REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 39 references
COT-AD: Cotton Analysis Dataset
T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper introduces COT-AD, over 25,000 drone and DSLR images of cotton with about 5,000 annotated, and calls it the first dataset to support classification, detection, segmentation, restoration, enhancement, and synthesis for the crop.
desk verdict A large, potentially useful cotton dataset undermined by internally inconsistent claims about what it contains. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the dataset's structure itself, which is what carries the argument. The aerial half is partitioned into four time parts (first two months, third month, fourth month, fifth-sixth months), so crop age is encoded by folder structure, and each part stores images, YOLO-format detection labels, binary segmentation masks, and YOLO-format segmentation labels side by side; the DSLR half is organized into per-class folders under Leaf, Cotton Boll, and Bugs, covering nine disease and pest classes. This month-by-month design is the mechanism that lets one collection serve both spatial tasks (detect and segment crops in the field) and temporal tasks (track disease onset and spread across the season), and the paper supplies month-wise interpretation tables that tie each stage to the appearances visible in the data. Six demonstration pipelines then carry the validation claim: VGG19 for disease classification, CLIP and BioCLIP linear probing, Deep Spectral Method and CLIP-RC for segmentation, StyleGAN2-ADA for synthesis, and RUSIR and BRGM for restoration.
What would settle it
Take a random sample of the 5,000 annotated images, have two independent annotators relabel them, and measure agreement: if agreement on the nine disease and pest classes is low, the annotation-quality claim collapses. A second check: train the same VGG19 pipeline on COT-AD and evaluate it on independently photographed cotton images from a different region or a different season; a drop toward chance on classes such as boll rot or leaf reddening would show the two-farm, one-season collection does not generalize as claimed.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
Stated the way the authors would state it: cotton lacks the kind of rich, multi-task dataset that other crops enjoy, and COT-AD exists to close that gap. The dataset bundles a drone-captured aerial set with images from a Canon EOS 80D DSLR, both taken on the same farms across the same season, so that field-scale structure and close-up disease symptoms come from one continuous observation campaign. Aerial frames carry single-class YOLO-format detection labels and binary segmentation masks, organized into month-based parts that encode crop age; the DSLR set groups 3,231 images into nine classes spanning leaf diseases, boll diseases, and two insect pests. To show the data are usable, the paper runs six task families on it and reports a VGG19 disease-classification accuracy of 83.37%, CLIP and BioCLIP zero-shot and linear-probing scores, unsupervised and CLIP-guided segmentation, StyleGAN2-ADA synthesis, and two generative restoration pipelines.
Load-bearing premise
Everything rests on the unverified quality of the manual labels: the paper reports that every image was 'meticulously annotated' (Section 3) yet gives no inter-annotator agreement, no error rate, and no per-class counts, and all imagery comes from just two farms in one growing season (Sections 3 and 11); noisy or unrepresentative labels would invalidate both the dataset's utility and the 83.37% accuracy baseline.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Any cotton-disease classifier can now be tested against a common benchmark, with 83.37% VGG19 accuracy as the first number to beat.
- Because the aerial images are organized by crop month, a model can learn to infer growth stage from field appearance, which enables scheduling of scouting or spraying before close-up symptoms are visible.
- The same acquisition campaign provides paired drone and DSLR views, so restoration and enhancement methods can be trained and evaluated on realistic field imagery rather than on generic photos.
- Synthetic images from StyleGAN2-ADA trained on the dataset can augment underrepresented disease classes during training, helping classifiers in data-scarce settings.
- Feeding the dataset into the demonstrated YOLO-based detection pipeline gives a ready-made field-monitoring workflow for weed competition and plant counting, a direct corollary of the annotations provided.
Reading between the lines
- Because crop age is encoded in the folder structure, a shortcut probe is natural: a classifier trained with month labels blurred (or images shuffled across parts) would reveal how much of the 83.37% accuracy relies on temporal stage cues rather than on disease appearance.
