Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

SurgWMBench: A Vision-Based Benchmark for World-Modeling Surgical Instrument Motion Planning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Surgical world models can look realistic while failing at instrument motion planning, and a new benchmark measures that gap directly.

desk verdict A genuinely useful benchmark with a plausible central claim, but the unvalidated anchor-point ground truth and missing experimental details keep it from being accepted as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08070 v1 pith:AECJUMKY submitted 2026-08-08 cs.RO

Huanrong Liu , Weiliang Huang , Bob Zhang , Weichao Cai , Chunlin Tian , Qingbiao Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords surgicalworldmodelsmotionplanningbenchmarkinstrumenttrajectorypredictionvideogenerationevaluationrobot-assistedsurgeryautoregressiverolloutperturbationrobustnessADEFDEmetrics
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

This paper sets out to show that a surgical world model can generate visually convincing future frames while still being unreliable at the thing that matters for planning: predicting where the instrument will go. To test this, the authors build SurgWMBench from 1,637 real robot-assisted suturing motion segments, each reduced to a 20-frame clip with a hand-annotated 2D instrument anchor trajectory, and evaluate four world-model baselines under three protocols: short-horizon prediction, autoregressive rollout, and perturbed inputs. Their headline result is a mismatch: HieraSurg produces the best-looking frames but the worst trajectory predictions, while iVideoGPT predicts motion best without leading on visual metrics. The paper argues that generation-oriented metrics such as FVD and CD-FVD therefore cannot stand in for planning-oriented evaluation, and that the field needs trajectory-level accuracy, rollout stability, and perturbation recovery as first-class benchmark axes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is SurgWMBench itself: a benchmark built from SAR-RARP50 suturing videos, in which each valid needle insertion or extraction is uniformly sampled to 20 frames and annotated with one task-relevant, trackable 2D anchor point per frame, yielding a 20-point instrument trajectory as ground truth. Around this trajectory the benchmark wraps a hierarchical protocol: Local Transition Fidelity (LTF) scores short-horizon teacher-forced prediction with ADE and FDE; Closed-loop Rollout Stability (CRS) scores autoregressive prediction with Rollout ADE@H; and Robustness under Perturbation and Shift (RPS) scores performance drop rate (PDR) under Gaussian noise and random masking. This protocol is what lets the paper separate visual generation quality from motion-planning accuracy.

