Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Safe Uncertainty-Aware Learning of Robotic Suturing

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An ensemble of diffusion policies plus a control barrier function can give autonomous suturing both an out-of-distribution detector and formal action safety.

desk verdict Solid proof-of-concept for ensemble diffusion plus CBF suturing, but the formal safety claim outruns the offline evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16596 v1 pith:6JZ23UDF submitted 2025-05-22 cs.RO cs.AI

Wilbert Peter Empleo , Yitaek Kim , Hansoul Kim , Thiusius Rajeeth Savarimuthu , Iñigo Iturrate This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords diffusionpolicyensembleepistemicuncertaintyout-of-distributiondetectioncontrolbarrierfunctionsroboticsuturingrobot-assistedminimallyinvasivesurgeryimitationlearningsafetyfilter
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 claims that the two big obstacles to trusting learned controllers in robot-assisted surgery—no confidence measure and no safety guarantee—can be addressed together for the subtask of needle insertion. It trains several diffusion policies on expert demonstrations of suturing and treats the spread among their predicted actions as a measure of epistemic uncertainty, using a likelihood-ratio test to decide whether the current state is outside the training distribution and should trigger a handover back to the surgeon. On top of this, it applies a model-free control barrier function that filters the commanded velocity so the needle tip stays inside an ellipsoidal safety region around the suture site. If the approach works as described, an autonomous suturing system could refuse to act blindly on unfamiliar inputs and block physically unsafe motions even when the learned policy proposes them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an ensemble of diffusion policies: $N$ independently trained models produce $N$ action sequences from the same observation, and the disagreement among them—summarized by $\hat{\sigma}_t = \max|\Sigma_{a,t}|$—is treated as epistemic uncertainty and fed into a likelihood-ratio test that classifies the current state as in-distribution or out-of-distribution. The second mechanism is the model-free control barrier function used as a safety filter on the velocity command. The safe set is an ellipsoid centered between the suture entry and exit points, with barrier candidate $h(x_c) = 1 - (D_x^2/a^2 + D_y^2/b^2 + D_z^2/c^2)$, and the filtered safe velocity is $\dot{x}_s = \dot{x}_n + \max(-n_o^\top \dot{x}_n - \alpha h(x_c), 0)n_o$. The paper invokes Theorem 1 from the model-free CBF literature: if a stable velocity controller tracks the safe velocity with rate $\lambda > \alpha$, then the system remains inside the safe set, so the formal guarantee is inherited from that tracking condition.

What would settle it

Run the policy under the same ellipsoidal safety set on hardware or a higher-rate simulator, command a deliberately unsafe nominal velocity, and record the needle-tip position; the central claim is falsified if the needle leaves the ellipsoid while the barrier filter is active, i.e., if $h(x) < 0$ for any state that began inside the safe set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a learned suturing policy can be wrapped in two redundant safety layers without needing an accurate dynamics model of the robot. An ensemble of independently trained diffusion policies yields a distribution of predicted action sequences; the maximum absolute action covariance rises sharply when the visual or kinematic input leaves the training distribution, and a likelihood-ratio test calibrated on in-distribution rollouts turns this signal into an out-of-distribution detector. Independently, a model-free control barrier function defined by an ellipsoid around the suture site modifies the nominal velocity command, and under the paper's stated assumptions this filter gives formal safety guarantees, keeping the barrier value $h(x) \ge 0$. The experiments show detection of a dropped needle, a moved camera, and a moved phantom, plus offline demonstration that the barrier filter keeps a would-be unsafe trajectory inside the safety set.

