Effect of Data Augmentation in the Classification and Validation of Tomato Plant Disease with Deep Learning Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper discusses disease identification and classification in tomato plants, as well as the effect of data augmentation in deep learning models. The database used here is Tomato plant leaves (TPL) images from the PlantVillage Database in the healthy and disease classes. The disease categories have been chosen depending on their occurrence in the Indian States. The proposed ResNet50, ResNet18, and ResNet101 deep-learning model with transfer learning combined with the softmax classification are used to identify and categorize the tomato leaf images into the healthy or diseases classes in the dataset. The unique combination of including the noise and blur in the images and position and color data augmentation makes the dataset robust. Two different data augmentation methods are used for the classification problem, and significant improvement is seen in the classification accuracy with the proposed augmented dataset. The model’s success rate makes the model helpful in extending support in validating a model for identifying plant disease. The validation of models is done on PlantVillage and images taken at Krishi Vigyan Kendra Narayangaon, Pune, India. ResNet101 model trained with augmented dataset outperforms the testing accuracy of 99.99% and validation accuracy of 95.83%.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".