Detection of grassy weeds in bermudagrass with deep convolutional neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spot spraying POST herbicides is an effective approach to reduce herbicide input and weed control cost. Machine vision detection of grass or grass-like weeds in turfgrass systems is a challenging task due to the similarity in plant morphology. In this work, we explored the feasibility of using image classification with deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN), including AlexNet, GoogLeNet, and VGGNet, for detection of crabgrass species (Digitaria spp.), doveweed [Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan], dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum Poir.), and tropical signalgrass [Urochloa distachya (L.) T.Q. Nguyen] in bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.]. VGGNet generally outperformed AlexNet and GoogLeNet in detecting selected grassy weeds. For detection of P. dilatatum, VGGNet achieved high F1 scores (≥0.97) and recall values (≥0.99). A single VGGNet model exhibited high F1 scores (≥0.93) and recall values (1.00) that reliably detected Digitaria spp., M. nudiflora, P. dilatatum, and U. distachya. Low weed density reduced the recall values of AlexNet at detecting all weed species and GoogLeNet at detecting Digitaria spp. In comparison, VGGNet achieved excellent performances (overall accuracy = 1.00) at detecting all weed species in both high and low weed-density scenarios. These results demonstrate the feasibility of using DCNN for detection of grass or grass-like weeds in turfgrass systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".