Load-bearing premise

The formal safety guarantee from the control barrier function holds only if the robot's low-level velocity controller tracks the filtered safe velocity fast enough, a condition the paper could not test in simulation because the simulator ran at 1 Hz; on a real system the guarantee depends on the 100 Hz controller satisfying it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A suturing policy can execute autonomously at surgical autonomy Levels 2–3, handing control back to the surgeon whenever ensemble uncertainty crosses the calibrated out-of-distribution threshold.
  • The control barrier filter can remain active during manual teleoperation, so surgeon-commanded motions that would pull the needle from the tissue are also constrained.
  • Because the policy generalizes within its training distribution, the detector does not fire for every perturbation; it fires only for genuinely unseen states such as a dropped needle or post-insertion phantom motion.
  • If the velocity-tracking condition holds on real hardware, the CBF safety claim is formal rather than heuristic: the needle tip provably stays inside the user-defined ellipsoid for the duration of the filtered rollout.
  • The uncertainty signal can guide data collection by localizing the states where the ensemble disagrees most and additional expert demonstrations are needed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not in the paper but implied by the mechanism: the ensemble disagreement statistic could be used online to steer the robot toward the most confident prediction instead of only switching control off.
  • Not in the paper: the ellipsoidal safety set would need to be registered to the actual wound geometry in a clinical setting, for instance by segmenting the tissue online, rather than being fixed at a pre-set point.
  • Not in the paper: a systematic distribution-shift benchmark with varied illumination, tissue texture, needle pose, and camera angles would reveal how calibrated the max-covariance detector remains outside the scenarios tested.
  • Not in the paper: because the simulation could not close a fast velocity loop, the first hardware experiment should verify the $\lambda > \alpha$ tracking condition directly before relying on the formal guarantee.
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. The paper proposes a safety framework for autonomous robotic suturing. An ensemble of diffusion policies trained on expert demonstrations provides action sequences and an epistemic uncertainty signal; a likelihood-ratio test is used to label states as in-distribution or out-of-distribution, with the intent to hand control back to the surgeon when OOD states are detected. As a redundant safety layer, the authors implement a model-free control barrier function (based on [62]) that filters the policy's velocity command so that the needle tip remains inside a user-defined ellipsoidal safe set. The framework is evaluated in the AMBF-based surgical simulator across four settings: dropped needle, moved camera, moved phantom, and offline CBF filtering. The paper reports that the policy generalizes to mild perturbations, that OOD detection is qualitatively successful, and that the CBF keeps the needle tip within the safety set for a recorded trajectory.

