Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

CytoDiff: AI-Driven Cytomorphology Image Synthesis for Medical Diagnostics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CytoDiff generates synthetic white blood cell images from a few real samples and lifts ResNet-50 accuracy from 27% to 78% and CLIP accuracy from 62% to 77% on a severely imbalanced AML morphology dataset.

desk verdict Honest but flawed: the main accuracy gains compare a real-only test with a mixed real+synthetic test, so the central claim is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05063 v2 pith:D5YQVDGX submitted 2025-07-07 cs.CV cs.CLcs.LG

Jan Carreras Boada , Rao Muhammad Umer , Carsten Marr This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.CLcs.LG
keywords syntheticdatadiffusionmodelsLoRAfine-tuningwhitebloodcellclassificationclassimbalancemedicalimagingfew-shotgenerationacutemyeloidleukemia
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

The paper claims that a diffusion model fine-tuned on a handful of real white blood cell images can generate synthetic training data that rescues classifiers on a severely imbalanced leukemia morphology dataset. Adding 5,000 synthetic images per class to the real training set raises ResNet-50 accuracy from 27% to 78% and CLIP accuracy from 62% to 77%. The authors argue this makes synthetic data a practical tool for medical diagnostics, where rare cell types are few and patient privacy limits data sharing. The takeaway is that generative augmentation, not just hand-designed transformations, can mitigate class imbalance.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a text-to-image stable diffusion 2.1 model whose attention layers, in both the text encoder and the diffusion U-Net, are adapted with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) weights, a parameter-efficient fine-tuning that changes only small matrices in the cross-attention and self-attention pathways. A few carefully selected real images per class (1, 4, 8, or 16) and detailed per-class text prompts steer generation toward biologically plausible cells; the resulting synthetic images are then added to the real training data, with a combined cross-entropy loss that weights real and synthetic contributions. The same prompts used for generation double as class descriptions for CLIP classification, linking the generation and evaluation pipelines.

What would settle it

Train ResNet-50 and CLIP on the real-plus-synthetic training set, but evaluate only on held-out real images from patients excluded from training (or from an external site); if the accuracy gain over the real-only baseline (27% for ResNet-50, 62% for CLIP) narrows or disappears, the central claim of synthetic-data-driven improvement is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the Munich AML Morphology Dataset, with 15 white blood cell classes and only 16 or fewer real images for several rare classes, CytoDiff generates 5,000 synthetic images per class using stable diffusion 2.1 fine-tuned with LoRA weights on attention layers, guided by few-shot real images and per-class text prompts describing nuclear shape, granules, staining, and magnification. With these synthetic images added to the real training set, ResNet-50's test accuracy rises from 27% to 78% and macro F1 from 0.07 to 0.80, while CLIP rises from 62% to 77% accuracy and 0.23 to 0.78 macro F1. Training on synthetic images alone reaches 82% accuracy and macro F1 for ResNet-50, and accuracy keeps climbing with the number of synthetic images up to the largest tested count, 5,000 per class. The authors interpret this as evidence that synthetic generation can balance the data distribution and encode the morphological distinctions needed for classification.

