Surg-R1: A Hierarchical Reasoning Foundation Model for Scalable and Interpretable Surgical Decision Support with Multi-Center Clinical Validation
Authors: Jian Jiang, Chenxi Lin, Yiming Gu, Zengyi Qin, Zhitao Zeng, Kun Yuan, Yonghao Long, Xiang Xia, +19 more
Organizations: Global College, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Institute for Medical Engineering & Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA · Department of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore · ICube, University of Strasbourg, CNRS, IHU Strasbourg, France · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China · Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China · College of Electronic and Information Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China · Chengdu Withai Innovations Technology Company, Chengdu, China · Division of Pancreatic Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China · Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China · Nvidia, US · Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts, US · Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC 27707, USA · School of Automation and Intelligent Sensing, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Surgical scene understanding demands not only accurate predictions but also interpretable reasoning that surgeons can verify against clinical expertise. However, existing surgical vision-language models generate predictions without reasoning chains, and general-purpose reasoning models fail on compositional surgical tasks without domain-specific knowledge. We present Surg-R1, a surgical Vision-Language Model that addresses this gap through hierarchical reasoning trained via a four-stage pipeline. Our approach introduces three key contributions: (1) a three-level reasoning hierarchy decomposing surgical interpretation into perceptual grounding, relational understanding, and contextual reasoning; (2) the largest surgical chain-of-thought dataset with 320,000 reasoning pairs; and (3) a four-stage training pipeline progressing from supervised fine-tuning to group relative policy optimization and iterative self-improvement. Evaluation on SurgBench, comprising six public benchmarks and six multi-center external validation datasets from five institutions, demonstrates that Surg-R1 achieves the highest Arena Score (64.9%) on public benchmarks versus Gemini 3.0 Pro (46.1%) and GPT-5.1 (37.9%), outperforming both proprietary reasoning models and specialized surgical VLMs on the majority of tasks spanning instrument localization, triplet recognition, phase recognition, action recognition, and critical view of safety assessment, with a 15.2 percentage point improvement over the strongest surgical baseline on external validation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Surg-R1 framework and performance. (a) Three-level chain-of-thought reasoning. Level 1 identifies instruments and tissues; Level 2 analyzes tool-tissue-action relationships; Level 3 synthesizes contextual reasoning for phase recognition. (b) Pre-training dataset ( SurgDB-3M ) coverage across multiple organ systems and procedure types. (c) Performance on public benchmark datasets (left radar) and external validation datasets (right radar) across triplet recognition, phase recognition, action recognition, and critical view of safety (CVS) assessment. (d) Four-stage training pipeline progressing from supervised fine-tuning (Stage 1) through chain-of-thought cold-start training (Stage 2) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (Stage 3) to iterative refinement (Stage 4).
Figure 2: Pre-training data, CoT data composition, and benchmark performance. (a) Pre-training dataset coverage. SurgDB-3M spans 23 surgical datasets covering six task types including tool localization, surgical VQA, triplet recognition, CVS assessment, phase recognition, and action recognition. (b) Multi-center external validation datasets. Surg-R1 achieves the highest arena score, outperforming all baseline models including surgical-domain and proprietary VLMs. (c) Public dataset benchmark. Surg-R1 achieves the highest arena score among all tested models, including reasoning-enhanced models GPT-5.1 and Gemini-3.0-Pro. Models with chain-of-thought capability are indicated by the lightbulb icon. (d) Chain-of-thought data composition. Surg-R1-Data comprises CoT conversation pairs across seven datasets, generated through surgery-aware CoT synthesis and model self-improvement.
Figure 3: Instrument localization in robotic surgery. a. Performance comparison across models using mIoU, mAP@50, mAP@75, and COCOAP metrics. b. Example of Bipolar Forceps localization. GPT-5.1 misidentifies the target instrument, predicting a bounding box in the wrong region (1066,691)-(1709,1058). Gemini 3 correctly localizes the instrument to (326,529)-(979,1045). Surg-R1 correctly identifies the bipolar forceps through Level 1 reasoning, recognizing “two flat, parallel jaws without fenestrations” characteristic of bipolar forceps, producing bounding box (327,506)-(984,1047) that closely matches ground truth (328,531)-(987,1049).
