Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 9 cited by

Leveraging Semi-Supervised Learning to Enhance Data Mining for Image Classification under Limited Labeled Data

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read On CIFAR-10 with only 10,000 labeled images, a self-training CNN reaches 0.897 accuracy, ahead of SVM, XGBoost, and MLP.

desk verdict A textbook self-training CNN on CIFAR-10 whose only experimental table is invalidated by a missing held-out test set; the results are unusable and the method is not new. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18622 v1 pith:VACJZOEI submitted 2024-11-27 cs.CV cs.LG

Aoran Shen , Minghao Dai , Jiacheng Hu , Yingbin Liang , Shiru Wang , Junliang Du This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords semi-supervisedlearningself-trainingimageclassificationconvolutionalneuralnetworkCIFAR-10pseudo-labelinglimitedlabeleddatamining
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

This paper tries to show that a standard semi-supervised learning recipe, self-training, can make image classification viable when labels are scarce. On CIFAR-10, the authors keep 10,000 labeled images, leave the other 50,000 as unlabeled, and iteratively let a convolutional neural network (CNN) label its most confident predictions, add them to the training set, and retrain. They report that this loop reaches 0.897 accuracy, 0.901 recall, and 0.899 F1 on the test set, ahead of SVM, XGBoost, and MLP trained on the same labeled data. If the claim holds, it matters because unlabeled images are cheap to collect and the method needs no extra annotation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the self-training loop: a CNN trained on the current labeled set makes predictions on the unlabeled set, and unlabeled images whose predicted class probability exceeds a threshold are promoted to labeled status with the model's own prediction as their label, after which the model is retrained. This is the machinery that is supposed to convert abundant unlabeled images into effective training signal. The paper also uses t-SNE and Grad-CAM as analytic visualizations, but those do not carry the classification claim.

What would settle it

Run the authors' self-training loop on CIFAR-10 while recording the accuracy of each newly pseudo-labeled batch against true labels; if batch accuracy is near chance while final test accuracy does not exceed a supervised CNN trained only on the original 10,000 labels, the claimed value of the unlabeled data is not demonstrated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the authors' own terms, is that combining self-training with a CNN improves data-mining-driven image classification under limited labeled data. Starting with a labeled set of 10,000 CIFAR-10 images and an unlabeled set of 50,000, they train the CNN by minimizing cross-entropy on the labeled set, use the trained model to predict labels for the unlabeled set, select samples whose maximum class probability exceeds a threshold, move those into the labeled set, and repeat. The reported result is accuracy 0.897, recall 0.901, and F1 0.899, compared with 0.579/0.561/0.563 for SVM, 0.721/0.723/0.722 for XGBoost, and 0.833/0.842/0.831 for MLP. The paper interprets this as evidence that the self-training loop lets the model exploit the structure of unlabeled data, and that the CNN's learned hierarchical features are better suited to image classification than the compared traditional methods.

Load-bearing premise

The loop assumes that the model's most confident predictions on unlabeled images are correct enough to use as labels, so confidently wrong predictions would silently corrupt the growing training set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers are correct, a user with only 10,000 labeled images can improve over standard supervised baselines trained on the same 10,000 images by exploiting the unlabeled images already at hand.
  • The roughly 32-percentage-point gap over SVM and 6-to-7-point gap over MLP suggests that CNN feature learning plus pseudo-label expansion is a practical recipe for limited-label image classification.
  • The iterative expansion of the labeled set provides a natural stopping rule, continue until performance plateaus, which gives practitioners a fixed budget of training iterations.
  • The method offers a route to using large unlabeled image collections without annotation cost, provided the model's confident predictions are trustworthy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not report an ablation that trains the same CNN only on the 10,000 labeled images, so the observed 0.897 accuracy cannot be attributed to the pseudo-labels alone; a natural extension is to run that control.
  • Testing the same pipeline with different pseudo-label thresholds and with confidence calibration would show how sensitive the gain is to the one free parameter the paper leaves unspecified.
  • A direct test on a larger or finer-grained benchmark, such as CIFAR-100 or a subset of ImageNet, would reveal whether the reported margin persists when classes are more numerous and harder to separate.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a semi-supervised self-training method combined with a CNN for image classification under limited labeled data. It splits CIFAR-10 into 10,000 labeled and 50,000 unlabeled images, iteratively adds high-confidence CNN predictions from the unlabeled pool to the labeled set, and reports accuracy, recall, and F1 scores for SVM, XGBoost, MLP, and the proposed method in Table 1. The claimed result is that the self-training CNN reaches 0.897 accuracy, outperforming the traditional baselines. The paper also mentions t-SNE visualization, Grad-CAM, cross-validation, and noise-robustness experiments, but no such results are actually reported.