Load-bearing premise

The reported improvement is measured on test sets that mix real images with synthetic images from the same generator used to create the training data, so the synthetic test images may be easier for the classifier to recognize than real unseen patient cells would be.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Classifiers trained on real-plus-synthetic data reach near-perfect AUC (0.99) and high F1 on rare classes, suggesting synthetic augmentation could make minority cell types distinguishable in practice.
  • Accuracy improves monotonically with synthetic image count up to 5,000 per class, indicating the method has not saturated and may benefit from even larger synthetic sets.
  • Because generation needs only 1 to 16 real images per class, labs with tiny collections of rare cells could still build usable training sets without collecting thousands of patients.
  • Synthetic images can be shared without exposing patient data, offering a route to collaborative diagnostics under privacy constraints.
  • ResNet-50 surpasses CLIP when enough synthetic data is added, implying that a simple CNN plus balanced data can capture the fine morphological features that CLIP extracts from text prompts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A purely real hold-out test set, independent of the generator, is the decisive next experiment; the paper's own Section 3.4.3 notes its mixed test set shares a domain with the synthetic training data, so part of the reported gain could be distribution match rather than learned biology.
  • If the accuracy gains persist on real-only evaluation, the method likely transfers to other rare-cell classification tasks, such as malaria or other leukemias, where class imbalance is equally severe.
  • The FID scores (roughly 50-90) are high compared with natural-image generation, yet downstream classification improves substantially, suggesting image-quality metrics like FID may be poor proxies for how useful synthetic medical images are for training.
  • A testable extension: vary the number of real seed images (1, 4, 8, 16) and measure classifier accuracy to quantify how much real data the generator needs before synthetic augmentation pays off.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces CytoDiff, a Stable Diffusion 2.1 model fine-tuned with LoRA on a few real images per white blood cell class, and uses it to synthesize images for the Munich AML Morphology Dataset. The authors then train ResNet-50 and CLIP classifiers on real-only, synthetic-only, and mixed real-plus-synthetic data, reporting accuracy gains from 27% to 78% for ResNet-50 and from 62% to 77% for CLIP when 5,000 synthetic images per class are added. Additional experiments vary the number of few-shot real images used for generation and the number of synthetic images added, with FID used to assess image quality.

Significance. If the reported gains held on real clinical images, the approach would be a valuable contribution to rare-class cytomorphology classification and to privacy-preserving data sharing in biomedical imaging. The paper is clearly written, makes the code publicly available, and includes useful ablations on few-shot guidance and synthetic dataset size. The authors also deserve credit for explicitly acknowledging the domain-bias limitation of their mixed test sets. However, the primary evaluation as presented does not currently support the central claim that synthetic data improves classification of real patient cells, so the significance of the result depends on a fix to the evaluation protocol.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4.3, Table 1] The headline improvement from 27% to 78% (ResNet-50) and from 62% to 77% (CLIP) compares a real-only test set with a mixed real-plus-synthetic test set. The synthetic test images are generated by the same CytoDiff model, with the same LoRA weights and prompts, that produced the synthetic training images. As the paper itself notes, "this setup introduces a domain bias that may favor models trained entirely on synthetic data, as the test distribution partially overlaps with the training domain." Therefore the accuracy gain cannot be attributed to improved classification of real patient cells. The central claim of the paper remains unsupported without an evaluation on a real-only test set or another protocol that eliminates overlap between synthetic training and test distributions.
  2. [Section 3.4.2, Table S1] The synthetic-only experiment, in which ResNet-50 reaches 82% accuracy, is evaluated on synthetic test images. This demonstrates that the generated classes are separable by a classifier, but it does not establish that a classifier trained on synthetic data generalizes to real morphological variation. The synthetic-only result should be framed as an image-quality and separability check, not as evidence for the diagnostic-improvement claim.
  3. [Section 3.4.3] To disentangle the effect of the synthetic training data from the change in test distribution, the authors should report the real-only classifier evaluated on the same mixed test set used for the real-plus-synthetic classifier. Without this control, the comparison is confounded by both training data and test distribution, so the reported increment cannot be attributed specifically to the addition of synthetic training images. The authors' justification that real-only test sets would contain too few samples per class motivates careful handling of small classes, but it does not remove the need for a real-only test evaluation, at least on classes with sufficient samples or with appropriate confidence intervals.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Reference [20] lists "Christian Metak," but the correct name of the dataset author is Christian Matek; please correct this typo.
  2. [Section 3.4.3] The sentence "The experimental setup and results are presented in 3.5.1" is imprecise, since the numerical mixed-data results appear in Table 1 and Figure 5 rather than only in Section 3.5.1; please also cross-reference Section 3.5.2.
  3. [Section 2.2] The text states that "in the final strategy employed, the loss function is computed in a manner that treated both image types equally," but it does not report the exact value of lambda_1 or the precise balancing used in the final experiments; please provide the exact loss weighting.
  4. [Figure 5] Figure 5 would be more informative if it included the real-only baseline at zero synthetic images per class for both classifiers, since the current curves begin at 100 synthetic images per class and the improvement relative to the baseline is therefore not visible.
  5. [Section 3.1] The text describes a 5-fold cross-validation while also stating that each fold uses a 60/20/20 split; please clarify whether the reported metrics are fold-averaged and whether the 60/20/20 percentages are the proportions within each fold.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline accuracy gains are measured on a mixed test set whose synthetic component is generated by the same CytoDiff model used to create training images, so the reported improvement is partly circular; the synthetic-only quality metric is also self-referential.

