Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 33 references

MSD-LLM: Predicting Ship Detention in Port State Control Inspections with Large Language Model

T0 review · 5 major / 6 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 A dual-subspace autoencoder paired with an LLM ranker predicts ship detention with over 12% higher AUC than prior methods on Singapore port data.

desk verdict The application of LLM ranking to ship detention is genuinely new, but the paper's evaluation has a train/inference mismatch and several internal inconsistencies that undermine the reported AUC gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19568 v1 pith:WJEHF7M3 submitted 2025-05-26 cs.AI cs.LG

Jiongchao Jin , Xiuju Fu , Xiaowei Gao , Tao Cheng , Ran Yan This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords maritimetransportationportstatecontrolshipdetentionpredictionlargelanguagemodelclassimbalanceautoencoderrobustsubspacerecoveryranking
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

Port State Control inspections detain ships that violate safety and environmental rules, but only a small fraction of vessels are detained, making prediction a hard class-imbalance problem. This paper proposes MSD-LLM, which first learns a robust low-dimensional representation of ship inspection records with a dual robust subspace recovery (DSR) autoencoder, then feeds those representations to a large language model that ranks groups of 20 samples by detention likelihood. The paper reports that the combined system outperforms state-of-the-art models on Singapore-port data by more than 12% in AUC, with average precision up over 8% and recall up over 13%. If the result holds, port authorities could prioritize inspections more accurately while keeping the human decision-maker in control through dynamic thresholds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a DSR-layer autoencoder with a group-based ranking fine-tuning of an LLM. The DSR layer extends the single robust subspace recovery layer by adding a second decoder dedicated to reconstructing detained samples, and a margin loss based on cosine similarity that pushes regular and detention representations apart. The resulting latent vectors are then concatenated with instruction tokens and fed to an LLM that outputs a floating-point detention probability for each of 20 samples in a group, learning to rank rather than to classify. A progressive learning schedule, which trains the autoencoder across six phases with detention proportions from 1.79% to 50%, is used to keep the representation stable as class balance shifts.

