Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

SportsBuddy: Designing and Evaluating an AI-Powered Sports Video Storytelling Tool Through Real-World Deployment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An AI-powered web tool lets coaches, athletes, parents, and fans turn raw game footage into narrated, annotated highlight reels without professional editing skills, and a three-month public deployment with 163 registered users suggests…

desk verdict A real deployed sports video storytelling tool with a plausible accessibility story, but the evidence is mostly self-reported and the 150M-view figure needs verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08621 v2 pith:TSS4CFSR submitted 2025-02-12 cs.HC

Tica Lin , Ruxun Xiang , Gardenia Liu , Divyanshu Tiwari , Meng-Chia Chiang , Chenjiayi Ye , Hanspeter Pfister , Chen Zhu-Tian This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords sportsvideostorytellingembeddedvisualizationhighlightauthoringplayertrackingreal-worlddeploymenthuman-AIcollaborationeditingaccessibilitycasestudy
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

SportsBuddy is a web-based authoring tool that combines AI player tracking, direct on-video interaction, and timeline visualizations so that coaches, athletes, parents, creators, and fans can turn raw game footage into narrated highlight reels without professional video-editing skills. The paper argues that domain-specific tools like this, rather than general-purpose editors or generative video models, are what sports practitioners need to communicate insights. It supports the argument with a three-month public deployment: 163 registered users, 66 of whom provided feedback, plus case studies with collegiate marketing staff and online basketball creators. The reported outcome is that editing tasks that once took over thirty minutes came down to under ten, and that users adopted the tool for player synergy, tactical breakdowns, and spatial-action analysis. The paper's contribution is the design, implementation, and real-world evaluation of the system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the render object: a structured data entity that encodes each visual effect's type, start and end frame, and effect parameters, and is drawn onto an HTML canvas in real time, with layers placed between the background and foreground so that overlays either sit on the court or above players. Player tracking via a sports-optimized tracker and a pose-estimation model, plus foreground-background segmentation, let effects like Circle, Spotlight, and Text attach to a player and follow them automatically, while Path, Zone, and Marker accept freehand tactical drawings that are transformed with a fixed perspective matrix. A timeline of color-coded tracks gives users direct control over each effect's timing. This combination is what replaces frame-by-frame manual editing with object-level, context-embedded authoring.

What would settle it

Server logs from the three-month deployment should show per-user session lengths, editing actions, and export counts; if most of the 163 accounts never exported a highlight, or if the average editing time for a minute-long highlight among logged-in users was comparable to manual editing in a general-purpose tool, the central accessibility claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an interactive video authoring tool built around automatically tracked players and object-level visualization primitives can make sports video storytelling accessible to people who are not media professionals, and that this accessibility shows up in real use: over 150 registered users across five sports created and exported highlights, coaches used the visualizations to 'show, don't tell' during game review, and creators switched from static images to annotated video. The evidence is self-reported feedback from 66 questionnaire respondents, a 90.8 percent video upload success rate and 87.9 percent export success rate across 1,021 uploads and 814 exports, and two case-study collaborations. The claim is that these observations demonstrate reduced editing burden and improved storytelling quality for a diverse audience.

Load-bearing premise

The impact story depends on the 66 users who answered the questionnaire being a fair sample of the 163 registrants and on their self-reported time savings and enjoyment matching what they actually did in the tool.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported accessibility holds, sports organizations without broadcast budgets can produce broadcast-style tactical breakdowns for social media; the paper's collegiate case study reports 14 shared videos drawing over 150 million views.
  • Editing workflows that previously required switching between separate tools for clipping, annotation, narration, and export can be combined in one browser session, which the paper links to editing times falling from over 30 minutes to under 10.
  • Non-video professionals such as parents and youth coaches can generate recruiting-style player highlights, a use case the paper identifies as important for scholarships and team applications.
  • The paper's four design goals—intuitive sports features, object-level visualizations, integrated narratives, and a streamlined end-to-end workflow—provide a template that could transfer to other domain-specific video authoring tools.
  • Automated features like player tracking and AI-generated captions reduce the burden of manual annotation, which the paper reports was the greatest time-saver for less experienced users such as interns and youth coaches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A controlled comparison using server logs rather than self-reports would probably show a smaller average time saving than the headline '30 to 10 minutes' figure, but even a moderate reduction could be enough to change adoption habits.
  • The render-object architecture could transfer to other domains where object tracking and layered annotation matter more than generative content, such as medical procedure review or refereeing analysis.
  • The accessibility claim is likely capped by tracking robustness: when player tracking fails under occlusion or rapid motion, the object-level interaction advantage disappears and users fall back to manual adjustment, so improving tracking may matter more than adding new visualization features.
  • The paper's emphasis on real-world deployment suggests a broader evaluation model for visualization research, where external validity comes from observing diverse self-selected users rather than from controlled laboratory tasks.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents SportsBuddy, a web-based AI-powered tool for authoring sports video highlights. The system combines player tracking, embedded canvas-based interactions, timeline-based editing, and AI captioning to let coaches, athletes, creators, parents, and fans produce context-rich highlight videos. The authors report a three-month public deployment (163 registered users), survey and interview feedback from a subset of users, and two case studies with Harvard Athletics and three basketball influencers. Based on this evidence, the paper claims that SportsBuddy improves accessibility and ease of use for sports storytelling and has positive impact on coaching communication, game analysis, and fan engagement.