Significance. If the empirical claims were supported, the paper would provide a simple demonstration that self-training with a CNN is effective for image classification with 10,000 labels. However, the significance is currently unassessable: the evaluation protocol is not defined in a way that excludes a held-out test set, no experimental details are given for any model, and the reported baseline numbers are far above typical published values for raw CIFAR-10 without specialized feature engineering. The paper ships no code, no machine-checked proofs, and no parameter-free derivations; the only evidence is a single self-reported table. The method idea is reasonable, but the evidence is not.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.A and IV.B] The evaluation protocol does not define a held-out test set. The paper says the 60,000 CIFAR-10 images are partitioned into a 10,000-image labeled set and a 50,000-image unlabeled set, and that all models are evaluated on 'the test set,' but no test set is specified. Because standard CIFAR-10 has 10,000 test images, those test images are very likely included in the 50,000-image unlabeled pool, and the self-training procedure can add them to the labeled set. This would make the numbers in Table 1 reflect leakage and memorization rather than generalization. The authors must state exactly which images were used for evaluation and ensure the test set is disjoint from both the labeled and unlabeled training pools.
  2. [Section III and Table 1] No experimental details are reported for any model. The manuscript does not specify the CNN architecture, optimizer, learning rate, batch size, number of epochs, data augmentation, threshold tau in Eq. (3), number of self-training iterations, or any early-stopping criterion. Table 1 contains a single run with no error bars or standard deviations. Consequently, the reported accuracy of 0.897 and the claimed improvements over the baselines are not reproducible and could reflect a single favorable run or unspecified preprocessing.
  3. [Table 1] The baseline accuracies are implausible without additional explanation. XGBoost at 0.721 and MLP at 0.833 on raw 32x32 CIFAR-10 pixels are far above typical published results for these methods without substantial feature engineering or a different evaluation setup. The manuscript does not describe any feature extraction for SVM, XGBoost, or MLP. This inconsistency is consistent with evaluation on a leaking split and reinforces the need for a clearly defined held-out test set.
  4. [Section IV.B and Section V] The paper promises cross-validation and noise-robustness experiments in Section IV.B, and the abstract and conclusion claim robustness under varying noise levels. However, no cross-validation results, no noise-level settings, and no noisy-data experiments are reported anywhere in the manuscript. The noise-resistance claim is therefore unsupported and should be removed or substantiated with actual experiments.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (3)] The self-training loop adds unlabeled samples whose predicted class has confidence above threshold tau, but the paper does not analyze the accuracy of these pseudo-labels, report the chosen tau, or study error accumulation across iterations. If high-confidence predictions are systematically wrong, the pseudo-labeling loop will propagate errors and degrade performance. Without this analysis, the paper does not establish that the self-training mechanism improves over simply training on the initial labeled set.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The text contains spacing artifacts such as 'The 21 st-century' in the abstract and 'unlab eled' in the conclusion; the manuscript should be proofread.
  2. [Figures 1-3] Figures 1, 2, and 3 are referenced but not described in the text. Figure 2 has no axis labels and Figure 3 has no error bars, so they do not convey quantitative support for the claims.
  3. [Section III] The manuscript uses 'autonomous training' and 'self-training' interchangeably; one consistent term should be used throughout.
  4. [Section II] The related-work section cites many papers that are not visibly connected to semi-supervised image classification (e.g., storage systems, privacy, recommendation systems); the literature review would be stronger if focused on semi-supervised learning and self-training for image data.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is not typeset cleanly; the sum over l and C and the 1/l factor are ambiguous. Please rewrite the loss with explicit index ranges.
  6. [Section III] The t-SNE and Grad-CAM analyses are described in the method but no corresponding figures or quantitative results are presented; either include them or remove the description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical self-training CNN report with no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical application of standard self-training with a CNN to CIFAR-10. The only equations are the convolutional layer output, cross-entropy loss, confidence-based pseudo-label selection, and Grad-CAM. None of these 'derives' the reported accuracy; the Table 1 numbers are measured results, not consequences of the equations. The pseudo-label selection rule (Eq. 3) is a method description, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or a prior derivation by the same authors; the one reference that shares an author surname (Y. Liang in [15]) is cited for recommendation applications and is not load-bearing. The lack of a defined held-out test set and the absence of pseudo-label accuracy analysis are serious validity concerns, but they concern evaluation leakage and soundness rather than circularity per the definition used here. No equation is equivalent to its input by construction, and no prediction reduces to a fitted quantity. Therefore score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical claim depends on several unreported choices (threshold, iterations, architecture, feature representation), which act as hidden assumptions rather than openly fitted parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • Confidence threshold τ = Unreported
    Eq. (3) selects unlabeled samples with confidence above τ; no value or tuning procedure is given, and the central result depends on it.
  • Number of self-training iterations = Unreported
    The stopping rule is 'preset number of iterations' in Section III, but no iteration count is stated, and performance may depend on it.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption High-confidence pseudo-labels are treated as true labels
    The self-training method in Section III assumes that predictions above threshold τ are correct enough to expand the labeled set; no validation of this assumption is provided.
  • domain assumption Raw pixel values are a sufficient input representation for all compared methods
    The paper does not describe feature extraction for SVM, XGBoost, or MLP; results are reported as if default input works, which is questionable for image data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging Semi-Supervised Learning to Enhance Data Mining for Image Classification under Limited Labeled Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VACJZOEI

