world modeling, we further construct Cholec80-SurgWAM, a benchmark for controllable surgical video generation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Surg-UniWorld consistently outperforms existing controllable video generation methods and surgical world-model baselines in generation quality, temporal consistency, and multimodal controllability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06770 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of Surg-UniWorld for multimodally controlled gener￾ation of coherent instrument–tissue interaction videos. The framework supports plug-and-play integration of arbitrary combinations of edge, depth, and optical-flow controls. paradigm, controllable surgical video generation imposes ex￾plicit semantic, geometric, and motion constraints on the gen￾erated scene. Such controllability is particularly valuable for… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Construction pipeline of Cholec80-SurgWAM, including motion￾guided clip selection, expert-curated hierarchical mask generation, sur￾gical description annotation, and optional multimodal controls. TABLE I STATISTICS OF THE CHOLEC80-SURGWAM DATASET. Split Clips Sampled Frames Masks Train (video01–60) 5,104 250,096 484,820 Test (video71–80) 897 43,953 88,901 Total 6,001 294,049 573,721 training to encourage geometrical… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of Surg-UniWorld and the proposed Surgical Anchor-Relative Control Adapter (Surg-ARCA). The Hierarchical Surgical Anchor establishes persistent appearance and structural references. Optional edge, depth, and optical-flow conditions are interpreted by Anchor-Relative Modality Experts, and the Multimodal Control Expert combines their anchor-relative increments into stage-wise surgical control hints for the pr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of controllable surgical video generation. Representative results are shown under different conditions. Surg￾UniWorld better preserves instrument appearance, instrument–tissue boundaries, anatomical structure, and motion consistency while followi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative analysis of control-modality composition in Surg-UniWorld. Multimodal combinations better preserve appearance, structure, interaction boundaries, and motion coherence than single-control settings. Edge F1 Depth si-RMSE Flow EPE PSNR FVD SSIM FID LPIPS (a) O…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of control-modality composition on overall and region-specific performance. Radar plots summarize normalized generation-quality and control-adherence scores for (a) the full frame, (b) instrument regions, (c) foreground-tissue regions, and (d) background-tissue …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: presents a cross-modality evaluation of depth, optical￾flow, and edge controls within the instrument, foreground￾tissue, and background-tissue regions. The modality-matched Instrument Tissue Background Cosmos-H￾Transfer VACE-Wan2.2 ControlNet￾Wan2.2 Surg-UniWorld 0.142…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Marginal contribution stability of different composition strategies. Our stage-wise composition yields the lowest drift. and a Flow EPE of 1.281, but substantially degrades generation quality, increasing LPIPS and FVD to 0.204 and 112.476. Fea￾ture concatenation and so…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Video generation models as world simulators,

    T. Brooks, B. Peebles, C. Holmes, W. DePue, Y . Guo, L. Jing, D. Schnurr, J. Taylor, T. Luhman, E. Luhmanet al., “Video generation models as world simulators,”OpenAI Blog, vol. 1, no. 8, p. 1, 2024

  2. [2]

    Worldsimbench: Towards video generation models as world simulators,

    Y . Qin, Z. Shi, J. Yu, X. Wang, E. Zhou, L. Li, Z. Yin, X. Liu, L. Sheng, J. Shaoet al., “Worldsimbench: Towards video generation models as world simulators,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18072, 2024

  3. [3]

    Surgical vision world model,

    S. Koju, S. Bastola, P. Shrestha, S. Amgain, Y . R. Shrestha, R. P. Poudel, and B. Bhattarai, “Surgical vision world model,” inMICCAI Workshop on Data Engineering in Medical Imaging. Springer, 2025, pp. 1–10

  4. [4]

    Cosmos-h-surgical: Learning surgical robot policies from videos via world modeling,

    Y . He, P. Guo, M. Xu, Z. Li, A. Myronenko, D. Imans, B. Liu, D. Yang, M. Gu, Y . Ji, Y . Jin, R. Zhao, B. Shen, and D. Xu, “Cosmos-h-surgical: Learning surgical robot policies from videos via world modeling,”

  5. [5]

    Sim-to-real transfer for visual rein- forcement learning of deformable object manipulation for robot-assisted surgery,

    P. M. Scheikl, E. Tagliabue, B. Gyenes, M. Wagner, D. Dall’Alba, P. Fiorini, and F. Mathis-Ullrich, “Sim-to-real transfer for visual rein- forcement learning of deformable object manipulation for robot-assisted surgery,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 560– 567, 2022

  6. [6]

    How far are surgeons from surgical world models? a pilot study on zero-shot surgical video generation with expert assessment,

    Z. Chen, Q. Xu, J. Wu, B. Yang, Y . Zhai, G. Guo, J. Zhang, Y . Ding, N. Navab, and J. Luo, “How far are surgeons from surgical world models? a pilot study on zero-shot surgical video generation with expert assessment,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01775, 2025