What would settle it

Run the Singapore-port test set through the fine-tuned LLM one sample at a time, with no 20-sample group containing exactly two known detentions; if the reported AUC of 0.89 falls toward the 0.77 of the DSR autoencoder alone, the ranking gain is an artifact of the training-time group composition rather than a property of the learned detector.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ship detention risk can be predicted substantially better by chaining two components: a dual robust subspace recovery (DSR) autoencoder that learns latent representations of inspection records while separating detained from non-detained ships, and a large language model fine-tuned to rank groups of 20 of those representations by detention likelihood. On a Tokyo MoU dataset of Asia-Pacific inspections, the authors report that MSD-LLM reaches an AUC of 0.89 on Singapore-port data, versus 0.77 for the DSR autoencoder alone and 0.72 for the best traditional balanced random forest baseline, corresponding to an improvement of more than 12% in AUC, and similar gains in average precision and recall relative to state-of-the-art methods. The ablation study in the paper argues that neither the DSR representation nor the LLM alone produces the gain: direct LLM concatenation without the grouping strategy performs worse than the autoencoder by itself, whereas grouping plus ranking recovers and exceeds the autoencoder's performance.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gain depends on the LLM, trained on groups of 20 samples with exactly two known detentions, transferring its ranking ability to inference where samples arrive one at a time with no known detentions used to form groups.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Singapore-port data, which differs in distribution from the global training set, can be scored more accurately than with existing baselines, suggesting the method can transfer across ports.
  • Port authorities can set the decision threshold after deployment, converting model scores into detention decisions that match their tolerance for false alarms.
  • The ablation indicates that feeding raw features directly to an LLM can hurt performance; the DSR representation is a prerequisite for the LLM's ranking to help.
  • Progressive learning across six class-balance phases yields a single model that works across different detention rates rather than needing retraining per port.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same group-ranking recipe could transfer to other rare-event tabular prediction tasks, such as fraud detection or equipment-failure screening, wherever an autoencoder embedding can be ranked by an LLM.
  • The strong sensitivity to group size (best at 20) suggests the gain comes from the contrastive structure of the group, not from the LLM's world knowledge; testing with random group compositions would show whether the model learns a stable scoring function.
  • The paper reports 31,707 records in the abstract and 317,170 in the experiments section; reconciling this discrepancy is needed before the exact magnitude of the improvement can be externally verified.
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 MSD-LLM, a two-module system for predicting ship detention from Port State Control inspection records: a dual robust subspace recovery (DSR) autoencoder with a progressive learning schedule produces feature representations, and a Qwen-based LLM, fine-tuned on groups of 20 samples with exactly two detention instances, assigns each sample a detention probability by ranking within groups. The authors report large gains over RF/BRF/GBDT/iForest, plain autoencoders, RSRAE, and Qwen baselines, with a claimed >12% AUC improvement on Singapore ports, plus ablation results for group size, progressive learning, and the DSR module. The core claim is that the DSR representation plus LLM group-ranking transfers to per-sample detention scoring at inference.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work would be a useful contribution to maritime risk assessment and to the broader problem of using LLMs for imbalanced tabular-data prediction. The paper addresses a real operational problem and provides a structured ablation (progressive learning, DSR vs. RSR, group size, grouping vs. plain LLM) that is the strongest part of the evaluation. The proposal is conceptually novel in replacing a vision encoder with a subspace-recovery autoencoder in an M-LLM and in formulating detention prediction as group ranking. However, the current manuscript does not provide enough specification to verify the reported results: the data-size inconsistency, the missing inference grouping protocol, the malformed margin loss, and the absence of error bars and threshold protocols are load-bearing gaps. The paper does not include code or data, so these details are essential.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §V.A] The abstract and introduction state that the experiments use 31,707 PSC inspection records, while §V.A opens with 'our study utilizes 317,170 Port State Control (PSC) records.' This order-of-magnitude discrepancy changes the class-imbalance landscape and all reported rates, and it must be resolved before the empirical claims can be evaluated. Please correct the number and verify that the associated proportions (training/validation/test, detention rate) are stated consistently.
  2. [§IV.A–B] The training procedure described in §IV.A clusters samples into groups of 20 with exactly two detention samples and trains the LLM to rank within each group. §IV.B then states only that at inference 'the LLM evaluates newly provided features and assigns a detention probability score,' with no description of how groups are formed at test time or how a group-ranking model is reduced to a per-sample scorer. If groups are still used, the paper must specify a label-free construction rule; if inference is per-sample, the authors must explain and demonstrate the transfer. Without this, the AUC and precision/recall values in Table I cannot be attributed to the method as specified.
  3. [§III.B, Eq. (15)] Equation (15) is malformed: the numerator contains the undefined expression `sim(x(t)τ)`, the denominator uses undefined quantities `FG(Ggt)` and `FG(G-)` and an incomplete summation `P G−∈N`, and the leading `-log exp(...)` simplifies in a way that cannot be the intended contrastive loss. Since the margin loss is described as the mechanism that widens the separation between detention and regular samples and is added to the DSR reconstruction loss, the exact loss must be rewritten with all variables defined. The current formulation prevents reproduction of the DSR module.
  4. [§V.B, Table I] All performance numbers are single point estimates. No standard deviations, confidence intervals, number of random seeds, or statistical tests are reported. For the central claim of a >12% AUC improvement on Singapore ports (MSD-LLM 0.89 vs. DSRAE 0.77), it is essential to know whether the difference is stable across repetitions. Please add repeated-run statistics or equivalent evidence.
  5. [§I and §V.B] The abstract claims average precision and recall improvements, and the method description in §IV mentions dynamic thresholding, but the experimental section does not state how thresholds were chosen for any model. Precision, recall, and F-score depend strongly on the threshold, so without a shared threshold-selection protocol the comparisons in Tables I, III, and IV are not reproducible. Specify the threshold rule (e.g., optimal F1 on the validation set) and apply it identically to all baselines.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§V.A] The phrase 'expect Singapore ports' should read 'except Singapore ports.'
  2. [§V.B] The text says the results are shown for both Tokyo MoU and Hifleet datasets, but the dataset description and Table I only mention Tokyo MoU; please clarify or remove the reference to Hifleet.
  3. [§IV.B] The prompt template, the exact instruction text, and the parsing of the LLM's floating-point score from its response are not described; without these details, the SFT and inference procedures are not reproducible.
  4. [§V.C, Table III] The group-size ablation reports only precision and recall; reporting AUC as well would help, and the text should state the detention ratio used at each group size.
  5. [Throughout §III.B] The terms RSR and DSR are used interchangeably (e.g., 'the RSR layer filters anomaly samples' in the detention-decoder paragraph); please use consistent terminology.
  6. [Figures 1–3] The references to Figures 1–3 are not sufficient to understand the architecture; ensure the figures in the final version are legible and labeled, or add textual descriptions of the omitted components.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MSD-LLM's reported gains are empirical benchmark results, not derivations that collapse into their inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles derivation; MSD-LLM is an empirical machine-learning pipeline whose central claims are benchmark outcomes from a fixed Tokyo MoU train/validation/test split (Section V.A, Table I). The abstract's 'more than 12% on AUC' claim is a comparison of measured metrics in Table I, not an identity derived from the model's own fitted values. The DSR module is presented as an extension of the external RSR layer [9], not of the authors' own prior work, and its effectiveness is tested by ablation (Tables II and IV). The LLM grouping/ranking strategy is a training-time construction: Section IV.A says 'vessel samples are clustered into groups of 20, with each group containing two detention samples and the rest as regular samples,' while Section IV.B describes inference as 'the LLM evaluates newly provided features and assigns a detention probability score,' with no claim that test-time groups are formed using ground-truth labels. The absence of a label-free group-construction rule is a serious evaluation-protocol and transfer-risk gap, but it is not circular because the paper does not define test predictions in terms of the training group labels. The 'dynamic threshold' language means the reported precision and recall values are underspecified without a stated threshold-selection rule, yet AUC and average precision are threshold-independent, and no quote shows a threshold fitted on test data. Other issues—the dataset-size inconsistency between the abstract (31,707 records) and Section V.A (317,170 records), the malformed margin loss in Eq. (15), and missing error bars—are correctness and reporting problems, not input-output equivalences. Self-citations to [5], [10], [11], and [28] appear only as related-work context or as baselines for comparison; none is load-bearing for the core method. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited under the required quote-and-reduction standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unstated choices: group size, phase proportions, loss weights, and the inference procedure. The method also assumes that record-level splitting is leakage-free, which is not verified.