Significance. If validated, the combination of ensemble-based epistemic uncertainty with a model-free CBF would be a practically relevant step toward accountable autonomous RMIS, and the paper's emphasis on redundant safety layers is appropriate. The manuscript describes its components in enough detail to be largely reproducible in the AMBF simulator, and it addresses an important clinical problem. However, the experimental evaluation is almost entirely qualitative, the OOD detection is based on the maximum over multiple runs rather than per-run statistics, and the formal safety guarantee of the CBF rests on conditions that are not verified in the simulator. These gaps leave the central claims with weaker support than the abstract and conclusion suggest.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI.B and Section IV.E] The abstract and conclusion claim that the model-free CBF 'place[s] formal safety guarantees on the predicted action,' but the guarantee from Theorem 1 ([62]) requires an exponentially stable velocity-tracking controller with convergence rate λ > α and initial conditions in S_V. Section VI.B explicitly states that the AMBF simulator could not run a closed-loop velocity controller faster than 1 Hz, so the CBF was evaluated offline on a recorded reference trajectory. Consequently, the condition λ > α was never checked in simulation, and the appeal to the dVRK's 100 Hz capability is speculative: a higher command rate does not by itself imply exponential velocity tracking with the required rate, especially in the presence of tendon-driven kinematic errors that the authors acknowledge. Please provide a closed-loop tracking experiment (e.g., step response or measured tracking error with an exponential fit) in a suitable simulator or instrumented setup, or rephrase the safety claim as conditional on the unverified tracking assumption.
  2. [Section III.C and Section IV.E] Theorem 1 is stated for a configuration-space barrier function h_q(q) with the full-order dynamics (7), while the implemented CBF in Eqs. (13)-(15) operates on the Cartesian end-effector position x_c with h(x_c) = 1 - (D_x^2/a^2 + D_y^2/b^2 + D_z^2/c^2). The paper does not derive the mapping between the configuration-space safe set and the Cartesian ellipsoid, nor does it show that the task-space filter (15) satisfies the theorem's assumptions under the PSM kinematics (e.g., bounded Jacobian, Lipschitz properties of h, or the relation between joint-space and Cartesian velocity tracking errors). Without such a derivation or an explicit statement of additional conditions, the 'formal safety guarantee' does not directly transfer to the implemented system. Please provide the Jacobian-based formulation or cite a result that justifies applying the model-free CBF theorem directly in task space.
  3. [Section V.A-D and Section IV.D] The OOD detection results are presented only qualitatively. Figures 5-8 plot the uncertainty and the OOD detector's background color for individual scenarios, but each figure caption states 'We use the maximum sample of the X runs' for the OOD detection, which can mask run-to-run variability and inflate apparent detectability. There are no per-run detection rates, false-positive rates, time-to-detection statistics, or comparisons with standard uncertainty baselines (e.g., Monte Carlo dropout, single-model variance, or predictive entropy). Because the Conclusion asserts that 'it was possible to detect these out-of-distribution scenarios consistently during multiple executions,' the paper needs quantitative per-execution metrics and a baseline comparison to support that claim.
  4. [Section IV.D] The OOD detector is described as a likelihood-ratio test (LRT) with a significance level α = 0.05, but the test is never fully specified. The paper defines the in-distribution calibration distribution M_ID = N(x̄, h_σ) but does not define the null and alternative hypotheses, how the scalar uncertainty σ̂_t = max|Σ_{a,t}| is converted into a likelihood-ratio statistic, or how the critical value is determined. This makes the OOD detection procedure non-reproducible and prevents the reader from assessing whether a proper statistical test is being performed. Please specify the LRT formulation explicitly or replace the term 'likelihood-ratio test' with a more accurate description of the thresholding procedure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I and Fig. 1 caption] The sentence 'the surgeons' in such systems' near the end of Section I is an incomplete phrase and should be rewritten; also, the Fig. 1 caption contains a typo: 'depeding' should be 'depending.'
  2. [Section V.A-D] The figure captions repeatedly state 'We use the maximum sample of the X runs during the OOD detection,' but the main text does not explain why the maximum over runs is used or how this relates to the uncertainty metric defined in Section IV.D. Please clarify this choice in the text before the figures.
  3. [Table I] The hyperparameters in Table I are presented as paired short-hand columns, which makes it difficult to tell which value belongs to which hyperparameter (e.g., 'prediction horizon 8' vs 'batch size 8'). A conventional two-column layout with one hyperparameter per row would improve clarity.
  4. [Section V and VI] The OOD detection experiments are described as 'shown but not enforced' (Section V), meaning the surgeon-handover behavior is not actually evaluated end-to-end. A sentence in the Discussion noting this as a limitation would be useful, since the handover mechanism is a central part of the proposed framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: central claims rest on an external CBF theorem and standard calibration; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations appear in related work.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for its core components. The ensemble uncertainty is computed directly from forward passes of independently trained diffusion policies, and the OOD detector in Section IV.D calibrates a null distribution on in-distribution rollouts before evaluating on held-out OOD scenarios (needle drop, camera move, phantom move); none of the OOD test outcomes are used to fit the threshold, so the reported detections are genuine held-out results rather than fitted predictions. The model-free CBF safety filter in Section IV.E is imported from the external theorem of Molnar et al. [62], whose authors do not overlap with the present paper, and the filter is applied using the paper's own ellipsoidal barrier function (13)-(15); no self-citation is load-bearing for the safety guarantee. The paper candidly states in Section VI.B that the CBF was evaluated offline and that the required velocity-tracking condition (lambda > alpha) was not verified in the AMBF simulator; this is a correctness or support limitation, not circularity, because the theorem's premise is simply unconfirmed rather than assumed into the conclusion. The related-work self-citations ([50], [51], [56]) are contextual and do not provide the paper's central premises. Overall, no circular step reduces a prediction to its own inputs; the score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations in the related work.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on one external theorem, the unverified velocity-tracking condition, the Gaussian I.D. model, and the validity of ensemble variance as an uncertainty proxy. Several user-chosen parameters (ensemble size, LRT alpha, CBF ellipsoid and gain, calibration scale) are not reported numerically. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Ensemble size N = 4 (from Figure 4 caption)
    Number of independently trained diffusion policies; determines the uncertainty estimate and computational cost. Chosen by the authors without justification.
  • LRT significance level alpha = 0.05
    Significance factor for the OOD likelihood ratio test; a conventional choice with no sensitivity analysis.
  • CBF ellipsoid semi-axes a, b, c and center P_o = not reported numerically
    Manual definition of the safety region around the suturing area; the CBF guarantee depends entirely on this choice, but the values are not given.
  • CBF gain alpha in Eq. (14) and (15) = not reported
    Gain in the safety condition grad h * x_s >= -alpha h(x); selected by the authors and not reported, so the filter's behavior cannot be reproduced.
  • I.D. calibration distribution M_ID = N(x_bar, h_sigma) = x_bar and h_sigma estimated from I.D. rollouts; h_sigma not specified
    The null distribution for the LRT is calibrated on in-distribution rollouts; the scale h_sigma is a fitted quantity that controls OOD sensitivity.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 from Molnar et al. [62] guarantee forward invariance of the safe set under a stable velocity-tracking controller with lambda > alpha.
    The paper invokes these published results in Section III.C as the basis for its CBF safety guarantee, without proving them.
  • domain assumption A velocity-tracking controller exists that tracks the safe velocity fast enough to satisfy the conditions of Theorem 1.
    Stated as a requirement in Section VI.B; the AMBF simulator only permits 1 Hz control, so the assumption is not verified and may fail on tendon-driven hardware.
  • domain assumption Ensemble disagreement, measured as max |Sigma_a|, is a valid proxy for epistemic uncertainty and reliably separates I.D. from O.O.D. inputs.
    The OOD detector in Section IV.D rests on this assumption; Section VI.A itself discusses multi-modal distributions and aleatoric versus epistemic conflation as complications.
  • domain assumption The I.D. uncertainty distribution is Gaussian: M_ID = N(x_bar, h_sigma).
    This is used to run the likelihood ratio test in Section IV.D, but the paper notes in Section VI.A that demonstration data can be multi-modal, which would violate the Gaussian assumption.
  • domain assumption The AMBF-based simulator [66] is a faithful representation of the dVRK surgical robot and suturing task.
    All results are obtained in simulation; the authors note in Section VI.B that PSM forward kinematics are inaccurate due to cable slack, limiting transfer to real hardware.
  • domain assumption The autonomous expert demonstrator generates demonstrations representative of expert surgical needle insertion.
    Training data is produced from privileged simulator state (Section IV.A) without validation against human expert demonstrations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Safe Uncertainty-Aware Learning of Robotic Suturing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JZ23UDF