  7. [7]

    Endora: Video generation models as endoscopy simulators,

    C. Li, H. Liu, Y . Liu, B. Y . Feng, W. Li, X. Liu, Z. Chen, J. Shao, and Y . Yuan, “Endora: Video generation models as endoscopy simulators,” inInternational conference on medical image computing and computer- assisted intervention. Springer, 2024, pp. 230–240

  8. [8]

    Surgsora: Object-aware diffusion model for controllable surgical video genera- tion,

    T. Chen, S. Yang, J. Wang, L. Bai, H. Ren, and L. Zhou, “Surgsora: Object-aware diffusion model for controllable surgical video genera- tion,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2025, pp. 521–531

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Hierasurg: Hierarchy-aware diffusion model for surgical video generation,

    D. Biagini, N. Navab, and A. Farshad, “Hierasurg: Hierarchy-aware diffusion model for surgical video generation,” inInternational Confer- ence on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2025, pp. 310–319

  2. [10]

    Saw: Toward a surgical action world model via controllable and scalable video generation,

    S. Rapuri, L. Seenivasan, D. Schneider, R. Soberanis-Mukul, Y . He, H. Ding, J. Xu, C. Yu, C. Jing, P. Guoet al., “Saw: Toward a surgical action world model via controllable and scalable video generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.13024, 2026

  3. [11]

    World simulation with video foundation models for physical ai,

    A. Ali, J. Bai, M. Bala, Y . Balaji, A. Blakeman, T. Cai, J. Cao, T. Cao, E. Cha, Y .-W. Chaoet al., “World simulation with video foundation models for physical ai,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00062, 2025

  4. [12]

    Ltx-video: Realtime video latent diffusion,

    Y . HaCohen, N. Chiprut, B. Brazowski, D. Shalem, D. Moshe, E. Richardson, E. Levin, G. Shiran, N. Zabari, O. Gordon et al., “Ltx-video: Realtime video latent diffusion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00103, 2024

  5. [13]

    Wan: Open and advanced large-scale video generative models,

    T. Wan, A. Wang, B. Ai, B. Wen, C. Mao, C.-W. Xie, D. Chen, F. Yu, H. Zhao, J. Yanget al., “Wan: Open and advanced large-scale video generative models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20314, 2025

  6. [14]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,

    L. Zhang, A. Rao, and M. Agrawala, “Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 3836–3847

  7. [15]

    Vace: All- in-one video creation and editing,

    Z. Jiang, Z. Han, C. Mao, J. Zhang, Y . Pan, and Y . Liu, “Vace: All- in-one video creation and editing,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2025, pp. 17 191–17 202

  8. [16]

    Future frame prediction for robot-assisted surgery,

    X. Gao, Y . Jin, Z. Zhao, Q. Dou, and P.-A. Heng, “Future frame prediction for robot-assisted surgery,” inInternational Conference on Information Processing in Medical Imaging. Springer, 2021, pp. 533– 544

  9. [17]

    Surgen: Text-guided diffusion model for surgical video generation,

    J. Cho, S. Schmidgall, C. Zakka, M. Mathur, D. Kaur, R. Shad, and W. Hiesinger, “Surgen: Text-guided diffusion model for surgical video generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14028, 2024

  10. [18]

    Ophora: a large-scale data-driven text-guided ophthalmic sur- gical video generation model,

    W. Li, M. Hu, G. Wang, L. Liu, K. Zhou, J. Ning, X. Guo, Z. Ge, L. Gu, and J. He, “Ophora: a large-scale data-driven text-guided ophthalmic sur- gical video generation model,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2...

  11. [19]

    Waft: Warping-alone field transforms for optical flow,

    Y . Wang and J. Deng, “Waft: Warping-alone field transforms for optical flow,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21526, 2025

  12. [20]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R ¨adle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafsonet al., “Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,” inInternational Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, vol. 2025, 2025, pp. 28 085–28 128

  13. [21]

    Depth anything 3: Recovering the visual space from any views,

    H. Lin, S. Chen, J. Liew, D. Y . Chen, Z. Li, G. Shi, J. Feng, and B. Kang, “Depth anything 3: Recovering the visual space from any views,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.10647, 2025

  14. [22]

    Holistically-nested edge detection,

    S. Xie and Z. Tu, “Holistically-nested edge detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2015, pp. 1395–1403

  15. [23]

    Cosmos-transfer1: Conditional world generation with adaptive multimodal control,

    H. A. Alhaija, J. Alvarez, M. Bala, T. Cai, T. Cao, L. Cha, J. Chen, M. Chen, F. Ferroni, S. Fidleret al., “Cosmos-transfer1: Conditional world generation with adaptive multimodal control,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14492, 2025

  16. [2026]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23162

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23162

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.