Autonomous AI Surveillance: Multimodal Deep Learning for Cognitive and Behavioral Monitoring

Ameer Hamza; M. Abdullah Asad; Muhammad Naeem; Samiya; Umar Arif; Zuhaib Hussain But

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 17 references

Autonomous AI Surveillance: Multimodal Deep Learning for Cognitive and Behavioral Monitoring

T0 review · 4 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 An integrated YOLOv8 and LResNet pipeline on ESP32-CAM hardware can monitor sleep, phone use, and attendance in real time.

desk verdict A straightforward classroom-monitoring integration whose reported metrics are internally inconsistent and whose reference list looks partly fabricated; not ready for peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01590 v1 pith:YXAYWG6A submitted 2025-07-02 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LG

Ameer Hamza , Zuhaib Hussain But , Umar Arif , Samiya , M. Abdullah Asad , Muhammad Naeem This is my paper

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LG

keywords classroomsurveillanceYOLOv8facerecognitionsleepdetectionmobilephoneESP32-CAMSORTtrackingmultimodaldeeplearning

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

This paper tries to establish that one low-cost camera system can monitor a classroom automatically: detect students who are asleep, detect students using phones, and recognize faces for attendance. The system combines YOLOv8 models for sleep and phone detection with a custom LResNet Occ FC face-recognition model, all tied together with SORT tracking on ESP32-CAM footage. The authors report sleep detection at 97.42% mAP@50 (mean average precision at the 0.5 overlap threshold), face recognition at 86.45% validation accuracy, and mobile phone detection at 85.89% mAP@50. A sympathetic reader would care because real-time automated monitoring could replace subjective manual observation in classrooms, giving teachers objective, immediate feedback on engagement and attendance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the three-model pipeline: YOLOv8 produces the sleep and mobile-phone detections, a custom LResNet Occ FC network (a residual-network face recognizer for occluded faces) produces identity embeddings matched by cosine similarity, and MTCNN supplies face detection. The SORT algorithm, built on a Kalman filter and Hungarian assignment, keeps detections attached to the same student across video frames. The ESP32-CAM provides the real-time video stream, and a PHP web application records events and attendance. What carries the argument is the combination itself: the authors claim that these components work together on cheap hardware while preserving high per-task accuracy.

What would settle it

Run the same three models on an independent, class-balanced test set of real classroom videos with varied lighting, occlusion, and viewing angles, using a documented train/validation split; if sleep mAP@50 falls far below 97%, phone mAP@50 below 86%, or face recognition accuracy below 84%, the claimed performance does not transfer outside the paper's own datasets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an integrated multimodal surveillance pipeline can assess student attentiveness in real time at a low hardware cost. YOLOv8 detects two disengagement behaviors—sleeping and phone use—while a custom LResNet Occ FC network recognizes faces, with MTCNN finding faces and the SORT algorithm tracking identities across frames. The pipeline runs on ESP32-CAM hardware and is orchestrated by a PHP web application that logs events and marks attendance when a student's face matches the database. On the paper's specialized datasets, the sleep detector reaches 97.42% mAP@50, the phone detector 85.89% mAP@50, and the face recognizer 86.45% validation accuracy (Table I reports 84%). The authors present this as evidence that automatic, affordable classroom monitoring can be built from off-the-shelf components.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim is load-bearing on the reported accuracy numbers being computed honestly on properly held-out data, but the paper does not describe the training/validation split for the sleep and phone models and reports face recognition accuracy as both 86.45% and 84%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported numbers hold, a single ESP32-CAM can perform sleep detection, phone detection, and face recognition simultaneously, so classroom monitoring no longer requires expensive GPUs or multiple cameras per room.
Teachers could receive real-time alerts when students fall asleep or use phones, and attendance could be recorded automatically whenever a known face is detected.
Because SORT tracking maintains identities across frames, each student's behavior can be logged per session, enabling trend analysis of engagement over time.
The modular design means adding a new behavior class to YOLOv8 would extend the same pipeline to other distractions, such as eating or talking, without changing the tracking or attendance components.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the reported metrics were computed on very small datasets (1,048 phone images and 3,524 face images), so real classroom performance in large, varied environments is likely to be lower than the headline numbers.
Editorial inference: the mismatch between 86.45% and 84% for face recognition accuracy, and between 85.89% and 87.65% for phone mAP@50, means the paper's own reporting is not yet internally consistent enough to support a deployment decision.
Editorial inference: continuous camera surveillance of students raises privacy and consent concerns that the paper does not engage with; any field deployment would need a data-protection review before piloting.
Editorial inference: because the pipeline is modular, the same sleeping/phone/face stack could be retrained to monitor attention in video-conference calls by swapping the ESP32-CAM input for screen-capture frames.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper before deciding what to do with it: the integration is routine, and the reported numbers do not hold together. The authors bolt YOLOv8 for phone/sleep detection, MTCNN + LResNet for face recognition, and SORT tracking onto an ESP32-CAM/PHP web app. That is a sensible engineering sketch, and the architecture and workflow are described clearly enough that someone could replicate the overall setup. The limitations section is also refreshingly candid about occlusions, low-light issues, and ESP32-CAM compute limits. Those are real positives, and I want to give credit for them.

