Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Bayesian Retraction Optimization for Tissue Attachment Mapping in Surgical Dissection

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that treating tissue dissection as an active-sensing problem—maintaining a Bayesian map of attachment likelihoods and choosing retractions by expected information gain—can localize attachment points without deformable tissu

desk verdict A useful integration of Bayesian mapping and active sensing for surgical dissection, but the abstract overclaims and the paper never verifies that the chosen retraction actually reveals the selected query point. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19174 v1 pith:CVUTYNFE submitted 2026-07-21 cs.RO

Shing-Hei Ho , Bao Thach , Toan Vo , James M. Ferguson , Alan Kuntz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords tissueattachmentmappingsurgicaldissectionSequentialBayesianHilbertMapretractionoptimizationactivesensingclassifierensemblezero-shottransferinformationgain
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 is trying to establish that a robot can find where soft tissue is attached to underlying anatomy by actively pulling on it and watching, without needing a physical model of tissue deformation. It represents attachment state as a probability map, updated by an ensemble of learned classifiers that label each candidate point as attached, not attached, or occluded from each retraction view. A Bayesian optimization step chooses the next retraction specifically to reduce uncertainty about attachment locations, and once the map is confident, the robot cuts the likely attachment points. If correct, this would replace hand-crafted incision policies and simulation-heavy approaches with a probabilistic loop that improves with each manipulation. The authors report that the approach outperforms random retraction in simulation and identifies attachment disks correctly in real ex vivo chicken breast tissue after simulation-only training.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Sequential Bayesian Hilbert Map (SBHM), a probabilistic map that represents each candidate attachment point's binary state through a sigmoid function of a Gaussian-distributed weight vector; the Gaussian mean and covariance encode the current belief and enable principled fusion of noisy classifier evidence across retraction views. The action-selection mechanism is Bayesian Retraction Optimization (BRO), which uses acquisition functions—Expected Improvement, noisy Expected Improvement, or Upper Confidence Bound—computed from the map's predictive mean and covariance to choose which query point to expose to the camera. The retraction itself is generated by a learned sh

What would settle it

Record the camera-view point cloud immediately after each retraction and check whether the selected acquisition point is visible and whether the tissue was lifted as intended. If retractions routinely fail to expose the chosen point, BRO's information-gain objective is disconnected from the observation and the reported advantage over random retraction should vanish.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that tissue attachment identification during dissection can be framed as a probabilistic active-sensing problem, not a tissue-modeling problem. A Sequential Bayesian Hilbert Map (SBHM) maintains a continuous belief over candidate attachment points, and after each retraction an ensemble of learned classifiers provides noisy labels—attached, not attached, or occluded—that update the map through variational Bayesian logistic regression. A Bayesian Retraction Optimization (BRO) step then picks the next retraction by maximizing an acquisition function over the map's predictive distribution, subject to a safety heuristic that avoids lifting strongly attached tissue. In

