Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 46 references

EGGCodec: A Robust Neural Encodec Framework for EGG Reconstruction and F0 Extraction

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A neural codec that reconstructs EGG signals extracts F0 with lower error than existing F0 schemes.

desk verdict Submission is a file mix-up: the abstract describes EGGCodec, the full text is an unrelated light field display paper, and none of the claimed F0 results have any supporting evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.08924 v1 pith:YU4WTOO4 submitted 2025-08-12 eess.AS cs.AI

Rui Feng , Yuang Chen , Yu Hu , Jun Du , Jiahong Yuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.AScs.AI
keywords electroglottographyEGGsignalreconstructionfundamentalfrequencyextractionF0estimationEncodecmulti-scalefrequency-domainlosstime-domaincorrelationvoicingdecisionerror
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 letter tries to show that a neural codec built for electroglottography (EGG) signals can both reconstruct the EGG waveform and extract the fundamental frequency (F0) more reliably than current F0 extraction systems. The proposed framework, EGGCodec, adds a multi-scale frequency-domain loss and a time-domain correlation loss to an Encodec-style architecture, and deliberately removes the usual GAN discriminator. Evaluated on a widely used EGG-inclusive dataset, it reports a fall in mean absolute F0 error from 14.14 Hz to 13.69 Hz and a 38.2% improvement in voicing decision error. The practical appeal is that one model could serve both speech coding and F0-related downstream tasks, with F0 taken from the reconstructed EGG signal rather than from abstract codec features.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a pair of training losses attached to an Encodec-style encoder-decoder: a multi-scale frequency-domain loss that compares original and reconstructed EGG spectra at several scales, and a time-domain correlation loss that aligns the waveforms' correlation structure. The architectural twist is that F0 is estimated from the decoder's reconstructed EGG signal, not from the compressed feature space, and the standard GAN discriminator is removed. Together these components make the reconstruction faithful enough to serve as the substrate for F0 extraction, which the paper claims is the reason for the accuracy gain.

What would settle it

Retrain EGGCodec twice: once extracting F0 from the reconstructed EGG signal and once extracting F0 from the encoder's feature vector, keeping all other components identical. If the feature-based variant matches or beats the reconstruction-based variant on mean absolute F0 error and voicing decision error, the paper's central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that F0 extraction is more accurate when the task is reframed as EGG reconstruction: instead of reading F0 off the encoder features of a conventional Encodec, EGGCodec first reconstructs the EGG signal and then performs F0 extraction on that reconstruction. The paper argues that reconstructed EGG signals 'more closely correspond to F0' than the features used by conventional models, and attributes the gains to a multi-scale frequency-domain loss that captures the relationship between original and reconstructed EGG, plus a time-domain correlation loss that improves generalization. It also claims that dropping the GAN discriminator simplifies training with only negligible performance loss. On its evaluation set, these choices yield a mean absolute error reduction from 14.14 Hz to 13.69 Hz and a 38.2% relative improvement in voicing decision error against state-of-the-art F0 extraction schemes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a reconstructed EGG waveform carries F0 information more faithfully than the latent features of a conventional Encodec; the available text asserts this rather than demonstrates it, and the reported improvement would not follow if the reverse were true.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If EGGCodec works as reported, a single Encodec-style model can compress EGG signals and deliver F0 estimates at the same time, simplifying pipelines that today separate coding and F0 analysis.
  • The 38.2% relative gain in voicing decision error suggests the reconstructed EGG preserves voicing onset and offset information better than feature-based F0 estimators, which matters for prosody and expressive speech processing.
  • Removing the GAN discriminator makes training lighter, so the approach could transfer more easily to smaller, domain-specific EGG datasets than adversarial codecs.
  • The reported MAE drop from 14.14 Hz to 13.69 Hz, while small in absolute terms, would be most consequential in low-F0 or high-precision settings where a few Hertz separate acceptable from poor estimates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reconstruction-first principle is the true source of the gain, then any codec or vocoder that outputs a waveform matched to the physical glottal signal could be used as a front end for F0 extraction, not just Encodec-style architectures.
  • A natural extension is to test whether the same multi-scale frequency-domain plus correlation-loss recipe improves F0 from reconstructed speech waveforms rather than EGG, which would widen its applicability to ordinary audio.
  • One could also probe the causal link directly by monitoring F0 error as reconstruction fidelity is artificially degraded; if F0 error tracks reconstruction error, the paper's assertion would be supported.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The abstract of arXiv:2508.08924 describes EGGCodec, a neural Encodec framework for electroglottography (EGG) signal reconstruction and F0 extraction, proposing a multi-scale frequency-domain loss and a time-domain correlation loss, and reporting that EGGCodec reduces F0 MAE from 14.14 Hz to 13.69 Hz and improves VDE by 38.2% relative to state-of-the-art schemes. The submitted full text, however, is an entirely different paper titled 'DASC: Depth-of-Field Aware Scene Complexity Metric for 3D Visualization on Light Field Display' (arXiv:2508.08928), which deals with light field displays and contains no EGG signals, no Encodec architecture, no F0 extraction, and no ablation experiments for EGGCodec. Consequently, none of the abstract's claims can be checked against the body of the manuscript.