Figure 4: Triplet recognition performance on CholecT50. a. Comparison of instrument, verb, target, and triplet accuracy/mAP across models. b. Example of triplet recognition. GPT-5.1 hallucinates an additional action, predicting “grasper retract gallbladder, hook dissect peritoneum” when only one triplet is present. Gemini 3 correctly identifies the triplet. Surg-R1 applies hierarchical reasoning. Level 1 identifies “metallic silver jaws” of the grasper and “pear-shaped form with smooth, shiny surface” of the gallbladder; Level 2 analyzes the retracting action “applying traction to elevate the gallbladder away from the liver bed,” correctly synthesizing (grasper, retract, gallbladder).
Figure 5: Action recognition on SAR-RARP50 robotic surgery dataset. a. Performance comparison using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. b. Example of needle manipulation action recognition. GPT-5.1 incorrectly predicts “pushing the needle through the tissue,” misinterpreting the withdrawal phase as insertion. Gemini 3 predicts “positioning the needle tip,” failing to recognize the extraction phase. Surg-R1 correctly identifies “pulling the needle out of the tissue” through hierarchical reasoning. Level 1 identifies “robotic grasper” and “suturing needle with curved metallic body”; Level 2 recognizes “needle appears to be partially emerged from the tissue” with “thread under tension,” characteristic of the “withdrawal phase of a suture pass.”
Figure 6: Phase recognition performance on Cholec80. a. Performance comparison using accuracy, recall, precision, and Jaccard index. b. Example of phase recognition. Both GPT-5.1 and Gemini 3 incorrectly predict “Gallbladder Retraction,” confusing retraction with dissection despite visible tissue manipulation. Surg-R1 correctly identifies “Gallbladder Dissection” through three-level reasoning. Level 1 recognizes the gallbladder and grasper; Level 2 analyzes “grasper retracting the gallbladder, pulling it away from the liver bed”; Level 3 synthesizes that this action “exposes the critical view of safety,” characteristic of the dissection phase rather than simple retraction.
Figure 7: Phase recognition performance on MultiBypass140. a. Cross-procedure generalization evaluation on gastric bypass surgery. b. Example of phase recognition in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. GPT-5.1 incorrectly predicts “jejunojejunal anastomosis,” misinterpreting the scene as bowel reconnection. Gemini 3 predicts “gastrojejunal anastomosis,” confusing stomach-to-bowel connection with pouch formation. Surg-R1 correctly identifies “gastric pouch creation” through hierarchical reasoning. Level 1 identifies “linear stapler jaw” and “visible suture bites along the gastric surface”; Level 2 recognizes “stapler jaws closed on gastric wall” with “countertraction to present tissue”; Level 3 integrates these as “formation of the proximal pouch.”
Figure 8: CVS assessment on West China Hospital clinical dataset. a. Performance showing overall accuracy and per-criterion results (C1, C2, C3). b. Example assessing hepatocystic triangle clearance. LLaVA-1.5-7B correctly answers “no.” Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Surg incorrectly answers “yes,” failing to recognize incomplete clearance. Surg-R1 correctly identifies “no” with detailed reasoning, observing “no clearly defined view of the cystic duct or artery,” noting “area around gallbladder neck is obscured by fatty tissue and reflective surfaces,” and concluding “no distinct separation that would indicate a cleared triangle.”
Figure 9: CVS assessment on Nanfang Hospital clinical dataset. a. Performance comparison across models. b. Example assessing gallbladder detachment from liver bed. Gemma3-27b incorrectly answers “yes,” misinterpreting tissue positioning. Llama-4-Scout-17B correctly answers “no.” Surg-R1 provides accurate assessment with detailed reasoning. Level 1 identifies “liver bed visible as a broad, flat, reddish-brown surface beneath the gallbladder”; observes “no evident separation plane or window behind the gallbladder”; concludes “tissue planes appear intact without a clear demarcation line,” confirming the gallbladder “has not been detached from the liver bed.”
Figure 10: Triplet recognition at Renji Hospital. a. Performance showing instrument, verb, target, and triplet mAP. b. Example of triplet recognition for cystic duct clipping. Gemma3-27B predicts “grasper grasp gallbladder,” misidentifying both the instrument and target. Llama-4-Scout-17B predicts “scissors cut cystic_artery; scissors dissect adhesion,” hallucinating multiple incorrect triplets. Surg-R1 correctly identifies “clipper clip cystic_duct” through hierarchical reasoning. Level 1 recognizes “clipper with metallic silver jaws” positioned around “tubular structure” identified as the cystic duct; Level 2 analyzes “jaws closed around the duct, applying pressure to secure the clip.”