free parameters (5)
  • group size = 20
    Chosen by validation experiments (Table III) as the best performing group size for the LLM ranking.
  • progressive learning phase proportions = 1.79%, 5.58%, 12.37%, 24.37%, 36.75%, 50%
    Hand-selected detention ratios for the six phases of progressive learning, intended to adapt the model to varied distributions.
  • loss weights lambda_1, lambda_2 = not specified
    Balance terms in the DSR loss (Eq. 14); values are not reported in the paper.
  • margin loss temperature tau = not specified
    Temperature in the contrastive margin loss (Eq. 15); value is not given.
  • dynamic threshold for precision/recall = not specified
    Users manually set the threshold to trade off precision and recall; the threshold used to report Table I is not stated.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Autoencoder reconstruction and subspace recovery assumptions are valid for PSC data.
    The method relies on the standard autoencoder reconstruction objective and the robust subspace recovery formulation from [9], invoked in Eqs. 11-14.
  • domain assumption The Tokyo MoU dataset is representative and the record-level random split prevents data leakage.
    The paper partitions records into train/validation/test sets (Section V.A) without checking whether multiple records from the same ship appear in different splits.
  • ad hoc to paper The grouping strategy with exactly two detention samples per group of 20 is a valid training signal for the LLM.
    This design choice is introduced to enable ranking-based fine-tuning (Section IV.A) and is not derived from any theory or prior work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MSD-LLM: Predicting Ship Detention in Port State Control Inspections with Large Language Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJEHF7M3

@misc{pith2026250519568,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MSD-LLM: Predicting Ship Detention in Port State Control Inspections with Large Language Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJEHF7M3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19568}
}
read the original abstract

