Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 56 references

Conceptual Design of an Ecosystem for Real Farm Data Collection toward Agricultural AI Foundation Models

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read An ecosystem with demand-driven pricing, revenue sharing, and authenticated uploads can sustainably collect real farm data for agricultural AI.

desk verdict The paper sketches a farm data ecosystem with pricing, revenue sharing, and device verification but its sustainability claim rests only on an estimate of ag robot value that does not test those mechanisms. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.23258 v1 pith:AP4NFM2E submitted 2026-06-22 cs.RO

Junsei Tanaka , Yoshihiro Sato This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords farmdatacollectionagriculturalAIecosystemrevenuesharingauthenticityrobotsfoundationmodelseconomicsustainability
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

Data scarcity limits AI foundation models for agricultural robots, existing platforms fail to incentivize long-term farmer contributions, and generative AI makes verifying real farm origins harder. The paper proposes an ecosystem that sets data prices automatically according to demand and rarity, shares revenue with farmers to maintain their participation, and ensures authenticity by requiring uploads from authenticated devices. To check whether this setup can support farmers, AI companies, and the platform without external funding, the authors calculate the economic value that agricultural robots are expected to create. A sympathetic reader would see this as a self-sustaining loop where robot profits fund the data that improves the robots.

What carries the argument

The integrated ecosystem that uses automatic pricing driven by demand and rarity, revenue sharing with farmers, and authenticated device uploads to guarantee data authenticity.

What would settle it

A calculation showing that the share of robot-generated revenue available for farmer incentives falls below the compensation level needed to cover farmers' ongoing costs of data collection and device maintenance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper proposes an ecosystem for the sustainable collection and distribution of real farm data that integrates automatic pricing driven by demand and rarity, revenue sharing that distributes earnings to farmers as an incentive to keep providing data, and data authenticity guarantees through authenticated device uploads. To demonstrate the economic sustainability for all three parties among farmers, AI companies, and the platform, the authors estimate the economic value that agricultural robots stand to generate.

Load-bearing premise

Estimating the economic value generated by agricultural robots is sufficient to prove the economic sustainability of the ecosystem for farmers, AI companies, and the platform.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Farmers receive payments scaled to data rarity and demand, creating a continuing incentive to supply more data.
  • AI companies obtain verified real-farm data priced according to its market value rather than arbitrary fees.
  • The platform covers its costs and earns returns by capturing a portion of the value created by robots trained on the collected data.
  • Long-term data collection becomes possible without depending on one-time grants or voluntary contributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The pricing and sharing rules could be applied to data collection for other robot domains that face similar scarcity and authenticity problems.
  • A direct test would run the automatic pricing on a small number of farms for one growing season and measure whether upload rates remain stable.
  • Further work would need to define how robot profits are traced back to specific data contributions to make revenue sharing operational.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a conceptual ecosystem for sustainable real-farm data collection to support agricultural AI foundation models. It integrates three mechanisms: automatic pricing driven by demand and rarity, revenue sharing that returns earnings to farmers, and authenticity guarantees via authenticated device uploads. The central claim is that this ecosystem is economically sustainable for farmers, AI companies, and the platform, with sustainability demonstrated by an estimate of the aggregate economic value that agricultural robots stand to generate.

Significance. If the proposed mechanisms could be shown to allocate value in a way that sustains participation and prevents free-riding, the work would address a genuine data-scarcity barrier in agricultural robotics. The conceptual framing of demand/rarity pricing and authenticated uploads is a reasonable starting point for incentive design, but the manuscript supplies no model or analysis linking these rules to equilibrium outcomes or participation thresholds.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The sustainability claim for all three parties rests entirely on an estimate of aggregate economic value generated by agricultural robots. This estimate supplies no supply-demand model, game-theoretic analysis, or allocation rule showing how demand/rarity pricing or revenue sharing would set prices, distribute surplus, or maintain farmer incentives; the demonstration therefore does not follow from the reported calculation.
  2. [Abstract] The manuscript provides no methods, assumptions, or sensitivity analysis for the economic-value estimate itself. Without these details it is impossible to assess whether the estimate is robust or merely an upper bound that does not address platform or AI-firm participation constraints.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and title refer to 'real farm data' and 'authenticated device uploads' without defining the authentication protocol or threat model; a short technical paragraph would clarify the guarantee.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on the sustainability claim and the economic estimate. We agree that the manuscript, as a conceptual design, would be strengthened by additional clarification on the linkage between mechanisms and outcomes as well as by documenting the estimate's methods and assumptions. We address each major comment below and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The sustainability claim for all three parties rests entirely on an estimate of aggregate economic value generated by agricultural robots. This estimate supplies no supply-demand model, game-theoretic analysis, or allocation rule showing how demand/rarity pricing or revenue sharing would set prices, distribute surplus, or maintain farmer incentives; the demonstration therefore does not follow from the reported calculation.