@misc{pith2026250516596,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Safe Uncertainty-Aware Learning of Robotic Suturing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JZ23UDF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16596}
}
read the original abstract

Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery is currently fully manually controlled by a trained surgeon. Automating this has great potential for alleviating issues, e.g., physical strain, highly repetitive tasks, and shortages of trained surgeons. For these reasons, recent works have utilized Artificial Intelligence methods, which show promising adaptability. Despite these advances, there is skepticism of these methods because they lack explainability and robust safety guarantees. This paper presents a framework for a safe, uncertainty-aware learning method. We train an Ensemble Model of Diffusion Policies using expert demonstrations of needle insertion. Using an Ensemble model, we can quantify the policy's epistemic uncertainty, which is used to determine Out-Of-Distribution scenarios. This allows the system to release control back to the surgeon in the event of an unsafe scenario. Additionally, we implement a model-free Control Barrier Function to place formal safety guarantees on the predicted action. We experimentally evaluate our proposed framework using a state-of-the-art robotic suturing simulator. We evaluate multiple scenarios, such as dropping the needle, moving the camera, and moving the phantom. The learned policy is robust to these perturbations, showing corrective behaviors and generalization, and it is possible to detect Out-Of-Distribution scenarios. We further demonstrate that the Control Barrier Function successfully limits the action to remain within our specified safety set in the case of unsafe predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16596 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our proposed framework consists of 1) a Diffusion Policy Ensemble model, which utilizes multiple trained Diffusion Policy models for quantifying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrations of how the diffusion process is applied on the demon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Image sequence of a single suture throw execution with a model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The top graph depicts the estimated uncertainty ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The top graph depicts the estimated uncertainty ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The manually-set safety bounds-ellipsoid around the suturing area is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left) 3D plot showing the reference trajectory (red), the actual trajectory after CBF (blue), and the ellipsoid safety bound (green) Middle) Value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Illustrates a common occurrence of uni- and multi-modality in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Illustrates a common occurrence where multiple demonstrations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [62]

    Model-free safety-critical control for robotic systems,

    T. G. Molnar, R. K. Cosner, A. W. Singletary, W. Ubellacker, and A. D. Ames, “Model-free safety-critical control for robotic systems,”IEEE robotics and automation letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 944–951, 2021

    2021

  2. [15]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,

    C. Chi, S. Feng, Y . Du, Z. Xu, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song, “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023

    2023

  3. [1]

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

    J. W. Kim, T. Z. Zhao, S. Schmidgall, A. Deguet, M. Kobilarov, C. Finn, and A. Krieger, “Surgical robot transformer (srt): Imitation learning for surgical tasks,” 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Orbit- surgical: An open-simulation framework for learning surgical augmented dexterity,

    Q. Yu, M. Moghani, K. Dharmarajan, V . Schorp, W. C.-H. Panitch, J. Liu, K. Hari, H. Huang, M. Mittal, K. Goldberg, and A. Garg, “Orbit- surgical: An open-simulation framework for learning surgical augmented dexterity,” 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [3]

    Surgicai: A hierarchical platform for fine-grained surgical policy learning and benchmarking,

    J. Wu, H. Zhou, P. Kazanzides, A. Munawar, and A. Liu, “Surgicai: A hierarchical platform for fine-grained surgical policy learning and benchmarking,” 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [4]

    Robot- assisted minimally invasive surgery—surgical robotics in the data age,

    T. Haidegger, S. Speidel, D. Stoyanov, and R. M. Satava, “Robot- assisted minimally invasive surgery—surgical robotics in the data age,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 110, no. 7, pp. 835–846, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [5]

    Nationwide introduction of minimally invasive robotic surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer and its association with severe complications,

    S. L. Jørgensen, O. Mogensen, C. Wu, K. Lund, M. Iachina, M. Kor- sholm, and P. T. Jensen, “Nationwide introduction of minimally invasive robotic surgery for early-stage endometrial cancer and its association with severe complications,”JAMA Surgery, vol. 154, no. 6, p. 530, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [6]