@misc{pith2026241118622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging Semi-Supervised Learning to Enhance Data Mining for Image Classification under Limited Labeled Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VACJZOEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18622}
}
read the original abstract

In the 21st-century information age, with the development of big data technology, effectively extracting valuable information from massive data has become a key issue. Traditional data mining methods are inadequate when faced with large-scale, high-dimensional and complex data. Especially when labeled data is scarce, their performance is greatly limited. This study optimizes data mining algorithms by introducing semi-supervised learning methods, aiming to improve the algorithm's ability to utilize unlabeled data, thereby achieving more accurate data analysis and pattern recognition under limited labeled data conditions. Specifically, we adopt a self-training method and combine it with a convolutional neural network (CNN) for image feature extraction and classification, and continuously improve the model prediction performance through an iterative process. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method significantly outperforms traditional machine learning techniques such as Support Vector Machine (SVM), XGBoost, and Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) on the CIFAR-10 image classification dataset. Notable improvements were observed in key performance metrics, including accuracy, recall, and F1 score. Furthermore, the robustness and noise-resistance capabilities of the semi-supervised CNN model were validated through experiments under varying noise levels, confirming its practical applicability in real-world scenarios.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Collaborative Optimization in Financial Data Mining Through Deep Learning and ResNeXt

    cs.LG 2024-12 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A ResNeXt-based multi-task learning model reportedly outperforms LSTM, Transformer, MCCNN, and DSN on S&P 500 classification and regression, but the experiments lack error bars, code, and leakage controls.

