Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 40 references

OceanVive: An Immersive Visualization System for Communicating Complex Oceanic Phenomena

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read OceanVive is a two-surface immersive system that turns complex ocean datasets into navigable spatial narratives, with expert interviews suggesting it can make phenomena like hypoxia and acidification more accessible to public audiences.

desk verdict A solid immersive-storytelling systems paper whose honest evaluation supports expert acceptability but not the stronger 'deeper public understanding' claim — worth refereeing, with revision needed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17218 v1 pith:FTHLINH5 submitted 2025-07-23 cs.HC

Yang Ouyang , Yuchen Wu , Xiyuan Wang , Laixin Xie , Weicong Cheng , Jianping Gan , Quan Li , Xiaojuan Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords immersivevisualizationsciencecommunicationoceanographicdataspatialnarrativesinteractivestorytellinghypoxiaandacidificationhuman-computerinteraction
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

OceanVive is an immersive visualization system built on the claim that story-driven, navigable 3D views can communicate complex ocean phenomena—hypoxia, acidification, algal blooms—more effectively than static charts, slide decks, and text-heavy reports. The paper argues that the multidimensional, time-varying nature of ocean data resists conventional formats, and that a pairing of a table-sized tablet with a wall-sized curved display lets users both analyze and present the data as a spatial narrative. The authors built OceanVive on five design requirements derived from interviews with five oceanographers and evaluated it with those experts, who reported that the system felt intuitive, broadened perspectives, and bridged scientific knowledge with public engagement. The paper's central claim is that this system therefore has the potential to enhance ocean science communication and deepen public understanding.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the coordinated two-surface setup: an Exploratory Panel on a table-sized tablet that handles data configuration, 3D miniature exploration, slicing, target designation, and chart display, synchronized with a wall-sized Immersive Viewport that renders first-person, spatially anchored views of the data volume. The defining abstraction is the 'spatial narrative,' a story carried by navigable space. It is built on three entity types—Spatial Point, Spatial Path, and Volumetric Area—that map oceanographic features onto interactive targets, supported by switchable charts (bar, line, box plot) and a timeline for temporal playback.

What would settle it

A randomized controlled experiment in which non-expert participants are asked to explain hypoxia and acidification after using OceanVive, compared with a conventional static-chart presentation; if the OceanVive group shows no significant gain in comprehension, recall, or engagement, the paper's central claim would be unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that immersive, story-driven interaction can close the gap between complex oceanographic datasets and public understanding. OceanVive implements this by coordinating two surfaces: a table-sized Exploratory Panel for configuration, slicing, and target designation, and a wall-sized Immersive Viewport for first-person navigation through the data volume. Users designate three kinds of observational targets—Spatial Point, Spatial Path, and Volumetric Area—each paired with a matching chart type (bar chart, line chart, box plot), and can compare up to four variables (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, nitrate) at once. A 'submarine' metaphor and a hybrid navigation model combine passive guided paths with free perspective switching, and recorded targets can be replayed for comparative storytelling. The paper validates the system through semi-structured interviews with five oceanographers, reporting that experts found it intuitive and valuable for science communication while also noting risks of misinterpretation and cognitive overload from abstract visual elements.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the premise that the qualitative feedback of five oceanographers, two of whom helped shape the design, is sufficient evidence that OceanVive improves public understanding of complex ocean phenomena.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Oceanographers can take stakeholders through hypoxia and acidification events in situ, with real-time variable charts overlaid beneath the immersive viewport along the narrated path.
  • Because the system is modular and customizable, its visual encodings and storytelling structure can be adapted to other high-dimensional scientific fields such as genomics and materials science.
  • Educators gain a tool that replaces static sectional views with dynamic slicing and first-person perspectives, lowering the barrier to engaging with complex ocean datasets.
  • The semi-automated point-of-interest recommendation (maximum, minimum, temporal and spatial gradients) lets experts surface relevant patterns quickly while retaining manual control over narrative emphasis.
  • Recorded targets can be replayed and juxtaposed, supporting retrospective comparison and reproducible, transparent presentation of findings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be a controlled experiment with non-expert participants, measuring whether comprehension and recall of hypoxia and acidification concepts after using OceanVive exceed those after a conventional slide-based presentation.
  • If the spatial-narrative approach works for these ocean phenomena, the same two-surface design could be applied to other spatially distributed science-communication problems, such as air pollution exposure, groundwater contamination, or coastal flood risk.
  • The experts' own concern about misinterpretation suggests that adding explicit uncertainty annotations or data-source metadata to the visual encodings is a concrete enhancement worth testing.
  • Because the current dataset covers a single region (the Great Bay Area, 2019–2024), the paper's communication claims implicitly depend on whether the narrative structure remains effective for other basins and variable combinations.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. OceanVive is an immersive visualization system that combines a wall-sized curved display with a table-sized tablet to present oceanographic data (temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, nitrate) as navigable spatial narratives. The design is grounded in a small observational study with five oceanographers, from which the authors derive five design requirements (R1–R5). The paper describes the system's components—an exploratory panel, volumetric slicing, analytical target designation, switchable charts, and a record/replay mechanism—and reports a qualitative evaluation with five oceanographers (three new, two returning) that assesses tool perception, workflow adaptation, and concerns about the immersive experience. The central claim, stated in the abstract, is that OceanVive is 'validated through expert interviews, demonstrating its potential to enhance science communication and promote deeper public understanding.'