Load-bearing premise

The approach assumes that after a planned retraction, the chosen acquisition point is actually visible to the camera; if the retraction does not reveal it, the information-gain calculation has no connection to what the robot observes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, dissection robots can localize attachment points without building a deformable tissue model, removing a major sim-to-real bottleneck.
  • Choosing retractions by expected information gain yields faster, more accurate attachment maps than random retraction in simulation, suggesting active sensing is worth the planning cost.
  • Sequential Bayesian fusion over classifier outputs keeps attachment estimates reliable even when individual predictions are noisy or out-of-distribution, which is the condition encountered in real tissue.
  • The confidence-driven incision rule closes the loop by removing attachment regions once the map is sufficiently certain, without requiring a separate motion planner for cutting.
  • Zero-shot transfer on real ex vivo tissue suggests the simulation-trained classifier ensemble plus Bayesian filtering can generalize beyond the training distribution, at least for planar attachment surfaces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue: the same BRO information-gain objective could be applied to other surgical subtasks where manipulation exposes hidden structures, such as tumor boundary localization or freeing adhesions.
  • The paper's vertical-plane goal-shape heuristic assumes a planar attachment surface; if goal-shape generation were generalized to curved anatomy, the identical SBHM plus BRO loop should in principle apply without changing the inference machinery.
  • Because the acquisition function is defined over the map's uncertainty, BRO could be made adaptive to real-world noise by treating classifier quality itself as an estimated quantity, rather than depending on hand-tuned incision thresholds.
  • A cheap testable extension would be to evaluate whether the chosen acquisition point is actually visible after each retraction and to feed that visibility back into the acquisition function as a constraint.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an active-sensing framework for identifying tissue attachment points during robotic dissection. A Sequential Bayesian Hilbert Map (SBHM) represents a distribution over attachment labels at query points on the resection surface. At each iteration, an ensemble of PointNet classifiers produces noisy, partially occluded labels from a partial-view point cloud after tissue retraction; these labels update the SBHM via variational Bayesian logistic regression. The next retraction is selected by Bayesian Retraction Optimization (BRO) using EI/nEI/UCB acquisition functions, with the retraction planned by DeformerNet toward a vertical-plane goal shape chosen to expose the selected query point. Incisions are made where the SBHM predictive probability exceeds thresholds. Experiments in Isaac Gym on BOX/CYLINDER/ELLIPSOID geometries compare BRO with random acquisition and show AUPRC gains; a noise experiment indicates SBHM updates improve over single classifier outputs. Four dVRK chicken-breast trials are presented as zero-shot sim-to-real transfer.

Significance. The strength of the work is a clean probabilistic formulation: uncertainty over attachment labels is propagated online without an explicit deformable tissue model, using a standard variational approximation (Eqs. 5-6) and a Monte-Carlo predictive covariance. If the central active-sensing advantage is established, the framework would be a useful step toward automating dissection, and the use of an ensemble as a noisy sensor for a Bayesian map is a sensible way to handle out-of-distribution classifier outputs. The manuscript also makes falsifiable predictions (BRO beats random acquisition; SBHM noise robustness) that are testable. However, several load-bearing validations are missing; the most serious is that the planned retraction is never checked to actually expose the selected query point, so the causal mechanism of BRO is unverified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-E, Algorithm 1, Eq. (7)] The load-bearing claim is that BRO's selected q* 'reveals' informative evidence. Algorithm 1 calls 'Robotic retraction to reveal q*', but Eq. (7) minimizes the expected attachment probability over the lifted half-plane and contains no visibility or occlusion term; it only enforces q* lies in the half-plane that is rotated upward. The camera is fixed, and DeformerNet may fail to achieve the goal shape. The paper never reports the fraction of simulated retractions in which q* is actually visible (unoccluded) in the post-retraction point cloud, nor compares BRO vs random under visibility filtering. Without this, the AUPRC advantage in Fig. 5 may be an artifact of correlation between the heuristic and occlusion rather than information-driven acquisition. This should be measured and, if necessary, the planning objective revised.
  2. [Abstract; §V-C, Fig. 5] The abstract and introduction claim the method 'outperforming two competitive baselines in simulation.' The only policy baseline in §V-C is 'no acquisition' (uniform random q*). Fig. 6 compares SBHM versus a single noisy classifier, which is an ablation of the Bayesian update, not a retraction baseline. There is no comparison to a hand-crafted retraction policy or simulation-based active inference baseline. The claim should be corrected to one baseline, or a second baseline should be added.
  3. [§IV-D, §VI] 'Zero-shot sim-to-real transfer' is not supported as stated. §IV-D states that for real-world experiments the incision confidence threshold is lowered from 0.9 to 0.83 and the neighborhood rule relaxed from 50% to 41%, and that 'these hyperparameters are chosen manually based on real-world point clouds.' This is adaptation using target-domain data, not zero-shot. Additionally, §VI reports only four trials with qualitative figures and no quantitative localization error or uncertainty estimates. Please either present a held-out protocol, report quantitative metrics, or weaken the claim to 'threshold-adapted transfer.'
  4. [§V-C, Fig. 5] The text states BRO 'significantly outperforms' the random baseline, but Fig. 5 shows only mean AUPRC curves over 30 trials with no error bars, confidence intervals, or paired significance tests across the EI/nEI/UCB variants. Given the small trial count and high variance in attachments, the significance claim needs explicit statistical support.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The denominator is written as (1 + π(φ^T S φ)^2 / 8)^{1/2}, which mismatches the standard probit approximation σ((m^Tφ)/(1+(π/8) φ^T S φ)^{1/2}). Please check the formula and use consistent notation.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The loop condition 'tissue attached(Q)' is never defined; it should be specified (e.g., based on ground truth in simulation, or on SBHM confidence in deployment).
  3. [§IV-C, Eq. (4)] Each non-occluded query point contributes one label per ensemble member; these correlated labels are treated as independent observations in the VB update. This may overcount ensemble agreement; consider weighting or a single fused label.
  4. [§V-A] Attached-class precision/recall of 0.343/0.584 is quite low; it would be useful to report ensemble disagreement and calibration, since they drive the noise model.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Real-world 'zero-shot' claim is partially fitted via test-set threshold tuning; core SBHM/BRO derivation is otherwise self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV-D (Robotic Attachment Point Incision) and Section VI (Real-World Application)]
    "In our real-world experiments (Section VI), classifier noise increases uncertainty in the SBHM, as the method is applied zero-shot after being trained entirely in simulation. To account for this, we lower the incision confidence threshold to 0.83 and relax the neighborhood rule: a query point is considered an incision candidate if at least 41% of its K= 15 nearest neighbors exceed the adjusted threshold. These hyperparameters are chosen manually based on real-world point clouds to trade off false positives and false negatives."