  1. other [Section 3.4.3 (Classification performance on real and synthetic data); headline results in Abstract and Table 1]
    "Therefore, we constructed the test sets by combining both real and synthetic images, which was necessary to ensure all classes were represented. However, this setup introduces a domain bias that may favor models trained entirely on synthetic data, as the test distribution partially overlaps with the training domain."

    The headline claim is that adding synthetic images improved ResNet accuracy from 27% to 78% and CLIP from 62% to 77%. The 27% and 62% baselines are measured on a real-only test set, while the 78% and 77% results are measured on a test set that mixes real images with synthetic images produced by the same CytoDiff model (same LoRA fine-tuning, prompts, and few-shot real examples) that generated the synthetic training images. Because the synthetic test images are drawn from the same generator as the synthetic training images, a classifier can inflate its score by recognizing generator-specific artifacts, backgrounds, or repeated patterns instead of generalizing to real patient cells.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.4.2 (Classification performance on only synthetic data)]
    "Both classifiers are trained exclusively using 3,000 synthetic images for each class. ... Conversely, it facilitates the evaluation of the generated synthetic images, as optimal classification outcomes signify that the classes possess distinctive and discernible morphological characteristics."

    The paper treats high classifier accuracy on synthetic images as evidence that the synthetic classes have 'distinctive and discernible morphological characteristics.' But the classifiers are trained on the very same 3,000 synthetic images per class that they later classify. Achieving high accuracy on a balanced synthetic dataset largely shows that the training distribution is separable, which any sufficiently expressive classifier will tend to do on its own training set. It does not independently establish that the distinguishing features correspond to real white blood cell morphology rather than to generator-specific artifacts.

full rationale

The paper is not circular through self-citation: the LoRA approach is credited to the external DataDream work [8], the Munich AML dataset [9] is an external resource, and the FID comparisons and visual inspections provide independent evidence about generation quality. However, the central performance claim is partially circular because the evaluation protocol changes the test distribution when synthetic data is added: the synthetic test images come from the same CytoDiff generator that produced the synthetic training images, creating a domain overlap the authors themselves acknowledge in Section 3.4.3. Consequently, the headline 27% to 78% and 62% to 77% improvements do not measure generalization to real patient images; they measure performance on a mixed distribution that is partly identical in origin to the training distribution. The synthetic-only experiment in Section 3.4.2 suffers from an analogous self-referentiality: high accuracy on synthetic test images is used to validate the generated images, even though the classifier was trained on those same images. These issues make the quantitative improvement claim partially circular, though the generative method itself is not tautological and retains independent content through FID and visual evaluation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The report has no new theoretical constraints; its central claim rests on hand-selected training images, hand-tuned prompts, and an evaluation protocol that mixes real and synthetic test data.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of synthetic images per class = 5,000 (also 100, 200, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 in scaling experiments)
    Chosen by observing that accuracy kept rising with more images; no criterion for stopping.
  • Loss mixing weight lambda1 = Not reported exactly; final strategy treats real and synthetic equally
    The paper states a study was conducted to choose the loss, but the final lambda1 value is not given; equal treatment implies lambda1 around 0.5, which is a hand-picked balancing choice.
  • LoRA rank and learning rate = Not reported
    The LoRA rank is not specified, though learning rate is 1e-4 for classifiers; the generation hyperparameters are underspecified and affect output.
  • Class-specific text prompts = Hand-written per class, one example shown
    Prompts are tuned by trial and error and directly influence the morphology of generated cells, functioning as fitted inputs.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion 2.1, pretrained on billions of natural images, can be adapted to medical cell images via LoRA fine-tuning.
    The method inherits all representational biases of the base model; the paper does not validate that the latent space is suitable for cytomorphology beyond the shown examples.
  • domain assumption The Munich AML Morphology Dataset provides correct expert labels and is representative of the clinical classes.
    All downstream claims rely on label quality, yet the paper does not report inter-observer variability.
  • standard math FID with Inception features is a reliable fidelity measure for cell images.
    The paper uses FID as the main generation-quality metric, but notes that FID requires at least 1,000 real images, and it is applied to only four classes.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic images from a few real samples preserve the class-discriminative morphology needed for classification.
    The entire rationale for the method rests on this assumption; the paper's own Figure S7 shows some classes (Promyelocyte Bilobed) do not meet it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CytoDiff: AI-Driven Cytomorphology Image Synthesis for Medical Diagnostics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D5YQVDGX