    Authors: We agree that the sustainability claim is supported only by the aggregate value estimate without an explicit supply-demand model, game-theoretic analysis, or allocation rule. The manuscript is framed as a conceptual proposal rather than an equilibrium analysis, so the estimate is meant to illustrate the scale of value potentially available for sharing rather than to derive prices or participation thresholds from the rules. In revision we will add a subsection that qualitatively describes how demand/rarity pricing and revenue sharing are intended to align incentives across the three parties and will explicitly note the absence of formal equilibrium modeling as a limitation and direction for future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The manuscript provides no methods, assumptions, or sensitivity analysis for the economic-value estimate itself. Without these details it is impossible to assess whether the estimate is robust or merely an upper bound that does not address platform or AI-firm participation constraints.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the economic-value estimate is presented without methods, assumptions, or sensitivity analysis. This omission makes it difficult to evaluate robustness or applicability to participation constraints. In the revised manuscript we will add an appendix (or expanded methods section) that specifies the data sources, key assumptions (e.g., robot adoption projections and per-robot value estimates), and a basic sensitivity analysis on the main parameters. This addition will allow readers to assess whether the estimate supports the claimed sustainability for all parties. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; sustainability claim rests on independent domain-value estimate

full rationale

The paper's central move is a conceptual proposal of pricing, revenue-sharing, and authenticity mechanisms, followed by a separate estimate of aggregate economic value from agricultural robots. This estimate is not derived from the proposed rules via any equation or construction; it functions as an external benchmark of total domain value rather than a fitted or self-referential quantity. No self-citations, ansatzes, uniqueness theorems, or renamings appear in the load-bearing steps. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on proposed mechanisms whose viability is asserted via an economic estimate whose basis is not shown; the ledger reflects the abstract's high-level components as unverified assumptions.

free parameters (1)
  • Economic value generated by agricultural robots
    Central to demonstrating sustainability for the three parties; value and calculation method unspecified in abstract.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Authenticated device uploads can guarantee data authenticity from real farms
    Invoked as the basis for the authenticity guarantee component.
  • domain assumption Revenue sharing will provide sufficient incentive for farmers to continue providing data long-term
    Required for the sustainable collection claim.
invented entities (1)
  • Automatic pricing mechanism driven by demand and rarity
    purpose: To set data prices and create collection incentives
    Proposed as a core ecosystem feature with no independent evidence or prior validation referenced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conceptual Design of an Ecosystem for Real Farm Data Collection toward Agricultural AI Foundation Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AP4NFM2E

@misc{pith2026260623258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conceptual Design of an Ecosystem for Real Farm Data Collection toward Agricultural AI Foundation Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AP4NFM2E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.23258}
}
read the original abstract

Data scarcity is a fundamental challenge in developing AI and foundation models for agricultural robots. Existing open-source data platforms do not provide sufficient incentives for data providers so long-term data collection remains difficult. Furthermore, advances in generative AI have introduced a new challenge of verifying that collected data genuinely originates from real farm environments. We propose an ecosystem for the sustainable collection and distribution of real farm data, integrating automatic pricing driven by demand and rarity, revenue sharing that distributes earnings to farmers as an incentive to keep providing data, and data authenticity guarantees through authenticated device uploads. To demonstrate the economic sustainability for all three parties among farmers, AI companies, and the platform, we estimate the economic value that agricultural robots stand to generate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall ecosystem of the proposed agricultural data collection and distribution platform. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Self-reinforcing cycle of the proposed ecosystem. Farmer participation, data diversity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Price dynamics under Tlife = 30 days, Pmin = 1,000 JPY, p(e) = 1%, with purchases on Days 10, 20, and 30. The price rises with each purchase and converges stepwise back to the base price over successive inactive periods. 6 Discussion Corporate Exploitation of Agricultural Data: AI companies are attempting to collect agricultural data for free and build machines to replace farm workers. This is obviously exploitation… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agricultural Robotics: A Technical Review Addressing Challenges in Sustainable Crop Production,