Significance. If the reported results were substantiated, EGGCodec would be a competently engineered contribution to speech analysis, with a modest absolute improvement in F0 MAE and a large relative VDE improvement, plus a clean design insight (using reconstructed EGG rather than codec features for F0). The paper currently provides no such substantiation: there is no architecture description, no training or evaluation protocol, no dataset specification, no statistical analysis, and no code. The significance of the claimed contribution therefore cannot be assessed from the submitted manuscript.

major comments (2)
  1. [Full text (all sections)] The full text is the DASC paper on light field displays, not the EGGCodec paper announced in the abstract; it contains no mention of electroglottography, Encodec, F0, or the proposed losses. As a result, the central quantitative claims in the abstract—MAE reduction from 14.14 Hz to 13.69 Hz and VDE improvement of 38.2%—are entirely unsupported by experimental evidence in the manuscript, and the method cannot be reproduced or evaluated.
  2. [Abstract, mechanism claim] The abstract asserts that 'reconstructed EGG signals, which more closely correspond to F0' explain the performance gain, but this premise is not demonstrated anywhere in the submitted text; no comparison between reconstructed-EGG features and conventional Encodec features is provided. This leaves the causal story of the claimed improvement untestable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Full text, general] Because the full text is a different paper, its equations, references, and subjective-study descriptions are irrelevant to the abstract's claims; a reader cannot locate any of the EGGCodec components named in the abstract.
  2. [Full text, Eq. (1)–(26)] These equations pertain to light field display geometry and Bradley-Terry preference analysis, not to neural audio coding or F0 extraction, so they cannot be used to verify the claimed ablation results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity can be established: the supplied full text is an unrelated light-field-display paper, so the EGGCodec abstract's derivation chain is absent rather than circular.

full rationale

The circularity analysis requires a specific, quotable reduction: a claim that X derives Y when X is defined in terms of Y, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a load-bearing argument that reduces to a self-citation chain. The provided manuscript does not permit any such demonstration. The abstract describes EGGCodec, a neural Encodec framework for EGG reconstruction and F0 extraction, with specific loss functions and numerical results. The supplied full text, however, is arXiv:2508.08928, 'DASC: Depth-of-Field Aware Scene Complexity Metric for 3D Visualization on Light Field Display', which contains no EGG signals, no Encodec framework, no F0 extraction, no GAN discriminator discussion, and no ablation of EGGCodec components. There are therefore no equations, fitting procedures, or model definitions from the claimed EGGCodec derivation to compare against its outputs. The abstract's statement that EGGCodec 'leverages reconstructed EGG signals, which more closely correspond to F0' is an unverified premise, and the reported MAE and VDE improvements are unsupported by the provided body, but unsupported evidence is a correctness or submission-integrity problem, not circularity. The reader's mid-range score reflects uncertainty; under the hard rules, circularity must be exhibited, not inferred from the absence of evidence. Because no circular step can be quoted, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity with score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is reliable; the full text is a different paper, so the ledger contains only assumptions inferable from the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • Loss weights for frequency-domain and correlation losses
    The abstract mentions these losses but provides no weighting values; without the full text, these are unexamined model hyperparameters.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Reconstructed EGG signals correspond to F0 more closely than direct feature extraction.
    Stated in the abstract as the design motivation; not proven in the available text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EGGCodec: A Robust Neural Encodec Framework for EGG Reconstruction and F0 Extraction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YU4WTOO4