Figure 11: Action recognition performance on CUHK external validation dataset. a. Performance comparison using accuracy, recall, precision, and F1 score. b. Example of action recognition for needle manipulation. Baseline models confuse “picking-up the needle” with visually similar suturing gestures. Surg-R1 correctly identifies the action through hierarchical reasoning. Level 1 recognizes tool types and spatial arrangement; Level 2 analyzes tool-tissue interaction patterns to distinguish the current action.
Figure 12: Phase recognition on Strasbourg clinical dataset. a. Performance comparison using accuracy, precision, recall, and Jaccard index. b. Example of phase recognition in European clinical setting. Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Surg correctly identifies “Calot Triangle Dissection,” while Llama-4-Scout-17B misclassifies it as “Gallbladder Retraction.” Surg-R1 provides correct prediction with detailed reasoning. Level 1 identifies “gallbladder with pear-shaped form” and “metallic silver grasper”; Level 2 recognizes “grasper actively retracting the gallbladder to expose the Calot’s triangle”; Level 3 concludes this represents the dissection phase where “cystic duct and artery are clearly identified before division.”
Figure 13: Phase recognition at Renji Hospital. a. Performance comparison using accuracy, precision, recall, and Jaccard index. b. Example of phase recognition in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. LLaVA-1.5-7B incorrectly predicts “Calot Triangle Dissection,” while Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Surg predicts “Gallbladder Retraction,” both misinterpreting the early procedural stage. Surg-R1 correctly identifies “Preparation” phase through hierarchical reasoning. Level 1 recognizes the gallbladder with “smooth, shiny surface” and “surrounding fatty tissue”; Level 2 notes the gallbladder “positioned prominently” being “manipulated or prepared”; Level 3 concludes this represents the preparation phase where “dissection plane is being developed.”
Task
GPT-5.1
Gemini-3.0-Pro
Ours
CholecT50 Triplet
6.77
8.20
51.69
Cholec80 Phase
49.70
52.35
80.90
MultiBypass140 Phase
29.01
28.72
49.94
Table 1: Performance comparison with reasoning-enhanced models. Accuracy (%) on representative tasks. Largest gap on triplet recognition (44.9 percentage points over GPT-5.1).
Figure 14: Three-level reasoning hierarchy. Level 1: visual element identification (tools, tissues, spatial relationships). Level 2: tool-tissue-action interaction analysis and triplet recognition. Level 3: procedural workflow assessment including phase recognition, step recognition, and CVS assessment.
Figure 15: Four-stage training pipeline for Surg-R1 . Stage 1: base supervised fine-tuning establishes vision-language alignment on surgical VQA data. Stage 2: chain-of-thought cold-start training introduces hierarchical reasoning structure using surgery-aware CoT synthesis. Stage 3: GRPO-based reinforcement learning refines reasoning robustness using only outcome labels. Stage 4: iterative refinement expands reasoning coverage through rejection sampling and knowledge distillation.
Dataset Name
Surgery Type
Download URL
SegCol [ 17 ]
Colonoscopy
https://www.synapse.org/Synapse:syn54124209
Cholec80 [ 51 ] (Phase+Tool)
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
https://camma.unistra.fr/datasets/
Cholec80-CVS [ 41 ]
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
https://camma.unistra.fr/datasets/
CholecT50 [ 35 ]
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
https://github.com/CAMMA-public/cholect50
AutoLaparo [ 59 ] (Phase)
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy
https://github.com/ziyiwangx/AutoLaparo
AutoLaparo [ 59 ] (Seg)
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy
https://github.com/ziyiwangx/AutoLaparo
Table 2: Public Dataset Surgery Type and Download Links
Dataset
GPT Generated
Surg-R1 Generated
Total Conversations
Cholec80 [ 51 ] + CholecT50 [ 35 ]
9,262
103,492
112,754
MultiBypass140 [ 18 ]
6,000
71,479
77,479
SAR-RARP50 [ 40 ]
5,975
64,530
70,505
Endoscape [ 30 ]
6,000
37,857
43,857
EndoVis18-VQA [ 42 ]
11,862
2,244
14,106
EndoVis17 [ 4 ]
1,776
0
1,776
Table 3: Statistics of conversations generated by GPT and Surg-R1 across different datasets.
CholecT50 Triplet Recognition
Accuracy (%)
mAP (%)
Model
Thinking
Inst.