  2. Deep Learning in Image Classification: Evaluating VGG19's Performance on Complex Visual Data

    cs.CV 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    On a public chest X-ray dataset, VGG19 is reported to outperform SVM, XGBoost, MLP, and ResNet50 in accuracy, AUC, F1, and recall, but without a reproducible evaluation protocol.

  3. Computer Vision-Driven Gesture Recognition: Toward Natural and Intuitive Human-Computer

    cs.CV 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A CNN-LSTM gesture recognizer with a decorative 3D skeleton visualization that reports unverifiable accuracy and speed numbers.

  4. Dynamic Scheduling Strategies for Resource Optimization in Computing Environments

    cs.DC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A weighted-sum container placement objective solved with a genetic algorithm is claimed to outperform static rules and heuristics on Google Cluster Data, but the comparison lacks methodology, baselines, and code.

  5. Adaptive User Interface Generation Through Reinforcement Learning: A Data-Driven Approach to Personalization and Optimization

    cs.HC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A DQN-based reinforcement learning system is reported to reach CTR 0.78 and RR 0.83 on an unverified CLIP Interactions dataset, beating five baselines, but no reproducible evidence is provided.

  6. Machine Learning Techniques for Pattern Recognition in High-Dimensional Data Mining

    cs.LG 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    An SVM-based frequent pattern mining method is claimed to outperform FP-Growth, FP-Tree, decision trees, and random forests, but the paper provides no reproducible experimental support.

  7. Dynamic User Interface Generation for Enhanced Human-Computer Interaction Using Variational Autoencoders

    cs.HC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A vanilla VAE trained on the RICO dataset is reported to beat AE, GAN, cGAN, DBN, and VAE-GAN on SSIM/MAE for UI generation, but the comparison is under-specified and the dynamic feedback claim is untested.

  8. AI-Driven Health Monitoring of Distributed Computing Architecture: Insights from XGBoost and SHAP

    cs.DC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    An XGBoost model with SHAP explanations is applied to edge node health classification, but the weak reported accuracy and missing experimental details do not support the paper's claims.

  9. A Matrix Logic Approach to Efficient Frequent Itemset Discovery in Large Data Sets

    cs.DB 2024-12 reject novelty 1.0 of 10

    The paper restates the standard Boolean matrix (vertical bit-vector) approach to frequent itemset mining and reports self-measured runtime and memory on the Groceries dataset without any baseline comparison.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Leveraging Semi-Supervised Learning and Convolutional Neural Networks for Enhanced Image Analysis in Healthcare Applications,

    M. Zhang, H. Wang and K. Li, "Leveraging Semi-Supervised Learning and Convolutional Neural Networks for Enhanced Image Analysis in Healthcare Applications," Journal of Advanced Computational Techniques, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 45-62, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Scaling-up Medical Vision-and- Language Representation Learning with Federated Learning,

    S. Lu, Z. Liu, T. Liu and W. Zhou, "Scaling-up Medical Vision-and- Language Representation Learning with Federated Learning," Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 126, Article ID 107037, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    A Lightweight GAN-Based Image Fusion Algorithm for Visible and Infrared Images,

    Z. Wu, J. Chen, L. Tan, H. Gong, Y. Zhou and G. Shi, "A Lightweight GAN-Based Image Fusion Algorithm for Visible and Infrared Images," Proceedings of the 2024 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Blockchain (CCSB), pp. 466-470, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Self-Supervised Learning in Deep Networks: A Pathway to Robust Few-Shot Classification,

    Y. Xiao, "Self-Supervised Learning in Deep Networks: A Pathway to Robust Few-Shot Classification," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12151, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Advanced RAG Models with Graph Structures: Optimizing Complex Knowledge Reasoning and Text Generation,

    Y. Dong, S. Wang, H. Zheng, J. Chen, Z. Zhang and C. Wang, "Advanced RAG Models with Graph Structures: Optimizing Complex Knowledge Reasoning and Text Generation," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03572, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Optimizing News Text Classification with Bi-LSTM and Attention Mechanism for Efficient Data Processing,