    M. Spagnuolo et al., “Agricultural Robotics: A Technical Review Addressing Challenges in Sustainable Crop Production,”Robotics, vol. 14, no. 2, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models

    R. Bommasani et al., “On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models,” arXiv:2108.07258, 2021

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    A Survey of Datasets for Computer Vision in Agriculture,

    N. Heider et al., “A Survey of Datasets for Computer Vision in Agriculture,”arXiv:2502.16950, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Harnessing Large Vision and Language Models in Agriculture: A Review,

    H. Zhu et al., “Harnessing Large Vision and Language Models in Agriculture: A Review,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 16, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Agronav: Autonomous Navigation Framework for Agricultural Robots,

    S. K. Panda, Y . Lee, and M. K. Jawed, “Agronav: Autonomous Navigation Framework for Agricultural Robots,” inProc. IEEE/CVF CVPRW, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    A Systematic Review of 59 Field Robots for Agricultural Tasks,

    M. Fontani et al., “A Systematic Review of 59 Field Robots for Agricultural Tasks,”Agronomy, vol. 15, no. 9, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Farmers and Their Data: An Examination of Farmers’ Reluctance to Share Their Data,

    L. Wiseman et al., “Farmers and Their Data: An Examination of Farmers’ Reluctance to Share Their Data,”NJAS: Wageningen J. Life Sciences, vol. 90–91, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Trust in Farm Data Sharing: Reflections on the EU Code of Conduct,

    S. van der Burg, L. Wiseman, and J. Krkeljas, “Trust in Farm Data Sharing: Reflections on the EU Code of Conduct,”Ethics and Inf. Technology, vol. 23, 2021

    2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Issues Around Data Governance in the Digital Transformation of Agri- culture: The Farmers’ Perspective,

    M.-A. Jouanjean et al., “Issues Around Data Governance in the Digital Transformation of Agri- culture: The Farmers’ Perspective,”OECD F ood, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, no. 146, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Building Trust: A Systematic Review of Drivers and Barriers of Agricul- tural Data Sharing,

    C. S. Sullivan et al., “Building Trust: A Systematic Review of Drivers and Barriers of Agricul- tural Data Sharing,”Smart Agricultural Technology, vol. 9, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    A Survey on Data Markets,

    J. Zhang et al., “A Survey on Data Markets,”arXiv:2411.07267, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    A Survey of Data Pricing for Data Marketplaces,

    M. Zhang, F. Beltr ´an, and J. Liu, “A Survey of Data Pricing for Data Marketplaces,”IEEE Trans. Big Data, vol. 9, no. 4, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Video Generation Models as World Simulators,

    OpenAI, “Video Generation Models as World Simulators,” 2024.https://openai.com/ research/video-generation-models-as-world-simulators

    2024

  6. [14]

    A Trusted IoT Data Sharing and Secure Oracle-Based Access for Agricultural Production Risk Management,

    T. Manoj, S. K. Patel, and A. K. Das, “A Trusted IoT Data Sharing and Secure Oracle-Based Access for Agricultural Production Risk Management,”Computers and Electronics in Agri- culture, vol. 204, 2023. 8

    2023

  7. [15]

    Farmobile Is Built for Independent Ownership + Data Privacy,

    J. Tatge, “Farmobile Is Built for Independent Ownership + Data Privacy,” Farmobile Blog, 2021.https://blog.farmobile.com/ farmobile-is-built-for-independent-ownership/

    2021

  8. [16]

    Agricultural Data Collabora- tion Infrastructure (W AGRI),

    National Agriculture and Food Research Organization (NARO), “Agricultural Data Collabora- tion Infrastructure (W AGRI),”https://wagri.net, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Official Website,

    Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan, “Official Website,”https://www. maff.go.jp/e/, 2026

    2026

  10. [18]