What would settle it

Randomly sample a few dozen SurgWMBench segments, have the two annotators re-annotate them independently, and compute per-point inter-annotator distance; if the median disagreement approaches or exceeds the roughly 125-pixel ADE gap that separates iVideoGPT from HieraSurg, the headline mismatch may be an artifact of label noise. A second check: compare the annotated anchors with SAR-RARP50 instrument segmentation masks or kinematic ground truth; if anchors consistently miss the visible instrument tip, the trajectories are not actually instrument motion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that visual generation quality does not ensure planning-oriented motion accuracy. In the joint video-generation plus trajectory-prediction setting, HieraSurg achieves the highest PSNR and lowest LPIPS while producing the largest ADE and FDE (176.20 and 174.70 pixels), whereas iVideoGPT has the lowest ADE (51.32) and FDE (65.11) despite weaker visual metrics. Under Gaussian noise and random masking, the better trajectory predictors degrade sharply (e.g., iVideoGPT ADE rises from 51.32 to 131.34 under Gaussian noise), and in closed-loop rollout all models accumulate error with horizon, confirming that local teacher-forced accuracy does not guarantee stable continuous planning. The paper concludes that current surgical world models remain limited in trajectory accuracy, robustness, and planning-oriented dynamics, and that SurgWMBench supplies the missing evaluation layer.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's ground truth is a single manually placed 2D anchor point per sampled frame, chosen to be task-relevant and trackable by two annotators, and the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement or cross-check against kinematic or segmentation data, so pixel-level ADE/FDE values could contain annotation noise that drives the reported model ranking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, generation-oriented metrics (FVD, CD-FVD, SSIM, PSNR, LPIPS) should not be used as a proxy for surgical world-model quality; trajectory-level ADE/FDE and rollout metrics must be reported for any model intended for planning.
  • Explicit trajectory supervision does not by itself close the gap: HieraSurg, despite strong visual outputs, remains the worst trajectory predictor, suggesting that visual fidelity and motion dynamics are learned somewhat independently.
  • Closed-loop stability is a separate axis: every baseline's error grows from horizon @5 to @15, so a model that passes short-horizon tests can still drift when its own predictions are fed back.
  • Perturbation robustness matters and is currently poor: the stronger clean-input predictors (VideoGPT, iVideoGPT) lose much of their accuracy when the historical trajectory is noisy or masked, while HieraSurg's insensitivity reflects its already-high clean error rather than recovery skill.
  • SurgWMBench offers a unified, reproducible platform on which future surgical world models can be compared for planning-oriented dynamics rather than only appearance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The single-anchor, 2D-pixel ground truth likely underweights instrument orientation, needle-tissue interaction, and depth; a natural extension is to evaluate whether anchor-based ADE/FDE rankings survive when predictions are scored against instrument segmentation masks or kinematic recordings.
  • If the visual-vs-motion mismatch generalizes, one testable corollary is that adding a trajectory head to a video generator will improve ADE/FDE only when the head is trained with motion-focused losses; otherwise the visual backbone may dominate and leave trajectory error high.
  • Because perturbed inputs cause large PDR for the best clean predictors, a concrete design target for future surgical world models is to condition on trajectory history in a way that is robust to dropout or noise, e.g., via explicit uncertainty estimation or masked-training objectives.
  • The 20-frame uniform sampling compresses variable-duration motions into a fixed length, so cross-segment comparisons of pixel error assume temporal alignment that the benchmark imposes; extending to variable-horizon or frame-rate-aware evaluation would test whether the reported rankings persist.
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. SurgWMBench introduces a vision-based benchmark for evaluating surgical world models on short-horizon instrument motion planning. Built from 50 SAR-RARP50 suturing videos, it segments effective needle insertion/extraction motions, uniformly samples 20 frames per segment, and annotates one task-relevant 2D anchor point per frame to form a 20-point instrument trajectory. The benchmark proposes three tasks—short-horizon prediction (Local Transition Fidelity), autoregressive rollout (Closed-loop Rollout Stability), and perturbed-input recovery (Robustness under Perturbation and Shift)—with ADE/FDE and rollout ADE as primary metrics. The authors evaluate VideoGPT, iVideoGPT, HieraSurg, and SurgSora under two settings (pure video generation and joint generation plus trajectory prediction). The central claim is that visual generation quality does not ensure planning-oriented motion accuracy: HieraSurg achieves the best image-level metrics but the worst trajectory error, while iVideoGPT has the best ADE/FDE but not the best visual metrics. Additional perturbation and rollout results indicate limited robustness and stability of current baselines.