    Autonomy in surgical robotics,

    A. Attanasio, B. Scaglioni, E. De Momi, P. Fiorini, and P. Valdastri, “Autonomy in surgical robotics,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 651–679, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 72 references
  1. [7]

    Optimal needle grasp selection for automatic execution of suturing tasks in robotic minimally invasive surgery,

    T. Liu and M. C. C ¸ avus ¸o ˘glu, “Optimal needle grasp selection for automatic execution of suturing tasks in robotic minimally invasive surgery,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2894–2900, IEEE, 2015

    2015

  2. [8]

    Optimizing robot-assisted surgery suture plans to avoid joint limits and singularities,

    B. Thananjeyan, A. Tanwani, J. Ji, D. Fer, V . Patel, S. Krishnan, and K. Goldberg, “Optimizing robot-assisted surgery suture plans to avoid joint limits and singularities,” in2019 International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR), pp. 1–7, 2019

    2019

  3. [9]

    A single arm, single camera system for automated suturing,

    S. Iyer, T. Looi, and J. Drake, “A single arm, single camera system for automated suturing,” in2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 239–244, IEEE, 2013

    2013

  4. [10]

    Automating multi-throw multilateral surgical suturing with a mechanical needle guide and sequential convex optimization,

    S. Sen, A. Garg, D. V . Gealy, S. McKinley, Y . Jen, and K. Gold- berg, “Automating multi-throw multilateral surgical suturing with a mechanical needle guide and sequential convex optimization,” in2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4178–4...

    2016

  5. [11]

    Dual-arm robotic needle insertion with active tissue deformation for autonomous suturing,

    F. Zhong, Y . Wang, Z. Wang, and Y .-H. Liu, “Dual-arm robotic needle insertion with active tissue deformation for autonomous suturing,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2669–2676, 2019

    2019

  6. [12]

    Autonomous suturing framework and quantification using a cable-driven surgical robot,

    S. Aghajani Pedram, C. Shin, P. Ferguson, J. Ma, E. Dutson, and J. Rosen, “Autonomous suturing framework and quantification using a cable-driven surgical robot,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. PP, pp. 1–14, 11 2020

    2020

  7. [13]

    Automation of tissue piercing using circular needles and vision guidance for computer aided laparoscopic surgery,

    C. Staub, T. Osa, A. Knoll, and R. Bauernschmitt, “Automation of tissue piercing using circular needles and vision guidance for computer aided laparoscopic surgery,” in2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4585–4590, IEEE, 2010

    2010

  8. [14]

    Needle path planning for autonomous robotic surgical suturing,

    R. C. Jackson and M. C. C ¸ avus ¸o ˘glu, “Needle path planning for autonomous robotic surgical suturing,” in2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1669–1675, IEEE, 2013

    2013

  9. [16]

    A review of uncer- tainty quantification in medical image analysis: Probabilistic and non- probabilistic methods,

    L. Huang, S. Ruan, Y . Xing, and M. Feng, “A review of uncer- tainty quantification in medical image analysis: Probabilistic and non- probabilistic methods,”Medical Image Analysis, vol. 97, p. 103223, 2024

    2024

  10. [17]

    From aleatoric to epistemic: Exploring uncertainty quantification techniques in artificial intelligence,

    T. Wang, Y . Wang, J. Zhou, B. Peng, X. Song, C. Zhang, X. Sun, Q. Niu, J. Liu, S. Chen, K. Chen, M. Li, P. Feng, Z. Bi, M. Liu, Y . Zhang, C. Fei, C. H. Yin, and L. K. Yan, “From aleatoric to epistemic: Exploring uncertainty quantification techniques in artificial intelligence,” 2025

    2025

  11. [18]

    Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice,

    S. Alowais, S. Alghamdi, N. Alsuhebany, T. Alqahtani, A. Alshaya, S. Almohareb, A. Aldairem, M. Alrashed, K. Saleh, H. Badreldin, M. Al Yami, S. Al Harbi, and A. Albekairy, “Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice,”BMC Medical Educa...

    2023

  12. [19]

    A systematic review on artificial intelligence in robot-assisted surgery,

    A. Moglia, K. Georgiou, E. Georgiou, R. M. Satava, and A. Cuschieri, “A systematic review on artificial intelligence in robot-assisted surgery,” International Journal of Surgery, vol. 95, p. 106151, 2021

    2021

  13. [20]

    Smart tissue anastomosis robot (star): A vision-guided robotics system for laparoscopic suturing,

    S. Leonard, K. L. Wu, Y . Kim, A. Krieger, and P. C. Kim, “Smart tissue anastomosis robot (star): A vision-guided robotics system for laparoscopic suturing,”IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1305–1317, 2014

    2014

  14. [21]

    Autonomous laparoscopic robotic suturing with a novel actuated suturing tool and 3d endoscope,

    H. Saeidi, H. N. D. Le, J. D. Opfermann, S. Leonard, A. Kim, M. H. Hsieh, J. U. Kang, and A. Krieger, “Autonomous laparoscopic robotic suturing with a novel actuated suturing tool and 3d endoscope,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1541–1...