    Configuring the New Digital Landscape in Western Canadian Agricul- ture,

    P. W. B. Phillips et al., “Configuring the New Digital Landscape in Western Canadian Agricul- ture,”NJAS: Wageningen J. Life Sciences, vol. 90–91, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    A Case Study of a Digital Data Platform for the Agricultural Sector,

    J. D. Borrero and J. Mariscal, “A Case Study of a Digital Data Platform for the Agricultural Sector,”Agriculture, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 767, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    A Proposed ‘Agricultural Data Commons’ in Support of Food Security,

    J. Baarb ´e, M. Blom, and J. de Beer, “A Proposed ‘Agricultural Data Commons’ in Support of Food Security,”African J. Inf. Commun., no. 23, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    The Future of Agricultural Data-Sharing Policy in Europe,

    M. Ryan et al., “The Future of Agricultural Data-Sharing Policy in Europe,”Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 11, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    The Political Economy of Agricultural Data Governance,

    E. Duncan et al., “The Political Economy of Agricultural Data Governance,”J. Rural Studies, vol. 123, 2026

    2026

  15. [23]

    Towards Comprehensive European Agricultural Data Governance,

    C. Atik, “Towards Comprehensive European Agricultural Data Governance,”Int. Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 53, no. 5, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Agriculture Data Sharing Review,

    J. Chamorro-Padial et al., “Agriculture Data Sharing Review,”Heliyon, vol. 11, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Pricing Data in Data Marketplaces: A Systematic Literature Review,

    G. Zhang et al., “Pricing Data in Data Marketplaces: A Systematic Literature Review,” inProc. IFIP WCC, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Measuring the Price of Data in Commercial Data Market- places,

    S. A. Azcoitia and N. Laoutaris, “Measuring the Price of Data in Commercial Data Market- places,” inProc. ACM CoNEXT, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Research on Incentive Mechanisms in the Data Market,

    N. Jiang and Y . Ma, “Research on Incentive Mechanisms in the Data Market,”Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 4, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Incentivizing Inclusive Contributions in Model Sharing Markets,

    E. Zhang et al., “Incentivizing Inclusive Contributions in Model Sharing Markets,”Nature Communications, vol. 16, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    AgriTrust: a Federated Semantic Governance Framework for Trusted Agricultural Data Sharing,

    I. Bergier, “AgriTrust: a Federated Semantic Governance Framework for Trusted Agricultural Data Sharing,”arXiv:2511.05572, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    The AgriTrust Framework: Federated Semantic Governance for Trusted Agricul- tural Data Sharing,

    I. Bergier, “The AgriTrust Framework: Federated Semantic Governance for Trusted Agricul- tural Data Sharing,”Automation, vol. 7, no. 2, 2026

    2026

  23. [31]

    Provably Secure and Privacy-Preserving Authentication Scheme for IoT-Based Smart Farm Monitoring,

    H. Jang et al., “Provably Secure and Privacy-Preserving Authentication Scheme for IoT-Based Smart Farm Monitoring,”Electronics, vol. 14, no. 14, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Smart Agriculture Assurance: IoT and Blockchain for Trusted Sustainable Produce,

    H. R. Hasan et al., “Smart Agriculture Assurance: IoT and Blockchain for Trusted Sustainable Produce,”Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 224, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Agricultural Big Data Governance: Key Technologies, Applications and Future Directions,

    W. Guo et al., “Agricultural Big Data Governance: Key Technologies, Applications and Future Directions,”Smart Agriculture, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    An Open Access Repository of Images on Plant Health,

    D. P. Hughes and M. Salath ´e, “An Open Access Repository of Images on Plant Health,” arXiv:1511.08060, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Agriculture-Vision: A Large Aerial Image Database for Agricultural Pattern Analysis,

    M.-T. Chiu et al., “Agriculture-Vision: A Large Aerial Image Database for Agricultural Pattern Analysis,” inProc. IEEE/CVF CVPR, 2020. 9

    2020

  28. [36]

    AgriChrono: A Multi-modal Dataset Capturing Crop Growth with a Field Robot,

    J. Jeong et al., “AgriChrono: A Multi-modal Dataset Capturing Crop Growth with a Field Robot,”arXiv:2508.18694, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Utility Data Annotation with Amazon Mechanical Turk,