- The paper never reports per-class instance counts; a distributional audit would tell users which of the nine classes are trainable and which are too sparse, and the dataset's usability for rare pests like the Red Cotton Bug hangs on this.
- Two farms, one region, one season: fine-tuning on COT-AD and testing on an independent cotton image set from another region would settle whether the benchmark transfers or captures site-specific lighting, soil, and variety.
- A forward path the paper does not take: since drone and DSLR views cover the same plants, one could train a cross-modality model that enhances low-altitude frames to DSLR-level detail, fusing the two halves the dataset was built to join.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper introduces COT-AD, a cotton analysis dataset combining drone-based aerial imagery and handheld DSLR close-up images, and reports baseline experiments for disease classification, detection, segmentation, image enhancement, restoration, and synthesis. The central contribution is the dataset itself: public release, large volume, and a claimed multi-task annotation suite. The baseline results demonstrate that off-the-shelf models can be trained and evaluated on parts of the data. However, the manuscript contains several internally inconsistent dataset statistics and documentation gaps, and the supplementary organization does not support every checkmark in the claimed task matrix. These issues affect the paper's central claim of presenting a comprehensive, multi-task dataset and need to be resolved before the contribution can be accepted as stated.
Significance. If its documentation were made internally consistent, COT-AD would be a useful resource for the agricultural computer-vision community: it is publicly released with DOIs and a project page, covers two farms across a full growth cycle, uses multiple capture altitudes, and provides YOLO-format labels for aerial detection and segmentation. The reported baselines, including VGG19 disease classification at 83.37% test accuracy and StyleGAN2-ADA synthesis metrics, indicate that the data are usable with existing methods. The main weakness is not the experimental execution but the gap between the advertised task coverage and the documented annotation artifacts. In its current form, the paper overclaims detection support for the DSLR disease split and weed-label coverage, and the image-count arithmetic is not reproducible from Table 2. These are fixable documentation issues, but they are load-bearing for the dataset's stated contribution.
major comments (5)
- [Table 2; Supplementary §16] Table 2 assigns a detection checkmark to the DSLR Disease split (3,231 images), but §16 documents only folder-level disease labels for DSLR images and describes detection labels exclusively under the 'Aerial Images for Detection and Segmentation' directory. No YOLO .txt or bounding-box labels are described for DSLR images. The detection-support claim for the DSLR split is therefore not supported by the dataset documentation and should either be corrected in the task matrix or implemented and documented.
- [Table 2; §4.3; Table 4; Supplementary §16] The DSLR Segment row of Table 2 lists 100 images and 12 classes, but §4.3 and §16 define 9 disease classes, while Table 4 enumerates 11 categories (four leaf, three boll, two flower, two bug). No 12-class DSLR segmentation set is described anywhere in the supplementary organization. The class count, the image count, and the existence and format of DSLR segmentation masks must be clarified and made consistent across Tables 1, 2, and 4.
- [Abstract; Table 2; Supplementary §8] The image-count arithmetic does not close. Table 2 sums to 5,131 annotated images (1,800 + 3,231 + 100), while the abstract states 'over 25,000 images ... with 5,000 annotated images.' The Synthesis split alone accounts for 25,000 images (14,000 + 11,000), which implies either a total well above 25,000 or overlap with the annotated splits. A single consistent accounting of total images, annotated images, and synthesis-subset images is needed.
- [Abstract; §3; §9; Supplementary §16] The abstract and §9 claim that annotations cover 'weed analysis' and insights into 'weed competition,' but the annotation procedure in §3 labels only cotton crops, and §16 describes no weed label files. No weed annotations are documented anywhere. The authors should either release weed labels and describe them in §16, or remove weed-analysis coverage from the abstract and §9, since it is part of the claimed task coverage.