Significance. The paper's main strength is its real-world deployment and the detailed description of a working system that operationalizes prior academic frameworks for embedded sports visualization. The design goals and implementation are clearly presented, and the iterative improvements based on user feedback demonstrate practical value. The claim that non-professional sports stakeholders can create engaging video stories with SportsBuddy is plausible and, if supported by stronger evidence, would be a useful contribution to sports visualization and authoring tools. However, the evaluation is largely qualitative and self-selected, and the headline quantitative figure (150 million views) is unverified. As written, the paper is a solid design case study, but its broader impact and accessibility claims outrun the evidence provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [5.2.1] The sentence "These 14 videos have collectively attracted over 150 million views" is load-bearing for the fan-engagement conclusion, yet no analytics source, per-video breakdown, or time window is provided. This figure cannot be checked from the manuscript, and if it is incorrect or refers to aggregate account reach rather than video views, the impact claim loses its objective anchor. The authors should either supply verifiable analytics evidence (e.g., platform screenshots, a per-video table with view counts and dates) or remove the figure and temper the corresponding claims in Section 5.2.1 and the abstract.
  2. [5.1] The accessibility and efficiency claims rest on self-reported feedback from 66 of 163 registered users, with no log-based measures of editing time, task completion, or usability. The representative quote "over 30 minutes to under 10 minutes" is a single anecdote, not a measured workflow comparison. To substantiate the abstract's claim that the tool is accessible to "diverse audiences," the authors should report objective system logs (e.g., session durations, feature usage counts, completion rates) or explicitly acknowledge the limitation and generalize only to the interviewed users.
  3. [6.1] The Future Work section states that "SportsBuddy currently focuses on basketball but can expand to sports like soccer and tennis," which contradicts Sections 3.4 and 4.2.1 that describe support for basketball, soccer, volleyball, lacrosse, and tennis. This internal inconsistency matters because the paper's central claim of supporting diverse sports roles and sports types depends on the tool's actual coverage. The authors should clarify whether the deployed system supported all five sports or whether the deployment only exercised basketball (and perhaps a subset), and adjust the claims accordingly.
  4. [5.2] The two case studies rely on collaborators (Harvard Athletics and named influencers) who may be positively predisposed toward the tool; no independent evaluation, adversarial testing, or neutral third-party assessment is described. This is not a fatal flaw, but the paper's unqualified statement that feedback was "overwhelmingly positive" should be contextualized as coming from motivated collaborators, and the limitations of this evaluation mode should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [1] The abstract and Section 1 say "over 150 sports users" while Section 5 reports 163 registered users; the numbers should be aligned or the earlier statement should say "over 160" for consistency.
  2. [3.4] The sentence "The entire creation process took Mike less than 5 minutes" is presented as a demonstration; consider labeling it as an illustrative scenario rather than a measured performance claim, since no timing methodology is given.
  3. [4.2.2] The claim that rendering time is "within 10 milliseconds for each frame" should state whether this is a measured benchmark and under what conditions (e.g., video resolution, number of render objects), or it should be described as a design target.
  4. [4.1] The statement that each pipeline branch "demonstrates robust performance" is not supported by quantitative results in this paper; the authors should clarify that they defer to the original method papers for accuracy evaluation and that no new benchmark is provided.
  5. [References] Reference [23] is missing publication details (year, venue, or a stable URL); please complete the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SportsBuddy’s design is built on the authors’ prior visualization frameworks, but the central claims rest on external deployment feedback, not on those citations.