    A. Sorokin and D. Forsyth, “Utility Data Annotation with Amazon Mechanical Turk,” inProc. IEEE CVPRW, 2008

    2008

  30. [38]

    The iNaturalist Species Classification and Detection Dataset,

    G. Van Horn et al., “The iNaturalist Species Classification and Detection Dataset,” inProc. IEEE/CVF CVPR, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    nuScenes: A Multimodal Dataset for Autonomous Driving,

    H. Caesar et al., “nuScenes: A Multimodal Dataset for Autonomous Driving,” inProc. IEEE/CVF CVPR, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Large Scale Interactive Motion Forecasting for Autonomous Driving: The Waymo Open Motion Dataset,

    S. Ettinger et al., “Large Scale Interactive Motion Forecasting for Autonomous Driving: The Waymo Open Motion Dataset,” inProc. IEEE/CVF ICCV, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Scale AI: Data Platform for AI,

    Scale AI, “Scale AI: Data Platform for AI,”https://scale.com, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Qwen3-VL Technical Report,

    Qwen Team, “Qwen3-VL Technical Report,” Alibaba Group,arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Computer Vision Meets Generative Models in Agriculture,

    K. Min, S. Lee, and Y . Jung, “Computer Vision Meets Generative Models in Agriculture,” Applied Sciences, vol. 15, no. 14, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Hardware-Based Trusted Computing Architectures for Isolation and Attesta- tion,

    P. Maene et al., “Hardware-Based Trusted Computing Architectures for Isolation and Attesta- tion,”IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. 67, no. 3, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Digital Signature Standard (DSS),

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Digital Signature Standard (DSS),” FIPS 186- 5, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Farm Management Statis- tics by Business Type, FY2024,

    Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF), “Farm Management Statis- tics by Business Type, FY2024,” 2026.https://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/kouhyou/ noukei/einou_kobetu/

    2026

  39. [47]

    2020 World Census of Agriculture and Forestry, V ol. 3: Agricultural Management Entities,

    MAFF, “2020 World Census of Agriculture and Forestry, V ol. 3: Agricultural Management Entities,” 2021.https://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/census/afc/2020/

    2020

  40. [48]

    Total Agricultural Output and Agricultural Income (National), FY2023,

    MAFF, “Total Agricultural Output and Agricultural Income (National), FY2023,” 2024. https://www.maff.go.jp/j/tokei/kekka_gaiyou/seisan_shotoku/r5_zenkoku/

    2024

  41. [49]

    Smart Agricul- ture Demonstration Project Data,

    MAFF and Council for Science and Technology Research in Agriculture, “Smart Agricul- ture Demonstration Project Data,” 2021.https://www.affrc.maff.go.jp/docs/smart_ agri_pro/jissho_data/index.htm

    2021

  42. [50]

    Annual Report on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas in Japan, FY2020, Part 1, Ch. 5, Sec. 3,

    MAFF, “Annual Report on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas in Japan, FY2020, Part 1, Ch. 5, Sec. 3,” 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Annual Report on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas in Japan, FY2022, Part 1, Ch. 5, Sec. 2,

    MAFF, “Annual Report on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas in Japan, FY2022, Part 1, Ch. 5, Sec. 2,” 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Pest and Pesti- cide Management: Understanding the Context,

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Pest and Pesti- cide Management: Understanding the Context,” 2019.https://www.fao.org/ pest-and-pesticide-management/about/understanding-the-context/en/

    2019

  45. [53]

    Wildlife Crop Damage Statistics (FY2024),

    MAFF, “Wildlife Crop Damage Statistics (FY2024),” 2025.https://www.maff.go.jp/j/ seisan/tyozyu/higai/hogai_zyoukyou/index.html

    2025

  46. [54]

    FAOSTAT: Value of Agricultural Production,

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “FAOSTAT: Value of Agricultural Production,” 2024.https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/

    2024

  47. [55]

    A Robust Sensitive-Information De-Identification Framework for Public Videos,

    S. Piao et al., “A Robust Sensitive-Information De-Identification Framework for Public Videos,”Alexandria Engineering Journal, vol. 96, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Two Deep Learning Solutions for Automatic Blurring of Faces,

    A. Plaud et al., “Two Deep Learning Solutions for Automatic Blurring of Faces,” arXiv:2409.14828, 2024. 10

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.