    The real-world success is reported after manually choosing the incision confidence threshold and neighborhood fraction from the same real-world point clouds used in the evaluation. Section VI then presents those thresholded outputs as correct/incorrect predictions ('correctly predicted tissue attachment points in all cases'). The output rule is therefore calibrated on the test data, so the zero-shot transfer claim is not a parameter-free prediction; the reported positive result is partly determined by the test-set tuning. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, though localized to the real-world claim; the simulation comparison uses fixed thresholds and is independent.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is self-contained: classifier predictions provide noisy labels; the SBHM update is a standard variational Bayesian logistic regression EM update (Eqs. 5-6) taken from external references; the acquisition functions are standard and are evaluated against a random-acquisition baseline. No equation reduces to its own input, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The DeformerNet dependency is an external component and is not used as a proof, so it does not constitute circularity here, although the unverified goal-shape heuristic is a correctness risk. The only exhibitable circular element is the real-world threshold tuning: the paper openly states the incision hyperparameters are chosen manually based on the real-world point clouds that are then used to demonstrate 'zero-shot' success. That makes the real-world claim partially a fitted input called a prediction, but it does not undermine the independent simulated BRO-vs-random comparison. Overall circularity is mild.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented physical entities are introduced; SBHM and BRO are algorithmic constructs. The free parameters are mostly hand-set hyperparameters, with the real-world incision thresholds being the most concerning because they are tuned on test data. The main assumptions are the planar-surface setup, classifier transferability, and the unverified q* exposure mechanism.