full rationale

SportsBuddy is a systems-and-deployment paper, not a derivation chain with equations or fitted models. The load-bearing evidence for accessibility and impact is external to the design: 163 registered users, 66 demographic-questionnaire respondents, Harvard Athletics case-study collaborators, and named external content creators. The paper’s self-citations, such as “Building upon the data-driven approach in [19] and embedded visualization framework in [28], we develop SportsBuddy,” are design lineage rather than entailment; no feature or outcome is claimed to be forced by a uniqueness theorem or by the prior papers. The player/tactic/action visualization taxonomy is presented as a design choice grounded in interviews and literature, not as a prediction derived from the cited frameworks. Deployment metrics such as “1,021 videos were successfully uploaded, with an upload success rate of 90.8%, and 814 highlights were exported” are empirical observations, and the quoted editing-time reductions are user self-reports. Even if those self-reports and the “over 150 million views” figure lack independent verification, that is an evidence-quality and validity concern, not a circularity concern. The paper also transparently lists system limitations, including tracking failures, camera-perspective mismatch, and browser memory usage, so it does not hide its assumptions. No step in the argument reduces by construction to its own inputs, and the self-citations are not used to foreclose alternatives or to substitute for evaluation. Score 0.

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

SportsBuddy is a software system, not a scientific model; it introduces no fitted parameters or natural world entities. The load-bearing assumptions concern sample representativeness, self-report validity, and the reliability of the AI pipeline components.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 50+ user interviews and 66 questionnaire responses capture the real needs of sports video storytellers.
    These samples ground the design goals in Sec. 3.1 and the impact findings in Sec. 5.1. If they are unrepresentative, the system may not actually serve the broader intended audience.
  • domain assumption Self-reported usability, time savings, and engagement outcomes are accurate reflections of SportsBuddy's effectiveness.
    The efficiency claims in Sec. 5.1.1 (over 30 minutes to under 10 minutes) and the positive feedback are not cross-checked against logs or independent measurements.
  • domain assumption The off-the-shelf models (MixSort, MMPose, Mask R-CNN, GPT-4o) perform well enough in production for the claimed user experience.
    Sec. 4.1 defers accuracy evaluation to the original model papers, and Sec. 4.4 documents that tracking and camera transformations can fail under common conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SportsBuddy: Designing and Evaluating an AI-Powered Sports Video Storytelling Tool Through Real-World Deployment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSS4CFSR

@misc{pith2026250208621,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SportsBuddy: Designing and Evaluating an AI-Powered Sports Video Storytelling Tool Through Real-World Deployment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSS4CFSR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08621}
}
read the original abstract

Video storytelling is essential for sports performance analysis and fan engagement, enabling sports professionals and fans to effectively communicate and interpret the spatial and temporal dynamics of gameplay. Traditional methods rely on manual annotation and verbal explanations, placing significant demands on creators for video editing skills and on viewers for cognitive focus. However, these approaches are time-consuming and often struggle to accommodate individual needs. SportsBuddy addresses this gap with an intuitive, interactive video authoring tool. It combines player tracking, embedded interaction design, and timeline visualizations to seamlessly integrate narratives and visual cues within game contexts. This empowers users to effortlessly create context-driven video stories. Since its launch, over 150 sports users, including coaches, athletes, content creators, parents and fans, have utilized SportsBuddy to produce compelling game highlights for diverse use cases. User feedback highlights its accessibility and ease of use, making video storytelling and insight communication more attainable for diverse audiences. Case studies with collegiate teams and sports creators further demonstrate SportsBuddy's impact on enhancing coaching communication, game analysis, and fan engagement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08621 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SportsBuddy enables easy highlight creation for video storytelling with intuitive visualization features and workflow. Users [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Nine visualization features are provided under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A demonstration of a coach adding insights with visualization features on SportsBuddy: starting with uploading a clip (a), highlighting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Narrative Tab provides captioning features. Users can (a) input captions manually, (b) create AI-generated captions, and (c) see instant caption update in the video. • Narrative Tab. The user can add captions to the video under Narrative, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SportsBuddy enhances the effectiveness and diversity of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://www.adobe.com/products/ premiere.html