    B. Liu, J. Chen, R. Wang, J. Huang, Y. Luo and J. Wei, "Optimizing News Text Classification with Bi-LSTM and Attention Mechanism for Efficient Data Processing," arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15576, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    A Combined Encoder and Transformer Approach for Coherent and High- Quality Text Generation,

    J. Chen, S. Wang, Z. Qi, Z. Zhang, C. Wang and H. Zheng, "A Combined Encoder and Transformer Approach for Coherent and High- Quality Text Generation," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12157, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    A Self-training Framework for Automated Medical Report Generation,

    S. Wang, Z. Liu and B. Peng, "A Self-training Framework for Automated Medical Report Generation," Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 16443-16449, December 2023

    2023

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Financial Risk Analysis Using Integrated Data and Transformer-Based Deep Learning,

    Y. Wei, K. Xu, J. Yao, M. Sun and Y. Sun, "Financial Risk Analysis Using Integrated Data and Transformer-Based Deep Learning," Journal of Computer Science and Software Applications, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1-8, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Unveiling the Potential of Graph Neural Networks in SME Credit Risk Assessment,

    B. Liu, I. Li, J. Yao, Y. Chen, G. Huang and J. Wang, "Unveiling the Potential of Graph Neural Networks in SME Credit Risk Assessment," arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17909, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Applying Hybrid Graph Neural Networks to Strengthen Credit Risk Analysis,

    M. Sun, W. Sun, Y. Sun, S. Liu, M. Jiang and Z. Xu, "Applying Hybrid Graph Neural Networks to Strengthen Credit Risk Analysis," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04283, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Survival prediction across diverse cancer types using neural networks

    X. Yan, W. Wang, M. Xiao, Y. Li, and M. Gao, "Survival prediction across diverse cancer types using neural networks", Proceedings of the 2024 7th International Conference on Machine Vision and Applications, pp. 134-138, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    A Hybrid CNN-LSTM Model for Enhancing Bond Default Risk Prediction,

    J. Yao, J. Wang, B. Wang, B. Liu and M. Jiang, "A Hybrid CNN-LSTM Model for Enhancing Bond Default Risk Prediction," Journal of Computer Technology and Software, vol. 3, no. 6, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Investigation of Creating Accessibility Linked Data Based on Publicly Available Accessibility Datasets

    Y. Li, X. Yan, M. Xiao, W. Wang and F. Zhang, "Investigation of Creating Accessibility Linked Data Based on Publicly Available Accessibility Datasets", Proceedings of the 2023 13th International Conference on Communication and Network Security, pp. 77-81, 2024

    2023

  7. [15]

    Metric Learning for Tag Recommendation: Tackling Data Sparsity and Cold Start Issues,

    Y. Luo, R. Wang, Y. Liang, A. Liang and W. Liu, "Metric Learning for Tag Recommendation: Tackling Data Sparsity and Cold Start Issues," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06374, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Robust Graph Neural Networks for Stability Analysis in Dynamic Networks,

    X. Zhang, Z. Xu, Y. Liu, M. Sun, T. Zhou and W. Sun, "Robust Graph Neural Networks for Stability Analysis in Dynamic Networks," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11848, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Research on adverse drug reaction prediction model combining knowledge graph embedding and deep learning

    Y. Li, W. Zhao, B. Dang, X. Yan, M. Gao, W. Wang, and M. Xiao, "Research on adverse drug reaction prediction model combining knowledge graph embedding and deep learning", Proceedings of the 2024 4th International Conference on Machine Learning and Intelligent Systems Engineeri...

