Simulated Plant Images Improve Maize Leaf Counting Accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Automatically scoring plant traits using a combination of imaging and deep learning holds promise to accelerate data collection, scientific inquiry, and breeding progress. However, applications of this approach are currently held back by the availability of large and suitably annotated training datasets. Early training datasets targeted arabidopsis or tobacco. The morphology of these plants quite different from that of grass species like maize. Two sets of maize training data, one real-world and one synthetic were generated and annotated for late vegetative stage maize plants using leaf count as a model trait. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) trained on entirely synthetic data provided predictive power for scoring leaf number in real-world images. This power was less than CNNs trained with equal numbers of real-world images, however, in some cases CNNs trained with larger numbers of synthetic images outperformed CNNs trained with smaller numbers of real-world images. When real-world training images were scarce, augmenting real-world training data with synthetic data provided improved prediction accuracy. Quantifying leaf number over time can provide insight into plant growth rates and stress responses, and can help to parameterize crop growth models. The approaches and annotated training data described here may help future efforts to develop accurate leaf counting algorithms for maize.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".