    Adobe Premiere Pro. https://www.adobe.com/products/ premiere.html

    work page

  2. [2]

    https://www.apple.com/in/imovie/

    Apple iMovie. https://www.apple.com/in/imovie/

    work page

  3. [3]

    https://www.capcut.com/

    CapCut. https://www.capcut.com/

    work page

  4. [4]

    https://www.instagram.com/hinbasket_hk/

    Hin basket. https://www.instagram.com/hinbasket_hk/

    work page

  5. [5]

    https://www.hudl.com/

    Hudl. https://www.hudl.com/

    work page

  6. [6]

    https://www.youtube.com/@HungKu

    Hungku basketball. https://www.youtube.com/@HungKu

    work page

  7. [7]

    https://www.instagram.com/jnc_bball/

    JNC Sport. https://www.instagram.com/jnc_bball/

    work page

  8. [8]

    https://openai.com/index/sora/

    OpenAI Sora. https://openai.com/index/sora/

    work page

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    https://www.rossvideo.com/ja/live-production/ graphics/piero/

    Piero. https://www.rossvideo.com/ja/live-production/ graphics/piero/

  2. [10]

    https://pika.art/

    Pika. https://pika.art/

  3. [11]

    https://www.secondspectrum.com/index

    Second Spectrum. https://www.secondspectrum.com/index. html

  4. [12]

    https://www.vizrt.com/products/viz-libero/

    Viz Libero. https://www.vizrt.com/products/viz-libero/

  5. [13]

    https://wsc-sports.com/

    WSC Sports. https://wsc-sports.com/

  6. [14]

    Amini, N

    F. Amini, N. H. Riche, B. Lee, C. Hurter, and P. Irani. Understanding data videos: Looking at narrative visualization through the cinematog- raphy lens. In B. Begole, J. Kim, K. Inkpen, and W. Woo, eds., Pro- ceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Compu...

    2015

  7. [16]

    R. Cao, S. Dey, A. Cunningham, J. A. Walsh, R. T. Smith, J. E. Zucco, and B. H. Thomas. Examining the use of narrative constructs in data videos. Vis. Informatics, 4(1):8–22, 2020. doi: 10.1016/J.VISINF. 2019.12.002

    2020 doi

  8. [17]

    Z. Chen, Q. Yang, J. Shan, T. Lin, J. Beyer, H. Xia, and H. Pfister. iball: Augmenting basketball videos with gaze-moderated embedded visualizations. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–18, 2023

    2023

  9. [18]

    Z. Chen, Q. Yang, X. Xie, J. Beyer, H. Xia, Y . Wu, and H. Pfister. Sporthesia: Augmenting sports videos using natural language. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 29(1):918–928, 2022

    2022

  10. [19]

    Z. Chen, S. Ye, X. Chu, H. Xia, H. Zhang, H. Qu, and Y . Wu. Aug- menting sports videos with viscommentator. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):824–834, 2021

    2021

  11. [20]

    N. Cohn. Visual narrative structure. Cogn. Sci., 37(3):413–452, 2013. doi: 10.1111/COGS.12016

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    Contributors

    M. Contributors. Openmmlab pose estimation toolbox and benchmark. https://github.com/open-mmlab/mmpose, 2020

    2020

  13. [22]

    Y . Cui, C. Zeng, X. Zhao, Y . Yang, G. Wu, and L. Wang. Sportsmot: A large multi-object tracking dataset in multiple sports scenes, 2023

    2023

  14. [23]

    E. Dixon. Study: Nine in ten gen z sports fans use social media to consume content as consumption habits shift

  15. [24]

    M. T. Fischer, D. A. Keim, and M. Stein. Video-based analysis of soccer matches. CoRR, abs/2105.04875, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  16. [25]

    K. He, G. Gkioxari, P. Doll ´ar, and R. Girshick. Mask r-cnn, 2018

    2018

  17. [26]

    Kim and J

    Y . Kim and J. Heer. Gemini: A grammar and recommender system for animated transitions in statistical graphics. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 27(2):485–494, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030360

    2021

  18. [27]

    Kim and J

    Y . Kim and J. Heer. Gemini2: Generating keyframe-oriented animated transitions between statistical graphics. In 2021 IEEE Visualization Conference, IEEE VIS 2021 - Short Papers, New Orleans, LA, USA, Oc- tober 24-29, 2021, pp. 201–205. IEEE, 2021. doi: 10.1109/VIS49827. 2021.9623291

    2021

  19. [28]

    T. Lin, Z. Chen, Y . Yang, D. Chiappalupi, J. Beyer, and H. Pfister. The quest for omnioculars: Embedded visualization for augmenting bas- ketball game viewing experiences. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 29(1):962–971, 2022