free parameters (9)
  • SBHM kernel bandwidth gamma = 10000
    Set in Section V-B; controls spatial smoothness of attachment probability and is hand-chosen.
  • EM iterations per update = 20
    Section V-B; convergence cutoff for variational logistic regression updates.
  • Incision confidence threshold (simulation) = 0.9; K=15; >=50% neighbors
    Section IV-D; any non-occluded point with at least half of K=15 neighbors above 0.9 becomes an incision candidate.
  • Incision confidence threshold (real-world) = 0.83; 41% of K=15
    Section IV-D; adjusted manually based on real-world point clouds, i.e., fitted to test data, weakening the zero-shot claim.
  • Acquisition exploration hyperparameters epsilon = 1.0 (EI), 1.0 (nEI), 2.0 (UCB)
    Section V-B; exploration-exploitation trade-off chosen by hand.
  • Attached-class loss upweight = 6
    Section V-A; class imbalance correction in cross-entropy, chosen by hand.
  • Attachment-disc radius expansion for evaluation = 5 mm
    Section V-B; disc radii expanded when reporting results to account for spatial mismatch; inflates reported overlap.
  • Occlusion filtering threshold = 0.5
    Section IV-B; average ensemble occlusion probability above 0.5 is filtered out as occluded.
  • Monte Carlo sample count for covariance Sigma_f = not reported
    Section IV-A estimates covariance by Monte Carlo sampling but does not state the number of samples; affects acquisition quality.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Variational Bayesian logistic regression EM updates (Eqs. 5-6) correctly approximate the posterior for the Gaussian prior.
    Invoked in Section IV-C; follows Jaakkola & Jordan and Bishop, cited as [8,2]. The paper does not re-derive convergence.
  • domain assumption The predictive distribution p(y=1|q,m,S) is well approximated by the closed-form sigmoid with variance correction (Eq. 2).
    Used to compute mu_f; the approximation is standard but is an additional modeling layer.
  • domain assumption The attachment surface S is planar and query points Q are a 2D grid known a priori.
    Section III and IV-E; BRO's vertical-plane goal-shape heuristic assumes planar S; the paper acknowledges this limitation for non-planar surfaces.
  • domain assumption The ensemble of PointNet classifiers, trained entirely in simulation, provides informative likelihoods on real tissue despite distribution shift.
    Central to the zero-shot claim; Section VI admits real point clouds are out-of-distribution and predictions are extremely noisy, so this is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption DeformerNet (or the retraction planner) can realize a goal shape that actually exposes the selected acquisition point q* to the camera.
    Section IV-E solves Eq. (7) by random sampling and does not verify q* visibility; the whole BRO objective depends on this.
  • ad hoc to paper The occlusion mask (mean occlusion probability > 0.5) reliably identifies unobservable query points.
    Section IV-B; fixed threshold not derived, and real noise can break it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Retraction Optimization for Tissue Attachment Mapping in Surgical Dissection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CVUTYNFE

@misc{pith2026260719174,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Retraction Optimization for Tissue Attachment Mapping in Surgical Dissection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CVUTYNFE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19174}
}
read the original abstract

With growing surgeon shortages, automating surgical sub-tasks such as tissue dissection offers a promising step toward reducing workload and expanding patient access. Prior work has relied on hand-crafted incision policies that cannot quantify uncertainty or has relied on simulation-based methods that require strong modeling assumptions. We instead view tissue attachment identification as an inherently probabilistic problem and propose a Bayesian approach that avoids explicit tissue modeling. Our method uses a Sequential Bayesian Hilbert Map (SBHM) to represent the likelihood that each tissue point is attached to the underlying resection surface. An ensemble of learned classifiers predicts attachment likelihoods from spatial data acquired during robotic tissue retraction, with each classifier serving as a noisy information source to update the SBHM. To plan the next retraction, we devise Bayesian Retraction Optimization (BRO) to select the most informative action under safety constraints. As the SBHM refines over time, regions with high attachment likelihood are selectively incised. We validate our method in simulation across diverse tissue geometries and acquisition strategies, and demonstrate zero-shot transfer to real robotic dissection experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19174 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of a single iteration of our method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bayesian retraction optimization examples from our simulations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Tissue dissection simulation environment for evaluating our approach. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Average precision-recall area (AUPRC) over all trials at each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average performance (AUPRC) of our method with simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example tissue dissection execution sequences in our simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Experimental results with the dVRK system in chicken breast tissue showing identification of attachment points after a single iteration of our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of a multi-timestep tissue dissection using our method. Starting from the initial SBHM (first row), the selected acquisition point (gold star) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