The problems start with the numbers. Face recognition validation accuracy is 86.45% in the abstract and conclusion, but Table I says 84% for the same model. Phone detection mAP@50 is 85.89% in the abstract and Table I, but the conclusion says 87.65%. These are not rounding differences. The paper's sole contribution is these metrics, and they contradict each other. Without code, checkpoints, or an evaluation script, there is no way to tell which number is real, or whether any of them came from a held-out test set. The test sets are also tiny: 42 images for phone detection, 186 for face recognition. That alone would make the headline percentages fragile.

The citation pattern is a second, independent red flag. Several DOIs look fake (e.g., 10.1016/j.jair.2022.12345), reference [22] is malformed with a missing author line, references [21] and [35] are duplicates, and the Related Work section contains a duplicated paragraph verbatim. This is not a mere style issue; it makes the literature grounding unreliable and violates basic scholarly norms.

I want to be fair: the equations are standard and correctly stated, and nothing here is circular or fraudulent in the sense of a fabricated experiment. But the central performance claims are ill-defined because the same quantity is reported as two different values in the same manuscript. The paper is a modest integration note, not a research contribution. A reader wanting a rough template for a classroom demo might skim the architecture section, but as a paper it does not meet the bar for serious scrutiny.

My recommendation: desk reject. Do not spend referee time on it. If the authors return with code/data, consistent metrics, and a cleaned reference list, it could become a weak workshop paper, but not in its current form.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an integrated classroom surveillance system combining YOLOv8-based sleep and mobile-phone detection, an LResNet Occ FC face-recognition model, and SORT tracking, deployed on ESP32-CAM hardware with a PHP web interface. The authors report three headline performance numbers: 97.42% mAP@50 for sleep detection, 86.45% validation accuracy for face recognition, and 85.89% mAP@50 for mobile-phone detection. The paper includes standard equations for softmax classification, cosine similarity, YOLO loss, and the SORT/Kalman-filter tracking pipeline, along with dataset summaries and a self-declared limitations section. The main claimed contribution is the integration of these components into a real-time monitoring system for educational settings.

Significance. If the reported metrics were reliable and the system were fully described, the integrated monitoring pipeline could be a useful engineering contribution to the smart-classroom literature, particularly for its use of low-cost ESP32-CAM hardware and explicit attention to real-time constraints. The paper also deserves credit for openly listing limitations in Section V-B, including occlusion, lighting, and pose issues. However, the central value of the paper rests entirely on the accuracy of the reported performance numbers and on the reproducibility of the training and evaluation protocol. Those numbers are internally inconsistent, and the protocol is not described in sufficient detail for independent verification. Because the headline claims are the paper's primary contribution, the current manuscript does not establish a sound basis for accepting those claims.

major comments (4)

[Abstract / Table I / Section V] The face-recognition validation accuracy is reported inconsistently: the abstract and conclusion state 86.45%, while Table I lists a Validation Accuracy of 84% for the same 'CustomLResNet Occ FC' model. These are materially different values for the same quantity, and no explanation or corrected number is provided. This internal contradiction is load-bearing because the paper's central claim is precisely these performance figures.
[Abstract / Table I / Section V] The mobile-phone detection mAP@50 is reported as 85.89% in the abstract and Table I, but the conclusion states 87.65%. Again, these are different values for the same metric, model, and dataset. The discrepancy cannot be dismissed as a rounding artifact, and without code, checkpoints, or an evaluation script there is no way to determine which value is correct. The central performance claim for this component is therefore ambiguous.
[Section IV-B, Table II] The dataset summary is internally inconsistent and incomplete. For the face-recognition dataset, the stated training/validation/testing counts (3000 + 329 + 186 = 3515) do not sum to the stated total of 3524 images, and the 'Classes' field lists three entries ('Masked face, Normal face, Glasses') while claiming 4 classes. For the sleep-detection dataset, no total image count is given, and the paper does not describe whether the reported metrics were computed on the specified test subsets or on some other held-out split. This undermines confidence in the experimental basis of the results.
[Sections III and IV] Training details essential for evaluating the results are missing. The paper does not specify learning rates, batch sizes, number of training epochs for the YOLO models, optimizer choices, data augmentation, image resolutions, or how the ESP32-CAM frames were preprocessed for the reported inference times. Without these details, the reported precision, recall, and mAP values cannot be reproduced or independently validated, which is particularly problematic given the internal metric inconsistencies noted above.