@misc{pith2026250705063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CytoDiff: AI-Driven Cytomorphology Image Synthesis for Medical Diagnostics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D5YQVDGX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05063}
}
read the original abstract

Biomedical datasets are often constrained by stringent privacy requirements and frequently suffer from severe class imbalance. These two aspects hinder the development of accurate machine learning models. While generative AI offers a promising solution, producing synthetic images of sufficient quality for training robust classifiers remains challenging. This work addresses the classification of individual white blood cells, a critical task in diagnosing hematological malignancies such as acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We introduce CytoDiff, a stable diffusion model fine-tuned with LoRA weights and guided by few-shot samples that generates high-fidelity synthetic white blood cell images. Our approach demonstrates substantial improvements in classifier performance when training data is limited. Using a small, highly imbalanced real dataset, the addition of 5,000 synthetic images per class improved ResNet classifier accuracy from 27\% to 78\% (+51\%). Similarly, CLIP-based classification accuracy increased from 62\% to 77\% (+15\%). These results establish synthetic image generation as a valuable tool for biomedical machine learning, enhancing data coverage and facilitating secure data sharing while preserving patient privacy. Paper code is publicly available at https://github.com/JanCarreras24/CytoDiff.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05063 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Real images (top) and synthetic images (bottom) gener [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of CytoDiff training. We fine-tune LoRA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Class distribution of samples in the Munich AML Mor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real and synthetic monoblast images generated by Cy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Classification accuracy increases when the real dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Machine learning in rare disease

    Jineta Banerjee, Jaclyn N Taroni, Robert J Allaway, Deep- ashree Venkatesh Prasad, Justin Guinney, and Casey Greene. Machine learning in rare disease. Nature methods, 20(6): 803–814, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Improving image generation with better captions

    James Betker, Gabriel Goh, Li Jing, Tim Brooks, Jianfeng Wang, Linjie Li, Long Ouyang, Juntang Zhuang, Joyce Lee, Yufei Guo, et al. Improving image generation with better captions. Computer Science, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Pathdiff: Histopathology im- age synthesis with unpaired text and mask conditions

    Mahesh Bhosale, Abdul Wasi, Yuanhao Zhai, Yunjie Tian, Samuel Border, Nan Xi, Pinaki Sarder, Junsong Yuan, David Doermann, and Xuan Gong. Pathdiff: Histopathology im- age synthesis with unpaired text and mask conditions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23440, 2025. 1, 2

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Simple Drop-in LoRA Conditioning on Attention Layers Will Improve Your Diffusion Model

    Joo Young Choi, Jaesung R Park, Inkyu Park, Jaewoong Cho, Albert No, and Ernest K Ryu. Simple drop-in lora condition- ing on attention layers will improve your diffusion model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03958, 2024. 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Synthetic medical images for robust, privacy-preserving training of ar- tificial intelligence: application to retinopathy of prematurity diagnosis

    Aaron S Coyner, Jimmy S Chen, Ken Chang, Praveer Singh, Susan Ostmo, RV Paul Chan, Michael F Chiang, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer, J Peter Campbell, Imaging, Informatics in Retinopathy of Prematurity Consortium, et al. Synthetic medical images for robust, privacy-preserving training of ar- tificial intelligence: application to retinopathy of prematurity diag...