- [§3; §4.3] The annotation-quality evidence is missing. Section 3 states that 'Each image was meticulously annotated,' but the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement, no label-error estimate, and no per-class image counts for the disease classification split. Given that the utility of the dataset, and the 83.37% VGG19 classification result, depends on label quality, the authors should provide basic label statistics and a quality-assessment measure.
minor comments (4)
- [§4.3; Table 6] The text says 'we are using only 100 image points to train the classifier,' which is ambiguous given a 3,231-image disease split; please state the actual training-set size per class and reconcile it with the 70:15:15 split described in the same section.
- [§4.2; Fig. 5] The sentence 'we have used CLIP-RC [17] used YOLOv11 [5]' is grammatically incomplete, and reference [5] is a YOLO-based weed benchmark rather than the YOLOv11 model; the sentence and citation need correction.
- [Table 1; Table 2; Table 4] The class-count column is inconsistent across tables: Table 1 lists 9 classes for COT-AD, Table 2 lists 12 classes for the DSLR Segment split, and Table 4 lists 11 categories; please unify these numbers or explain how they differ.
- [Supplementary §8; §15] The dataset volume is given as approximately 310 GB in §8 and approximately 308 GB in §15; the two figures should be reconciled.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the paper makes dataset-contribution claims and runs off-the-shelf baselines; no claim reduces by construction to an input parameter or a self-citation.
full rationale
COT-AD is a dataset presentation paper, not a derivational paper. Its central claim is that a new cotton-analysis dataset exists and supports classification, detection, segmentation, restoration, enhancement, and synthesis. That claim is validated by direct data release and by baseline experiments using external, off-the-shelf methods (CLIP, BioCLIP, VGG19, YOLOv11, StyleGAN2-ADA, DSM, SAM, BGRM, RUSIR, AesPA-Net). No parameter is fitted to a subset and then reported as a prediction of a closely related quantity; no result is defined in terms of itself; and no load-bearing step is justified by a self-citation chain — the paper's references to prior work are independent and mostly methodological. The internal inconsistencies noted by the skeptic (Table 2 detection checkmark for DSLR Disease despite only folder-level labels in Sec. 16, the 12-class DSLR Segment split versus 9/11 classes elsewhere, and the ambiguous 25,000-image total versus the 14,000+11,000 synthesis count) are documentation-consistency and correctness concerns, not circularity: they do not show that any output is equivalent to an input by construction. Similarly, the absence of inter-annotator agreement statistics and the single-season, two-farm collection site are data-quality and generalizability limitations, not circular steps. Under the hard rules, a non-finding with score 0 is the appropriate verdict.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (2)
- domain assumption Manual annotations of cotton crops, diseases, and segments are accurate and consistent.
- domain assumption The captured imagery (two farms, six months, one harvest cycle) is representative enough to support comprehensive cotton analysis.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of COT-AD: Cotton Analysis Dataset." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q76UF2MZ
@misc{pith2026250718532,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: COT-AD: Cotton Analysis Dataset},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q76UF2MZ}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18532}
}
read the original abstract
This paper presents COT-AD, a comprehensive Dataset designed to enhance cotton crop analysis through computer vision. Comprising over 25,000 images captured throughout the cotton growth cycle, with 5,000 annotated images, COT-AD includes aerial imagery for field-scale detection and segmentation and high-resolution DSLR images documenting key diseases. The annotations cover pest and disease recognition, vegetation, and weed analysis, addressing a critical gap in cotton-specific agricultural datasets. COT-AD supports tasks such as classification, segmentation, image restoration, enhancement, deep generative model-based cotton crop synthesis, and early disease management, advancing data-driven crop management
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
COT-AD: Cotton Analysis Dataset
INTRODUCTION Cotton is a critical global crop, essential for the textile industry and the economies of many countries like India, China, and Brazil. It supports over 250 million people worldwide, includ- ing farmers and processors. However, cotton farming [1] faces numerous challenges, such as pest infestations, diseases, and climate change. Smart farming...
work page Pith review arXiv 2025
-
[2]
RELATED WORKS Several key datasets support disease classification [1,4], includ- ing the Cotton Crop Plant Leaves Dataset [1], the Cotton Leaf Dataset [3], and the Cotton Disease Dataset [2]. While the first two focus on leaf images, the third provides a broader scope by including both leaf and whole-plant images. Crop detection and segmentation [5] play ...