Significance. The paper makes a useful contribution to immersive ocean-data communication. The system itself is thoughtfully designed: the two-surface interaction model (wall display plus tablet) is a pragmatic alternative to head-mounted AR/VR, and the design requirements are grounded in genuine expert input. The walkthrough in Section 4 is detailed and reproducible, and the authors are candid about limitations in Section 6, including the lack of a diverse user study. If the central claim were restricted to expert acceptability and feasibility rather than audience comprehension, the contribution would be solid for a systems venue. The strength lies in the system description and the articulation of design requirements; the weakness is the evaluation evidence relative to the claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract states that OceanVive is 'validated through expert interviews, demonstrating its potential to enhance science communication and promote deeper public understanding.' However, Section 5 reports only semi-structured feedback from five oceanographers about tool perception, workflow adaptation, and immersive-experience concerns. There is no measurement of comprehension, recall, or engagement for the diverse audiences (laypeople, policymakers, stakeholders) named in the claim. The authors acknowledge this mismatch in Section 6: 'the absence of a user study with a diverse participant pool means we currently lack data on the system's performance across different user groups.' Because this admission is load-bearing, the central claim should be tempered to expert acceptability or feasibility, or an audience study must be added.
  2. [Section 5 (evaluation design) and Section 3] The evaluation reuses two of the five experts who participated in the earlier design study that generated requirements R1–R5. This partial participant overlap introduces a form of circularity: the system is assessed by people who helped define what the system should do. The paper does not report how responses differed between the returning and the three new participants, nor does it justify the overlap as a formative-evaluation strategy. Additionally, there is no baseline comparison to conventional formats (e.g., static visualizations or text reports), despite the introduction's claim that conventional tools 'often inadequately convey' ocean dynamics. The evaluation therefore does not currently support the claimed advantage over conventional tools.
  3. [Section 5 (concerns) and Section 6] The experts themselves raised concerns about 'potential for misinterpretation,' 'cognitive overload,' and 'a steep learning curve for novice users.' These concerns directly bear on the claim of promoting 'deeper public understanding,' since that claim is about end-users rather than experts. The paper reports these concerns but does not discuss how the design mitigates them or how they should qualify the conclusion. The concluding claim in Section 6 that the system 'prioritizes the communication of findings' should be reconciled with the mixed qualitative signal, at minimum by explicitly stating that the system is currently a promising prototype whose audience-facing effectiveness remains unestablished.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2] The text refers to 'Figure 1-C2' and 'Figure 1-B1', but the caption of Figure 1 only labels (A) Panoramic Curved Display and (B) Exploratory Panel; the sub-panel naming should be made consistent or the inline references updated.
  2. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'Switchable Charts (Figure 4.2)' appears where 'Figure 4' is presumably meant; the reference should be corrected.
  3. [Section 4.2] Several inline button icons appear as empty placeholders (e.g., ' pressing the button beside' and ' The and buttons'), likely due to missing glyphs in the source; these should be replaced with captions or text labels so the walkthrough is readable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Validation partly re-interviews the oceanographers who set the design requirements, so the public-understanding claim partially re-confirms the input.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 3 'Observational Study'; Section 4 'OceanVive'; Section 5 'Expert Evaluation']
    "Section 3: "Building upon the insights gained from interviews, we identified five design requirements." Section 4: "Building on these requirements, we developed OceanVive, a hybrid system designed to enhance the communication of oceanographic phenomena." Section 5: "We conducted an evaluation with five oceanographers (including three new participants)." Abstract: "We validate the system through expert interviews, demonstrating its potential to enhance science communication and promote deeper public understanding.""