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

    2021

  2. [2]

    Springer, 2006

    Christopher M Bishop and Nasser M Nasrabadi.Pattern recognition and machine learning, volume 4. Springer, 2006

    2006

  3. [3]

    Pasu Boonvisut and M Cenk C ¸avus ¸o˘glu. Identification and ac- tive exploration of deformable object boundary constraints through robotic manipulation.The International journal of robotics research, 33(11):1446–1461, 2014

    2014

  4. [4]

    Active vision in robotic systems: A survey of recent developments.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(11):1343–1377, 2011

    Shengyong Chen, Youfu Li, and Ngai Ming Kwok. Active vision in robotic systems: A survey of recent developments.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(11):1343–1377, 2011

    2011

  5. [5]

    Planning sensing sequences for subsurface 3d tumor mapping

    Brian Y Cho, Tucker Hermans, and Alan Kuntz. Planning sensing sequences for subsurface 3d tumor mapping. In2021 International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Tumor localization using automated palpation with gaussian process adaptive sampling

    Animesh Garg, Siddarth Sen, Rishi Kapadia, Yiming Jen, Stephen McKinley, Lauren Miller, and Ken Goldberg. Tumor localization using automated palpation with gaussian process adaptive sampling. In2016 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pages 194–200. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Supervised autonomous electrosurgery for soft tissue resection

    Jiawei Ge, Hamed Saeidi, Michael Kam, Justin Opfermann, and Axel Krieger. Supervised autonomous electrosurgery for soft tissue resection. In2021 IEEE 21st International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    A variational approach to bayesian logistic regression models and their extensions

    Tommi S Jaakkola and Michael I Jordan. A variational approach to bayesian logistic regression models and their extensions. InSixth International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 283–294. PMLR, 1997

    1997

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions.Journal of Global optimization, 13:455–492, 1998

    Donald R Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J Welch. Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions.Journal of Global optimization, 13:455–492, 1998

    1998

  2. [10]

    An open-source research kit for the da vinci® surgical system

    Peter Kazanzides, Zihan Chen, Anton Deguet, Gregory S Fischer, Russell H Taylor, and Simon P DiMaio. An open-source research kit for the da vinci® surgical system. In2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 6434–6439. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Segment anything

    Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, et al. Segment anything. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4015– 4026, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Gpu-accelerated robotic simulation for distributed reinforcement learning

    Jacky Liang, Viktor Makoviychuk, Ankur Handa, Nuttapong Chentanez, Miles Macklin, and Dieter Fox. Gpu-accelerated robotic simulation for distributed reinforcement learning. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 270–282. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Ontology-based surgical subtask automation, automating blunt dissection.Journal of Medical Robotics Research, 3(03n04):1841005, 2018

    D´enes ´Akos Nagy, Tam´as D ´aniel Nagy, Ren ´ata Elek, Imre J Rudas, and Tam´as Haidegger. Ontology-based surgical subtask automation, automating blunt dissection.Journal of Medical Robotics Research, 3(03n04):1841005, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Nagy, M ´arta Tak´acs, Imre J

    Tam´as D. Nagy, M ´arta Tak´acs, Imre J. Rudas, and Tam ´as Haidegger. Surgical subtask automation — soft tissue retraction. In2018 IEEE 16th World Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence and Informatics (SAMI), pages 000055–000060, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    The current state of autonomous suturing: a systematic review.Surgical Endoscopy, 38(5):2383–2397, 2024

    Benjamin T Ostrander, Daniel Massillon, Leo Meller, Zih-Yun Chiu, Michael Yip, and Ryan K Orosco. The current state of autonomous suturing: a systematic review.Surgical Endoscopy, 38(5):2383–2397, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 652–660, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Hilbert maps: Scalable continuous occupancy mapping with stochastic gradient descent.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 35(14):1717–1730, 2016