@misc{pith2026250808924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EGGCodec: A Robust Neural Encodec Framework for EGG Reconstruction and F0 Extraction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YU4WTOO4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.08924}
}
read the original abstract

This letter introduces EGGCodec, a robust neural Encodec framework engineered for electroglottography (EGG) signal reconstruction and F0 extraction. We propose a multi-scale frequency-domain loss function to capture the nuanced relationship between original and reconstructed EGG signals, complemented by a time-domain correlation loss to improve generalization and accuracy. Unlike conventional Encodec models that extract F0 directly from features, EGGCodec leverages reconstructed EGG signals, which more closely correspond to F0. By removing the conventional GAN discriminator, we streamline EGGCodec's training process without compromising efficiency, incurring only negligible performance degradation. Trained on a widely used EGG-inclusive dataset, extensive evaluations demonstrate that EGGCodec outperforms state-of-the-art F0 extraction schemes, reducing mean absolute error (MAE) from 14.14 Hz to 13.69 Hz, and improving voicing decision error (VDE) by 38.2\%. Moreover, extensive ablation experiments validate the contribution of each component of EGGCodec.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Levoy and P

    M. Levoy and P. Hanrahan, Light Field Rendering , 1st ed. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3596711.3596759 JOURNAL OF IEEE TRANSACTION ON MULTIMEDIA 10

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Bregovic, E

    R. Bregovic, E. Sahin, S. Vagharshakyan, and A. Gotchev, Signal Processing Methods for Light Field Displays . Springer

    work page

  3. [3]

    Antialiasing filtering for projection-based light field displays,

    K. Akbar and R. Bregovic, “Antialiasing filtering for projection-based light field displays,” in 2023 International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis (ISPA) , 2023, pp. 1–6

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    The holovizio system - new opportunity offered by 3d displays,

    T. Balogh, P. T. Kov ´acs, Z. Dobranyi, A. Barsi, Z. Megyesi, Z. Ga ´al, and G. Balogh, “The holovizio system - new opportunity offered by 3d displays,” 2008. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:110209951

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Antialiasing for automultiscopic 3d displays,

    M. Zwicker, W. Matusik, F. Durand, and H. Pfister, “Antialiasing for automultiscopic 3d displays,” in Proceedings of the 17th Eurographics Conference on Rendering Techniques , ser. EGSR ’06. Goslar, DEU: Eurographics Association, 2006, p. 73–82

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Dynamically reparameterized light fields,

    A. Isaksen, L. McMillan, and S. J. Gortler, “Dynamically reparameterized light fields,” ser. SIGGRAPH ’00. USA: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 2000, p. 297–306. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/344779.344929

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    Depth-of-field guided rendering for light field displays,

    K. Akbar and R. Bregovic, “Depth-of-field guided rendering for light field displays,” Electronic Imaging, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 367–1–367–1,

    work page

  8. [8]

    Tensor displays: compressive light field synthesis using multilayer displays with directional backlighting,

    G. Wetzstein, D. Lanman, M. Hirsch, and R. Raskar, “Tensor displays: compressive light field synthesis using multilayer displays with directional backlighting,” vol. 31, no. 4, Jul. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2185520.2185576

    arXiv 2012

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Quan- tifying spatial and angular resolution of light-field 3-d displays,

    P. T. Kov ´acs, R. Bregovi ´c, A. Boev, A. Barsi, and A. Gotchev, “Quan- tifying spatial and angular resolution of light-field 3-d displays,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 1213–1222, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Single-image evaluation of angular and spatial resolution for projection-based light field displays,

    K. Akbar and R. Bregovic, “Single-image evaluation of angular and spatial resolution for projection-based light field displays,” in 2023 IEEE 25th International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP), 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  3. [11]

    Beyond perceptual thresholds and personal preference: Towards novel research questions and methodologies of quality of experience studies on light field visualization,

    P. A. Kara, R. R. Tamboli, E. Shafiee, M. G. Martini, A. Simon, and M. Guindy, “Beyond perceptual thresholds and personal preference: Towards novel research questions and methodologies of quality of experience studies on light field visualization,” Electronics, vol. 11, no. 6,...