minor comments (5)

[Section II] The paragraph on mobile-phone detection is duplicated verbatim in the Related Work section: the sentences beginning 'For example, (Nguyen et al., 2023) proposed a YOLOv5-based system...' appear twice, and a similar duplication occurs with the 'Similarly, (Li et al., 2022)...' sentence. This should be removed.
[References] Several references appear to be fabricated or contain clearly invalid bibliographic data. For example, references [13], [14], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], and [35] use DOI patterns such as '10.1016/j.jair.2022.12345' and '10.1109/tip.2023.123456' that are placeholders rather than real DOIs. Reference [22] begins with ', 12(4), 345–357' with no author names or title. These entries must be corrected or removed.
[Section III-A] The softmax equation 'P (Sleep|x) = ezsleep / P i ezi' is missing a subscript on the denominator sum to indicate that the sum runs over all classes; the notation should be made explicit for clarity.
[Section III-B] The cosine similarity formula 'Similarity(A, B) = A · B / ∥A∥∥B∥' omits the norm notation in the denominator; it should read '\|A\| \|B\|' with explicit vector norms, and the threshold value (e.g., 0.7) should be stated as a tuned hyperparameter rather than a fixed assumption.
[Section IV-A, Table I] Table I mixes training metrics (train loss, train accuracy) with validation metrics without labeling the columns clearly, and it omits the evaluation protocol for the 'Fitness' and 'Inference Time' rows. Clarifying which numbers are computed on which split would improve interpretability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the reported metrics are empirical results, though their internal inconsistency is a correctness concern.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical systems paper rather than a derivation. The equations it presents are standard definitions from the literature: the softmax probability for sleep classification, cosine similarity for face embeddings, the YOLO loss function, and the Kalman-filter/SORT tracking equations. None of these equations is used to derive the reported performance numbers. The headline metrics (97.42% mAP@50 for sleep, 86.45% validation accuracy for face recognition, 85.89% mAP@50 for phone detection) are stated as experimental results from training and testing on specific datasets, not as predictions entailed by the model equations. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no self-citation carries a load-bearing argument. The references are external related works rather than the authors' own prior papers. The manuscript does contain a serious internal inconsistency: face recognition validation accuracy is reported as 86.45% in the abstract and conclusion but as 84% in Table I, and mobile phone mAP@50 is reported as 85.89% in the abstract and Table I but as 87.65% in the conclusion. This undermines the trustworthiness and verifiability of the performance claims, as does the absence of a clear training/validation split description and the small dataset sizes. However, these are correctness and reproducibility concerns, not circular reasoning: the contradictory numbers are not derived from one another or from the equations by construction. Because there is no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the reliability of reported metrics, which is undermined by inconsistencies and minimal dataset descriptions. The only hand-chosen free parameters are thresholds for face matching and tracking association, neither of which is analyzed for sensitivity.

free parameters (2)

Cosine similarity threshold for face matching = 0.7
Chosen by hand (Section III-B); affects face recognition accuracy but no sensitivity analysis is provided.
IoU threshold for SORT association = 0.3
Chosen by hand (Section III-D); affects tracking consistency but no analysis is provided.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Drowsiness can be reliably inferred from head posture, eyelid closure, and facial relaxation in video frames.
Section III-A relies on this to equate visual cues with sleep state, but no physiological validation is given.
domain assumption The training datasets are representative of real classroom conditions.
Section IV-B reports small datasets without acquisition details; results are assumed to generalize to diverse classrooms.
standard math YOLOv8, MTCNN, and LResNet Occ FC architectures perform as described in prior work.
The paper invokes these models without re-deriving them or providing weights, relying on external implementations.
ad hoc to paper Reported metrics are computed correctly and consistently.
Internal inconsistencies (84% vs 86.45% face accuracy, 85.89% vs 87.65% phone mAP) cast doubt on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Autonomous AI Surveillance: Multimodal Deep Learning for Cognitive and Behavioral Monitoring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YXAYWG6A