Significance. If the benchmark's annotations are valid, SurgWMBench addresses a genuine gap in surgical world-model evaluation: existing metrics such as FVD and CD-FVD measure visual distributional similarity but not trajectory-level accuracy relevant to motion planning. The paper's hierarchical protocol (short-horizon accuracy, closed-loop rollout stability, perturbation robustness) is a well-motivated extension, and the use of a public dataset (SAR-RARP50) with video-level splits is a strength. The reported mismatch between visual generation quality and trajectory accuracy is an interesting and falsifiable finding that would justify the benchmark's existence. However, the benchmark's validity hinges on the reliability of the manually placed 2D anchor points, and the paper currently provides no inter-annotator agreement or external validation against instrument segmentation or kinematics. The paper also omits key experimental details (notably the history length K) and contains an apparent row-swap error in Table 3. With these issues addressed, this could be a useful contribution to the surgical robotics and medical imaging communities.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3] The benchmark's ground truth is a single manually placed 2D anchor point per frame, with the protocol explicitly allowing the anchor's exact location to vary by surgical scene and annotator judgment. The paper reports no inter-annotator agreement and no validation of the anchors against SAR-RARP50's available instrument segmentation masks or robot kinematics. Because ADE and FDE are computed against these anchors, the observed mismatch between visual generation quality and trajectory accuracy (e.g., HieraSurg ADE 176.20 vs. iVideoGPT 51.32 in Table 1) could partly reflect annotation ambiguity rather than a genuine limitation of the models. Please report inter-annotator distance/agreement statistics, describe how disagreements were resolved, and demonstrate that the anchors correspond to a consistent physical point (e.g., by measuring agreement with the instrument segmentation centroid or against kinematic ground truth).
  2. [Section 4.1 / Appendix A.2] The history length K in Eq. (1) is never specified in the experimental setup or in the tables. All ADE/FDE and rollout values depend on K; for example, Rollout ADE@H in Eq. (7) is computed over frames K+1 through K+H. Without K, the reported numbers cannot be reproduced or compared across baselines. Please state the exact K used in all experiments and, ideally, report results for at least two K values (e.g., K=5 and K=10) to show the sensitivity of the conclusions.
  3. [Table 3 / Appendix A.6] There appears to be a row-swap error in Table 3: the row labeled HieraSurg reports ADE@5=64.1 and FDE@5=81.5, while Table 1 gives HieraSurg clean ADE=176.20 and FDE=174.70; the row labeled SurgSora reports ADE@5=176.2 and FDE@5=174.7, while Table 1 gives SurgSora clean ADE=64.12 and FDE=81.54. The @5 values in Table 3 appear to be clean teacher-forcing errors from the swapped models. This inverts the qualitative statements in Appendix A.6 about HieraSurg and SurgSora. Please correct the rows and re-evaluate the rollout analysis and the associated conclusions.
  4. [Appendix A.4] The interpolation strategy in A.4 generates dense pseudo-labels for non-anchor frames through linear, pchip, akima, or cubic spline interpolation, but the experimental setup does not state whether the baselines were trained on the original 20-frame human-annotated trajectories or on the densified sliding-window samples. Since the evaluation ground truth is the sparse 20-point annotation, training on interpolated trajectories may introduce a train/evaluation mismatch. Please clarify which data were used for training and report results for both training settings if both were considered.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.3 / Table 2] The text says that the authors report the Performance Drop Rate (PDR) defined in Eq. (8), but Table 2 only lists ADE and FDE under clean, Gaussian, and Mask conditions without a PDR column. Please either add PDR values or revise the text to state that the table provides the underlying errors from which PDR can be computed.
  2. [Appendix A.2] The paper states that quality labels are used for difficulty-stratified performance analysis, but no such analysis appears in the main text or the Appendix. Please add the stratified results or remove the claim.
  3. [Appendix A.2] The sentence 'The training, validation, and test splits will follow a unified protocol in the final released version' indicates that the exact split used for the reported experiments is not yet fixed. For a benchmark paper, please provide the exact video-level split (e.g., video IDs or per-split counts) to ensure reproducibility.
  4. [Table 1 caption] The caption merges two settings (pure generation and joint generation plus trajectory prediction) into a single row-wise comparison, but it is not explicit that group (a) and group (b) use the same backbone and training data except for the trajectory head. Please clarify this in the caption or text.
  5. [General] Minor typos and formatting issues: in Eq. (5) the summation subscript appears as '20X' instead of a proper sum symbol, and the label 'Nioottodn' in Figure 1 appears garbled. Please proofread the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the mismatch claim is an external empirical evaluation, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The manuscript contains no derivation chain whose output is equivalent to its inputs. SurgWMBench constructs an evaluation benchmark from SAR-RARP50 (Sections 3.1 and 3.3), defines tasks and metrics in Section 4 as standard ADE/FDE, rollout ADE, and PDR, and then compares four baselines in Tables 1 to 3. The central claim in Section 4.4, that visual generation quality does not ensure planning-oriented motion accuracy, is an empirical observation supported by the mismatch between image-quality rankings and trajectory-error rankings in Table 1, not by an equation that forces the result. No parameter is fitted to the test set and then renamed a prediction; baseline errors are computed against human-annotated anchor points, and the training/validation/test splits are video-level to prevent leakage. The only in-paper self-citation, reference [14], appears in related work as one example of trajectory prediction methods and is not load-bearing; no uniqueness argument or forced choice rests on it. The closest concern is construct validity: Section 3.3 defines the anchor point as task-relevant and trackable, but the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement and no validation against robot kinematics or the instrument segmentation masks available in SAR-RARP50. If the anchors are noisy or semantically inconsistent, the large ADE/FDE gaps observed could be partly artifacts of annotation ambiguity. That is a real validity threat to the benchmark's conclusions, but it is not circularity: the evaluation does not reduce to its own assumptions by construction. Appendix A.4 interpolates pseudo-labels for training density, but the human anchors remain the primary supervision, and the interpolated labels do not smuggle the evaluation metric into the training objective. Therefore no circular step is present; the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on annotation quality, temporal sampling, and segment filtering choices. No new physical entities are introduced. The only numerical experimental parameter identified is the unspecified history length K.