-
[3]
COT-AD DATASET The COT-AD dataset, shown in Table 2, significantly expands upon previous datasets (outlined in Table 1) by offering over 25, 000 images captured using drone and DSLR cameras. It includes high-resolution aerial imagery collected at altitudes of [10m, 15m, and 115m] and detailed close-up images from handheld DSLR cameras. Furthermore, the fi...
-
[4]
We also provide additional results in the supple- mentary files
APPLICATIONS This section presents the applications performed on the COT- AD dataset. We also provide additional results in the supple- mentary files. 4.1. Image Enhancement We enhance the quality of DSLR-collected cotton-crop im- ages using a text-guided image stylization method. Existing methods such as mmist [6], and LDAST [7] produce disharmo- nious a...
-
[5]
CONCLUSION In this paper, we have proposed a COT-AD dataset that signifi- cantly contributes to agricultural data resources, specifically tailored to cotton crop analysis. This dataset enables exten- sive applications such as classification, segmentation, and restoration by encompassing aerial and close-up images across various growth stages. Experimental...
-
[6]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to acknowledge the support of the Jibaben Patel Chair in AI, L&T Technology Services Limited, and Visvesvaraya PhD Scheme for completion of this work
-
[7]
Language-driven artistic style transfer,
Tsu-Jui Fu, Xin Eric Wang, and William Yang Wang, “Language-driven artistic style transfer,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022, Springer-Verlag
work page 2022
-
[8]
Yield estimation of high-density cotton fields using low- altitude uav imaging and deep learning,
Fei Li, Jingya Bai, Mengyun Zhang, and Ruoyu Zhang, “Yield estimation of high-density cotton fields using low- altitude uav imaging and deep learning,” Plant Methods, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 55, 2022
work page 2022
Show all 39 references
-
[9]
A comprehensive cotton leaf disease dataset for enhanced detection and classifi- cation,
Prayma Bishshash, Asraful Sharker Nirob, Habibur Shikder, Afjal Hossan Sarower, Touhid Bhuiyan, and Sheak Rashed Haider Noori, “A comprehensive cotton leaf disease dataset for enhanced detection and classifi- cation,” Data in Brief, vol. 57, pp. 110913, 2024
2024
-
[10]
A dataset of cotton leaf images for disease classification us- ing deep learning,
Azeem Ayaz Mirani, Shahzaman Nizamani, Mehwish Leghari, Qazi Ejaz, Mushtaque Ahmed Rahu, et al., “A dataset of cotton leaf images for disease classification us- ing deep learning,” Qazi and Rahu, Mushtaque Ahmed, A Dataset of Cotton Leaf Images for Disease Classification Using...
-
[11]
Cotton leaf dis- ease dataset,
Serosh Karim, “Cotton leaf dis- ease dataset,” 2025, https://www. kaggle.com/datasets/seroshkarim/ cotton-leaf-disease-dataset
2025
-
[12]
Yoloweeds: A novel benchmark of yolo object detec- tors for multi-class weed detection in cotton production systems,
Fengying Dang, Dong Chen, Yuzhen Lu, and Zhaojian Li, “Yoloweeds: A novel benchmark of yolo object detec- tors for multi-class weed detection in cotton production systems,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 205, pp. 107655, 2023
2023
-
[13]
Multimodality-guided image style transfer using cross-modal gan inversion,
Hanyu Wang, Pengxiang Wu, Kevin Dela Rosa, Chen Wang, and Abhinav Shrivastava, “Multimodality-guided image style transfer using cross-modal gan inversion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2024, pp. 4976–4985
2024
-
[14]
Deep spectral methods: A surprisingly strong baseline for unsupervised semantic segmentation and localization,
Luke Melas-Kyriazi, Christian Rupprecht, Iro Laina, and Andrea Vedaldi, “Deep spectral methods: A surprisingly strong baseline for unsupervised semantic segmentation and localization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 202...
