pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23593 · v1 · pith:ZUZRM53Wnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.CV

Real-Time Multimodal Activity-Aware Error Detection in Robot-Assisted Surgery

Seyed Hamid Reza Roodabeh , Zongyu Li , Homa Alemzadeh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 08:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.CV
keywords robot-assisted surgeryerror detectionmultimodal fusionactivity promptingkinematic datavisual embeddingssurgical datasets
0
0 comments X

The pith

A framework fusing video, kinematics and textual activity prompts improves error detection in robot-assisted surgery.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a unified system that combines video frames, robot motion data, and written descriptions of gestures, tool interactions, and error types to spot technical mistakes during procedures. It also tests visual features taken from encoders already trained on surgical activity labels. Performance gains appear when all inputs are used together rather than any subset alone. A reader would care because earlier detection of execution errors could limit harm in operations where precision matters most.

Core claim

By integrating kinematic data with video and textual modalities through activity prompting that describes gesture-level activities, instrument-object interactions, and error definitions, and by using activity-aware visual embeddings derived from vision encoders pretrained on surgical activity labels, the framework achieves up to 5% and 16.6% F1 score improvements over state-of-the-art baselines on the JIGSAWS and SAR-RARP50 datasets.

What carries the argument

Multimodal fusion of video, kinematics, and curated textual prompts for surgical activities and errors, using activity-aware visual embeddings from pretrained vision encoders.

If this is right

  • The textual prompts supply fine-grained contextual descriptions of activities and error types that video data alone overlooks.
  • Kinematic signals add motion information that complements both visual frames and language descriptions.
  • Activity-aware visual embeddings from surgical pretraining outperform standard image embeddings for the error detection task.
  • The same framework produces measurable gains on two distinct datasets, indicating the multimodal combination is not dataset-specific.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same prompting technique could be tested on error detection in non-surgical robotic tasks such as assembly or navigation if equivalent activity labels exist.
  • Real-time error scores from the system might feed directly into surgeon training simulators for immediate corrective feedback.
  • If prompt quality varies, the performance edge could shrink, suggesting a need to study automatic prompt generation as a follow-on experiment.

Load-bearing premise

Curated textual prompts describing gesture-level activities, instrument-object interactions, and error definitions can be integrated without introducing misalignment or noise that would degrade the multimodal fusion, and pretrained activity-aware visual embeddings transfer effectively without further domain-specific adaptation.

What would settle it

Evaluating the model on an independent surgical dataset where the full multimodal version shows no F1 gain over the strongest video-only or kinematics-only baseline would falsify the claimed benefit of the integrated approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23593 by Homa Alemzadeh, Seyed Hamid Reza Roodabeh, Zongyu Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Surgical hierarchy (adapted from [22]), example gesture and error labels, and context states [17]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Activity-Aware Error Detection Pipeline. Abbreviations: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example error-detection output of our framework on a test video [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery improves surgical precision but introduces complexity, making technical error detection essential for ensuring patient safety. Current executional error detection methods using video data often overlook fine-grained contextual descriptions of activities and error types within the hierarchical structure of surgical procedures. They also under-utilize complementary multimodal information. We propose a unified framework for executional error detection that leverages multimodal input, including video, kinematics, and descriptive textual prompts. Through activity prompting, we integrate descriptive language in gesture-level activities, instrument-object interactions, and error definitions. We also introduce activity-aware visual embeddings derived from vision encoders pretrained on surgical activity labels to compare the effectiveness of contrastive language-image embeddings with traditional image-based embeddings for error detection. By seamlessly integrating kinematic data with video and textual modalities, our framework significantly improves error detection performance. Achieving up to 5\% and 16.6\% F1 score improvements over state-of-the-art baselines on the JIGSAWS and SAR-RARP50 datasets, respectively, we demonstrate the value of combining curated textual prompts with multimodal data for accurate error detection.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a unified multimodal framework for executional error detection in robot-assisted surgery. It combines video, kinematics, and textual prompts on gesture-level activities, instrument-object interactions, and error definitions. Activity-aware visual embeddings from pretrained encoders are introduced and compared to traditional embeddings. The framework is claimed to achieve up to 5% and 16.6% F1 score improvements over state-of-the-art baselines on the JIGSAWS and SAR-RARP50 datasets, respectively.