    The evaluation pool overlaps with the requirement-elicitation pool: two of the five evaluators in Section 5 are not 'new participants,' so they are among the five oceanographers in Section 3 whose interviews generated requirements R1-R5. OceanVive was then built 'on these requirements,' meaning the experts are judging whether the system provides the capabilities they themselves specified. The favorable perception results—intuitive exploration, concurrent variable inspection, entity-specific encodings, continuous contextual delivery—are therefore partly a re-affirmation of the experts' own design inputs rather than independent evidence about how diverse audiences understand hypoxia or acidification. Section 6 concedes the missing diverse user study.

full rationale

OceanVive is a systems/HCI paper with no formal derivation, so no equation-level circularity (self-definitional or theorem-import) is present. The one genuine circularity risk is evaluative: the design requirements (Section 3) were elicited from five oceanographers; the system was explicitly built to satisfy those requirements (Section 4); and the validation (Section 5) re-interviews five oceanographers, two of whom are drawn from that same original pool. Favorable assessments of capabilities that mirror R1-R5 therefore partly re-state the input requirements. The paper does not derive any quantitative prediction from fitted data, and it reports critical concerns as well as praising feedback, and Section 6 explicitly acknowledges the lack of a diverse-participant user study, which prevents the 'deeper public understanding' claim from being independently established. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. Score 4 reflects one partial, non-derivational circularity in the validation loop while recognizing the independent artifact and the three new expert voices.

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

This is a systems paper with no mathematical derivation or fitted parameters. The main assumptions are domain-specific beliefs about the benefits of immersive visualization and the representativeness of the expert sample, both adopted from prior work or small qualitative studies.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Immersive displays with interactive control improve communication of complex scientific data compared with static visualizations.
    Invoked in Section 4 based on prior work [21], [3]; the evaluation is not a controlled test of this assumption.
  • domain assumption The five expert interviews yield representative design requirements for ocean science communication.
    Section 3 derives R1-R5 from interviews with five oceanographers; this small sample is assumed to represent broader needs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OceanVive: An Immersive Visualization System for Communicating Complex Oceanic Phenomena." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTHLINH5

@misc{pith2026250717218,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OceanVive: An Immersive Visualization System for Communicating Complex Oceanic Phenomena},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTHLINH5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17218}
}
read the original abstract

Communicating the complexity of oceanic phenomena-such as hypoxia and acidification-poses a persistent challenge for marine science. Despite advances in sensing technologies and computational models, conventional formats like static visualizations and text-based reports often fall short in conveying the dynamics of ocean changes. To address this gap, we present OceanVive, an immersive and interactive visualization system that transforms complex ocean datasets into navigable spatial narratives. OceanVive incorporates an exploratory panel on a table-sized tablet for managing immersive content on a large screen and integrates adaptive visual encodings, contextual storytelling, and intuitive navigation pathways to support effective communication. We validate the system through expert interviews, demonstrating its potential to enhance science communication and promote deeper public understanding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17218 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We demonstrate OceanVive in an immersive environment: (A) 180◦Panoramic Curved Display and (B) Exploratory Panel. ABSTRACT Communicating the complexity of oceanic phenomena—such as hypoxia and acidification—poses a persistent challenge for marine science. Despite advances in sensing technologies and computa￾tional models, conventional formats like static visualizations and text-based reports often fall short in conv… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Real-time dynamic slicing method enables flexible, contex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Four observational targets in OceanVive, including A) Spa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three switchable charts tai￾lored to current observational target: bar chart, line chart, and box plot. Target Recording and Contextual Presen￾tation with Immersive Viewport. Users curate findings through the Record module, where designated targets can be added to a re…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Four overlying line charts below indicate the sampled val [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arbel and F

    T. Arbel and F. P. Ferrie. Viewpoint selection by navigation through entropy maps. In Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Con- ference on Computer Vision, vol. 1, pp. 248–254. IEEE, 1999. 2

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Babic, H

    T. Babic, H. Reiterer, and M. Haller. Understanding and creating spatial interactions with distant displays enabled by unmodified off- the-shelf smartphones. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction , 6(10):94, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Beaudouin-Lafon

    M. Beaudouin-Lafon. Lessons learned from the wild room, a multisur- face interactive environment. In Proceedings of the 23rd conference on l’interaction homme-machine, pp. 1–8, 2011. 3