free parameters (1)
  • History length K = Not reported in the main text; Table 3 rollout horizons imply K=5
    The number of observed frames used for prediction is a hand-chosen experimental parameter that directly determines prediction horizon. Its value is never stated in the experimental setup, which affects all ADE/FDE numbers.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SAR-RARP50 videos are representative of real robot-assisted surgical suturing.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix A.1 rely on this assumption to claim the benchmark is clinically grounded.
  • domain assumption Effective needle insertion and extraction segments can be reliably identified with the stated start/end definition.
    Section 3.2 filters clips based on this definition, but no expert consensus or validation is reported.
  • domain assumption Uniformly sampling each motion segment to 20 frames preserves the planning-relevant motion dynamics.
    Section 3.3 compresses segments up to 585 frames into 20 points, potentially discarding important local dynamics.
  • domain assumption A single task-relevant 2D anchor point per frame is a sufficient ground-truth representation of instrument motion.
    Section 3.3 defines the anchor point, but no inter-annotator agreement or kinematic validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-coordinate interpolation with linear default produces valid dense training labels.
    Appendix A.4 uses interpolated pseudo labels for training. If interpolation introduces artifacts, the trained baselines and conclusions would be affected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SurgWMBench: A Vision-Based Benchmark for World-Modeling Surgical Instrument Motion Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AECJUMKY

@misc{pith2026260808070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SurgWMBench: A Vision-Based Benchmark for World-Modeling Surgical Instrument Motion Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AECJUMKY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08070}
}
read the original abstract

Reliable surgical planning requires models that move beyond recognizing the current surgical step or imitating expert demonstrations, and instead anticipate how instrument motion reshapes subsequent operative states. Most surgical video understanding methods focus on recognizing phases, actions, or workflow states, while providing limited support for explicitly modeling instrument motion. Conversely, existing tool motion prediction methods can forecast instrument trajectories, but they generally do not capture the coupled evolution of future surgical video states. World models offer a natural framework for jointly modeling visual state transitions and instrument motion dynamics. However, existing surgical world model studies remain largely centered on visual generation quality, relying on generation-oriented metrics such as FVD and CD-FVD. These metrics are poorly aligned with instrument motion planning, as they do not directly measure whether predicted trajectories are geometrically accurate, temporally coherent, or actionable for downstream planning. This limitation is partly structural, since the field lacks public datasets and standardized evaluation protocols that provide the benchmarking infrastructure needed to assess motion-centric capabilities in surgical world models. In this paper, we introduce SurgWMBench, a vision-based benchmark for short-horizon surgical motion planning and dynamics prediction. Given intraoperative image sequences and historical instrument trajectory, SurgWMBench evaluates both near-future instrument motion prediction and stability under continuous rollout or input perturbations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08070 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Existing surgical benchmarks mainly evaluate semantic video understanding, trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the SurgWMBench construction pipeline. We segment valid needle insertion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative trajectory prediction results on SurgWMBench. The blue curves denote observed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Customized annotation interface for SurgWMBench. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of SurgWMBench annotation with different quality levels. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Narges Ahmidi, Lingling Tao, Shahin Sefati, Yixin Gao, Colin Lea, Benjamín Béjar Haro, Luca Zappella, Sanjeev Khudanpur, René Vidal, and Gregory D. Hager. A dataset and benchmarks for segmentation and recognition of gestures in robotic surgery.IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 64(9):2025–2041, 2017

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Au- tonomy in surgical robotics.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 4(1):651–679, 2021

    Aleks Attanasio, Bruno Scaglioni, Elena De Momi, Paolo Fiorini, and Pietro Valdastri. Au- tonomy in surgical robotics.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 4(1):651–679, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Hierasurg: Hierarchy-aware diffusion model for surgical video generation