Verb
Target
Triplet
Inst.
Verb
Target
Triplet
LLaVA-1.5-7B [ 21 ]
–
3.69
9.41
0.23
0.00
22.48
14.12
9.41
2.35
Phi-4-Multimodal [ 1 ]
–
14.83
12.98
3.46
0.12
22.32
13.99
9.39
2.35
Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instruct-2503 [ 29 ]
–
9.81
8.02
5.48
0.46
22.43
14.05
9.41
2.35
InternVL3-8B [ 69 ]
–
51.24
8.94
26.20
2.08
22.35
14.01
9.70
2.39
Table 4: Triplet recognition performance on the CholecT50 dataset. CholecT50 comprises 50 laparoscopic cholecystectomy (gallbladder removal) procedures annotated with instrument-verb-target triplets. Accuracy and mAP are reported in percentage (%). Best results are bolded .
Cholec80 Phase Recognition (%)
Model
Thinking
Accuracy
Recall
Precision
Jaccard
LLaVA-1.5-7B [ 21 ]
–
23.46
14.22
11.53
6.31
Phi-4-Multimodal [ 1 ]
–
22.45
14.83
12.16
5.55
Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instruct-2503 [ 29 ]
–
22.61
19.87
26.55
9.92
InternVL3-8B [ 69 ]
–
23.88
15.21
15.19
6.67
InternVL3-78B [ 69 ]
–
27.32
24.03
30.48
13.30
Table 5: Surgical phase recognition performance on the Cholec80 dataset. Cholec80 contains 80 laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures with seven annotated surgical phases. All metrics are reported in percentage (%). Best results are bolded .
RARP Action Recognition (%)
Model
Thinking
Accuracy
Recall
Precision
Jaccard
LLaVA-1.5-7B [ 21 ]
–
5.10
12.50
0.64
0.64
Phi-4-Multimodal [ 1 ]
–
15.10
12.83
11.41
3.47
Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instruct-2503 [ 29 ]
–
12.50
12.68
5.89
1.78
InternVL3-8B [ 69 ]
–
29.30
12.78
9.96
6.13
InternVL3-78B [ 69 ]
–
29.50
12.87
22.82
6.28
Table 6: Action recognition performance on the SAR-RARP50 dataset. SAR-RARP50 contains 50 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy procedures with fine-grained surgical action annotations. All metrics are reported in percentage (%). Best results are bolded .
MultiBypass140 Phase Recognition (%)
Model
Thinking
Accuracy
Recall
Precision
Jaccard
LLaVA-1.5-7B [ 21 ]
–
14.30
4.33
7.66
2.09
Phi-4-Multimodal [ 1 ]
–
6.81
6.76
7.53
3.14
Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instruct-2503 [ 29 ]
–
10.78
10.44
10.83
4.05
InternVL3-8B [ 69 ]
–
8.29
8.02
8.65
2.46
MiniCPM-V-2_6 [ 65 ]
–
9.08
8.83
9.23
4.06
Table 7: Surgical phase recognition performance on the MultiBypass140 dataset. MultiBypass140 contains 140 laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures, enabling evaluation of cross-procedure generalization beyond cholecystectomy. All metrics are reported in percentage (%). Best results are bolded .
Dataset / Institution
Surgery Type
West China Hospital Dataset
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Nanfang Hospital (SMU) Dataset
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Renji Hospital Dataset
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
University Hospital of Strasbourg Dataset
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) Dataset
Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Table 8: Overview of Multi-Center External Validation Datasets and Associated Surgery Types
Model
Overall
Avg
C1
C2
C3
LLaVA-1.5-7B [ 21 ]
33.52
33.41
31.08
48.35
20.81
Phi-4-Multimodal [ 1 ]
78.90
78.69
73.37
78.06
84.63
Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instruct-2503 [ 29 ]
71.77
71.28
59.28
84.98
69.58
InternVL3-8B [ 69 ]
46.75
47.55
67.47
30.24
44.93
MiniCPM-V-2_6 [ 65 ]
38.91
39.09
43.25
21.94
52.08
MiniCPM-O-2_6 [ 65 ]
39.99
40.89
63.37
22.47
36.82
Table 9: Critical View of Safety (CVS) assessment on the West China Hospital external validation dataset. This dataset was collected from laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures at West China Hospital. Accuracy (%) is reported; “Overall” denotes the accuracy of the joint CVS assessment (all three criteria evaluated together), and “Avg” denotes the mean of per-criterion accuracies. Best results are bolded .