    2022

  20. [29]

    Perin, R

    C. Perin, R. Vuillemot, C. D. Stolper, J. T. Stasko, J. Wood, and S. Carpendale. State of the art of sports data visualization. Comput. Graph. Forum, 37(3):663–686, 2018. doi: 10.1111/CGF.13447

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Segel and J

    E. Segel and J. Heer. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 16(6):1139–1148, 2010. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2010.179

    2010

  22. [31]

    L. Shen, H. Li, Y . Wang, T. Luo, Y . Luo, and H. Qu. Data play- wright: Authoring data videos with annotated narration. CoRR, abs/2410.03093, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2410.03093

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    L. Shen, Y . Zhang, H. Zhang, and Y . Wang. Data player: Automatic generation of data videos with narration-animation interplay. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 30(1):109–119, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG .2023.3327197

    2024

  24. [33]

    D. Shi, F. Sun, X. Xu, X. Lan, D. Gotz, and N. Cao. Autoclips: An automatic approach to video generation from data facts. Comput. Graph. Forum, 40(3):495–505, 2021. doi: 10.1111/CGF.14324

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    M. Shin, J. Kim, Y . Han, L. Xie, M. Whitelaw, B. C. Kwon, S. Ko, and N. Elmqvist. Roslingifier: Semi-automated storytelling for animated scatterplots. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 29(6):2980–2995, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3146329

    2023

  26. [35]

    Stein, H

    M. Stein, H. Janetzko, A. Lamprecht, T. Breitkreutz, P. Zimmermann, B. Goldl¨ucke, T. Schreck, G. L. Andrienko, M. Grossniklaus, and D. A. Keim. Bring it to the pitch: Combining video and movement data to enhance team sport analysis. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. , 24(1):13–...

    2018

  27. [36]

    Thompson, Z

    J. Thompson, Z. Liu, W. Li, and J. T. Stasko. Understanding the design space and authoring paradigms for animated data graphics. Comput. Graph. Forum, 39(3):207–218, 2020. doi: 10.1111/CGF.13974

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    B. Wang, Y . Li, Z. Lv, H. Xia, Y . Xu, and R. Sodhi. Lave: Llm- powered agent assistance and language augmentation for video editing. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 699–714, 2024

    2024

  29. [38]

    Y . Wang, Y . Gao, R. Huang, W. Cui, H. Zhang, and D. Zhang. Animated presentation of static infographics with infomotion. Comput. Graph. Forum, 40(3):507–518, 2021. doi: 10.1111/CGF.14325

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    Y . Wang, L. Shen, Z. You, X. Shu, B. Lee, J. Thompson, H. Zhang, and D. Zhang. Wonderflow: Narration-centric design of animated data videos. CoRR, abs/2308.04040, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2308. 04040

    2023 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    Z. Wei, H. Qu, and X. Xu. Telling data stories with the hero’s jour- ney: Design guidance for creating data videos. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2024

    2024

  32. [41]

    Willett, Y

    W. Willett, Y . Jansen, and P. Dragicevic. Embedded data representa- tions. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 23(1):461–470, 2017. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2016.2598608

    2017

  33. [42]

    X. Xu, A. Wu, L. Yang, Z. Wei, R. Huang, D. Yip, and H. Qu. Is it the end? guidelines for cinematic endings in data videos. In A. Schmidt, K. V¨a¨an¨anen, T. Goyal, P. O. Kristensson, A. Peters, S. Mueller, J. R. Williamson, and M. L. Wilson, eds., Proceedings of the 2023 CHI ...

    2023

  34. [43]

    X. Xu, L. Yang, D. Yip, M. Fan, Z. Wei, and H. Qu. From ’wow’ to ’why’: Guidelines for creating the opening of a data video with cinematic styles. In S. D. J. Barbosa, C. Lampe, C. Appert, D. A. Shamma, S. M. Drucker, J. R. Williamson, and K. Yatani, eds., CHI ’22: CHI Confere...

    2022

  35. [44]

    L. Yao, R. Vuillemot, A. Bezerianos, and P. Isenberg. Designing for visualization in motion: Embedding visualizations in swimming videos. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2023

    2023

  36. [45]

    L. Ying, Y . Wang, H. Li, S. Dou, H. Zhang, X. Jiang, H. Qu, and Y . Wu. Reviving static charts into live charts. CoRR, abs/2309.02967, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2309.02967

    2023 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.