    Diego Biagini, Nassir Navab, and Azade Farshad. Hierasurg: Hierarchy-aware diffusion model for surgical video generation. InInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 310–319. Springer, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Genie: generative interactive environments

    Jake Bruce, Michael Dennis, Ashley Edwards, Jack Parker-Holder, Yuge Shi, Edward Hughes, Matthew Lai, Aditi Mavalankar, Richie Steigerwald, Chris Apps, et al. Genie: generative interactive environments. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4603–4623, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Surgsora: Object-aware diffusion model for controllable surgical video generation

    Tong Chen, Shuya Yang, Junyi Wang, Long Bai, Hongliang Ren, and Luping Zhou. Surgsora: Object-aware diffusion model for controllable surgical video generation. InInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 521–531. Springer, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Feussner, Stella Yu Kim, and Nassir Navab

    Tobias Czempiel, Magdalini Paschali, Matthias Keicher, Wolfgang Simson, H. Feussner, Stella Yu Kim, and Nassir Navab. Tecno: Surgical phase recognition with multi-stage temporal convolutional networks. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Trans-svnet: Accurate phase recognition from surgical videos via hybrid embedding aggregation transformer

    Xiaojie Gao, Yueming Jin, Yonghao Long, Qi Dou, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Trans-svnet: Accurate phase recognition from surgical videos via hybrid embedding aggregation transformer. InInternational conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 593–603. Springer, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    On the content bias in fréchet video distance

    Songwei Ge, Aniruddha Mahapatra, Gaurav Parmar, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Jia-Bin Huang. On the content bias in fréchet video distance. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 7277–7288, 2024

    2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution.Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution.Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Hansen, J

    P. Hansen, J. W. B. Kim, Anna Goldenberg, J. T. Chen, Y . A. Li, Anton Deguet, et al. Imitatec- holec: A multimodal dataset for long-horizon imitation learning in robotic cholecystectomy. Scientific Data, 2026

    2026

  3. [11]

    Surgworld: Learning surgical robot policies from videos via world modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23162, 2025

    Yufan He, Pengfei Guo, Mengya Xu, Zhaoshuo Li, Andriy Myronenko, Dillan Imans, Bingjie Liu, Dongren Yang, Mingxue Gu, Yongnan Ji, et al. Surgworld: Learning surgical robot policies from videos via world modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23162, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Surgical robot transformer (srt): Imitation learning for surgical tasks

    Ji Woong Kim, Tony Z Zhao, Samuel Schmidgall, Anton Deguet, Marin Kobilarov, Chelsea Finn, and Axel Krieger. Surgical robot transformer (srt): Imitation learning for surgical tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12998, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. Koju, S. Bastola, P. Shrestha, S. Amgain, Y . R. Shrestha, R. P. K. Poudel, and B. Bhattarai. Surgical vision world model. InMICCAI Workshop / Springer Proceedings, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Sutureagent: Learning surgical trajectories via goal-conditioned offline rl in pixel space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.26720, 2026

    Huanrong Liu, Chunlin Tian, Tongyu Jia, Tailai Zhou, Qin Liu, Yu Gao, Yutong Ban, Yun Gu, Guy Rosman, Xin Ma, et al. Sutureagent: Learning surgical trajectories via goal-conditioned offline rl in pixel space.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.26720, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Data splits and metrics for method benchmarking on surgical action triplet datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05235, 2022

    Chinedu Innocent Nwoye and Nicolas Padoy. Data splits and metrics for method benchmarking on surgical action triplet datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05235, 2022. 10

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Rendezvous: Attention mechanisms for the recognition of surgical action triplets in endoscopic videos.Medical Image Analysis, 2022

    Chinedu Innocent Nwoye, Tong Yu, Carolina Gonzalez, Barbara Seeliger, Pietro Mascagni, Didier Mutter, Jacques Marescaux, and Nassir Padoy. Rendezvous: Attention mechanisms for the recognition of surgical action triplets in endoscopic videos.Medical Image Analysis, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Sar-rarp50: Segmentation of surgical instrumentation and action recognition on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy challenge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00496, 2023

    Dimitrios Psychogyios, Emanuele Colleoni, Beatrice Van Amsterdam, Chih-Yang Li, Shu-Yu Huang, Yuchong Li, Fucang Jia, Baosheng Zou, Guotai Wang, Yang Liu, et al. Sar-rarp50: Segmentation of surgical instrumentation and action recognition on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy...