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    M. I. Billen, O. Kreylos, B. Hamann, M. A. Jadamec, L. H. Kellogg, O. Staadt, and D. Y . Sumner. A geoscience perspective on immersive 3d gridded data visualization.Computers & Geosciences, 34(9):1056– 1072, 2008. 1

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Bonaventura, M

    X. Bonaventura, M. Feixas, M. Sbert, L. Chuang, and C. Wallraven. A survey of viewpoint selection methods for polygonal models.Entropy, 20(5):370, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Boorboor, Y

    S. Boorboor, Y . Kim, P. Hu, J. M. Moses, B. A. Colle, and A. E. Kaufman. Submerse: Visualizing storm surge flooding simulations in immersive display ecologies. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(9):6365–6377, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Breitburg, L

    D. Breitburg, L. A. Levin, A. Oschlies, M. Gr ´egoire, F. P. Chavez, D. J. Conley, V . Garc ¸on, D. Gilbert, D. Guti´errez, K. Isensee, et al. Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science, 359(6371):eaam7240, 2018. 1

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    S. Chen, H. Wu, Z. Lin, C. Guo, L. Lin, F. Hong, and X. Yuan. Photo4action: phone camera-based interaction for graph visualiza- tions on large wall displays. Journal of Visualization, 24, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Cvitanovic, A

    C. Cvitanovic, A. J. Hobday, L. van Kerkhoff, S. K. Wilson, K. Dobbs, and N. A. Marshall. Improving knowledge exchange among scien- tists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of ma- rine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean & Coastal ...

    2015

  2. [10]

    Di Luca, H

    M. Di Luca, H. Seifi, S. Egan, and M. Gonzalez-Franco. Locomotion vault: the extra mile in analyzing vr locomotion techniques. In Pro- ceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1–10, 2021. 2

    2021

  3. [11]

    R. J. Diaz and R. Rosenberg. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. science, 321(5891):926–929, 2008. 1

    2008

  4. [12]

    S. C. Doney, V . J. Fabry, R. A. Feely, and J. A. Kleypas. Ocean acid- ification: the other co2 problem. Annual review of marine science , 1(1):169–192, 2009. 1

    2009

  5. [13]

    Z.-C. Dong, W. Wu, Z. Xu, Q. Sun, G. Yuan, L. Liu, and X.-M. Fu. Tailored reality: Perception-aware scene restructuring for adaptive vr navigation. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 40(5), 2021. 2

    2021

  6. [14]

    Feixas, E

    M. Feixas, E. Del Acebo, P. Bekaert, and M. Sbert. An information theory framework for the analysis of scene complexity. In Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 18, pp. 95–106. Wiley Online Library, 1999. 2

    1999

  7. [15]

    S. L. Franconeri, L. M. Padilla, P. Shah, J. M. Zacks, and J. Hullman. The science of visual data communication: What works. Psychologi- cal Science in the public interest, 22(3):110–161, 2021. 1

    2021

  8. [16]

    C. J. Gobler and H. Baumann. Hypoxia and acidification in ocean ecosystems: coupled dynamics and effects on marine life. Biology letters, 12(5):20150976, 2016. 1

    2016

  9. [17]

    M. E. Head, P. Luong, J. H. Costolo, K. Countryman, and C. Szczechowski. Applications of 3-d visualizations of oceanographic data bases. In Oceans’ 97. MTS/IEEE Conference Proceedings, vol. 2, pp. 1210–1215. IEEE, 1997. 2

    1997

  10. [18]

    Huang, D

    H. Huang, D. Lischinski, Z. Hao, M. Gong, M. Christie, and D. Cohen-Or. Trip synopsis: 60km in 60sec. In Computer Graph- ics Forum, vol. 35, pp. 107–116. Wiley Online Library, 2016. 2

    2016

  11. [19]

    Kamada and S

    T. Kamada and S. Kawai. A simple method for computing general position in displaying three-dimensional objects. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 41(1):43–56, 1988. 2

    1988

  12. [20]

    W. S. Lages and D. A. Bowman. Move the object or move myself? walking vs. manipulation for the examination of 3d scientific data. Frontiers in ICT, 5:15, 2018. 2

    2018

  13. [21]

    B. Laha, K. Sensharma, J. D. Schiffbauer, and D. A. Bowman. Effects of immersion on visual analysis of volume data.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 18(4):597–606, 2012. 3

    2012

  14. [22]

    Langner and R

    R. Langner and R. Dachselt. Towards visual data exploration at wall- sized displays by combining physical navigation with spatially-aware devices. In IEEE VIS, 2018. 2