    2019

  15. [22]

    Smart tissue anastomosis robot (STAR): A vision-guided robotics system for laparoscopic suturing,

    S. Leonard, K. L. Wu, Y . Kim, A. Krieger, and P. C. W. Kim, “Smart tissue anastomosis robot (STAR): A vision-guided robotics system for laparoscopic suturing,”IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 1305–1317, 2014

    2014

  16. [23]

    Autonomous laparoscopic robotic suturing with a novel actuated suturing tool and 3D endoscope,

    H. Saeidi, H. N. D. Le, J. D. Opfermann, S. Leonard, A. Kim, M. H. Hsieh, J. U. Kang, and A. Krieger, “Autonomous laparoscopic robotic suturing with a novel actuated suturing tool and 3D endoscope,” in2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, 2019

    2019

  17. [24]

    Compass: a formal framework and aggregate dataset for generalized surgical procedure modeling,

    K. Hutchinson, I. Reyes, Z. Li, and H. Alemzadeh, “Compass: a formal framework and aggregate dataset for generalized surgical procedure modeling,”International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 18, p. 2143–2154, May 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    Learning by observation for surgical subtasks: Multilateral cutting of 3d viscoelastic and 2d orthotropic tissue phantoms,

    A. Murali, S. Sen, B. Kehoe, A. Garg, S. McFarland, S. Patil, W. D. Boyd, S. Lim, P. Abbeel, and K. Goldberg, “Learning by observation for surgical subtasks: Multilateral cutting of 3d viscoelastic and 2d orthotropic tissue phantoms,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Ro...

    2015

  19. [26]

    Autonomous bi-manual surgical suturing based on skills learned from demonstration,

    K. L. Schwaner, I. Iturrate, J. K. Andersen, P. T. Jensen, and T. R. Savarimuthu, “Autonomous bi-manual surgical suturing based on skills learned from demonstration,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Confer- 12 ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4017–4024, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  20. [27]

    Toward teaching by demonstration for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery,

    H. Su, A. Mariani, S. E. Ovur, A. Menciassi, G. Ferrigno, and E. De Momi, “Toward teaching by demonstration for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 484–494, 2021

    2021

  21. [28]

    Superhuman performance of surgical tasks by robots using iterative learning from human-guided demonstrations,

    J. van den Berg, S. Miller, D. Duckworth, H. Hu, A. Wan, X.-Y . Fu, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel, “Superhuman performance of surgical tasks by robots using iterative learning from human-guided demonstrations,” inIEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), (May 2010), 2010

    2010

  22. [29]

    Selective automa- tion and skill transfer in medical robotics: A demonstrationon surgical knot-tying,

    A. Bauernschmitt, H. Mayer, C. Staub, and A. Knoll, “Selective automa- tion and skill transfer in medical robotics: A demonstrationon surgical knot-tying,”Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg., vol. 8, p. 384–397, Dec 2012

    2012

  23. [30]

    Human-machine collaborative surgery using learned models,

    N. Padoy and G. Hager, “Human-machine collaborative surgery using learned models,” inProceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), p. 5285–5292, 2011

    2011

  24. [31]

    Hubot: A three state human-robot collaborative framework for bimanual surgical tasks based on learned models,

    P. Berthet-Rayne, M. Power, H. King, and G.-Z. Yang, “Hubot: A three state human-robot collaborative framework for bimanual surgical tasks based on learned models,” in2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 715–722, 2016

    2016

  25. [32]

    Implicit behavioral cloning,

    P. Florence, C. Lynch, A. Zeng, O. A. Ramirez, A. Wahid, L. Downs, A. Wong, J. Lee, I. Mordatch, and J. Tompson, “Implicit behavioral cloning,” inConference on robot learning, pp. 158–168, PMLR, 2022

    2022

  26. [33]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020

    2020

  27. [34]

    Introduction and exemplars of uncertainty decomposition,

    S. Chen, “Introduction and exemplars of uncertainty decomposition,” 2022

    2022

  28. [35]

    Uncertainty quantification and estimation in medical image classification,

    S. Yang and T. Fevens, “Uncertainty quantification and estimation in medical image classification,” inArtificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning – ICANN 2021(I. Farka ˇs, P. Masulli, S. Otte, and S. Wermter, eds.), (Cham), pp. 671–683, Springer International Publishing, 2021