@misc{pith2026250701590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Autonomous AI Surveillance: Multimodal Deep Learning for Cognitive and Behavioral Monitoring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YXAYWG6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01590}
}

read the original abstract

This study presents a novel classroom surveillance system that integrates multiple modalities, including drowsiness, tracking of mobile phone usage, and face recognition,to assess student attentiveness with enhanced precision.The system leverages the YOLOv8 model to detect both mobile phone and sleep usage,(Ghatge et al., 2024) while facial recognition is achieved through LResNet Occ FC body tracking using YOLO and MTCNN.(Durai et al., 2024) These models work in synergy to provide comprehensive, real-time monitoring, offering insights into student engagement and behavior.(S et al., 2023) The framework is trained on specialized datasets, such as the RMFD dataset for face recognition and a Roboflow dataset for mobile phone detection. The extensive evaluation of the system shows promising results. Sleep detection achieves 97. 42% mAP@50, face recognition achieves 86. 45% validation accuracy and mobile phone detection reach 85. 89% mAP@50. The system is implemented within a core PHP web application and utilizes ESP32-CAM hardware for seamless data capture.(Neto et al., 2024) This integrated approach not only enhances classroom monitoring, but also ensures automatic attendance recording via face recognition as students remain seated in the classroom, offering scalability for diverse educational environments.(Banada,2025)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01590 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** System Architecture Diagram F. Technologies Employed The system leverages advanced technologies such as PyTorch and TensorFlow for building and training the deep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Integration of three models: mobile phone detection, face recognition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Mobile Detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Sleep Detection V. CONCLUSION This research introduces an integrated classroom surveillance system that leverages deep learning models for sleep detection, face recognition, and mobile phone detection. The system’s effectiveness in automating student monitoring is dem…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Face Detection detection model attained an mAP@50 of 87.65%. These results highlight the system’s potential in improving classroom management and student engagement through real-time automated monitoring. Future work will focus on addressing the system’s limitations,…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[21]

Zhang, X., Liu, Y ., & Chen, Z. (2021). FaceNet-based automated attendance system

work page 2021
[35]

Zhang, X., Liu, Y ., & Chen, Z. (2021). FaceNet-based automated atten- dance system. Journal of Deep Learning Applications , 12(4), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdla.2021.12345

arXiv 2021
[1]

Ghatge, D., Patki, A., Menkar, B., & More, S. S. (2024). Edumetrics: A Revolutionary Step in Education. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology , 518–527. https: //doi.org/10.48175/ijarsct-18678

work page doi:10.48175/ijarsct-18678 2024
[2]

V ., Keshetty, S

Durai, S., Sujithra, T., Satyam, B. V ., Keshetty, S. N., Sagar, C. N. S., & Charan, A. S. (2024). Real Time Facial Recognition-Based Criminal Identification Using MTCNN . 1261–1265. https://doi.org/10. 1109/icscss60660.2024.10624946

arXiv 2024
[3]

S, A., Selvan, M., & Srikanth, R. (2023). Systematic Review on Real-Time Students Behavior Monitoring using Machine Learning. International Congress on Information and Communication Technology, 233–237. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICT57646.2023.10134519

arXiv 2023
[4]

Massively Annotated Datasets for Assessment of Synthetic and Real Data in Face Recognition

Neto, P. C., Mamede, R. M., Albuquerque, C., Gonccalves, T. B., & Sequeira, A. F. (2024). Massively Annotated Datasets for Assess- ment of Synthetic and Real Data in Face Recognition. arXiv.Org, abs/2404.15234. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2404.15234

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.15234 2024
[5]

Banada, M. (2025). AI Powered Attendance System for Class Rooms us- ing Face Recognition. Indian Scientific Journal Of Research In Engineer- ing And Management, 09(01), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem40676

work page doi:10.55041/ijsrem40676 2025
[6]

S., Muzarudin, M

Gunawan, T. S., Muzarudin, M. A. F., Kartiwi, M., & Yusoff, N. M. (2024). Enhancing Classroom Engagement using Real-Time Stu- dent Attention Monitoring with YOLOv9 . 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/ icsima62563.2024.10675573

work page arXiv 2024

Show all 17 references

[7]

Q., Kien, D

Thao, L. Q., Kien, D. T., Bach, N. C., Thuy, D. T. T., Thuy, L. T. M., Cuong, D. D., Hieu, N. H. M., Dang, N. H. T., Bach, P. X., & Hieu, L. P. M. (2024). Monitoring and Improving Student Attention Using Deep Learning and Wireless Sensor Networks . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sn...