    Fabio Ramos and Lionel Ott. Hilbert maps: Scalable continuous occupancy mapping with stochastic gradient descent.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 35(14):1717–1730, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Supervised autonomous electrosurgery via biocompatible near-infrared tissue tracking techniques.IEEE transactions on medical robotics and bionics, 1(4):228–236, 2019

    H Saeidi, J Ge, M Kam, JD Opfermann, S Leonard, AS Joshi, and A Krieger. Supervised autonomous electrosurgery via biocompatible near-infrared tissue tracking techniques.IEEE transactions on medical robotics and bionics, 1(4):228–236, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Trajectory-optimized sensing for active search of tissue abnormalities in robotic surgery

    Hadi Salman, Elif Ayvali, Rangaprasad Arun Srivatsan, Yifei Ma, Nicolas Zevallos, Rashid Yasin, Long Wang, Nabil Simaan, and Howie Choset. Trajectory-optimized sensing for active search of tissue abnormalities in robotic surgery. In2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotic...

    2018

  12. [20]

    Bayesian hilbert maps for dynamic continuous occupancy mapping

    Ransalu Senanayake and Fabio Ramos. Bayesian hilbert maps for dynamic continuous occupancy mapping. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 458–471. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Jiggle: An active sensing framework for boundary parameters estimation in deformable surgical environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09743, 2024

    Nikhil Uday Shinde, Xiao Liang, Fei Liu, Yutong Zhang, Florian Richter, Sylvia Herbert, and Michael C Yip. Jiggle: An active sensing framework for boundary parameters estimation in deformable surgical environments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.09743, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting: No regret and experimental design.arXiv preprint arXiv:0912.3995, 2009

    Niranjan Srinivas, Andreas Krause, Sham M Kakade, and Matthias Seeger. Gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting: No regret and experimental design.arXiv preprint arXiv:0912.3995, 2009

    2009 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Data-driven intra-operative estimation of anatomical attachments for autonomous tissue dissection.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2):1856–1863, 2021

    Eleonora Tagliabue, Diego Dall’Alba, Micha Pfeiffer, Marco Piccinelli, Riccardo Marin, Umberto Castellani, Stefanie Speidel, and Paolo Fior- ini. Data-driven intra-operative estimation of anatomical attachments for autonomous tissue dissection.IEEE Robotics and Automation Lett...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Deformer- net: Learning bimanual manipulation of 3d deformable objects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04449, 2023

    Bao Thach, Brian Y Cho, Tucker Hermans, and Alan Kuntz. Deformer- net: Learning bimanual manipulation of 3d deformable objects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04449, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Defgoalnet: Contextual goal learning from demonstrations for deformable object manipulation

    Bao Thach, Tanner Watts, Shing-Hei Ho, Tucker Hermans, and Alan Kuntz. Defgoalnet: Contextual goal learning from demonstrations for deformable object manipulation. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 3145–3152. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Efficient sampling for rapid estimation of 3-d stiffness distribution via active tactile exploration

    Shiyi Yang, Soo Jeon, and Jongeun Choi. Efficient sampling for rapid estimation of 3-d stiffness distribution via active tactile exploration. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 25(4):1729–1738, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Physician workforce in the united states of america: forecasting nationwide shortages.Human resources for health, 18(1):1–9, 2020

    Xiaoming Zhang, Daniel Lin, Hugh Pforsich, and Vernon W Lin. Physician workforce in the united states of america: forecasting nationwide shortages.Human resources for health, 18(1):1–9, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    A corrected expected improvement acquisition function under noisy observations

    Han Zhou, Xingchen Ma, and Matthew B Blaschko. A corrected expected improvement acquisition function under noisy observations. InAsian Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1747–1762. PMLR, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.