Plant Leaf Classification and Comparative Analysis of Combined Feature Set Using Machine Learning Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this research work is to apply machine learning and image processing techniques for plant classification efficiently. In the plant classification system, the conventional method is time-consuming and needs to apply expensive analytical instruments. The automated plant classification system helps to predict plant classes easily. The most challenging part of the automated plant classification research is to extract unique features of leaves. This paper proposes a plant classification model using an optimal feature set with combined features. The proposed model is used to extract features from leaf images and applied to image classification algorithms. After the evaluation process, it is found that GIST, Local Binary Pattern and Pyramid Histogram Oriented Gradient have better results than others in this particular application. Combined these three features extraction techniques and selected the optimal feature set through Neighbourhood Component Analysis. The optimal feature set helps classify plants with maximum accuracy in minimal time. Here performed an extensive experimental comparison of the proposed optimal feature set and other feature extraction methods using different classifiers and tested on different data sets (Swedish Leaves, Flavia, D-Leaf). The results confirm that this optimal feature set with NCA using ANN classifier leads to better classification achieved 98.99% accuracy in 353.39 seconds.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".