2024
[8]

Sukumaran, A., & Arun, M. (2025). Student Engagement Recognition: Comprehensive Analysis through EEG and Verification by Image Traits using Deep Learning Techniques. IEEE Access , 1. https://doi.org/10. 1109/access.2025.3526187

2025
[9]

Chen, Z., Xu, M., Garrido, G., & Guthrie, M. W. (2020). Relationship between students’ online learning behavior and course performance: What contextual information matters? 16 (1), 010138. https://doi.org/10. 1103/PHYSREVPHYSEDUCRES.16.010138

2020
[10]

F., Shereef, M

Muhammed, M., Namboothiri, A., Levin, M. F., Shereef, M. Y ., & R.S, Smt. S. (2025). A Comprehensive Survey on Classroom Engagement Tracker: RFID and Facial Recognition for Enhanced Learning . https: //doi.org/10.20944/preprints202501.0463.v1

2025
[11]

Wen, A. (2024). Classroom Behavior Recognition Based on YOLOX Improved Feature Redundancy Removal . 205–208. https://doi.org/10. 1109/ichci63580.2024.10807941

2024
[12]

Mohamed, A., Ali, M., Ahmed, S., H ¨ani, N., Hisham, M., & Mahmoud, M. (2024). Detecting Student Disengagement in Online Classes Using Deep Learning: A Review . https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2411.10464

2024 doi arXiv
[15]

Kumar, A., & Singh, R. (2022). Real-time attendance tracking using convolutional neural networks. International Journal of Computer Vi- sion, 30(4), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-022-01567

2022 doi
[31]

Robinson, T., & Lee, H. (2023). Face recognition for attendance systems using LResNet. Journal of Biometric Systems , 12(2), 234–246. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jbs.2023.12345

2023
[34]

Wilson, R., & Clark, R. (2022). Object tracking using Kalman Filters and the Hungarian algorithm. Journal of Real-Time Systems, 19(4), 567–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrts.2022.12345

2022

Pith tools

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

[1] [21]

Zhang, X., Liu, Y ., & Chen, Z. (2021). FaceNet-based automated attendance system

work page 2021

[2] [35]

Zhang, X., Liu, Y ., & Chen, Z. (2021). FaceNet-based automated atten- dance system. Journal of Deep Learning Applications , 12(4), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdla.2021.12345

arXiv 2021

[3] [1]

Ghatge, D., Patki, A., Menkar, B., & More, S. S. (2024). Edumetrics: A Revolutionary Step in Education. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology , 518–527. https: //doi.org/10.48175/ijarsct-18678

work page doi:10.48175/ijarsct-18678 2024

[4] [2]

V ., Keshetty, S

Durai, S., Sujithra, T., Satyam, B. V ., Keshetty, S. N., Sagar, C. N. S., & Charan, A. S. (2024). Real Time Facial Recognition-Based Criminal Identification Using MTCNN . 1261–1265. https://doi.org/10. 1109/icscss60660.2024.10624946

arXiv 2024

[5] [3]

S, A., Selvan, M., & Srikanth, R. (2023). Systematic Review on Real-Time Students Behavior Monitoring using Machine Learning. International Congress on Information and Communication Technology, 233–237. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICT57646.2023.10134519

arXiv 2023

[6] [4]

Massively Annotated Datasets for Assessment of Synthetic and Real Data in Face Recognition

Neto, P. C., Mamede, R. M., Albuquerque, C., Gonccalves, T. B., & Sequeira, A. F. (2024). Massively Annotated Datasets for Assess- ment of Synthetic and Real Data in Face Recognition. arXiv.Org, abs/2404.15234. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2404.15234

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.15234 2024

[7] [5]

Banada, M. (2025). AI Powered Attendance System for Class Rooms us- ing Face Recognition. Indian Scientific Journal Of Research In Engineer- ing And Management, 09(01), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem40676

work page doi:10.55041/ijsrem40676 2025

[8] [6]

S., Muzarudin, M

Gunawan, T. S., Muzarudin, M. A. F., Kartiwi, M., & Yusoff, N. M. (2024). Enhancing Classroom Engagement using Real-Time Stu- dent Attention Monitoring with YOLOv9 . 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/ icsima62563.2024.10675573

work page arXiv 2024