    2018

  15. [23]

    P. Y . Le Traon, A. Reppucci, E. Alvarez Fanjul, L. Aouf, A. Behrens, M. Belmonte, A. Bentamy, L. Bertino, V . E. Brando, M. B. Kreiner, et al. From observation to information and users: The copernicus marine service perspective. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2019. 1

    2019

  16. [24]

    Letondal, J.-L

    C. Letondal, J.-L. Vinot, S. Pauchet, and S. Leriche. Exploring a touch-based flight control panel for pilots using tangible design prin- ciples. Transportation Research Procedia, 43:257–268, 2019. 2

    2019

  17. [25]

    L. Lin, Y . Liu, Y . Hu, X. Yan, K. Xie, and H. Huang. Capturing, re- constructing, and simulating: the urbanscene3d dataset. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 93–109. Springer, 2022. 2

    2022

  18. [26]

    Mirhosseini, P

    S. Mirhosseini, P. Ghahremani, S. Ojal, J. Marino, and A. Kaufman. Exploration of large omnidirectional images in immersive environ- ments. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 413–422. IEEE, 2019. 2

    2019

  19. [27]

    W. C. Monteiro, M. C. Monteiro, B. P. Miranda, N. C. S. Neto, C. G. R. Santos, and B. S. Meiguins. Visual analysis scenarios for oceanographic buoy data. In International Conference on Information Visualisation, 2019. 2

    2019

  20. [28]

    Ohlander, J

    U. Ohlander, J. Alfredson, M. Riveiro, and G. Falkman. User par- ticipation in the design of cockpit interfaces. In Advances in Er- gonomics Modeling, Usability & Special Populations , pp. 51–58. Springer, 2017. 2

    2017

  21. [29]

    Rabalais, R

    N. Rabalais, R. J. Diaz, L. Levin, R. E. Turner, D. Gilbert, and J. Zhang. Dynamics and distribution of natural and human-caused hypoxia. Biogeosciences, 7(2):585–619, 2010. 1

    2010

  22. [30]

    Reipschlager, T

    P. Reipschlager, T. Flemisch, and R. Dachselt. Personal augmented re- ality for information visualization on large interactive displays. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 27(2):1182– 1192, 2020. 2

    2020

  23. [31]

    Y . Ren, T. Wu, C. Li, P. Yao, and W. Ding. Bridging science and art: Auralization and visualization of the ocean soundscape. iScience, 27(9), 2024. 1

    2024

  24. [32]

    L. J. Rosenblum. Visualizing oceanographic data. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 9:14–19, 1989. 2

    1989

  25. [33]

    Siddhpuria, S

    S. Siddhpuria, S. Malacria, M. Nancel, and E. Lank. Pointing at a distance with everyday smart devices. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1–11, 2018. 2

    2018

  26. [34]

    S. L. Stoev and W. Straßer. A case study on automatic camera place- ment and motion for visualizing historical data. InIEEE Visualization,

  27. [35]

    A. C. Subramanian, M. A. Balmaseda, L. Centurioni, R. Chattopad- hyay, B. D. Cornuelle, C. DeMott, M. Flatau, Y . Fujii, D. Giglio, S. T. Gille, et al. Ocean observations to improve our understanding, model- ing, and forecasting of subseasonal-to-seasonal variability. Frontier...

    2019

  28. [36]

    ´Swidrak, O

    J. ´Swidrak, O. Georgiou, D. Banakou, M. Matamala-Gomez, G. Pochwatko, and S. Seinfeld. Beyond audiovisual: novel multi- sensory stimulation techniques and their applications, 2024. 2

    2024

  29. [37]

    M. Tory, L. Bartram, B. Fiore-Gartland, and A. Crisan. Finding their data voice: Practices and challenges of dashboard users. IEEE Com- puter Graphics and Applications, 43(1):22–36, 2021. 1

    2021

  30. [38]

    Tursunov, G

    J. Tursunov, G. Rozinaj, I. Minarik, and M. Vanco. Creating a metaverse-based meeting room with live avatar control and web com- munication. In 2024 International Symposium ELMAR , pp. 57–60. IEEE, 2024. 2

    2024

  31. [39]

    Q. Zhao, S. Peng, J. Wang, S. Li, Z. Hou, and G. Zhong. Applications of deep learning in physical oceanography: a comprehensive review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 11:1396322, 2024. 1

    2024

  32. [2002]

    VIS 2002., pp. 545–548. IEEE, 2002. 2

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.