Significance. If the reported F1 gains are supported by complete experimental details and ablations, the work would demonstrate the value of activity prompting and multimodal fusion (including language) for surgical error detection, addressing gaps in video-only approaches and potentially aiding patient safety in RAS.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Experimental Results] Abstract and Experimental Results: The central claim of 5% and 16.6% F1 improvements is presented without details on experimental setup, baseline implementations, statistical tests, or potential confounds. This information is load-bearing for attributing gains to the multimodal integration rather than implementation differences.
  2. [Methods] Methods: The framework relies on the assumption that curated textual prompts integrate without misalignment or noise and that activity-pretrained visual embeddings transfer effectively to error detection without domain adaptation. No ablation studies or analysis addressing this assumption are described, which is critical for validating the activity-aware component.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important areas for improving clarity around experimental details and validation of key assumptions. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Experimental Results] The central claim of 5% and 16.6% F1 improvements is presented without details on experimental setup, baseline implementations, statistical tests, or potential confounds. This information is load-bearing for attributing gains to the multimodal integration rather than implementation differences.

    Authors: We agree that greater transparency is needed to substantiate the reported gains. The manuscript describes the datasets (JIGSAWS and SAR-RARP50), evaluation protocol, and baseline methods in the Experimental Setup section, with results reported in Section 5. However, to strengthen attribution to the multimodal components, we will revise the Experimental Results section to include explicit baseline implementation details (e.g., hyperparameters and code references), statistical significance testing, and discussion of potential confounds such as data partitioning and preprocessing variations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] The framework relies on the assumption that curated textual prompts integrate without misalignment or noise and that activity-pretrained visual embeddings transfer effectively to error detection without domain adaptation. No ablation studies or analysis addressing this assumption are described, which is critical for validating the activity-aware component.

    Authors: The manuscript includes direct comparisons between activity-aware visual embeddings (pretrained on surgical activity labels) and traditional image-based embeddings, showing performance benefits. We also describe the curation process for textual prompts covering gestures, interactions, and errors. That said, we acknowledge the absence of targeted ablations on prompt robustness or domain adaptation effects. We will add these ablation studies and analysis in the revised Methods and Experiments sections to validate the activity-aware components. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical results on public datasets

full rationale

The paper proposes a multimodal framework for surgical error detection using video, kinematics, and textual prompts, with activity-aware embeddings from pretrained encoders. All claims are supported by direct experimental comparisons reporting F1 improvements (5% on JIGSAWS, 16.6% on SAR-RARP50) against baselines on public datasets. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional constructs, or load-bearing self-citation chains appear in the provided text. The derivation chain consists of implementation choices evaluated externally, making the results self-contained against benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5725 in / 1134 out tokens · 27403 ms · 2026-06-26T08:17:33.199849+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of fda data,

    H. Alemzadeh, J. Raman, N. Leveson, Z. Kalbarczyk, and R. K. Iyer, “Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of fda data,”PloS one, vol. 11, no. 4, p. e0151470, 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    Automated performance metrics and machine learning algorithms to measure surgeon performance and anticipate clinical outcomes in robotic surgery,

    A. J. Hung, J. Chen, and I. S. Gill, “Automated performance metrics and machine learning algorithms to measure surgeon performance and anticipate clinical outcomes in robotic surgery,”JAMA surgery, vol. 153, no. 8, pp. 770–771, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Defining technical errors in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review,

    E. M. Bonrath, N. J. Dedy, B. Zevin, and T. P. Grantcharov, “Defining technical errors in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review,”Surgical endoscopy, vol. 27, pp. 2678–2691, 2013. 8

    2013

  4. [4]

    Analysis of executional and procedural errors in dry- lab robotic surgery experiments,

    K. Hutchinson, Z. Li, L. A. Cantrell, N. S. Schenkman, and H. Alemzadeh, “Analysis of executional and procedural errors in dry- lab robotic surgery experiments,”The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, vol. 18, no. 3, p. e2375, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Video-based surgical skill assessment using 3d convolutional neural networks,

    I. Funke, S. T. Mees, J. Weitz, and S. Speidel, “Video-based surgical skill assessment using 3d convolutional neural networks,”International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, vol. 14, pp. 1217– 1225, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Towards accurate and interpretable surgical skill assessment: A video-based method incorporating recog- nized surgical gestures and skill levels,

    T. Wang, Y . Wang, and M. Li, “Towards accurate and interpretable surgical skill assessment: A video-based method incorporating recog- nized surgical gestures and skill levels,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, Part III 23. Springer, 2020, p...

