MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229439833 · doi:10.18280/ts.390236

Deep Residual CNN with Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization for Weed Detection in Soybean Crops

2022· article· en· W4229439833 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Velpula Sekhara Babu, Nidumolu Venkat Ram

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingResidualConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAdaptive histogram equalizationWeedDeep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Precision agricultureResidual neural networkMachine learningHistogramArtificial neural networkAgricultureHistogram equalizationAgronomyImage (mathematics)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weeding is the fundamental task in agriculture to increase yields crop. Accurate weed recognition is major prerequisite in precision agriculture. Precision weeding significant reduces the usage of herbicides in farming. Deep learning has been a major endeavor for enhancing the learning performance, particularly for classification. This paper proposes a Deep Residual Convolutional neural network (DRCNN) with Contrast Limited Adaptive Histogram Equalization (CLAHE) for weed and crop classification helpful for accurate individual targeting of weeds. In this method, initially data augmentation is performed to avoid overfitting on training data, A deeper residual network architecture is defined through residual connections in CNN architecture this architecture improves gradient flow through the network and for training the deeper network. The experiments are carried out on the publicly available dataset with four groups of images viz., soil, grass, soybean and broadleaf. Different state-of-the-art pretrained networks like AlexNet, and VGG-16 Net are also investigated and the results are compared. The proposed method yielded an accuracy of 97.3% which is superior to other methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207