    2021

  29. [36]

    Uncertainty quan- tification using bayesian neural networks in classification: Application to biomedical image segmentation,

    Y . Kwon, J.-H. Won, B. J. Kim, and M. C. Paik, “Uncertainty quan- tification using bayesian neural networks in classification: Application to biomedical image segmentation,”Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, vol. 142, p. 106816, 2020

    2020

  30. [37]

    C. K. Williams and C. E. Rasmussen,Gaussian processes for machine learning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006

    2006

  31. [38]

    Towards uncertainty unification: A case study for preference learning,

    S. Peng, H. Chen, and K. Driggs-Campbell, “Towards uncertainty unification: A case study for preference learning,” 2025

    2025

  32. [39]

    Online scalable gaussian processes with conformal prediction for guaranteed coverage,

    J. Xu, Q. Lu, and G. B. Giannakis, “Online scalable gaussian processes with conformal prediction for guaranteed coverage,” 2024

    2024

  33. [40]

    Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,

    Y . Gal and Z. Ghahramani, “Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning,” inProceedings of The 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning(M. F. Balcan and K. Q. Weinberger, eds.), vol. 48 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Researc...

    2016

  34. [41]

    Early failure detection in autonomous surgical soft-tissue manipulation via uncertainty quantification,

    J. Thompson, R. Koe, A. Le, G. Goodman, D. S. Brown, and A. Kuntz, “Early failure detection in autonomous surgical soft-tissue manipulation via uncertainty quantification,” 2025

    2025

  35. [42]

    Weighted ensembles for adaptive active learning,

    K. D. Polyzos, Q. Lu, and G. B. Giannakis, “Weighted ensembles for adaptive active learning,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 72, pp. 4178–4190, 2024

    2024

  36. [43]

    Can you trust your model’s uncer- tainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift,

    Y . Ovadia, E. Fertig, J. Ren, Z. Nado, D. Sculley, S. Nowozin, J. Dillon, B. Lakshminarayanan, and J. Snoek, “Can you trust your model’s uncer- tainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  37. [44]

    Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,

    A. D. Ames, S. Coogan, M. Egerstedt, G. Notomista, K. Sreenath, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,” in2019 18th European control conference (ECC), pp. 3420–3431, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  38. [45]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,

    A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2017

    2017

  39. [46]

    Towards robotic labo- ratory automation plug play: The “lapp

    ´Ad´am Wolf, D. Wolton, J. Trapl, J. Janda, S. Romeder-Finger, T. Gat- ternig, J.-B. Farcet, P. Galambos, and K. Sz ´ell, “Towards robotic labo- ratory automation plug play: The “lapp” framework,”SLAS Technology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 18–25, 2022

    2022

  40. [47]

    Barrier func- tions enable safety-conscious force-feedback control,

    C. Dawson, A. Garrett, F. Pollok, Y . Zhang, and C. Fan, “Barrier func- tions enable safety-conscious force-feedback control,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12270, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Robust safety-critical control for input-delayed system with delay estimation,

    Y . Kim, J. Kim, A. D. Ames, and C. Sloth, “Robust safety-critical control for input-delayed system with delay estimation,” in2024 European Control Conference (ECC), pp. 2218–2223, 2024

    2024

  42. [49]

    Robust adaptive safe robotic grasping with tactile sensing,

    Y . Kim, J. Kim, A. H. Li, A. D. Ames, and C. Sloth, “Robust adaptive safe robotic grasping with tactile sensing,” 2024

    2024

  43. [50]

    Safe contact-based robot active search using bayesian optimization and con- trol barrier functions,

    F. Vinter-Hviid, C. Sloth, T. R. Savarimuthu, and I. Iturrate, “Safe contact-based robot active search using bayesian optimization and con- trol barrier functions,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. V olume 11 - 2024, 2024

    2024

  44. [51]

    Safety-ensured control framework for robotic endoscopic task automation,

    Y . Kim, I. Iturrate, C. Sloth, and H. Kim, “Safety-ensured control framework for robotic endoscopic task automation,” 2025

    2025

  45. [52]

    Robust control barrier functions for constrained stabiliza- tion of nonlinear systems,

    M. Jankovic, “Robust control barrier functions for constrained stabiliza- tion of nonlinear systems,”Automatica, vol. 96, pp. 359–367, 2018

    2018

  46. [53]

    Adaptive safety with control barrier functions,

    A. J. Taylor and A. D. Ames, “Adaptive safety with control barrier functions,” in2020 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 1399– 1405, 2020

    2020

  47. [54]

    Robust adaptive control barrier functions: An adaptive and data-driven approach to safety,