2022
-
[15]
Aespa-net: Aesthetic pattern-aware style transfer networks,
Kibeom Hong, Seogkyu Jeon, Junsoo Lee, Namhyuk Ahn, Kunhee Kim, Pilhyeon Lee, Daesik Kim, Youngjung Uh, and Hyeran Byun, “Aespa-net: Aesthetic pattern-aware style transfer networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2023, pp. 22758–22767
2023
-
[16]
Cliptone: Unsupervised learning for text-based image tone adjustment,
Hyeongmin Lee, Kyoungkook Kang, Jungseul Ok, and Sunghyun Cho, “Cliptone: Unsupervised learning for text-based image tone adjustment,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2024, pp. 2942–2951
2024
-
[17]
Arniqa: Learning distortion manifold for image quality assessment,
Lorenzo Agnolucci, Leonardo Galteri, Marco Bertini, and Alberto Del Bimbo, “Arniqa: Learning distortion manifold for image quality assessment,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, 2024, pp. 189–198
2024
-
[18]
Blind/referenceless image spatial quality evaluator,
Anish Mittal, Anush K Moorthy, and Alan C Bovik, “Blind/referenceless image spatial quality evaluator,” in 2011 conference record of the forty fifth asilomar confer- ence on signals, systems and computers (ASILOMAR) . IEEE, 2011
2011
-
[19]
Exploring clip for assessing the look and feel of images,
Jianyi Wang, Kelvin CK Chan, and Chen Change Loy, “Exploring clip for assessing the look and feel of images,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial In- telligence, 2023
2023
-
[20]
Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning,
Jack Hessel, Ari Holtzman, Maxwell Forbes, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi, “Clipscore: A reference-free evaluation metric for image captioning,” in Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2021
2021
-
[21]
Bayesian image reconstruction using deep generative models,
Razvan V Marinescu, Daniel Moyer, and Polina Golland, “Bayesian image reconstruction using deep generative models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.04567, 2020
2012 arXiv
-
[22]
Nima: Neural im- age assessment,
Hossein Talebi and Peyman Milanfar, “Nima: Neural im- age assessment,” IEEE transactions on image processing, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 3998–4011, 2018
2018
-
[23]
Clipstyler: Image style transfer with a single text condition,
Gihyun Kwon and Jong Chul Ye, “Clipstyler: Image style transfer with a single text condition,” in Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 18062–18071
2022
-
[24]
Exploring regional clues in clip for zero-shot se- mantic segmentation,
Yi Zhang, Meng-Hao Guo, Miao Wang, and Shi-Min Hu, “Exploring regional clues in clip for zero-shot se- mantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2024, pp. 3270–3280
2024
-
[25]
Learning transferable visual models from natural lan- guage supervision,
Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sas- try, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural lan- guage supervision,” in International conference on ma- chine lea...
2021
-
[26]
Bioclip: A vision founda- tion model for the tree of life,
Samuel Stevens, Jiaman Wu, Matthew J Thompson, Eliz- abeth G Campolongo, Chan Hee Song, David Edward Carlyn, Li Dong, Wasila M Dahdul, Charles Stewart, Tanya Berger-Wolf, et al., “Bioclip: A vision founda- tion model for the tree of life,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer...
