A Chance-Constrained Programming Approach to Preoperative Planning of Robotic Cardiac Surgery Under Task-Level Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a novel formulation for robust surgical planning of robotics-assisted minimally invasive cardiac surgery based on patient-specific preoperative images is proposed. In this context, robustness is quantified in terms of the likelihood of intraoperative collisions and of joint limit violations. The proposed approach provides a more accurate and complete formulation than existing deterministic approaches in addressing uncertainty at the task level. Moreover, it is demonstrated that the dexterity of robotic arms can be quantified as a cross-entropy term. The resulting planning problem is rendered as a chance-constrained entropy maximization problem seeking a plan with the least susceptibility toward uncertainty at the task level, while maximizing the dexterity (cross-entropy term). By such treatment of uncertainty at the task level, spatial uncertainty pertaining to mismatches between the patient-specific anatomical model and that of the actual intraoperative situation is also indirectly addressed. As a solution method, the unscented transform is adopted to efficiently transform the resulting chance-constrained entropy maximization problem into a constrained nonlinear program without resorting to computationally expensive particle-based methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".