    2022

  4. [12]

    A study on visual perception of light field content,

    A. Gill, E. Zerman, C. Ozcinar, and A. Smolic, “A study on visual perception of light field content,” CoRR, vol. abs/2008.03195, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.03195

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A study on the impact of visu- alization techniques on light field perception,

    F. Battisti, M. Carli, and P. L. Callet, “A study on the impact of visu- alization techniques on light field perception,” in 2018 26th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO) , 2018, pp. 2155–2159

    2018

  6. [14]

    Charac- terization and selection of light field content for perceptual assessment,

    P. Paudyal, J. Guti ´errez, P. Le Callet, M. Carli, and F. Battisti, “Charac- terization and selection of light field content for perceptual assessment,” in 2017 Ninth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  7. [15]

    Percep- tual quality of light field images and impact of visualization techniques,

    P. Paudyal, F. Battisti, P. Le Callet, J. Guti ´errez, and M. Carli, “Percep- tual quality of light field images and impact of visualization techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 395–408, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Reduced reference quality assess- ment of light field images,

    P. Paudyal, F. Battisti, and M. Carli, “Reduced reference quality assess- ment of light field images,” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 152–165, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Super- multiview content with high angular resolution: 3d quality assessment on horizontal-parallax lightfield display,

    R. R. Tamboli, B. Appina, S. Channappayya, and S. Jana, “Super- multiview content with high angular resolution: 3d quality assessment on horizontal-parallax lightfield display,” Signal Processing: Image Communication, vol. 47, pp. 42–55, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www....

    2016

  10. [18]

    Towards a quality metric for dense light fields,

    V . K. Adhikarla, M. Vinkler, D. Sumin, R. K. Mantiuk, K. Myszkowski, H.-P. Seidel, and P. Didyk, “Towards a quality metric for dense light fields,” in 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 3720–3729

    2017

  11. [19]

    A metric for light field reconstruction, compression, and display quality evaluation,

    X. Min, J. Zhou, G. Zhai, P. Le Callet, X. Yang, and X. Guan, “A metric for light field reconstruction, compression, and display quality evaluation,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 29, pp. 3790– 3804, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Investigating epipolar plane image representa- tions for objective quality evaluation of light field images,

    A. Ak and P. Le-Callet, “Investigating epipolar plane image representa- tions for objective quality evaluation of light field images,” in 2019 8th European Workshop on Visual Information Processing (EUVIP) , 2019, pp. 135–139

    2019

  13. [21]

    Natural image utility assessment using image contours,

    D. M. Rouse and S. S. Hemami, “Natural image utility assessment using image contours,” in Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing , ser. ICIP’09. IEEE Press, 2009, p. 2193–2196

    2009

  14. [22]

    Gradient magnitude similarity deviation: A highly efficient perceptual image quality index,

    W. Xue, L. Zhang, X. Mou, and A. C. Bovik, “Gradient magnitude similarity deviation: A highly efficient perceptual image quality index,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 684–695, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Dibr-synthesized image quality assessment based on morphological multi-scale approach,

    D. Sandi ´c-Stankovi´c, D. Kukolj, and P. Le Callet, “Dibr-synthesized image quality assessment based on morphological multi-scale approach,” EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing, vol. 2017, no. 1, p. 4, 2016

    2017

  16. [24]

    A light field image quality assessment model based on symmetry and depth features,

    Y . Tian, H. Zeng, J. Hou, J. Chen, J. Zhu, and K.-K. Ma, “A light field image quality assessment model based on symmetry and depth features,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 2046–2050, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Segnet: A deep con- volutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation,

    V . Badrinarayanan, A. Kendall, and R. Cipolla, “Segnet: A deep con- volutional encoder-decoder architecture for image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 2481–2495, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Semantic image segmentation: Two decades of research,