Maritime transportation is the backbone of global trade, making ship inspection essential for ensuring maritime safety and environmental protection. Port State Control (PSC), conducted by national ports, enforces compliance with safety regulations, with ship detention being the most severe consequence, impacting both ship schedules and company reputations. Traditional machine learning methods for ship detention prediction are limited by the capacity of representation learning and thus suffer from low accuracy. Meanwhile, autoencoder-based deep learning approaches face challenges due to the severe data imbalance in learning historical PSC detention records. To address these limitations, we propose Maritime Ship Detention with Large Language Models (MSD-LLM), integrating a dual robust subspace recovery (DSR) layer-based autoencoder with a progressive learning pipeline to handle imbalanced data and extract meaningful PSC representations. Then, a large language model groups and ranks features to identify likely detention cases, enabling dynamic thresholding for flexible detention predictions. Extensive evaluations on 31,707 PSC inspection records from the Asia-Pacific region show that MSD-LLM outperforms state-of-the-art methods more than 12\% on Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Singapore ports. Additionally, it demonstrates robustness to real-world challenges, making it adaptable to diverse maritime risk assessment scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19568 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of MSD-LLM, including progressive learning strategy(top sub-figure), the DSR representation learning module(middle sub-figure) and LLM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Training Loss(a) and Validation average precision(b) of different training phases in progressive training strategy. (c)demonstrates the impact of training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of sample distance to the threshold. (a)shows the score [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Review of maritime transport 2023,

    UNCTAD, “Review of maritime transport 2023,” Tech. Rep.,

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    IMO,International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, 2019, accessed 22 Dec, 2024, https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/International- Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life-at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx

    work page 1974

  3. [3]

    IMO,Procedure for Port State Control, 2023, 2023, accessed 10 December, 2023, https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/IIIS/Documents/A %2033-Res.1185%20-%20PROCEDURES%20FOR%20PORT%20STA TE%20CONTROL,%202023%20(Secretariat)%20(1).pdf

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Development of a non-parametric classifier: Effective identification, algorithm, and applications in port state control for maritime transportation,

    S. Wang, R. Yan, and X. Qu, “Development of a non-parametric classifier: Effective identification, algorithm, and applications in port state control for maritime transportation,”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 128, pp. 129–157, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Ship selection in port state control: status and perspectives,

    R. Yan, S. Wang, and C. Peng, “Ship selection in port state control: status and perspectives,”Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 600–615, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Ship detention prediction via feature selection scheme and support vector machine (svm),

    S. Wu, X. Chen, C. Shi, J. Fu, Y . Yan, and S. Wang, “Ship detention prediction via feature selection scheme and support vector machine (svm),”Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 140–153, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    A data-driven bayesian model for evaluating the duration of detention of ships in psc inspections,

    Z. Yang, Q. Yu, Z. Yang, and C. Wan, “A data-driven bayesian model for evaluating the duration of detention of ships in psc inspections,” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, vol. 181, p. 103371, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Toyko MoU,New Inspection Regime (NIR), 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Robust subspace recovery layer for unsupervised anomaly detection,

    C.-H. Lai, D. Zou, and G. Lerman, “Robust subspace recovery layer for unsupervised anomaly detection,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.00152, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  2. [10]

    An artificial intelligence model con- sidering data imbalance for ship selection in port state control based on detention probabilities,

    R. Yan, S. Wang, and C. Peng, “An artificial intelligence model con- sidering data imbalance for ship selection in port state control based on detention probabilities,”Journal of Computational Science, vol. 48, p. 101257, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Ship detention prediction using anomaly detection in port state control: Model and explanation,

    R. Yan and S. Wang, “Ship detention prediction using anomaly detection in port state control: Model and explanation,”Electron. Res. Arch, vol. 30, pp. 3679–3691, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Cost-sensitive laplacian logistic regression for ship detention prediction,

    X. Tian and S. Wang, “Cost-sensitive laplacian logistic regression for ship detention prediction,”Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 119, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    A machine learning- based bayesian model for predicting the duration of ship detention in psc inspection,