2024
-
[27]
A compar- ison between vgg16, vgg19 and resnet50 architecture frameworks for image classification,
Sheldon Mascarenhas and Mukul Agarwal, “A compar- ison between vgg16, vgg19 and resnet50 architecture frameworks for image classification,” in 2021 Interna- tional conference on disruptive technologies for multi- disciplinary research and applications (CENTCON) . IEEE, 2021
2021
-
[29]
Ro- bust unsupervised stylegan image restoration,
Yohan Poirier-Ginter and Jean-Franc ¸ois Lalonde, “Ro- bust unsupervised stylegan image restoration,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 22292–22301. Supplementary Material
2023
-
[30]
The aerial images offer extensive coverage suitable for detection and seg- mentation tasks, aiding in the analysis of crop growth and land use efficiency
DATASET DOCUMENTATION Description This dataset comprises high-quality aerial and DSLR images designed for advanced agricultural applications, particularly targeting cotton crops. The aerial images offer extensive coverage suitable for detection and seg- mentation tasks, aiding...
-
[31]
Advancements in crop management and sustainable practices will be essential to en- sure adequate food supplies
NEED OF COTTON DATA Agriculture and food management are critical challenges that the world will face in the near future. Advancements in crop management and sustainable practices will be essential to en- sure adequate food supplies. Utilizing aerial vehicles and cam- eras comb...
-
[32]
This is because we are using only 100 image points to train the classifier, and CLIP (ViT) is getting overfitted, which uses more parameters than RN50
for zero-shot experiment. This is because we are using only 100 image points to train the classifier, and CLIP (ViT) is getting overfitted, which uses more parameters than RN50. CLIP achieves higher top-5 accuracy, indicating better gener- alization, while BioCLIP outperforms ...
-
[33]
In smart farming, accurately detecting crops is essential for enhanc- ing agricultural productivity and sustainability
METHODOLOGY Harnessing Crops Detection in Modern Farming. In smart farming, accurately detecting crops is essential for enhanc- ing agricultural productivity and sustainability. Our dataset facilitates precise crop detection and is foundational for nu- merous smart farming app...
-
[34]
Using drone technology, we conducted aerial surveys of two cotton fields throughout their life cycle
DATA ACQUISITION AND ANNOTATION The acquisition of data for our crop detection and segmenta- tion dataset was meticulously planned to capture the detailed growth cycles of cotton crops. Using drone technology, we conducted aerial surveys of two cotton fields throughout their l...
-
[35]
It has GNSS connectivity of GPS + GLONASS + Galileo constellations
HARDW ARE SPECIFICATION FOR DATA COLLECTION RGB Drone (DJI MA VIC Air 2s) —DJI Mavic Air 2s cap- ture Red, Green, and Blue- visible spectra, creating humanly recognizable coloured images with a maximum flight distance of up to 18.5 km and with a maximum flight time of around 3...
-
[36]
This analysis helps understand the dataset in greater depth as it curates the crops across its growth stages throughout the season
INSIGHTS FROM THE FIELDS Table 9 provides a detailed month-by-month analysis of cotton farms using aerial imagery. This analysis helps understand the dataset in greater depth as it curates the crops across its growth stages throughout the season. Table 10 provides a detailed m...
-
[37]
DATASET FOR DISEASE DETECTION IN CROPS Cotton Crops are susceptible to pests, diseases, climate changes, and weed competition. Primarily, the types of in- sects found during cultivation include Jassids/Aphids, Thrips, Whiteflies, and bollworms, and the diseases include bacteri...
-
[38]
DATASET ACCESS AND STORAGE We have shared the COT-AD dataset on Kaggle as well as IEEE DataPort, which comprises approximately 308 GB of data. Researchers and practitioners interested in accessing the dataset can visit our project page(https://aamaanakbar.github.io/COT- AD/), ...
-
[39]
• Part B: Data from the third month
DATASET ORGANIZATION Aerial Images for Detection and Segmentation: The data for detection and segmentation tasks is organized under the di- rectory named Aerial Images for Detection and Segmentation, which is segmented into four main parts: • Part A: Data from the first two mo...
-
[40]
See the result in Table 12
RESULTS Image classification on different data presented in table(1) in the main paper, we have done classification and segmentation tasks on that data. See the result in Table 12 . We performed image enhancement using multiple datasets and a variety of methods. The qualitativ...
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.