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian J Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014. 1

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 3

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Datadream: Few-shot guided dataset generation

    Jae Myung Kim, Jessica Bader, Stephan Alaniz, Cordelia Schmid, and Zeynep Akata. Datadream: Few-shot guided dataset generation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 252–268. Springer, 2024. 2, 6

    work page 2024

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    A single-cell morphological dataset of leuko- cytes from aml patients and non-malignant controls

    Christian Matek, Stefan Schwarz, Claudia Marr, and Klaus Spiekermann. A single-cell morphological dataset of leuko- cytes from aml patients and non-malignant controls. The Cancer Imaging Archive, 2019. [Data set]. 3, 6

    2019

  2. [10]

    Synthetic data generation methods in healthcare: A review on open-source tools and methods

    Vasileios C Pezoulas, Dimitrios I Zaridis, Eugenia My- lona, Christos Androutsos, Kosmas Apostolidis, Nikolaos S Tachos, and Dimitrios I Fotiadis. Synthetic data generation methods in healthcare: A review on open-source tools and methods. Computational and structural biotechno...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. In ICLR, 2023. 1

    2023

  4. [12]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. 2021. 3

    2021

  5. [13]

    The future of digital health with federated learning.NPJ dig- ital medicine, 3(1):119, 2020

    Nicola Rieke, Jonny Hancox, Wenqi Li, Fausto Milletari, Holger R Roth, Shadi Albarqouni, Spyridon Bakas, Math- ieu N Galtier, Bennett A Landman, Klaus Maier-Hein, et al. The future of digital health with federated learning.NPJ dig- ital medicine, 3(1):119, 2020. 1

    2020

  6. [14]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  7. [15]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. In CVPR, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. In NeurIPS, 2022. 1

    2022

  9. [17]

    Synthetic data boosts medical foundation models

    Bin Sheng, Pearse A Keane, Yih-Chung Tham, and Tien Yin Wong. Synthetic data boosts medical foundation models. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 9(4):443–444, 2025. 2

    2025

  10. [18]

    A data-efficient strategy for building high-performing medical foundation models

    Yuqi Sun, Weimin Tan, Zhuoyao Gu, Ruian He, Siyuan Chen, Miao Pang, and Bo Yan. A data-efficient strategy for building high-performing medical foundation models. Na- ture Biomedical Engineering, pages 1–13, 2025. 1

    2025

  11. [19]

    Victr: Vital consistency trans- fer for pathology aware image synthesis

    Onkar Susladkar, Gayatri Deshmukh, Yalcin Tur, Gorkhem Durak, and Ulas Bagci. Victr: Vital consistency trans- fer for pathology aware image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04963, 2025. 1

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Imbalanced domain generalization for robust single cell classification in hematological cytomorphology

    Rao Muhammad Umer, Armin Gruber, Sayedali Shetab Boushehri, Christian Metak, and Carsten Marr. Imbalanced domain generalization for robust single cell classification in hematological cytomorphology. In Pro- ceedings of the 11th International Conference on Learning Representati...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Artificial intelligence in hematological diagnostics: Game changer or gadget? Blood Reviews, page 101019, 2022

    Wencke Walter, Christian Pohlkamp, Manja Meggendorfer, Niroshan Nadarajah, Wolfgang Kern, Claudia Haferlach, and Torsten Haferlach. Artificial intelligence in hematological diagnostics: Game changer or gadget? Blood Reviews, page 101019, 2022. 1

    2022

  14. [22]

    A pragmatic note on evaluating generative models with fr \’echet incep- tion distance for retinal image synthesis

    Yuli Wu, Fucheng Liu, R ¨uveyda Yilmaz, Henning Koner- mann, Peter Walter, and Johannes Stegmaier. A pragmatic note on evaluating generative models with fr \’echet incep- tion distance for retinal image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17160, 2025. 4

    2025

  15. [23]

    Synaug: Exploiting synthetic data for data imbalance problems

    Moon Ye-Bin, Nam Hyeon-Woo, Wonseok Choi, Nayeong Kim, Suha Kwak, and Tae-Hyun Oh. Synaug: Exploiting synthetic data for data imbalance problems. Pattern Recog- nition Letters, 2025. 1

    2025

Pith tools

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