    2020

  7. [7]

    Sd-net: joint surgical gesture recognition and skill assessment,

    J. Zhang, Y . Nie, Y . Lyu, X. Yang, J. Chang, and J. J. Zhang, “Sd-net: joint surgical gesture recognition and skill assessment,”International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 16, pp. 1675– 1682, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Development of a technical checklist for the assessment of suturing in robotic surgery,

    A. Guni, N. Raison, B. Challacombe, S. Khan, P. Dasgupta, and K. Ahmed, “Development of a technical checklist for the assessment of suturing in robotic surgery,”Surgical endoscopy, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 4402–4407, 2018

    2018

  9. [9]

    Sedmamba: Enhancing selective state space modelling with bottleneck mechanism and fine-to-coarse temporal fusion for efficient error detection in robot-assisted surgery,

    J. Xu, N. Sirajudeen, M. Boal, N. Francis, D. Stoyanov, and E. B. Ma- zomenos, “Sedmamba: Enhancing selective state space modelling with bottleneck mechanism and fine-to-coarse temporal fusion for efficient error detection in robot-assisted surgery,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Context-aware monitoring in robotic surgery,

    M. S. Yasar, D. Evans, and H. Alemzadeh, “Context-aware monitoring in robotic surgery,” in2019 International symposium on medical robotics (ISMR). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–7

    2019

  11. [11]

    Real-time context-aware detection of unsafe events in robot-assisted surgery,

    M. S. Yasar and H. Alemzadeh, “Real-time context-aware detection of unsafe events in robot-assisted surgery,” in2020 50th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN). IEEE, 2020, pp. 385–397

    2020

  12. [12]

    Runtime detection of execu- tional errors in robot-assisted surgery,

    Z. Li, K. Hutchinson, and H. Alemzadeh, “Runtime detection of execu- tional errors in robot-assisted surgery,” in2022 International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 3850–3856

    2022

  13. [13]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clarket al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PmLR, 2021, pp. 8748–8763

    2021

  14. [14]

    Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning,

    J.-B. Alayrac, J. Donahue, P. Luc, A. Miech, I. Barr, Y . Hasson, K. Lenc, A. Mensch, K. Millican, M. Reynoldset al., “Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 23 716–23 736, 2022

    2022

  15. [15]

    Surgical-lvlm: Learning to adapt large vision-language model for grounded visual question answering in robotic surgery,

    G. Wang, L. Bai, W. J. Nah, J. Wang, Z. Zhang, Z. Chen, J. Wu, M. Islam, H. Liu, and H. Ren, “Surgical-lvlm: Learning to adapt large vision-language model for grounded visual question answering in robotic surgery,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10948, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Gesture recognition in robotic surgery with multimodal attention,

    B. Van Amsterdam, I. Funke, E. Edwards, S. Speidel, J. Collins, A. Srid- har, J. Kelly, M. J. Clarkson, and D. Stoyanov, “Gesture recognition in robotic surgery with multimodal attention,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1677–1687, 2022

    2022

  17. [17]

    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, no. 12, pp. 2143–2154, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

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

    Y . Qin, S. F. Feyzabadi, M. Allan, J. W. Burdick, and M. Azizian, “davincinet: Joint prediction of motion and surgical state in robot- assisted surgery,” 2020

    2020

  19. [19]

    Multimodal transformers for real-time surgical activity prediction,

    K. Weerasinghe, S. H. R. Roodabeh, K. Hutchinson, and H. Alemzadeh, “Multimodal transformers for real-time surgical activity prediction,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 13 323–13 330

    2024

  20. [20]

    Multimodal semi- supervised learning for online recognition of multi-granularity surgical workflows,

    Y . Yamada, J. Colan, A. Davila, and Y . Hasegawa, “Multimodal semi- supervised learning for online recognition of multi-granularity surgical workflows,”International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1075–1083, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Deep multimodal fusion for surgical feedback classification,

    R. Kocielnik, E. Y . Wong, T. N. Chu, L. Lin, D.-A. Huang, J. Wang, A. Anandkumar, and A. J. Hung, “Deep multimodal fusion for surgical feedback classification,” inMachine Learning for Health (ML4H). PMLR, 2023, pp. 256–267

    2023

  22. [22]

    Towards surgical context inference and translation to gestures,

    K. Hutchinson, Z. Li, I. Reyes, and H. Alemzadeh, “Towards surgical context inference and translation to gestures,” in2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 6802–6809

    2023

  23. [23]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  24. [24]