    G. Csurka, R. V olpi, and B. Chidlovskii, “Semantic image segmentation: Two decades of research,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2302.06378

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Deep robust single image depth estimation neural network using scene understanding,

    H. Ren, M. El-khamy, and J. Lee, “Deep robust single image depth estimation neural network using scene understanding,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.03279

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Edge-aware bidirectional dif- fusion for dense depth estimation from light fields,

    N. Khan, M. H. Kim, and J. Tompkin, “Edge-aware bidirectional dif- fusion for dense depth estimation from light fields,” in British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    B. O. Community, Blender - a 3D modelling and rendering package , Blender Foundation, Stichting Blender Foundation, Amsterdam, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.blender.org

    2018

  22. [30]

    Entropy in image analysis,

    A. C. Sparavigna, “Entropy in image analysis,” Entropy, vol. 21, no. 5,

  23. [31]

    R. C. Gonzalez and R. E. Woods, Digital image processing . Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www. amazon.com/Digital-Image-Processing-3rd-Edition/dp/013168728X

    2008

  24. [32]

    C. I. Gonzalez, P. Melin, J. R. Castro, and O. Castillo, Edge Detection Methods and Filters Used on Digital Image Processing . Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 11–16. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53994-2 3

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    Hessian estimates for the lagrangian mean curvature flow,

    A. Bhattacharya and J. Wall, “Hessian estimates for the lagrangian mean curvature flow,” Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, vol. 63, 08 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    CIVIT dataset: Horizontal-parallax-only densely-sampled light-fields,

    S. Moreschini, F. Gama, R. Bregovic, and A. Gotchev, “CIVIT dataset: Horizontal-parallax-only densely-sampled light-fields,” in Euro- pean Light Field Imaging (ELFI) Workshop, 2019, european Light Field Imaging Workshop ; Conference date: 04-06-2019 Through 06-06-2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Saliency detection on light field,

    N. Li, J. Ye, Y . Ji, H. Ling, and J. Yu, “Saliency detection on light field,” in The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    New light field image dataset,

    M. ˇReˇr´abek and T. Ebrahimi, “New light field image dataset,” in 8th International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX), Lisbon, Portugal, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    LiFF: Light field features in scale and depth,

    D. G. Dansereau, B. Girod, and G. Wetzstein, “LiFF: Light field features in scale and depth,” in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . IEEE, Jun. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dgd.vision/Papers/dansereau2019liff.pdf

    2019

  30. [38]

    Recommendation 500-10: Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures,

    “Recommendation 500-10: Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures,” ITU-R Rec. BT.500, 2000

    2000

  31. [39]

    Analysis and improvement of a paired comparison method in the application of 3dtv subjective experiment,

    J. Li, M. Barkowsky, and P. Le Callet, “Analysis and improvement of a paired comparison method in the application of 3dtv subjective experiment,” in 2012 19th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, 2012, pp. 629–632

    2012

  32. [40]

    Die berechnung der turnier-ergebnisse als ein maximumproblem der wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung,

    E. Zermelo, “Die berechnung der turnier-ergebnisse als ein maximumproblem der wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung,” Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 29, 1929

    1929

  33. [41]

    New York, NY: Springer New York, 2008, pp

    Likelihood Ratio Test . New York, NY: Springer New York, 2008, pp. 309–316. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-0-387-32833-1 233

    2008

  34. [42]

    The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses,

    S. S. Wilks, “The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 60–62, 1938. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2957648

    1938

  35. [43]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning . MIT Press, 2016, book in preparation for MIT Press. [Online]. Available: http://www.deeplearningbook.org

    2016

  36. [44]

    Statistics and machine learning toolbox,

    T. M. Inc., “Statistics and machine learning toolbox,” Natick, Massachusetts, United States, 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //www.mathworks.com/help/stats/index.html

    2023

  37. [2019]

    Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/5/502

    [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/5/502

  38. [2024]

    Available: https://library.imaging.org/ei/articles/36/10/ IPAS-367

    [Online]. Available: https://library.imaging.org/ei/articles/36/10/ IPAS-367

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.