    2024

  10. [18]

    A Recommendation Model Utilizing Separation Embedding and Self- Attention for Feature Mining,

    W. Liu, R. Wang, Y. Luo, J. Wei, Z. Zhao and J. Huang, "A Recommendation Model Utilizing Separation Embedding and Self- Attention for Feature Mining," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15026, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Enhancing Recommendation Systems with Multi-Modal Transformers in Cross-Domain Scenarios,

    A. Liang, "Enhancing Recommendation Systems with Multi-Modal Transformers in Cross-Domain Scenarios," Journal of Computer Technology and Software, vol. 3, no. 7, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Self- Supervised Graph Neural Networks for Enhanced Feature Extraction in Heterogeneous Information Networks,

    J. Wei, Y. Liu, X. Huang, X. Zhang, W. Liu, and X. Yan, "Self- Supervised Graph Neural Networks for Enhanced Feature Extraction in Heterogeneous Information Networks," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17617, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Resource Scheduling in Complex System Environments,

    P. Li, Y. Xiao, J. Yan, X. Li, and X. Wang, "Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Resource Scheduling in Complex System Environments," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05346, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Adaptive Cache Management for Complex Storage Systems Using CNN-LSTM-Based Spatiotemporal Prediction,

    X. Wang, X. Li, L. Wang, T. Ruan, and P. Li, "Adaptive Cache Management for Complex Storage Systems Using CNN-LSTM-Based Spatiotemporal Prediction," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12161, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Transforming Multidimensional Time Series into Interpretable Event Sequences for Advanced Data Mining,

    X. Yan, Y. Jiang, W. Liu, D. Yi, and J. Wei, "Transforming Multidimensional Time Series into Interpretable Event Sequences for Advanced Data Mining," arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14327, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Time-Series Load Prediction for Cloud Resource Allocation Using Recurrent Neural Networks,

    Y. Zi, "Time-Series Load Prediction for Cloud Resource Allocation Using Recurrent Neural Networks," J. Comput. Technol. Softw., vol. 3, no. 7, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Balancing Innovation and Privacy: Data Security Strategies in Natural Language Processing Applications,

    S. Liu, G. Liu, B. Zhu, Y. Luo, L. Wu, and R. Wang, "Balancing Innovation and Privacy: Data Security Strategies in Natural Language Processing Applications," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08553, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Emotion-Aware Interaction Design in Intelligent User Interface Using Multi-Modal Deep Learning,

    S. Duan, Z. Wang, S. Wang, M. Chen, and R. Zhang, "Emotion-Aware Interaction Design in Intelligent User Interface Using Multi-Modal Deep Learning," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06326, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Research on Intelligent System of Medical Image Recognition and Disease Diagnosis Based on Big Data,

    Y. Zi, X. Cheng, T. Mei, Q. Wang, Z. Gao and H. Yang, "Research on Intelligent System of Medical Image Recognition and Disease Diagnosis Based on Big Data," Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Image Processing and Computer Applications (ICIPCA), pp. 82...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Comparison of Tree-Based Feature Selection Algorithms on Biological Omics Dataset,

    Z. Liu and J. Song, "Comparison of Tree-Based Feature Selection Algorithms on Biological Omics Dataset," Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 165- 169, November 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Performance Comparison of Multi-layer Perceptron (Back Propagation, Delta Rule and Perceptron) algorithms in Neural Networks,

    M. k. Alsmadi, K. B. Omar, S. A. Noah and I. Almarashdah, "Performance Comparison of Multi-layer Perceptron (Back Propagation, Delta Rule and Perceptron) algorithms in Neural Networks," 2009 IEEE International Advance Computing Conference, pp. 296-299, 2009

    2009

  22. [30]

    Classification of Mango Leaf Diseases Using XGBoost Method and HoG Feature Extraction,

    R. Suprayoga, S. Zega, Muhathir and S. Mardiana, "Classification of Mango Leaf Diseases Using XGBoost Method and HoG Feature Extraction," 2023 International Conference on Modeling & E- Information Research, Artificial Learning and Digital Applications (ICMERALDA), pp. 197-202, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.