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    davincinet: Joint prediction of motion and surgical state in robot-assisted surgery

    Yidan Qin, Seyedshams Feyzabadi, Max Allan, Joel W Burdick, and Mahdi Azizian. davincinet: Joint prediction of motion and surgical state in robot-assisted surgery. In2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 2921–2928. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Rapuri, L

    S. Rapuri, L. Seenivasan, D. Schneider, R. Soberanis-Mukul, Y . He, H. Ding, et al. Saw: Toward a surgical action world model via controllable and scalable video generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.13024, 2026

    2026

  12. [20]

    Saeidi, J

    H. Saeidi, J. D. Opfermann, M. Kam, S. Wei, S. Leonard, M. H. Hsieh, J. U. Kang, and A. Krieger. Autonomous robotic laparoscopic surgery for intestinal anastomosis.Science Robotics, 7(62):eabj2908, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Recognition and prediction of surgical ges- tures and trajectories using transformer models in robot-assisted surgery

    Chang Shi, Yi Zheng, and Ann Majewicz Fey. Recognition and prediction of surgical ges- tures and trajectories using transformer models in robot-assisted surgery. In2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 8017–8024. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Endonet: a deep architecture for recognition tasks on laparoscopic videos

    Andru P Twinanda, Sherif Shehata, Didier Mutter, Jacques Marescaux, Michel De Mathelin, and Nicolas Padoy. Endonet: a deep architecture for recognition tasks on laparoscopic videos. IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 36(1):86–97, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Towards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges

    Thomas Unterthiner, Sjoerd Van Steenkiste, Karol Kurach, Raphael Marinier, Marcin Michalski, and Sylvain Gelly. Towards accurate generative models of video: A new metric & challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01717, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Comparative validation of machine learning algorithms for surgical workflow and skill analysis with the heichole benchmark.Medical image analysis, 86:102770, 2023

    Martin Wagner, Beat-Peter Müller-Stich, Anna Kisilenko, Duc Tran, Patrick Heger, Lars Mündermann, David M Lubotsky, Benjamin Müller, Tornike Davitashvili, Manuela Capek, et al. Comparative validation of machine learning algorithms for surgical workflow and skill analysis with ...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Z. Wang, B. Lu, Y . Long, F. Zhong, T.-H. Cheung, Q. Dou, and Y . Liu. Autolaparo: A new dataset of integrated multi-tasks for image-guided surgical automation in laparoscopic hysterectomy. InMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ziheng Wang, Zhengxiang Yan, Yuan Xing, and Honglei Wang. Real-time trajectory prediction of laparoscopic instrument tip based on long short-term memory neural network in laparoscopic surgery training.The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery,...

    2022

  19. [27]

    ivideogpt: Interactive videogpts are scalable world models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:68082–68119, 2024

    Jialong Wu, Shaofeng Yin, Ningya Feng, Xu He, Dong Li, Jianye Hao, and Mingsheng Long. ivideogpt: Interactive videogpts are scalable world models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:68082–68119, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Videogpt: Video generation using vq-vae and transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10157, 2021

    Wilson Yan, Yunzhi Zhang, Pieter Abbeel, and Aravind Srinivas. Videogpt: Video generation using vq-vae and transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10157, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Surgical workflow anticipation using instrument interaction

    Kun Yuan, Matthew Holden, Shijian Gao, and Won-Sook Lee. Surgical workflow anticipation using instrument interaction. InInternational conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 615–625. Springer, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Anticipation for surgical workflow through instrument interaction and recognized signals.Medical Image Analysis, 82:102611, 2022

    Kun Yuan, Matthew Holden, Shijian Gao, and Wonsook Lee. Anticipation for surgical workflow through instrument interaction and recognized signals.Medical Image Analysis, 82:102611, 2022. 11 A Appendix A.1 Principles for selecting data sources and designing benchmark We choose S...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.