Model
Overall
Avg
C1
C2
C3
LLaVA-1.5-7B [ 21 ]
33.33
33.33
34.48
37.93
27.59
Phi-4-Multimodal [ 1 ]
45.98
45.98
68.97
31.03
37.93
Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instruct-2503 [ 29 ]
64.37
64.37
72.41
62.07
58.62
InternVL3-8B [ 69 ]
52.87
52.87
82.76
24.14
51.72
MiniCPM-V-2_6 [ 65 ]
36.78
36.78
37.93
17.24
55.17
MiniCPM-O-2_6 [ 65 ]
40.23
40.23
68.97
10.34
41.38
Table 10: Critical View of Safety (CVS) assessment on the Nanfang Hospital (SMU) external validation dataset. This dataset was collected from laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures at Nanfang Hospital. Accuracy (%) is reported; “Overall” denotes the accuracy of the joint CVS assessment, and “Avg” denotes the mean of per-criterion accuracies. Best results are bolded .
Model
mAP (%)
Inst.
Verb
Target
Triplet
LLaVA-1.5-7B [ 21 ]
28.23
20.00
14.22
5.79
Phi-4-Multimodal [ 1 ]
27.65
20.20
13.47
5.79
Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instruct-2503 [ 29 ]
28.98
20.45
13.68
6.05
InternVL3-8B [ 69 ]
30.54
21.29
13.28
5.92
MiniCPM-V-2_6 [ 65 ]
27.50
19.87
13.08
5.79
Table 11: Triplet recognition performance on the Renji Hospital external validation dataset. This dataset was collected from laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures at Renji Hospital. mAP is reported for Instrument, Verb, Target, and the complete Triplet. Best results are bolded .
Model
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
Jaccard
Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct [ 28 ]
31.38
25.64
23.46
13.41
Gemma3-27B-it [ 50 ]
23.83
12.64
17.41
5.75
Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instruct-2503 [ 29 ]
20.96
20.72
16.35
6.89
LLaVA-1.5-7B [ 21 ]
20.21
11.90
8.38
3.58
InternVL3-8B [ 69 ]
17.87
19.92
18.77
8.27
MiniCPM-V-2_6 [ 65 ]
14.68
24.54
16.01
4.85
Table 12: Surgical phase recognition performance on the Renji Hospital external validation dataset. This dataset was collected from laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures at Renji Hospital. Metrics include Accuracy, Macro-Precision, Macro-Recall, and Macro-Jaccard. All values are in percentages (%). Best results are bolded .
Model
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
Jaccard
Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct [ 28 ]
40.33
35.68
24.53
16.63
LLaVA-1.5-7B [ 21 ]
39.50
19.46
9.90
6.88
InternVL3-8B [ 69 ]
37.30
20.68
15.38
9.68
Phi-4-Multimodal [ 1 ]
35.50
19.70
16.21
9.90
Gemma3-27B-it [ 50 ]
35.33
25.84
19.46
10.86
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct [ 6 ]
31.03
40.26
19.97
8.92
Table 13: Surgical phase recognition performance on the University Hospital of Strasbourg external validation dataset. This dataset was collected from laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures at the University Hospital of Strasbourg. Metrics include Accuracy, Macro-Precision, Macro-Recall, and Macro-Jaccard. All values are in percentages (%). Best results are bolded .
Model
Accuracy
Precision
Recall
Jaccard
LLaVA-1.5-7B [ 21 ]
24.81
17.40
11.79
4.38
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct [ 6 ]
18.96
5.98
18.96
4.47
MiniCPM-O-2_6 [ 65 ]
18.68
16.18
18.11
8.05
Mistral-Small-3.1-24B-Instruct-2503 [ 29 ]
18.40
13.15
18.40
7.82
Phi-4-Multimodal [ 1 ]
18.30
12.57
18.21
5.97
Gemma3-27B-it [ 50 ]
18.11
8.45
18.11
4.51
Table 14: Action recognition performance on the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) external validation dataset. This dataset was collected from robot-assisted radical prostatectomy procedures. Metrics include Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and Jaccard. All values are in percentages (%). Best results are bolded .