    B. T. Lopez, J.-J. E. Slotine, and J. P. How, “Robust adaptive control barrier functions: An adaptive and data-driven approach to safety,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1031–1036, 2020

    2020

  48. [55]

    Gaussian process-based min-norm stabilizing controller for control- affine systems with uncertain input effects and dynamics,

    F. Casta ˜neda, J. J. Choi, B. Zhang, C. J. Tomlin, and K. Sreenath, “Gaussian process-based min-norm stabilizing controller for control- affine systems with uncertain input effects and dynamics,” in2021 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 3683–3690, 2021

    2021

  49. [56]

    Safe robust adaptive control under both parametric and nonparametric uncertainty,

    Y . Kim, I. Iturrate, J. Langaa, and C. Sloth, “Safe robust adaptive control under both parametric and nonparametric uncertainty,”Advanced Robotics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 357–366, 2024

    2024

  50. [57]

    Observer-based control barrier functions for safety critical systems,

    Y . Wang and X. Xu, “Observer-based control barrier functions for safety critical systems,” in2022 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 709– 714, 2022

    2022

  51. [58]

    Robust safe control synthesis with dis- turbance observer-based control barrier functions,

    E. Das ¸ and R. M. Murray, “Robust safe control synthesis with dis- turbance observer-based control barrier functions,” in2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 5566–5573, 2022

    2022

  52. [59]

    Distur- bance observers for robust safety-critical control with control barrier functions,

    A. Alan, T. G. Molnar, E. Das ¸, A. D. Ames, and G. Orosz, “Distur- bance observers for robust safety-critical control with control barrier functions,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 1123–1128, 2023

    2023

  53. [60]

    Model free barrier functions via implicit evading maneuvers,

    E. Squires, R. Konda, S. Coogan, and M. Egerstedt, “Model free barrier functions via implicit evading maneuvers,” 2022

    2022

  54. [61]

    Safety-critical kinematic control of robotic systems,

    A. Singletary, S. Kolathaya, and A. D. Ames, “Safety-critical kinematic control of robotic systems,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 139–144, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    M. W. Spong, S. Hutchinson, and M. Vidyasagar,Robot Modeling and Control. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2005

    2005

  56. [64]

    Input to state stability: Basic concepts and results,

    E. D. Sontag, “Input to state stability: Basic concepts and results,” in Nonlinear and Optimal Control Theory, pp. 163–220, Springer, 2008

    2008

  57. [65]

    Input-to-state safety with control barrier functions,

    S. Kolathaya and A. D. Ames, “Input-to-state safety with control barrier functions,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 108–113, 2019

    2019

  58. [66]

    Open simulation environment for learning and practice of robot-assisted surgical suturing,

    A. Munawar, J. Y . Wu, G. S. Fischer, R. H. Taylor, and P. Kazanzides, “Open simulation environment for learning and practice of robot-assisted surgical suturing,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3843–3850, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of current evidence and future perspectives,

    D. K. Manatakis, M.-I. Antonopoulou, N. Tasis, C. Agalianos, I. Tsouknidas, D. P. Korkolis, and C. Dervenis, “Critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of current evidence and future perspectives,”World Journal of Surgery, vol. 47, no. 3, pp....

    2023

  60. [68]

    MultiOOD: Scaling Out-of-Distribution Detection for Multiple Modalities,

    H. Dong, Y . Zhao, E. Chatzi, and O. Fink, “MultiOOD: Scaling Out-of-Distribution Detection for Multiple Modalities,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17419, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Risk versus uncertainty in deep learning: Bayes, bootstrap and the dangers of dropout,

    I. Osband, “Risk versus uncertainty in deep learning: Bayes, bootstrap and the dangers of dropout,” inNIPS workshop on bayesian deep learning, vol. 192, MIT Press, 2016

    2016

  62. [70]

    An effectiveness study across baseline and learning-based force esti- mation methods on the da vinci research kit si system,

    H. Yang, A. Acar, K. Xu, A. Deguet, P. Kazanzides, and J. Y . Wu, “An effectiveness study across baseline and learning-based force esti- mation methods on the da vinci research kit si system,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07453, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    End-to-end safe reinforcement learning through barrier functions for safety-critical con- tinuous control tasks,

    R. Cheng, G. Orosz, R. M. Murray, and J. W. Burdick, “End-to-end safe reinforcement learning through barrier functions for safety-critical con- tinuous control tasks,” inProceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-First Innovative Ap...

    2019

  64. [72]

    A survey on active learning and human-in-the-loop deep learning for medical image analysis,

    S. Budd, E. C. Robinson, and B. Kainz, “A survey on active learning and human-in-the-loop deep learning for medical image analysis,”Medical image analysis, vol. 71, p. 102062, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.