    Z. Yang, C. Wan, Q. Yu, J. Yin, and Z. Yang, “A machine learning- based bayesian model for predicting the duration of ship detention in psc inspection,”Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, vol. 180, p. 103331, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Interpreting the influential factors in ship detention using a novel random forest algorithm considering dataset imbalance and uncertainty,

    Y . Xiao, M. Jin, G. Qi, W. Shi, K. X. Li, and X. Du, “Interpreting the influential factors in ship detention using a novel random forest algorithm considering dataset imbalance and uncertainty,”Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 133, p. 108369, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkatet al., “Gpt-4 technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi `ere, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azharet al., “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models,

    H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y . Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosaleet al., “Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The llama 3 herd of models,

    A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Vaughanet al., “The llama 3 herd of models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Qwen technical report,

    J. Bai, S. Bai, Y . Chu, Z. Cui, K. Dang, X. Deng, Y . Fan, W. Ge, Y . Han, F. Huanget al., “Qwen technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Qwen2. 5 technical report,

    A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang, H. Weiet al., “Qwen2. 5 technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cogagent: A visual language model for gui agents,

    W. Hong, W. Wang, Q. Lv, J. Xu, W. Yu, J. Ji, Y . Wang, Z. Wang, Y . Dong, M. Ding, and J. Tang, “Cogagent: A visual language model for gui agents,” 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Mobile-agent-e: Self-evolving mobile assistant for complex tasks,

    Z. Wang, H. Xu, J. Wang, X. Zhang, M. Yan, J. Zhang, F. Huang, and H. Ji, “Mobile-agent-e: Self-evolving mobile assistant for complex tasks,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.11733

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Rag-driver: Generalisable driving explanations with retrieval- augmented in-context learning in multi-modal large language model,

    J. Yuan, S. Sun, D. Omeiza, B. Zhao, P. Newman, L. Kunze, and M. Gadd, “Rag-driver: Generalisable driving explanations with retrieval- augmented in-context learning in multi-modal large language model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10828, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Diffusiongpt: Llm-driven text-to-image generation system,

    J. Qin, J. Wu, W. Chen, Y . Ren, H. Li, H. Wu, X. Xiao, R. Wang, and S. Wen, “Diffusiongpt: Llm-driven text-to-image generation system,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10061, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Video understanding with large language models: A survey,

    Y . Tang, J. Bi, S. Xu, L. Song, S. Liang, T. Wang, D. Zhang, J. An, J. Lin, R. Zhuet al., “Video understanding with large language models: A survey,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.17432, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Trafficgpt: Towards multi-scale traffic analysis and generation with spatial-temporal agent framework,

    J. Ouyang, Y . Zhu, X. Yuan, and D. Wu, “Trafficgpt: Towards multi-scale traffic analysis and generation with spatial-temporal agent framework,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05985, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Exploring large language models for human mobility prediction under public events,

    Y . Liang, Y . Liu, X. Wang, and Z. Zhao, “Exploring large language models for human mobility prediction under public events,”Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, vol. 112, p. 102153, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Sora for intelligent vehicles: A step from constraint-based simulation to artificiofactual experiments through dynamic visualization,

    X. Wang, X. Xue, R. Yan, X. Wang, Y . Di, W. Chen, and F.-Y . Wang, “Sora for intelligent vehicles: A step from constraint-based simulation to artificiofactual experiments through dynamic visualization,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Random forests,

    L. Breiman, “Random forests,”Machine learning, vol. 45, pp. 5–32, 2001

    2001

  22. [30]

    Arcing the edge,

    B. Leo, “Arcing the edge,” Citeseer, Tech. Rep., 1997

    1997

  23. [31]

    Isolation forest,

    F. T. Liu, K. M. Ting, and Z.-H. Zhou, “Isolation forest,” in2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, 2008, pp. 413–422

    2008

  24. [32]

    Modular learning in neural networks,

    D. H. Ballard, “Modular learning in neural networks,” inProceedings of the sixth National conference on Artificial intelligence-Volume 1, 1987, pp. 279–284

    1987

  25. [2023]

    Available: https://unctad.org/system/files/official- document/rmt2023 en.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://unctad.org/system/files/official- document/rmt2023 en.pdf

Pith tools

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