Surgeons don't just see -- they interpret. When an expert observes a surgical scene, they understand not only what instrument is being used, but why it was chosen, what risk it poses, and what comes next. Current surgical AI cannot answer such questions, largely because training data that explicitly encodes surgical reasoning is immensely difficult to annotate at scale. Yet surgical video lectures already contain exactly this -- explanations of intent, rationale, and anticipation, narrated by experts for the purpose of teaching. Though inherently noisy and unstructured, these narrations encode the reasoning that surgical AI currently lacks. We introduce SUREON, a large-scale video QA dataset that systematically harvests this training signal from surgical academic videos. SUREON defines 12 question categories covering safety assessment, decision rationale, and forecasting, and uses a multi-agent pipeline to extract and structure supervision at scale. Across 134.7K clips and 170 procedure types, SUREON yields 206.8k QA pairs and an expert-validated benchmark of 354 examples. To evaluate the extent to which this supervision translates to surgical reasoning ability, we introduce two models: SureonVLM, a vision-language model adapted through supervised fine-tuning, and SureonVLM-R1, a reasoning model trained with Group Relative Policy Optimization. Both models can answer complex questions about surgery and substantially outperform larger general-domain models, exceeding 84% accuracy on the SUREON benchmark while outperforming general-domain models on standard surgical perception tasks. Qualitative analysis of SureonVLM-R1 reveals explicit reasoning behavior, such as inferring operative intent from visual context.
Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is central to modern surgery, driving the need for intelligent systems with accurate scene understanding. Most existing surgical AI methods rely on isolated, task-specific models, leading to fragmented pipelines with limited interpretability and no unified understanding of RAS scene. Vision-Language Models (VLMs) offer strong zero-shot reasoning, but struggle with hallucinations, domain gaps and weak task-interdependency modeling. To address the lack of unified data for RAS scene understanding, we introduce SurgCoTBench, the first reasoning-focused benchmark in RAS, covering 14256 QA pairs with frame-level annotations across five major surgical tasks. Building on SurgCoTBench, we propose SurgRAW, a clinically aligned Chain-of-Thought (CoT) driven agentic workflow for zero-shot multi-task reasoning in surgery. SurgRAW employs a hierarchical reasoning workflow where an orchestrator divides surgical scene understanding into two reasoning streams and directs specialized agents to generate task-level reasoning, while higher-level agents capture workflow interdependencies or ground output clinically. Specifically, we propose a panel discussion mechanism to ensure task-specific agents collaborate synergistically and leverage on task interdependencies. Similarly, we incorporate a retrieval-augmented generation module to enrich agents with surgical knowledge and alleviate domain gaps in general VLMs. We design task-specific CoT prompts grounded in surgical domain to ensure clinically aligned reasoning, reduce hallucinations and enhance interpretability. Extensive experiments show that SurgRAW surpasses mainstream VLMs and agentic systems and outperforms a supervised model by 14.61% accuracy. Dataset and code is available at https://github.com/jinlab-imvr/SurgRAW.git .
Chang Han Low, Ziyue Wang, Tianyi Zhang +4
National University of Singapore, Singapore · Bioinformatics Institute (BII), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore · Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS) and the Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, UK
Minimally invasive surgery has dramatically improved patient operative outcomes, yet identifying safe operative zones remains challenging in critical phases, requiring surgeons to integrate visual cues, procedural phase, and anatomical context under high cognitive load. Existing AI systems offer binary safety verification or static detection, ignoring the phase-dependent nature of intraoperative reasoning. We introduce ResGo, a benchmark of laparoscopic frames annotated with Go Zone bounding boxes and clinician-authored rationales covering phase, exposure quality reasoning, next action and risk reminder. We introduce evaluation metrics that treat correct grounding under incorrect phase as failures, revealing that most vision-language models cannot handle such tasks and perform poorly. We then present SurGo-R1, a model optimized via RLHF with a multi-turn phase-then-go architecture where the model first identifies the surgical phase, then generates reasoning and Go Zone coordinates conditioned on that context. On unseen procedures, SurGo-R1 achieves 76.6% phase accuracy, 32.7 mIoU, and 54.8% hardcore accuracy, a 6.6× improvement over the mainstream generalist VLMs. Code, model and benchmark will be available at https://github.com/jinlab-imvr/SurGo-R1
Guanyi Qin, Xiaozhen Wang, Zhu Zhuo +7
National University of Singapore, Singapore · Guangzhou Research Translation and Innovation Institute, National University of Singapore, China · Southern Medical University, China