    Jhu-isi gesture and skill assessment working set (jigsaws): A surgical activity dataset for human motion modeling,

    Y . Gao, S. S. Vedula, C. E. Reiley, N. Ahmidi, B. Varadarajan, H. C. Lin, L. Tao, L. Zappella, B. B ´ejar, D. D. Yuhet al., “Jhu-isi gesture and skill assessment working set (jigsaws): A surgical activity dataset for human motion modeling,” inMICCAI workshop: M2cai, vol. 3, no. 2014, 2014, p. 3

    2014

  25. [25]

    Towards interpretable motion-level skill assessment in robotic surgery,

    K. Hutchinson, K. Chen, and H. Alemzadeh, “Towards interpretable motion-level skill assessment in robotic surgery,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05838, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Think step by step: Chain-of-gesture prompting for error detection in robotic surgical videos,

    Z. Shao, J. Xu, D. Stoyanov, E. B. Mazomenos, and Y . Jin, “Think step by step: Chain-of-gesture prompting for error detection in robotic surgical videos,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Cholectriplet2021: A benchmark chal- lenge for surgical action triplet recognition,

    C. I. Nwoye, D. Alapatt, T. Yu, A. Vardazaryan, F. Xia, Z. Zhao, T. Xia, F. Jia, Y . Yang, H. Wanget al., “Cholectriplet2021: A benchmark chal- lenge for surgical action triplet recognition,”Medical Image Analysis, vol. 86, p. 102803, 2023

    2023

  28. [28]

    Evaluating the task generalization of temporal convolutional networks for surgical gesture and motion recognition using kinematic data,

    K. Hutchinson, I. Reyes, Z. Li, and H. Alemzadeh, “Evaluating the task generalization of temporal convolutional networks for surgical gesture and motion recognition using kinematic data,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 5132–5139, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    Procedure-aware surgical video- language pretraining with hierarchical knowledge augmentation,

    V . Srivastav, N. Navab, N. Padoyet al., “Procedure-aware surgical video- language pretraining with hierarchical knowledge augmentation,” in The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

  30. [30]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  31. [31]

    Cares: Collabora- tive agentic reasoning for error detection in surgery,

    C. H. Low, Z. Zhuo, Z. Wang, J. Xu, H. Liu, N. Sirajudeen, M. Boal, P. J. Edwards, D. Stoyanov, N. Franciset al., “Cares: Collabora- tive agentic reasoning for error detection in surgery,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.08764, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Human action recognition from various data modalities: A review,

    Z. Sun, Q. Ke, H. Rahmani, M. Bennamoun, G. Wang, and J. Liu, “Human action recognition from various data modalities: A review,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 3200–3225, 2022

    2022

  33. [33]

    Temporal convolutional networks: A unified approach to action segmentation,

    C. Lea, R. Vidal, A. Reiter, and G. D. Hager, “Temporal convolutional networks: A unified approach to action segmentation,” inEuropean conference on computer vision. Springer, 2016, pp. 47–54

    2016

  34. [34]

    Robotic scene segmentation with memory network for runtime surgical context inference,

    Z. Li, I. Reyes, and H. Alemzadeh, “Robotic scene segmentation with memory network for runtime surgical context inference,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 6601–6607

    2023

  35. [35]

    SAR-RARP50: 12 Segmentation of surgical instrumentation and action recognition on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy challenge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00496, 2024

    D. Psychogyios, E. Colleoni, B. Van Amsterdam, C.-Y . Li, S.-Y . Huang, Y . Li, F. Jia, B. Zou, G. Wang, Y . Liuet al., “Sar-rarp50: Segmentation of surgical instrumentation and action recognition on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy challenge,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00496, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regularization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

    Midas: A multimodal data acquisition system and dataset for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery,

    K. Weerasinghe, S. H. R. Roodabeh, A. Hawkins, Z. Zhang, Z. Schrader, and H. Alemzadeh, “Midas: A multimodal data acquisition system and dataset for robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12407

    work page arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Imitatecholec: A multimodal dataset for long-horizon imitation learning in robotic cholecystectomy,

    P. Hansen, J. W. B. Kim, A. Goldenberg, J. T. Chen, Y . A. Li, A. Deguet, B. White, D. R. Tsai, R. Cha, J. Joplinget al., “Imitatecholec: A multimodal dataset for long-horizon imitation learning in robotic cholecystectomy,”Scientific Data, 2026

    2026